# 2016 Presidential Race



## Theirb123 (Aug 13, 2015)

Since it hasn't happened yet, I figured I'd open Pandora's Box for everyone.

Who do you like at this point and why? If you had to vote tomorrow...and who are you intrigued by as a possibility a year from now, with a little more information?

Only days ago, Ben Carson was the guy that I said "Maybe in a year when I hear a little more..." But now, tomorrow he'd be the guy. Simply put, because I like everything the guy has to say, and he's the first candidate I wholeheartedly believe. My experience with voting only extends to 2002, mind you.

Just interested in the unique opinions of the board members here.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 13, 2015)

Waiting to see who says what about what.
Fiorina is my current 1st Choice (I see her as the VP though)


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 13, 2015)

Well like it or not I think Hillary is the likely winner.

I like Chris Christie, but I don't think he is electable.

At this point in our society, I think people who are anti-abortion, anti gay rights, and anti social progress will have a difficult time winning a general election.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 14, 2015)

I'm a liberal, but I could live with Jeb Bush or John Kasich as President.  Hillary is probably going to win, but it's looking like less of a sure bet than it was six months ago.  Bernie Sanders is currently my favorite, though I'd really like to see more of his foreign policy ideas.


----------



## DasBoot (Aug 14, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I'm a liberal, but I could live with Jeb Bush or John Kasich as President.  Hillary is probably going to win, but it's looking like less of a sure bet than it was six months ago.  Bernie Sanders is currently my favorite, though I'd really like to see more of his foreign policy ideas.


I feel like that about Jeb and Christie. Though Webb is the closest to my beliefs with Sanders having a lot of stuff I could get into.


----------



## TH15 (Aug 14, 2015)

Hilary for Prison 2016!

I lean libertarian on most issues, so Rand Paul is my guy. I would be okay with Ben Carson, Carly Fiorina, or John Kasich, though.

As far as the Democrats go, I think Bernie Sanders as the right message on a lot of issues, but I disagree with his solutions.


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 14, 2015)

By design, Hillary will lose the opportunity because of legal issues. leaving Biden/Castro or Biden/Warren.. depending on latino or women vote being more important.
Bernie Sanders will lose primaries and either run as independent and allow for a Republican win, or not run and Biden will win the election.

Kasich/Rubio for the Ohio/Florida/latino vote, but maybe Bush/Rubio or Walker/Rubio... or <insert name>/Rubio will win the republican primaries. 
Trump will lose the primaries and either run as an independent and allow for the Democrats to win, or not run and in our current climate allow for Biden to be our next president.

Rand Paul's father scare the shit out of me, so 100% no.. I like Fiorina, but I don't see it happening.


----------



## Brill (Aug 14, 2015)

I think it's all about Trump: will he stay or will he go?  

When the RNC says "you're fired", if he goes 3rd party, Crimin-illary will become POTUS and her closed door admin (and her open fly FMOTUS) will make Obama appear transparent as he has claimed, but if Trump fades into an Ambassador post, a Republican  will take over 1600 Pen Ave.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 14, 2015)

I'd rather have a Republican Congress and a Democrat in the WH.  I think Obama has pushed everything far enough that the house of cards crumbles during the next administration.  Media will blame the WH occupants if it's a Republican.


----------



## AWP (Aug 14, 2015)

This is how I think it ends for us:







I can't take Rand Paul seriously, Trump is the GOP's best litmus test for controversial issues, but can sink that with an Independent run. Much like Perot, Trump breaking off will fracture the Republican vote allow the Democrats to win. Hillary is still the front runner and the email issue will eventually go away. (She's a farking criminal, but no one will charge her and this thing dies out) Jeb would have a chance but he's a Bush, most of the GOP candidates are throw-away's and we won't have a real handle on the actual contenders until they drop like flies leaving three or maybe four. Fiorina would make a great VP candidate and Walker's a bucket of fail with the Union fiasco.


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 15, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> This is how I think it ends for us:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Is the burning garbage representing Hillary's emails?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 15, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> This is how I think it ends for us:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




We are boiling down to, if not already there, a one party system. That "party" is the media backed front runner, which means another eight years of a Clinton Whitehouse.


----------



## Marine0311 (Aug 15, 2015)

I'm going with Trump as of now based upon his blunt style if anything. I'd like to read more into what specific polices he has. 

Otherwise my 2nd choice is wide open.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 15, 2015)

For the Trump supporters out there- I hate the guy. He represents what a shit show this entire process is.

Can any of you make a coherent case that he could/should actually hold the office? I mean- zero political experience, zero policies, and he's abrasive and childish to the press, IMO.


----------



## Brill (Aug 15, 2015)

amlove21 said:


> For the Trump supporters out there- I hate the guy. He represents what a shit show this entire process is.
> 
> Can any of you make a coherent case that he could/should actually hold the office? I mean- zero political experience, zero policies, and he's abrasive and childish to the press, IMO.



His hair SCREAMS for AFSOC support.


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 15, 2015)

amlove21 said:


> For the Trump supporters out there- I hate the guy. He represents what a shit show this entire process is.
> 
> Can any of you make a coherent case that he could/should actually hold the office? I mean- zero political experience, zero policies, and he's abrasive and childish to the press, IMO.



Kinda like the guy currently holding office when he first threw his hat in, only with the brain cavity-to-mouth filter disengaged, yeah? Not like we're really all that much to be proud of these days with our current ranking in press freedom according to Reporters Without Borders.  

We're closer to being a third world banana republic than we care to admit.  Our elections have been more about who's the bigger cult of personality since 1996.  None of our options on either side of the aisle are really anything to write home about.  Depending on how the next two presidential elections pan out, we're either going to resemble a larger version of a Central American tin pot dictatorship, or we're going to rise up to be be every bit the global enemy that the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany was.  It all depends on which cult of personality wins.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 15, 2015)

amlove21 said:


> For the Trump supporters out there- I hate the guy. He represents what a shit show this entire process is.
> 
> Can any of you make a coherent case that he could/should actually hold the office? I mean- zero political experience, zero policies, and he's abrasive and childish to the press, IMO.


He thinks the President runs the show, doesn't seem to understand Congressional roles, and really is clueless about the Federal Bureaucratic (i.e. the GS environment) process.

Maybe a good Sec of Commerce, but nothing else



racing_kitty said:


> Kinda like the guy currently holding office when he first threw his hat in, only with the brain cavity-to-mouth filter disengaged, yeah? Not like we're really all that much to be proud of these days with our current ranking in press freedom according to Reporters Without Borders.
> 
> We're closer to being a third world banana republic than we care to admit.  Our elections have been more about who's the bigger cult of personality since 1996.  None of our options on either side of the aisle are really anything to write home about.  Depending on how the next two presidential elections pan out, we're either going to resemble a larger version of a Central American tin pot dictatorship, or we're going to rise up to be be every bit the global enemy that the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany was.  It all depends on which cult of personality wins.


My guess is combine the two.
A Socialist Dictatorship, unless America's Muslim population rises up in protest.


----------



## Marine0311 (Aug 15, 2015)

amlove21 said:


> For the Trump supporters out there- I hate the guy. He represents what a shit show this entire process is.
> 
> Can any of you make a coherent case that he could/should actually hold the office? I mean- zero political experience, zero policies, and he's abrasive and childish to the press, IMO.


 
I believe he could because he knows how to lead large organizations. He is both a leader and manager. At this point in politics I want someone with zero direct political experience; some who hasn't drank that Kool Aid.

As for being that way to press I don't care. The press can suck both good and bad.


----------



## Dienekes (Aug 15, 2015)

I'd like to see Rubio/Carson or Cruz/Carson. Those two match my own views closer than other candidates. Unfortunately, I believe poor ole Bush came across as incompetent in the debates because he stumble around the questions. Kasich has a solid record in Ohio, but that's all he could talk about, and I hadn't heard of him before the debates.

I could live with a Trump/Carson matchup. I don't think that anything Trump says is not carefully calculated. This is a man who has amassed $10 billion worth of wealth, and that does not happen for someone that is not in a way "diplomatic".


----------



## TH15 (Aug 15, 2015)

Since Trump's wealth has been brought up a few times here and since The Donald has valued himself at ~$10 billion, I figured I'd share an article/blog I read a few weeks ago concerning this very topic. Granted, it's a contrarian view to Trump's wealth and only Trump knows what he's truly worth, but it's certainly thought provoking nonetheless.

Trump Change: Is Donald Trump Broke?—The Alpha Pages

"Trump’s FEC document impresses me as the statement of a person who does not have much of anything other than himself – he is his own product. He is the professional wrestler of the financial world – a person who is famous for being famous, the tragic product of a society that produces images instead of actual things."


----------



## Il Duce (Aug 15, 2015)

For those on the thread leaning Democrat - @Deathy McDeath and @DasBoot, maybe @TLDR20? - what is it about Governors Bush, Kasich, and Christie you find you could vote for?  I consider myself a liberal and will most likely be voting for the Democratic nominee.  While I consider those three the best of a bad bunch their policy positions on all but a handful of issues make it difficult for me to see myself voting for any of them.  I'd be interested in another perspective.


----------



## nobodythank you (Aug 15, 2015)

amlove21 said:


> For the Trump supporters out there- I hate the guy. He represents what a shit show this entire process is.
> 
> Can any of you make a coherent case that he could/should actually hold the office? I mean- zero political experience, zero policies, and he's abrasive and childish to the press, IMO.


Not that I am fully behind Trump yet, but here goes…

Both sides of the political spectrum (Congress & the Administration) have been bickering over the last 8 years with little to no compromise except when it benefits both secretly. I think we can all agree the system is infected. It needs to be shaken up if not rebuilt. The right is forceful with attempting to impose religious beliefs on others while crying about the attack on Christianity (even though it has been and continues to be the dominant religion in the world for at least the past several centuries), and screwing over those that need help. The left has been preoccupied with pushing every social agenda possible, taking offense at everything, seeing racism at every turn, and screwing over anyone that is successful.

How can Trump fix any of this? Maybe he cannot. However, he stands the most likely person to shake up the system and force both parties to reevaluate their core ideology and interaction with the public. You have to ask yourself, what is one of the biggest problems in politics? Money. The money that large corporations and lobbying firms are pumping into the coffers of politicians on both sides. Trump has a unique opportunity to shake up and break the two party stalemate this country has found itself in. He speaks his mind, and is in better touch with the average voter than any diehard Conservative or Liberal. His money does not preclude him from lobbying, bribes, favors, and other things, but it does give him the most likely chance of refusing those things than the other candidates. He does not have government experience, but I offer the suggestion that maybe it is what this country needs at this point in time? He can negotiate with anyone for anything in a business setting. Diplomacy is the art of negotiation, who better to conduct that than someone who does it for a living? If anyone can build a compromise between the two parties in control it is Trump.

Let us not forget how "transparent" the current administration has been. Not to mention excluding press members that do not stick with the approved narrative in the White House press corps. Trump is blunt and the media does not like him, so what? Journalism has long since left its honesty and integrity in the grave. Until I see a press agency that is truly impartial I won't shed too much sleep over his apparently honest and justified reactions to the misquoting of what he has said for the purposes of flare.

While his policies have yet to reveal themselves, and could very well negate the previous paragraphs, as it stands at this moment he is the best candidate present that can change the status quo. What’s more, the polls seem to indicate that the public thinks so too. He may very well be the worst president of all times, then again he could be the best in recent history. The point being that he is the one most likely to shake up the continual left vs. right deadlock.


----------



## Il Duce (Aug 15, 2015)

@ke4gde I don't agree Trump would make a good President, nor do I agree with all your points.  However, I have to say that's the best pro-Trump case I've yet to hear - and that includes all the talking-heads in the media.


----------



## AKkeith (Aug 15, 2015)

TH15 said:


> Since Trump's wealth has been brought up a few times here and since The Donald has valued himself at ~$10 billion, I figured I'd share an article/blog I read a few weeks ago concerning this very topic. Granted, it's a contrarian view to Trump's wealth and only Trump knows what he's truly worth, but it's certainly thought provoking nonetheless.
> 
> Trump Change: Is Donald Trump Broke?—The Alpha Pages
> 
> "Trump’s FEC document impresses me as the statement of a person who does not have much of anything other than himself – he is his own product. He is the professional wrestler of the financial world – a person who is famous for being famous, the tragic product of a society that produces images instead of actual things."



The guy who wrote this admits he has no evidence and is basing his whole premise of "Trump is broke" on, "I base this judgment on many years of working closely with very rich people." "Trump does not speak, act, or behave like a normal billionaire."


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Aug 15, 2015)

Trump / Fiorina / Carson...in any combo!


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 15, 2015)

@ke4gde @Marine0311 @SpongeBob*24 @racing_kitty  - thanks for the education. I am not sold, and I literally cringe every time the guy talks, and I just cant imagine he has great ideas as far as GWOT or really anything other than economics. Can you imagine him sitting across from Putin and going at it? He'd get his shit handed to him. And I really don't need a dude alienating 51% of the population because he thinks girls that are 'mean' to him must be bleeding from... somewhere.

@racing_kitty - I see that you're angry as shit at the current Pres, but you'd say that Trump has a better interaction with the press than President Obama?


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Aug 15, 2015)

AWESOME SAUCE....that is the first time my name has been hyperlinked....dad would be so proud!

I'm just now back on the GRID!  I have no clue who is running on the Donkey side......however.....Kerry has ties to terrorists and Hillary should be in jail.

Can you imagine them sitting on the other side of Putin.........?  They'd probably drink vodka and talk bad about Reagan.

Bottom line, I think people want a change!  The same change everyone needed in 2008.....


----------



## DasBoot (Aug 15, 2015)

Il Duce said:


> For those on the thread leaning Democrat - @Deathy McDeath and @DasBoot, maybe @TLDR20? - what is it about Governors Bush, Kasich, and Christie you find you could vote for?  I consider myself a liberal and will most likely be voting for the Democratic nominee.  While I consider those three the best of a bad bunch their policy positions on all but a handful of issues make it difficult for me to see myself voting for any of them.  I'd be interested in another perspective.


I put a lot of stock in leadership ability and pragmatism. I see both of those in Bush. He is also a compassionate conservative who has the same ends as myself though we differ on the means. His policies I do not like are not so far out there I couldn't vote for him. 

Same for Christie. Add in that I like his genuine nature and his social policy is closer to mine than Bush. I'm a New England Republican/Florida Democrat/ commie socialist in South Carolina so a guy like Christie hits in the center, right where I'm at. And he loves "the boss."


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 16, 2015)

amlove21 said:


> @racing_kitty - I see that you're angry as shit at the current Pres, but you'd say that Trump has a better interaction with the press than President Obama?



You could say that I'm not enamored with him.  Angry as shit is an adjective that best describes my attitude towards Congress.  POTUS behaves less abrasively than Trump while in the presence of press reporters.  However, his administration's track record as far as the press goes has been less than stellar.  The New York Times, as well as other news outlets, have made note that the Obama administration has been harder on whistleblowers and the reporters they talk to than any other administration up to this point.  I'm not talking about perennial conservative talking heads like Megyn Kelly or some blonde fuckwit named Doocey.  I'm talking about the likes of Bob Schieffer, Jill Abramson, and Susan Page.  Care to guess who they voted for in '08 and again in '12?

You don't have to like the press, or trust them any further than you can throw your truck, but you must admit that as long as they are impartial (I know, impartial reporters are extinct these days), the light that they shed on their subjects is vital to the public knowing what their elected officials are up to.  Just like the old saw about good fences make good neighbors, good reporting makes for an informed populace which one hopes would lead to good governance.  Deep Throat talking to the press led to the downfall of Nixon.  Would the shenanigans of the Nixon administration ever have fully come to light if that hadn't happened?  Would he have stepped down if the reporter that broke Watergate got hauled in on charges of violating the Espionage Act (1917)?

It's not just the government, either.  When you were younger, did you ever watch the crew from 60 Minutes pop up with cameras in tow to call to task some executive that got caught doing what he shouldn't have been?  For every one crooked bastard that got caught, there were several more who were discouraged from doing what they shouldn't have been doing just because of the fear of seeing Morley Safer or Ed Bradley on their doorsteps.  

There's a reason that the press enjoys the protection of the First Amendment like it does.  That's a lot of power in their collective hands.  Love or hate them, the press have a purpose.  For Obama's supporters to be this worried about press freedoms is a damning indictment of how business is being conducted.  While POTUS himself is not rude or crass to the press, you damned well can't say he's not aware of how his cabinet is handling the press because there's too many staffers to keep track of (didn't someone make that argument for HRC?).  He has a press secretary (Robert Gibbs) and an adviser (Valarie Jarrett) who answer directly to him and take orders directly from him (or from ValJar, depending).  The press today dances uncomfortably close at times to the line between news and propoganda (although MSNBC blew past that line eons ago).  Their concerns do not strike me as a collective temper tantrum over being denied access to something.

Take from that what you will.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 16, 2015)

racing_kitty said:


> entire quote


I don't necessarily disagree.

I just wonder- I think what you're saying is that this Obama administration has been restrictive of a press system you don't agree with... Would someone so adversarial to the press, reporters (literally performing ad hominem attacks via twitter of prominent reporters) be good for the President?


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 16, 2015)

amlove21 said:


> Would someone so adversarial to the press, reporters (literally performing ad hominem attacks via twitter of prominent reporters) be good for the President?



Could you phrase that one part differently?  I'm not sure I follow what you're asking.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 16, 2015)

racing_kitty said:


> Could you phrase that one part differently?  I'm not sure I follow what you're asking.


Yep, sure. Re reading it, it wasn't as clear as it could have been. How dare you not be in my brain?! I think in the internet world, I am supposed to make fun of you.

Would someone (Trump) (who has historically been) so adversarial to the press (and), reporters (literally attacking them personally any time he feels the slightest twinge of ego after an interview that didn't go his way) be a good stance/trait of someone holding presidential office?

In response to Megyn Kelly calling trump out for the 'blood' comment- what did Trump do? He linked to Megyn on the Howard Stern show talking about her boob size as some sort of "aHA youre not perfect either!" moment. Is that how we want to represent our country?

Truly sorry, my brain outran my fingers.


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 16, 2015)

amlove21 said:


> Yep, sure. Re reading it, it wasn't as clear as it could have been. How dare you not be in my brain?! I think in the internet world, I am supposed to make fun of you.
> 
> Would someone (Trump) (who has historically been) so adversarial to the press (and), reporters (literally attacking them personally any time he feels the slightest twinge of ego after an interview that didn't go his way) be a good stance/trait of someone holding presidential office?
> 
> ...



No worries, dude.  That happens from time to time, especially when the brain is working overdrive.  Besides, your taunting wouldn't hurt me.  I'm from Alabama, the jokes have already written themselves (especially the Helen Keller jokes when I was growing up).  Do your worst! 

Trump's adversarial approach to the press is unprofessional, in my opinion.  Ad hominem attacks are never professional.  Be that as it may, Trump's blunt force approach towards the press is seen by the general public as more refreshing than the current POTUS's passive aggressive approach.  One is classless, the other is spineless.  Neither one is conduct befitting the office of President of the United States.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 16, 2015)

racing_kitty said:


> No worries, dude.  That happens from time to time, especially when the brain is working overdrive.  Besides, your taunting wouldn't hurt me.  I'm from Alabama, the jokes have already written themselves (especially the Helen Keller jokes when I was growing up).  Do your worst!
> 
> Trump's adversarial approach to the press is unprofessional, in my opinion.  Ad hominem attacks are never professional.  *Be that as it may, Trump's blunt force approach towards the press is seen by the general public as more refreshing than the current POTUS's passive aggressive approach*.  One is classless, the other is spineless.  Neither one is conduct befitting the office of President of the United States.


HERE is where my distaste lies.

My mother in law (whom I love, a lot) posited this argument and we had the same discussion.

"Trump says the things that Average American thinks, but won't say, and that HELPS."

I am the average American. I don't think Mexicans are rapists. I don't want a wall that Mexico will pay for because I said so. When I disagree with people, I don't judge them on unrelated issues for my own benefit and their destruction and make that public to millions of people. He's not direct, he's not blunt- he says shitty stuff without repercussion and is actually just as passive as this administration. Only he's passive aggressive, which is worse.

Bottom line- Trump isn't fit for public office, and I agree.


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 16, 2015)

amlove21 said:


> HERE is where my distaste lies.
> 
> My mother in law (whom I love, a lot) posited this argument and we had the same discussion.
> 
> ...



Awww, come ooooooooon...  You can't tell me that this isn't your idea of the perfect administration for all that is manly man?

 



Figured now was the moment for a little levity, although we as a society aren't far from this point.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 16, 2015)

racing_kitty said:


> Awww, come ooooooooon...  You can't tell me that this isn't your idea of the perfect administration for all that is manly man?
> 
> View attachment 13856
> 
> ...


HAHAHAHAHA. I award the majority of interwebs points to you, RK.


----------



## AWP (Aug 16, 2015)

The fact that Trump carries so much weight in a presidential discussion speaks volumes about the current state of US politics.

Seriously, how many supporters view him as the only way to break the log jam, the only way to unbalance the status quo, the only "fresh" voice in a sea of partisan mediocrity? How many people cringe at what he says but are just happy to hear someone say something that isn't bland and watered down?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 16, 2015)

Hell, maybe Carson/Trump might be the best dynamic on the planet. Good cop bad cop at it's peak?


----------



## Marine0311 (Aug 16, 2015)

amlove21 said:


> @ke4gde @Marine0311 @SpongeBob*24 @racing_kitty  - thanks for the education. I am not sold, and I literally cringe every time the guy talks, and I just cant imagine he has great ideas as far as GWOT or really anything other than economics. Can you imagine him sitting across from Putin and going at it? He'd get his shit handed to him. And I really don't need a dude alienating 51% of the population because he thinks girls that are 'mean' to him must be bleeding from... somewhere.
> 
> @racing_kitty - I see that you're angry as shit at the current Pres, but you'd say that Trump has a better interaction with the press than President Obama?



@amlove21 

Perhaps if you look at it a different way. What kind of leader do you want? The ones we have had in the past or someone that tells you like it is to you face? You may disagree with his style but what about the message? I will concede that tone and deliver is important however I'd rather be told to my face.


----------



## Brill (Aug 16, 2015)

@racing_kitty  for President of SS-istan!!!!

I would rather have Trump sit across from Putin and tell him the truth than have a President bend over to smell King Abdullah's junk.  Seriously, I think that Trump would have the "command climate" that only tolerates straight shooters, accountability, etc and BS-ers would be sent packing...publicly.

The scandals at IRS, VA, OPM, DOS, etc would most likely be nipped in the bud before they even became scandals.  A business leader like Trump is programmed to always make moves to progress upward due to the incentives (financial, personal, etc) whereas idealists like Obama honestly believe his plan/ideas are right regardless of conflicting information, which MUST be wrong.  People like Bill and Hillary are honestly pathological.

Leadership...the American people are crying out for leadership but I don't think we're ready for Trump to be in the WH but are most definitely trying to signal their desire to break the logjam as @Freefalling wrote.


----------



## poison (Aug 18, 2015)

Npr mentioned fiorinas hormone comments this morning, before I had my coffee, and my first reaction was 'wha...?'. Then I realize she just buried it hilt deep in bill Clinton. Yes, carry on. 

I don't know much about Carson, and Lord he's awkward when he speaks, but I get the feeling he's cold, clinical, and usually the smartest guy in the room. Like many Americans, I'm almost at the point where 'I'll try anything', just to break the current gridlock that's busy pitting Americans against each other.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 18, 2015)

lindy said:


> @racing_kitty  for President of SS-istan!!!!
> 
> I would rather have Trump sit across from Putin and tell him the truth than have a President bend over to smell King Abdullah's junk.  Seriously, I think that Trump would have the "command climate" that only tolerates straight shooters, accountability, etc and BS-ers would be sent packing...publicly.
> 
> ...



How many recall obama's open mic gaff with the Russian Ambassador, before his re-election? "Tell him I can do more for him after the election". How is it that that has never been mentioned,  looked at or questioned? . Off track for this election cycle, but the media has burried a ton of material that should have been looked at.


----------



## Brill (Aug 18, 2015)

Red Flag 1 said:


> How many recall obama's open mic gaff with the Russian Ambassador, before his re-election? "Tell him I can do more for him after the election". How is it that that has never been mentioned,  looked at or questioned? . Off track for this election cycle, but the media has burried a ton of material that should have been looked at.



I bet there is an email about it somewhere...


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 18, 2015)

I've been looking at them from a foreign policy aspect and I think Trump would be terrible for NZ and would take us back to the dark times of 1986 or something. Though I think he would be terrible at foreign policy in general, to be quite honest. 

Clinton might be OK there. The email illegality notwithstanding she seemed to be quite able in the SoS role. 

The others it's hard to tell. Everything is so-rightly- turned towards American domestic issues.


----------



## CQB (Aug 18, 2015)

You guys have had your first black president, maybe its time for your first orange president.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 18, 2015)

SpitfireV said:


> I've been looking at them from a foreign policy aspect and I think Trump would be terrible for NZ and would take us back to the dark times of 1986 or something. Though I think he would be terrible at foreign policy in general, to be quite honest.
> 
> Clinton might be OK there. The email illegality notwithstanding she seemed to be quite able in the SoS role.
> 
> The others it's hard to tell. Everything is so-rightly- turned towards American domestic issues.


What did she actually do as Sec State?


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 18, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> What did she actually do as Sec State?



She executed the foreign policy of your country. You can say Benghazi or whatever, I honestly don't care about that because that's an internal issue for you guys as far as I'm concerned. She's been able when it comes to NZ- we've been brought a lot closer and relations are almost 100% (I would say 85-90%) to what they used to be.


----------



## Jael (Aug 18, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> What did she actually do as Sec State?


 
Use her personal email a lot.

I'm not sold on any candidate just yet, but the tabloid entertainment I'm getting from this entire race has me skeptical of the whole thing.

On Trump: He focuses a lot on illegal immigration, I find that to be an important issue sure, but there are more issues to be tackled across the nation. The education system and the VA are two big issues I'd like to see more press about but that may not happen. His tax and economic standpoints are good but we will see if they can actually come to a reality versus just words on paper.

Most candidates I just don't see as anything different then my previous 27 years of existence, life long politicians with the occasional outlier but none of them seem to offer anything different then the rest as they just talk in circles. That's the only benefit I give to Trump, he may speak like a jackass but I know where he stands and he does not play the coward in damage control every time he says something someone does not like. I somehow feel he may pull out of the race though as it gets closer for whatever reason.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 18, 2015)

SpitfireV said:


> She executed the foreign policy of your country. You can say Benghazi or whatever, I honestly don't care about that because that's an internal issue for you guys as far as I'm concerned. She's been able when it comes to NZ- we've been brought a lot closer and relations are almost 100% (I would say 85-90%) to what they used to be.



She was in the position to make decisions and carry out foregin policy. We know she did that while bleeding sensative, and probably seceret and above information using her cellular phone. That alone was not IAW the care and practice of a US Sec of State, the legality of which is very much in question. As for Benghazi, the function of that station was her responsability, that includes the safety of all of the staff at that Embassy. I do care deeply about what happened at Bengazi, and Clinton pretty much threw the entire station under the bus; you can't just blow that off as "What ever". Is that the policy re: every  US Embassy. While SOS, she made comments about being under direct fire, which was proven to be untrue, just like Brian Williams. It's just my $.02, but Clinton's time as SOS, was that of failure, and has put the security of our Nation at risk.


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 18, 2015)

My summing up of their probable attitudes to New Zealand is not an endorsement or approval/disapproval of that candidate.


----------



## AWP (Aug 18, 2015)

CQB said:


> You guys have had your first black president,



I think that's debatable but it would cause a thread drift of epic proportions.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 19, 2015)

SpitfireV said:


> She executed the foreign policy of your country. You can say Benghazi or whatever, I honestly don't care about that because that's an internal issue for you guys as far as I'm concerned. She's been able when it comes to NZ- we've been brought a lot closer and relations are almost 100% (I would say 85-90%) to what they used to be.


No, Obama appointed a bunch of Czar's to actually conduct policy. She played tourist as a resume builder.
She sucked as Sec State.  Time will show she used the office for personal financial gain, a violation of the law.






Looking back, I think overcharge was the appropriate term.


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 19, 2015)

Good ya mate.


----------



## Mac_NZ (Aug 20, 2015)

So Trump or Clinton, wow what a choice.

That's like walking into a Singaporean hairdressers and choosing between the hooker with AIDs or the one with Syphilis.


----------



## Etype (Aug 20, 2015)

Mac_NZ said:


> So Trump or Clinton, wow what a choice.
> 
> That's like walking into a Singaporean hairdressers and choosing between the hooker with AIDs or the one with Syphilis.


Terrible analogy, syphilis can be cured.

Try it again with herpes and genital warts.


----------



## CQB (Aug 20, 2015)

As far as Don goes, I'll wait until the real candidates turn up.


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 20, 2015)

Idiocracy is now a documentary. Either that, or people really are that disgusted with the election process. How else can you explain Deez Nuts for president? 

Also, the Donald is swinging through  my home town tomorrow. Demand for tickets meant they had to move to a bigger venue, namely Ladd-Peebles Stadium. 

My fat fingers hit post before I could hot link, sorry.


----------



## Brill (Aug 22, 2015)

I fully endorse Joe Biden for the Democratic Party's nomination for President.

(If he runs, Criminillary is out (and her political career is done) and the Republican nomination WILL win.)


----------



## Kunoichii (Aug 25, 2015)

Gen (ret)David Petraeus/Gen (ret) Stanley McChrystal


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 25, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> What did she actually do as Sec State?


 
Impressive in protecting her misions


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 25, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> Impressive in protecting her misions
> 
> View attachment 13925



The world is a dangerous place.


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 25, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> The world is a dangerous place.


Not quite sure how that's relevant. Bush wasn't Secretary of State and giving her a pass based on that is amateur.


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 25, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> The world is a dangerous place.



Last time I heard the "but he got away with it" argument, folks weren't sober, or if they were it's because they weren't old enough to drink.  Just because it happened on someone else's watch doesn't mean that they weren't responsible for it, nor does it absolve HRC of her role as the captain of that ship.  

As to why the media didn't crucify Bush 43 when those embassy-related fatalities occurred?  Most likely, it was because the media had bigger fish to fry than dead peons.  Dead embassy workers count for just as little, if not less than dead soldiers when trying to compose a charge sheet of your sworn mortal enemy.  Who knew?  Frankly, with the rabid, bone deep, pathological hatred that most liberals harbor for Bush 43, it's a wonder that the dead embassy folks weren't paraded around on Mardi Gras floats while the progressive establishment were issuing a clarion call for an immediate reenactment of the French Revolution.

Then again, even the author of the Politifact article said that there are valid reasons to treat the Benghazi incident differently, starting with the fact that the last time an AMBASSADOR was killed was back in the 1970's.  Surely, you don't discount that.  Yes, or no, I think there's a thread a few pages back that is more suitable for this sub-debate.


*Hijack over*


----------



## AWP (Aug 25, 2015)

Some of the embassy stuff is garbage. They would pin bombings in KABUL on Clinton? C'mon....I can't stand the woman and even that isn't fair. A bombing in Kabul? If that's on her then the Hague should try Bush and Obama as war criminals. With apologies to Allen Iverson, but we're talking about Kabul? It's easy to sum it up when you're just talking about Kabul. I mean, listen, we're talking about Kabul, not Benghazi, not some country that's seen civilization in a hundred years, we talking about Kabul.

Statistics are dangerous.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 26, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> Not quite sure how that's relevant. Bush wasn't Secretary of State and giving her a pass based on that is amateur.



Blaming an embassy bombing on The Secretary of State is amateur dude. My point with posting that is administrators aren't responsible for terror attacks. They happen. We cannot prevent every one. When you live and work in a dangerous place you assume risk. It is literally part of the job description.


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 26, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> Blaming an embassy bombing on The Secretary of State is amateur dude. My point with posting that is administrators aren't responsible for terror attacks. They happen. We cannot prevent every one. When you live and work in a dangerous place you assume risk. It is literally part of the job description.


 
Reading comprehension..

No one is blaming embassy bombings on the Secretary of State. The actual subject that was brought up was that the administrators *are* responsible for diplomat security. Hillary herself has taken responsibility for the events in Benghazi.



> "I take responsibility," Clinton told CNN in an interview while on a visit to Peru. "I'm in charge of the State Department's 60,000-plus people all over the world, 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn't be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They're the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision."
> Clinton: I'm responsible for diplomats' security - CNN.com


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 26, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> Blaming an embassy bombing on The Secretary of State is amateur dude. My point with posting that is administrators aren't responsible for terror attacks. They happen. We cannot prevent every one. When you live and work in a dangerous place you assume risk. It is literally part of the job description.


They are when the decide not to spend all the force pro money.
Just ask BG Schwalier about being held responsible as an administrator.


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 26, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Some of the embassy stuff is garbage. They would pin bombings in KABUL on Clinton? C'mon....I can't stand the woman and even that isn't fair. A bombing in Kabul? If that's on her then the Hague should try Bush and Obama as war criminals. With apologies to Allen Iverson, but we're talking about Kabul? It's easy to sum it up when you're just talking about Kabul. I mean, listen, we're talking about Kabul, not Benghazi, not some country that's seen civilization in a hundred years, we talking about Kabul.
> 
> Statistics are dangerous.


 
Are you discounting the list of her failures to protect her diplomatic missions because Kabul is in Afghanistan?

Statistics can be dangerous, but there are no statistics here.


----------



## AWP (Aug 26, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> Are you discounting the list of her failures to protect her diplomatic missions because Kabul is in Afghanistan?
> 
> Statistics can be dangerous, but there are no statistics here.



No and I don't know how anyone could interpret that from my post. I specifically addressed Kabul because it is Kabul and Iron Man couldn't protect the embassy.


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 26, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> No and I don't know how anyone could interpret that from my post. I specifically addressed Kabul because it is Kabul and Iron Man couldn't protect the embassy.


 
I was confused when you opened with "Some of the embassy stuff is garbage." and then went on to the Hague and war crimes.. and then mentioned Kabul. So.. rants are pretty easy to poorly interpret.


----------



## AWP (Aug 26, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> I was confused when you opened with "Some of the embassy stuff is garbage." and then went on to the Hague and war crimes.. and then mentioned Kabul. So.. rants are pretty easy to poorly interpret.



Kabul, yes. Peshawar is a maybe. Kabul's a given and Pakistan isn't known for internal stability. The act of detonating a bomb near an embassy isn't a reflection on the Sec State's role in security or oversight. Let's be honest, without Benghazi none of this would be a talking point but that thrust the issue into the spotlight. "Statistics are dangerous" speaks to this point: add something to a list and it looks impressive until you think about the event or events and then that list decreases. I'm all for taking her to task, but I wouldn't include those in my talking points.


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 26, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Kabul, yes. Peshawar is a maybe. Kabul's a given and Pakistan isn't known for internal stability. The act of detonating a bomb near an embassy isn't a reflection on the Sec State's role in security or oversight. Let's be honest, without Benghazi none of this would be a talking point but that thrust the issue into the spotlight. "Statistics are dangerous" speaks to this point: add something to a list and it looks impressive until you think about the event or events and then that list decreases. I'm all for taking her to task, but I wouldn't include those in my talking points.


 
I can't speak to the details of the events and won't go into characterizing them as only a bomb being detonated near an embassy. They are identified specifically as attacks on embassies and consulates, and while granted I made the list from Wikipedia and didn't do any additional research for a lack of interest, I will use it as a metrics for what she accomplished as Secretary of State. I'm not sure why I would remove anything regarding her from any "talking points" I may have on her, especially things that she takes public and full responsibility for.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 26, 2015)

How many of the attacks during the Bush Presidency were in Afghanistan or Iraq?  

Yesterdays local radio station said Clinton's e-mails also included the detailed movement plan for the Ambassador, at what point do her supporters hold her accountable for something?


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 26, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> How many of the attacks during the Bush Presidency were in Afghanistan or Iraq?


 
None

Kabul's opened in 2006
Iraq's opened in 2008


----------



## x SF med (Aug 26, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> Blaming an embassy bombing on The Secretary of State is amateur dude. My point with posting that is administrators aren't responsible for terror attacks. They happen. We cannot prevent every one. When you live and work in a dangerous place you assume risk. It is literally part of the job description.



I have to go with TLDR here.   Historically, ambassadorial staff, emissaries, negotiators for governments have been important, but at the same time expendable.  It is a dangerous job, there is no way to take the risk down to zero, or probably below 50% in many of the hotspots.  also, if you look at the history of diplomacy in the region under discussion... the home of the "Great Game"...  getting below a an 80% risk factor would be superb.

I'm not condoning Mrs. Clinton's actions, attitude or defense of either.... she ignored intelligence, stopped support teams and blamed her subordinates for the failure she promulgated... I am just pointing out that the job of an envoy, especially in the area, is beyond dangerous.


----------



## AWP (Aug 26, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> None
> 
> Kabul's opened in 2006
> Iraq's opened in 2008



None?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/world/asia/20afghan.html



> KABUL, Afghanistan, March 19 — A convoy from the United States Embassy was hit by a suicide car bomb on a busy road here on Monday, killing a 14-year-old Afghan bystander and seriously wounding an American security guard in the convoy, officials said.



http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/09/world/asia/09afghan.html



> KABUL, Afghanistan, Sept. 8 — A suicide bomber smashed his car into an American military vehicle just yards from the United States Embassy in downtown Kabul on Friday morning, killing as many as 16 people and wounding 29, Afghan and American officials said.



Bomb hits U.S. Embassy convoy in Kabul - USATODAY.com



> KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) — A suicide car bomber attacked a three-vehicle U.S. Embassy convoy on a notoriously dangerous road in the Afghan capital on Monday, killing an Afghan teenager and wounding five embassy security personnel, officials said.


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 27, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> None?
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/world/asia/20afghan.html
> 
> ...



Agreed that these should count, but as they weren't attacks on the embassy or consulate, they weren't on the list. I'm sure the numbers would be higher than what I listed previously if I were to include all attacks on convoys with diplomats.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 7, 2015)

Democrats are starting to hit back at Trey Gowdy's Benghazi committee.  After presumptive speaker Kevin McCarthy's remarks about the email scandal, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) attempted to attach an amendment to a motion that would close the select committee on Benghazi to a motion that would open a committee to investigate Planned Parenthood.  The move was largely symbolic, and failed on a 7-2 vote in the rules committee, but nonetheless the Dems are starting to push back.


Dem move to kill Benghazi Committee fails


> *Dem move to kill Benghazi Committee fails*
> House Democrats launched a failed bid to dismantle the Select Committee on Benghazi, in light of renewed criticism of the committee.
> 
> During a Rules Committee hearing on Tuesday evening, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) attempted to attach an amendment to shut down the committee to another piece of legislation creating a new select committee to investigate Planned Parenthood.
> ...



In lighter news, a liberal group called "The Agenda Project"has launched a petition to investigate the Benghazi committee investigation.  Realistically their chances of succeeding are zero, but it's funny to ponder the idea of the "Select Committee to Investigate the Select Committee Investigation on Benghazi".

Petition Calling For An Investigation Of Benghazi Committee Leaves Republicans Reeling



> *Petition Calling For An Investigation Of Benghazi Committee Leaves Republicans Reeling*
> A new petition calling for an investigation into the House Republican Benghazi Select Committee has put Republicans back on their heels as the American people are demanding answers.
> 
> The petition from The Agenda Project states:
> ...



I seriously doubt that this petition "put Republicans back on their heels", but it's in there for completeness'-sake.


Now, there's no love lost between me and  Hilldawg Clinton, but the Benghazi committee has been operating for nearly 18 months now.  That's nearly double the length of the previous-longest investigation.  And what do they have to show for it?  The email scandal has spun into its own circus and significantly damaged Hillary's campaign, but the committee has barely shed any new light on the Benghazi attacks.  It may be that Trey Gowdy is just playing his cards close to his chest and will release some scathing indictments in the final report, but right now it appears that the committee has just been dithering away for almost a year and a half with nothing to show for it.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 7, 2015)

Theirb123 said:


> Since it hasn't happened yet, I figured I'd open Pandora's Box for everyone.
> 
> Who do you like at this point and why? If you had to vote tomorrow...and who are you intrigued by as a possibility a year from now, with a little more information?
> 
> ...


Honestly man, I don't want to vote for any of them. I might vote for Trump though since he is my kind of asshole and the insuing chaos would be hilarious to watch. I am a bit of a dick though. Carson seems to be down to Earth and I like Huckabee because I am a big fan of GOD.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 7, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Democrats are starting to hit back at Trey Gowdy's Benghazi committee.  After presumptive speaker Kevin McCarthy's remarks about the email scandal, Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) attempted to attach an amendment to a motion that would close the select committee on Benghazi to a motion that would open a committee to investigate Planned Parenthood.  The move was largely symbolic, and failed on a 7-2 vote in the rules committee, but nonetheless the Dems are starting to push back.
> 
> 
> Dem move to kill Benghazi Committee fails
> ...



Last paragraph.  You say there is no love lost, but ignore the "Hilldawg" (your words) refusal to honor subpoena and her attempts to destroy evidence.  A good prosecutor doesn't quit when the subject destroys evidence or refuses to testify.  

She's no different than Nixon (when it comes to destroying evidence) and her husband's whining is funny, because they are on the receiving end of the shit the slung at opponents during their many campaigns.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 7, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Last paragraph.  You say there is no love lost, but ignore the "Hilldawg" (your words) refusal to honor subpoena and her attempts to destroy evidence.  A good prosecutor doesn't quit when the subject destroys evidence or refuses to testify.
> 
> She's no different than Nixon (when it comes to destroying evidence) and her husband's whining is funny, because they are on the receiving end of the shit the slung at opponents during their many campaigns.


I agree, that's all very damning stuff, and now the FBI is taking the lead on it.  I've previously stated that I now have absolutely no intention of voting for Hillary, even if she gets the nomination, so you can rest assured that I don't write this as someone who is in her corner.  I fully believe that the Committee has reached its limit, has found what it can find (unrelated or only tangentially related to Benghazi) and should let the FBI do its thing.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 7, 2015)

You know what I hate. When people think they are clever by changing a letter or two in the President, or Hillary's name and acting as if it is cool, clever, or smart. Heads up guys, you look like goddamned fools. If the peak of your intellect is changing Obama to Nobama, quit trying to lick your own elbow, you aren't going to get there.

Hilldawg? Goddamn that might be the least creative, slowest one I've seen, and you are running in a race full of quad amputees.


----------



## Brill (Oct 10, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> You know what I hate. When people think they are clever by changing a letter or two in the President, or Hillary's name and acting as if it is cool, clever, or smart.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 8, 2015)

This thread needed a little revival, and who better to do it than Dr. Ben Carson?

"I do not remember this level of scrutiny for President Barack Obama, when he was running"






Now, I really hate name-calling in politics.  It's an ugly thing and unnecessary, quite frankly.  But I really have to ask: does Ben Carson ever think before he speaks?  Did he forget the ridiculous birther debacle?  Did he forget that Obama was, and still is, the subject of ludicrous conspiracy theories, some of which were used as campaign slogans by members of Congress?  I'm fairly certain that even though Dr. Carson may have fudged some of his personal stories, and may not have the best grasp of history, nobody in the media is calling him a "communist", "muslim", "homosexual", "foreign citizen", "traitor", or any of the other names to which Obama was referred.

To be fair to the good doctor, I think this recent West Point controversy is a bit overblown.  It sounds as though Dr. Carson possibly did meet with Gen. Westmoreland years ago, and the General may have said some things that Carson interpreted as being favorable towards an acceptance at West Point.  The comment about a "full ride scholarship", which West Point obviously does not offer, may have simply been a decision on behalf of the ghost writer to punch-up the story a little bit.


----------



## Tbone (Nov 8, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> This thread needed a little revival, and who better to do it than Dr. Ben Carson?
> 
> "I do not remember this level of scrutiny for President Barack Obama, when he was running"
> 
> ...


Ssshhh......keep it down, you're being a little too reasonable don't ya think


----------



## Brill (Nov 8, 2015)

Politician is synonymous with liar because they will say ANYTHING to  get what they covet: power.  You forgot Reid's BS about Romney not paying taxes.  This thing about Carson is simply a distraction from the Democrat PACs to pull the focus away from Hillary's deepening crisis.

Did Ben sign an enforceable document (e.g a NDA) about his West Post "admission", the near stabbing of a relative, etc?  Ben's story is all over the MSM but Hillary's NDA is only on Fox.

American MSM is no better than Pravda for "news".  Personally, I get all my information from The American Spectator.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 8, 2015)

Ben Carson says some stupid ass shit.


----------



## x SF med (Nov 8, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> Ben Carson says some stupid ass shit.



this could be edited to:  Any presidential candidate says some pretty stupid shit.


----------



## AWP (Nov 8, 2015)

Even if you blame the MSM for "finding" quotes, they can't find something that doesn't exist. If Carson says some stupid shit and rises in the polls then he has to know (and this applies to every single candidate) someone will find and publish that nonsense. You can argue the timing, but is that part of a campaign to bring him down or "this will score ratings with our viewers?" Probably both, but any candidate blaming someone for publishing stupid but true quotes? Clownshoes.

Don't talk about WP storing grain or admittance to the pyramids and this isn't an issue.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 8, 2015)

x SF med said:


> this could be edited to:  Any presidential candidate says some pretty stupid shit.



But most candidates don't say things about history and science that are demonstrably false.


Freefalling said:


> Even if you blame the MSM for "finding" quotes, they can't find something that doesn't exist. If Carson says some stupid shit and rises in the polls then he has to know (and this applies to every single candidate) someone will find and publish that nonsense. You can argue the timing, but is that part of a campaign to bring him down or "this will score ratings with our viewers?" Probably both, but any candidate blaming someone for publishing stupid but true quotes? Clownshoes.
> 
> Don't talk about WP storing grain or admittance to the pyramids and this isn't an issue.



Or be a doctor questioning vaccine science... This guy may have been a good surgeon, but that does not a genius make him. He weighs in on things he has no business weighing in on, and people take him serious because he is a doctor. His comments on vaccines pissed me off, particularly after treating a child yesterday with a vaccine preventable disease that will likely take his life....

His comments about the pyramids are laughable, and the cognitive dissonance it must take to admit to the presence of lets say antibiotic resistant bacteria while saying evolution is bunk is beyond ridiculous to me.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 8, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> But most candidates don't say things about history and science that are demonstrably false.
> 
> 
> Or be a doctor questioning vaccine science... This guy may have been a good surgeon, but that does not a genius make him. He weighs in on things he has no business weighing in on, and people take him serious because he is a doctor. His comments on vaccines pissed me off, particularly after treating a child yesterday with a vaccine preventable disease that will likely take his life....
> ...


Really no different than the current occupant.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 9, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> But most candidates don't say things about history and science that are demonstrably false.
> 
> 
> Or be a doctor questioning vaccine science... This guy may have been a good surgeon, but that does not a genius make him. He weighs in on things he has no business weighing in on, and people take him serious because he is a doctor. His comments on vaccines pissed me off, particularly after treating a child yesterday with a vaccine preventable disease that will likely take his life....
> ...


 
No doubt he says some goofy stuff, but here's the thing.  No one cares.  His supporters aren't going to abandon him, and the way he is taking on the media may actually garner some supporters he did not have.  The only people ANY of his comments are going to turn away are people who weren't going to vote for him to begin with.

Where a few months ago I may have been on the fence regarding him, he's def not my number 1, or number 2, guy.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 10, 2015)

I hate to say it, but Ben Carson is the only person I like in the GOP field, and I don't think he would be the best option. Maybe for VP, but I don't see him as the next President.

I really like Rick Perry, pretty sad to see him out of the race, and did think he had the best ability to run this country, post Obama.

At this point I'm not confident any of the candidates would make a good POTUS from either side. Think we need a good fiscal conservative, socially moderate, and strong foreign policy Independent candidate at this point.

$.02


----------



## TH15 (Nov 10, 2015)

JAB said:


> At this point I'm not confident any of the candidates would make a good POTUS from either side. Think we need a good fiscal conservative, socially moderate, and strong foreign policy Independent candidate at this point.
> /QUOTE]


I think Rand Paul fits your description.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 10, 2015)

TH15 said:


> I think Rand Paul fits your description.


I don't, I don't think he is anything close.

I have issues with Rand on his foreign policy's, much like his fathers. Although I agree in principle that we should stay out of other nations business and stop policing or molding the world. The reality is with the void of a solid foreign policy develops shit like ISIS, and allows other Nations to gain power and influence, who are odds with our own interests.

Rand would be great in getting the fiscal house in order, if he had the political backing of both sides. But he doesn't, and is viewed as an extremist by many on the left and right. Which means he will not have the backing in the house to rain in the government the way he would like, or at least as he would lead us to believe.


----------



## TH15 (Nov 10, 2015)

JAB said:


> I don't, I don't think he is anything close.
> 
> I have issues with Rand on his foreign policy's, much like his fathers. Although I agree in principle that we should stay out of other nations business and stop policing or molding the world. The reality is with the void of a solid foreign policy develops shit like ISIS, and allows other Nations to gain power and influence, who are odds with our own interests.
> 
> Rand would be great in getting the fiscal house in order, if he had the political backing of both sides. But he doesn't, and is viewed as an extremist by many on the left and right. Which means he will not have the backing in the house to rain in the government the way he would like, or at least as he would lead us to believe.


At this point, I'm not sure there's even a coherent US foreign policy. I think one could also make the argument that our foreign policy in the last decade or so has created the power vacuum we are currently experiencing in the Middle East/North Africa, etc that has allowed pieces of shit like ISIS to take hold. Having someone with a different mindset on foreign policy may be beneficial for the country, who knows. 

I think Paul is the only true fiscal conservative on the GOP stage at this point. From auditing the Fed, literally throwing out the tax code and replacing it with a flat tax, and eliminating entire government departments such as the Dept. of Education, there's really no one else that comes close. Yes, I agree, he probably doesn't have the backing of the establishment, but the GOP desperately needs someone to espouse conservative principles and at least try to get our fiscal house in order instead of pretending to.

He's not the perfect candidate, but I think he's what the GOP needs at this point.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 10, 2015)

TH15 said:


> At this point, I'm not sure there's even a coherent US foreign policy. I think one could also make the argument that our foreign policy in the last decade or so has created the power vacuum we are currently experiencing in the Middle East/North Africa, etc that has allowed pieces of shit like ISIS to take hold. Having someone with a different mindset on foreign policy may be beneficial for the country, who knows.
> 
> I think Paul is the only true fiscal conservative on the GOP stage at this point. From auditing the Fed, literally throwing out the tax code and replacing it with a flat tax, and eliminating entire government departments such as the Dept. of Education, there's really no one else that comes close. Yes, I agree, he probably doesn't have the backing of the establishment, but the GOP desperately needs someone to espouse conservative principles and at least try to get our fiscal house in order instead of pretending to.
> 
> He's not the perfect candidate, but I think he's what the GOP needs at this point.



I agree with a lot of what you're saying. I think the GOP at this point is too dysfunctional to recover. There needs to be a complete policy and political shift, business as usual doesn't work, wont work and most conservative voters are tired of the bullshit.

I still think if they put a no confidence "none of the above" vote on the ballot, there wouldn't be another POTUS.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 10, 2015)

JAB said:


> At this point I'm not confident any of the candidates would make a good POTUS from either side. Think we need a good fiscal conservative, socially moderate, and strong foreign policy Independent candidate at this point.
> 
> $.02



I used to say this too, but I don't think you can be socially moderate and fiscally conservative. It takes money to enact good social policies.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 10, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> I used to say this too, but I don't think you can be socially moderate and fiscally conservative. It takes money to enact good social policies.



I think it can be done, especially in areas of health care, education and social services. The problem is not that conservatives don't want these programs, they just don't want wasteful programs that don't work, or programs filled with pork barrel projects hidden within a good program. I think everyone agrees with social security, however many disagree with it being robbed blind by other programs and or shifting founds away from it to pay for other programs. I don't think most American are against a base line government health care for poor people who cannot afford health care. However they don't want it filled with bullshit programs that wont work, or a one model for all, or a fine for poor people, or effectively destroying low wage low skill full time employment.

I don't know how anyone can justify giving benefits paid for by tax payers to illegal immigrants or refugees, while American citizens are going without and on top of that being fined.

Moderate social programs are a must, even conservatism understands that fact, however, the difference between jumping in blind and going full retard (social progressive) and having a balanced plan with smart regulation and controls (social moderate) is night and day from even being a social conservative. IMO


----------



## TH15 (Nov 10, 2015)

I agree with @JAB that conservatives generally want moderate social programs. The problem is the US is running massive deficits, an $18+ trillion debt (not counting unfunded liabilities), so a robust and generous social program isn't financially feasible right now. Any politician who doesn't acknowledge that fact is a moron.

Also, perhaps a topic for a different thread, but Social Security is basically a Ponzi scheme. It was never meant to fund someone's 20-30 year retirement. Politicians can try to say they can "reform" it, but I think they're just pushing the can down the road... again. I'm pretty much of the opinion that my generation ("millennials" :-") will not be receiving Social Security when we retire.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 10, 2015)

TH15 said:


> I agree with @JAB that conservatives generally want moderate social programs. The problem is the US is running massive deficits, an $18+ trillion debt (not counting unfunded liabilities), so a robust and generous social program isn't financially feasible right now. Any politician who doesn't acknowledge that fact is a moron.
> 
> Also, perhaps a topic for a different thread, but Social Security is basically a Ponzi scheme. It was never meant to fund someone's 20-30 year retirement. Politicians can try to say they can "reform" it, but I think they're just pushing the can down the road... again. I'm pretty much of the opinion that my generation ("millennials" :-") will not be receiving Social Security when we retire.



Agree with most of your post, but you forget that SS funds go into the general funds and are not fenced off, fencing off the money would have lessened the stress on SS.
Refugees coming in get SS if they are old enough, so people who contributed $0.00 get a check, cut that crap and reduce the stress on the system.
SS Disability, was that ever figured in?

On another note, I think Rubio just nuked himself in the debate, his pitiful "think of the children" plea showed his true colors.  
Trump's willingness to double down is keeping his numbers up, he's a fighter and the Republican Party hasn't had a fighter in decades (Trump is not a conservative, but most voters are too stupid to know that).

Cruz would get my vote, but I'd love to see him as Attorney General first, reopening all the scandals would overflow cardiac wards in/around the DC area.


----------



## Theirb123 (Nov 10, 2015)

Cruz needs to be the running mate if not elected. Carson says some dumb shit sometimes but it's about stuff that really doesn't matter, to be honest. Who gives a shit what he thinks the pyramids were used for? I think he'd do a great job at managing the country. Letting the people who are experts in their respective fields make the decisions and put them in good position to do so. And Rand is forging a little comeback tonight, I like it.


----------



## AWP (Nov 10, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> I used to say this too, but I don't think you can be socially moderate and fiscally conservative. It takes money to enact good social policies.



I agree with this to a point, my only counter would be this is less of an issue if we spent our money wisely. There's so much BS out there a solid overhaul/ audit could find money for new and old programs.


----------



## Brill (Nov 11, 2015)

TH15 said:


> I agree with @JAB that conservatives generally want moderate social programs. The problem is the US is running massive deficits, an $18+ trillion debt (not counting unfunded liabilities), so a robust and generous social program isn't financially feasible right now. Any politician who doesn't acknowledge that fact is a moron.
> 
> Also, perhaps a topic for a different thread, but Social Security is basically a Ponzi scheme. It was never meant to fund someone's 20-30 year retirement. Politicians can try to say they can "reform" it, but I think they're just pushing the can down the road... again. I'm pretty much of the opinion that my generation ("millennials" :-") will not be receiving Social Security when we retire.



I would counter that Republicans (as well as many Americans) want RESPONSIBLE social programs.  Unemployment, welfare, etc should have conditions along with enforceable oversight to stop abuse.  Why does the IRS have automated "scripts" that can detect potential fraud but social programs have ???  Retirees are not killing Social Security but rather the "disabled", death beneficiaries, and (SCOTUS approval pending) immigrants who have never paid into the system.

Taxpayers just want to see that their money is being spent wisely.  How can we give $3 billion a year to Israel when we have problems here?  Why are we resettling war torn refugees to the US (at $1 billion) when we have homelessness in the US?  Why give Yazidis MREs when Americans go hungry everyday?

The country is no different that a Christian preacher standing in the pulpit on Sunday but banging a hooker throughout the week...that is EXACTLY how many countries view the United States.  I disagree with @TLDR20 that effective social programs require money but add that spending discipline is more important and would mitigate the need for more money.


----------



## Tbone (Nov 11, 2015)

I must say that this thread has made me scratch my head at some replies, but these last two pages describe my feelings towards conservatives and or the Republican party very well.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 11, 2015)

Let's have a show of hands: who thinks that Hillary Clinton _actually_ considered joining the Marine Corps?

Hillary Clinton revives story of trying to join Marines - CNNPolitics.com


> *Hillary Clinton revives story of trying to join the Marines*
> Manchester, New Hampshire (CNN)As the U.S. Marine Corps turns 240 years old this week, Hillary Clinton dusted off an old story that has previously been met with skepticism: When the Yale-educated lawyer moved to Arkansas in 1975, she says she tried to join the Marines.
> 
> She laughed Tuesday, the day before Veterans Day, as she recalled being turned away by a recruiter.
> ...


----------



## AWP (Nov 11, 2015)

She tried to join the Corps, but was stopped by sniper fire at the airport...


----------



## Florida173 (Nov 11, 2015)




----------



## TH15 (Nov 12, 2015)

Hillary Clinton tried to join the Marine Corps in the same way that Joffrey Baratheon tried to hold back Stannis' fleet at Blackwater.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 8, 2015)

This is too good


----------



## CQB (Dec 8, 2015)

What does the future look like? Donald wins and the awesomeness begins.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 8, 2015)

CQB said:


> What does the future look like? Donald wins and the awesomeness begins.



I imagine he will be a better POTUS than Obama or Hillary. But I don't see his brashness being good for trying to unite us. More likely will screw politics up here at home more so than they have been.


----------



## nobodythank you (Dec 8, 2015)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I imagine he will be a better POTUS than Obama or Hillary. But I don't see his brashness being good for trying to unite us. More likely will screw politics up here at home more so than they have been.


If he wins, I have a feeling you will begin to see major shifts in the Republican party and possibly even the Democrat party as well. Make no mistake, he will piss off a lot of people, but the system in place has the country divided enough. He will either unite the country with him, or against him. Either way, the shithole that is our two party system needs to be shaken to its core. This country needs to see its political elite in fear, and for them to remember that the people control them. Not the other way around. 

High hopes and wishful thinking I know, but I really do not want to see this country come into another civil war as politics drives us further apart from each other.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 8, 2015)

ke4gde said:


> If he wins, I have a feeling you will begin to see major shifts in the Republican party and possibly even the Democrat party as well. Make no mistake, he will piss off a lot of people, but the system in place has the country divided enough. He will either unite the country with him, or against him. Either way, the shithole that is our two party system needs to be shaken to its core. This country needs to see its political elite in fear, and for them to remember that the people control them. Not the other way around.
> 
> High hopes and wishful thinking I know, but I really do not want to see this country come into another civil war as politics drives us further apart from each other.



I don't know, it would take some pretty heavy boat rocking policy. I like his honesty, but also feel his brashness can be counterproductive to the overall process. For him to be affective at "making America great again" he will need both sides to back him, and when you turn both party's against you, it makes it really difficult. We've seen this with slick Willie, G W and Barry. If you are talking about totally changing both party's, and changing politics completely, than I would agree that Trump has a good chance at doing so, but he will need two terms, and the electrets to wake the fuck up.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 8, 2015)

Trump would be a one term POTUS, but both parties would unite in their efforts to fuck him over.
That said, they (the parties) could actually try to pass bills they campaign on with minimal WH input.
I fear a RINO POTUS with a Republican House and Senate.


----------



## AWP (Dec 8, 2015)

If Trump is the GOP nominee Hillary will start moving her stuff into 1600 PA Ave. in September.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 8, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> If Trump is the GOP nominee Hillary will start moving her stuff into 1600 PA Ave. in September.


Maybe, maybe not.
The Hilldabeast is a crappy debater, and Trump loves a good (or mediocre) debate.
Trump has forced the Republicans to use some backbone, and the newbs are finding out they have power over the networks (debate conduct, etc).


----------



## nobodythank you (Dec 8, 2015)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I don't know, it would take some pretty heavy boat rocking policy. I like his honesty, but also feel his brashness can be counterproductive to the overall process. For him to be affective at "making America great again" he will need both sides to back him, and when you turn both party's against you, it makes it really difficult. We've seen this with slick Willie, G W and Barry. If you are talking about totally changing both party's, and changing politics completely, than I would agree that Trump has a good chance at doing so, but he will need two terms, and the electrets to wake the fuck up.


That's the thing, both parties think he is nothing more than a gasbag. They hate him because he defies the natural order of politics as agreed upon by both parties. Trump is very good at selling an image. He is selling an image of what the country could become, and many people are buying into it. Besides, both parties will end up caving for some backroom deal. The Republicans haven't had a backbone in 8 years, and the Democrats will fight up until roll call and slip in their vote to get their pound of flesh. 



DA SWO said:


> I fear a RINO POTUS with a Republican House and Senate.


This is a very valid concern. Although I also fear a POTUS that wants to shove his religious ideology down the country's throat via his own programs like Herr Fuher Glorious Leader has.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Dec 8, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> If Trump is the GOP nominee Hillary will start moving her stuff into 1600 PA Ave. in September.



I think he will actually crush Hillary, but JEB, idk?


----------



## AWP (Dec 8, 2015)

Trump won't carry the swing voters. If he does no one will admit to voting for him, but somehow he'll win. I don't see him carrying the center.

If anything, Trump needs a few more terrorist attacks and the Dems need a few more mass shootings. Those will rally the middle-of-the-road guys to their cause.

Politics anymore is about emotion, not logic, so the guy who can channel suburban fear will win.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 9, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Trump won't carry the swing voters. If he does no one will admit to voting for him, but somehow he'll win. I don't see him carrying the center.
> 
> *If anything, Trump needs a few more terrorist attacks and the Dems need a few more mass shootings. Those will rally the middle-of-the-road guys to their cause.*
> 
> Politics anymore is about emotion, not logic, so the guy who can channel suburban fear will win.



Which can be the same event, another reason to label terror as workplace violence.


----------



## AWP (Dec 9, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Which can be the same event, another reason to label terror as workplace violence.



I agree, but I'm thinking "Muslims shooting people and blowing shit up" vs. "some whiney little bitch shooting up a school, movie theater, or public place."  Yeah, they "can" be the same thing, I agree, but I'm thinking of a scenario which plays into their demographics and fear mongering.


----------



## compforce (Dec 9, 2015)

So I'm entering this a bit late, but my vote has to go to Trump right now.  Here's why:

1) Gun Rights - he's an advocate for gun rights

2) His "outrageous statements"  - These are starting negotiating positions.  Trump knows (and has literally written the book) that you always have to give something up in a compromise.  Let's take a common experience, buying a car, for @Freefalling it can be a prius that lists for $30k.   If you go to the car lot and the salesperson shows you the car and then says "I can probably get that for you for $26k"  what is your reaction?  You counteroffer at $25k and likely settle for somewhere around the middle at $25.5k.  If the salesperson says "it's $30k" then you may counter at $25k still, but the salesperson will now be able to negotiate you up above that $26k that the first example used.  In the worst case, you don't budge in either deal and end up at $25k either way.  Bottom line, the possibility of getting more is there if you ask for the sky.  Trump is applying this to politics.  If he says "we should stop anyone that has a radical islamic background at the borders" then the liberals can negotiate that down and may end up taking it off the table entirely.  On the other hand, if he says "stop all alien muslims at the border" then when he compromises, he ends up with something in the middle, potentially his starting position of "stop radical islamicists"  This sounds outrageous the way the media spins it, but it's really sound negotiating theory.  How would the Iran talks have gone if our representative/negotiator had started with a hard line and then compromised, rather than a soft line and compromise?

3) China - For years Trump has been addressing Chinese currency manipulation and how they will eventually pull the rug out from under us.  A few weeks ago the banking association (I don't think it was IMF, but I'll need to hunt it down to be sure) declared that the chinese renmibi/Yuan has become a Reserve Currency.  What this means is that the bonds bought by banks as a hedge against runs, etc. can be backed by Yuan now.  Banks that would have continued buying bonds backed by the dollar will instead start to spread their risk by buying bonds that are backed by yuan.  Overall this represents a negative to our cash flow and debt picture  in 2016/17 then starting to level out at a higher amount, but still less than today.  Trump is the candidate in the best position to mitigate this.  It's one of his hot buttons so you can expect him to pursue it aggressively.

4) He's not a career politician - Am I naive enough to believe that there are no lobbying organizations that he has or will make deals with?  Of course not.  But he should be much less tempted by corruptive influences.

5)  He's a big business person - In bigger businesses like his, one of the main cost controls is through maximizing the efforts of the employees who are producing and cutting the jobs of those that are not producing.  This focus on efficiency will start to naturally make the government leaner and more cost effective, which we desperately need.  He'll also be likely to start cutting and consolidating departments that have redundant responsibilities for more cost cutting.  He'll also be focused on the budget and not accept continuing resolutions unless forced into it by Congress.

6) Congress - One of the biggest negatives in many people's minds is that a Republican Congress will not back his agenda and a Democratic Congress will actively oppose it.  The truth is that he can safely ignore Congress for his agenda and simply do what the Office is supposed to do, execute the laws that are already on the books.  He'll still have to play nice with Congress to keep from them going after him, but he doesn't need their backing to do anything that he wants to do.  It's all already on the books, even the "turn away all Muslims" statement is in the US Code.  Obama just doesn't enforce, or completely ignores, the laws except as leverage to get what he wants.

There are a LOT of pros and cons to all of the candidates.  In my mind the only two viable ones on the GOP side are Cruz and Trump.  Out of the two, I would rather see Trump for those reasons.

my .02 and worth what you paid for it...

edit because GDP isn't affected, it's the net balance sheet


----------



## AWP (Dec 9, 2015)

Sticking me with a Prius is insulting.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 9, 2015)

Here's something interesting...take a moment and go to Jeb Bush .com -
(not porn or anything unsafe for work...promise)

To a certain extent it answers a lot of questions for me about the strategic thinking ability of certain candidates -


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 9, 2015)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Here's something interesting...take a moment and go to Jeb Bush .com -
> (not porn or anything unsafe for work...promise)
> 
> To a certain extent it answers a lot of questions for me about the strategic thinking ability of certain candidates -


Yep.


----------



## Gunz (Dec 9, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> ...Politics anymore is about emotion, not logic...


 
Well, that's a step up from hair.


----------



## x SF med (Dec 9, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Sticking me with a Prius is insulting.



Why?  You are a whiny unwashed flatulent and metro hipster and an AWP:wall:.  A Prius is a good car for you:-", or a white Camry.


We'll make sure it has a "Hillary in 2016" bumper sticker too.


----------



## AWP (Dec 9, 2015)

White Toyota Corolla, coming soon to a FOB or MSR near you. Allegedly.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 9, 2015)

It may be followed by a white Toyota pickup, or an orange and white Chevy caprice.


----------



## Brill (Dec 9, 2015)

compforce said:


> In my mind the only two viable ones on the GOP side are Cruz and Trump.



Trump isn't electable (there's no way the "establishment" will allow it) so Cruz is really our only hope to defeat Hillary...and even then, I'm not sure he's able.  I'm confident that Hillary's ultimate message will be akin to "Cruz will take away all the free shit that we Democrats are giving you!  Dems giveth whilst Reps taketh away!!!"


----------



## compforce (Dec 9, 2015)

lindy said:


> Trump isn't electable (there's no way the "establishment" will allow it)



Don't underestimate him here.  He's got the GOP over a barrel.  If he were to win the primaries, the GOP has two choices.  They can knuckle down and deal with it or they can split the vote and back a candidate other than their own.  The GOP will NOT do that for a weaker candidate.  Whether they like him and his policies or not, they will be forced to rally behind him or to concede the election before it even happens.  They *could* kick him out of the party and then try to deal with the disaster that a split vote would cause.  They won't, they'd rather have a GOP candidate in the office that they don't like than to give it over to Hillary.  Trump's political jiu jitsu is strong and the GOP's is weak.  Just look at how they've squandered the congressional majorities and you'll understand how weak the party is in this arena.


----------



## Brill (Dec 12, 2015)

It's tough to argue WHY Americans gravitate towards Trump when THIS is politics as normal in DC.



> *Mr. Kaiser*, a noted philanthropist and businessman with an estimated net worth of nearly $10 billion, was *a major campaign bundler and fundraiser for Barack Obama during the 2008 election cycle and a frequent visitor to the White House* after he became president.
> 
> *He also is the founder of Argonaut Private Equity*, the largest private investor in Solyndra, a California-based solar panel maker that won more than $530 million in federally backed loans under Mr. Obama’s 2009 stimulus program.
> 
> ...


----------



## CQB (Dec 13, 2015)

So I take it you're all registered voters?


----------



## Brill (Dec 13, 2015)

CQB said:


> So I take it you're all registered voters?



If any USP on this board ISN'T registered to vote, they should roeshambo themselves with a hammer.


----------



## DasBoot (Dec 13, 2015)

I really can't see anyone worth voting for. Those I like wont win (Sanders and Christie, though I'm not as keen on Sanders and his foreign policy with the current state of world affairs... Plus I need to fix my cars AC and that tax free pay will help). Hillary will likely win with or without my vote. Jeb may still pull something out but the "leadership qualities" that initially gave me hope for him have seemed pretty much non existent in this primary process. Jim Webb was the closest thing to a perfect candidate for me and we all know how that went. I'll probably vote 3rd party again just to exercise my right while not resorting to that "lesser of two evils" bullshit that has ruined the election process.


----------



## AfroNinja267 (Dec 13, 2015)

Everyone thought Hillary Clinton had the 2008 Presidential Election locked down too, until an obscure Senator from Illinois narrowly edged her out in the primaries. It is because of this fallacy that, "oh, Hillary Clinton can't be beat, so my vote doesn't matter" that she can't be beat. The worst part is that she and her campaign staff all know this, so she can get away with accepting money from the private prison industry and regularly defending corporate interests versus those of the citizens who duly elected her to office in the first place! Regardless of whether or not you support her, this wouldn't have ever happened if she was held accountable by those who have voted for her (or abstained from voting at all) simply because she is/was so inevitable.

Now, more than ever, is the time for Americans to use their vote not on the basis of carefully fabricated public opinion, but on what's best for this country's, and the whole world's, future. Who that vote is for is naturally up to you, but by making sure it's not wasted on a candidate you don't believe in, you set an example to the rest of the world that America is truly a democracy, and everyone can go to sleep at night knowing that the fundamental process of voting that all of you have fought so hard to preserve and protect is a _true_ representation of the ideas and values of the United States.

Sorry if I came off as patronizing, but I think this is an important point when talking about the 2016 elections.


----------



## Brill (Dec 14, 2015)

AfroNinja267 said:


> Everyone thought Hillary Clinton had the 2008 Presidential Election locked down too, until an obscure Senator from Illinois *narrowly edged her out in the primaries. *



Why is that?







Obama Campaign Strategy

Kuh-STAN-zah.  (Seinfeld loyalists understand.)


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 15, 2015)

lindy said:


> Trump isn't electable (there's no way the "establishment" will allow it) so Cruz is really our only hope to defeat Hillary...and even then, I'm not sure he's able.  I'm confident that Hillary's ultimate message will be akin to "Cruz will take away all the free shit that we Democrats are giving you!  Dems giveth whilst Reps taketh away!!!"



There is an underground current that Trump and Cruz have been talking about a joint ticket, should it get that far.  Of course, it's all RUMINT but makes perfect sense...it would smack of Kennedy/Johnson, Obama/Biden.  And Crus is definitely young enough that after 4 years (or even 8) he could easily get the GOP nomination.

That said, not sure that's how I would like it to go down.  I am not a Trump man by any means, but compforce has it right....Trump has the GOP in a pickle.  If he gets the votes at the convention the GOP has to get behind him or try to force a coup, and I will put smart money on it that if THAT happens, there will be no Republican in the White House in 2016.


----------



## AWP (Dec 15, 2015)

The last time conservatives were divided a Clinton moved into the White House.


----------



## JBS (Dec 15, 2015)

It's happened a few times.

I still distinctly remember businessman *Ross Perot* (dividing the Conservatives), who cost Bush I a 2nd term and gave us Bill Clinton and the "Assault Weapons Ban".

Taught us 2nd Amendment advocates a huge lesson.  Bill Clinton's presidency is the reason we have a Tea Party and a rabidly staunch far Right.



Freefalling said:


> The last time conservatives were divided a Clinton moved into the White House.


----------



## CQB (Dec 15, 2015)

Behold! 
Trumpbart News


----------



## Aim Small Miss Small (Dec 15, 2015)

Agreed. It is scary to see how broken up Conservatives are. We need to rally up so that we do not bring another Clinton in. I think we can count on Cruz to lead this country and help us prosper. He is the only one with a record of making stuff happen in Washington and he does not back down. Trumps history is wishy washy. Cruz is the closest thing to Reagan we have as an option I believe. And he has class.


----------



## nobodythank you (Dec 15, 2015)

Sean Wilson said:


> Agreed. It is scary to see how broken up Conservatives are. We need to rally up so that we do not bring another Clinton in. I think we can count on Cruz to lead this country and help us prosper. He is the only one with a record of making stuff happen in Washington and he does not back down. Trumps history is wishy washy. Cruz is the closest thing to Reagan we have as an option I believe. And he has class.


It is about time conservatives are shaking in their boots. For a while now the party has been divided and fractured by bullshit religious ideological differences that have distanced them from their voter base. Thereby dividing their voting power. This is turning point for the party where it will either evolve and come out stronger, or die in the wind. The voters in the party need to realize that the good old days are gone and past. The Democrats/Liberals keep handing the Republicans/Conservatives their asses because they are looking towards the future (as fucked as their future view is). Look at the last 4 years as an example of Republicans that have bowed to Democrat pressure out of fear of looking bad. 

In short, the party being in disarray will force it to evolve or die. Which is what is desperately needed right now. The establishment/status quo is not working anymore. While neither party has figured that simple fact out, the Liberal/Democrat party has at least figured out how to fool their side into believing that anything they are doing is for the greater good.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 15, 2015)

Sean Wilson said:


> I think we can count on Cruz to lead this country and help us prosper. He is the only one with a record of making stuff happen in Washington and he does not back down.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 15, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


>


Filibuster IIRC.
Amazing what gets read during a filibuster, phone books, poetry all sorts of documents.


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 15, 2015)

You are correct.  It's just an illustration of some of the silliness Cruz resorted to while on his quest to hold the government hostage.


----------



## DA SWO (Dec 15, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> You are correct.  It's just an illustration of some of the silliness Cruz resorted to while on his quest to hold the government hostage.


Fillibuster is as old as the Senate, hard to hold the Government Hostage by himself.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 18, 2015)

ke4gde said:


> In short, the party being in disarray will force it to evolve or die.



And this is nothing new.  The GOP today ain't Reagan's GOP, and if John Fitzgerald Kennedy were alive today he would be casted as either a moderate Republican or even a Libertarian. 

One of the big problems with the GOP is that it can't figure out what it wants to be next.


----------



## x SF med (Dec 18, 2015)

Devildoc said:


> One of the big problems with America is that it can't figure out what it wants to be, what's right, or if the Constitution is still relevant.



fixed that last line for you, doc....


----------



## nobodythank you (Dec 18, 2015)

Devildoc said:


> And this is nothing new.  The GOP today ain't Reagan's GOP, and if John Fitzgerald Kennedy were alive today he would be casted as either a moderate Republican or even a Libertarian.
> 
> One of the big problems with the GOP is that it can't figure out what it wants to be next.


It is new, because now the party establishment is running scared of Trump. @x SF med is correct. Let's keep the same old rhetoric in place and not make any changes for the better, while keeping us gainfully employed at the expense of those we serve. If I didn't know better, I would think we were talking about the other party. 

Also, which part of the party? The fanatical Tea Party, the hardcore religious right, or the everyday person who believes in a fiscally strong, healthy national defense, 2nd Amendment loving, let other people do what they want (socially) as long as it doesn't bother me average person? The party is fracturing.


----------



## x SF med (Dec 18, 2015)

@ke4gde ...  J, may take on it - it's not the any one party - it is the nation:
The country is fracturing - the sheeple, the controlled, are being herded by the wolves who are at the moment looking like the sheepdogs.  And the wolves are saying, let us protect you, all you have to do is allow us to take care of you, give us your constitutionally guaranteed rights, let us proclaim by executive fiat, let us take what you produce and give it to others...  and you will be safe, and you will be equal, and you will not have to worry about how you've given dictators control.... Until it is too late, and the vilification of the true sheepdogs is complete.... because the sheepdogs think differently, speak their minds, want to protect but not control... but do so by violent means when necessary, and are not as vocal and flowery as the dictators... the sheepdogs scare you because they are vocal about the danger, but ignored by you - and the wolves are lulling you to sleep, to make meals of you and your children because it sounds good and peaceful to be controlled and penned and subdued...


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 18, 2015)

ke4gde said:


> It is new, because now the party establishment is running scared of Trump. @x SF med is correct. Let's keep the same old rhetoric in place and not make any changes for the better, while keeping us gainfully employed at the expense of those we serve. If I didn't know better, I would think we were talking about the other party.
> 
> Also, which part of the party? The fanatical Tea Party, the hardcore religious right, or the everyday person who believes in a fiscally strong, healthy national defense, 2nd Amendment loving, let other people do what they want (socially) as long as it doesn't bother me average person? The party is fracturing.



It's not new.  If you go back to transcripts of debates and conventions in the 50s and 60s you hear much of the same stuff, and it was fractured then, too.  The difference was they always coalesced and could be counted on at the end of the convention to keep party discipline and maintain a relatively unified platform; today, not so much.  You are right in that the GOP is in disarray and if it doesn't evolve it will die.  Maybe that's what needs to happen, like culling the herd or an intentional forest fire to allow new growth.  You are absolutely right, too, in that Trump is making the GOP crazy.

People forget that the religious right/moral majority/anti-abortion part of the GOP really never gained traction until Reagan was in office; before then it just wasn't important to the GOP.  What used to be the base of the party ("fiscally strong, healthy national defense, 2nd Amendment loving, let other people do what they want (socially) as long as it doesn't bother me average person") isn't nearly the majority like it used to be.

The DNC has, over the past 20 years, done a better job of focusing on key aspects of its platform and keeping rank-and-file in line.


----------



## nobodythank you (Dec 18, 2015)

@x SF med you are not wrong in that assessment. The scenario you described has already occurred to our friends DownUnder (no offense to board member Aussies). However, for here at home, I would have to say that not all the citizenry are sheeple, yet. Though it sure seems to be heading in that direction fairly quickly. 

@Devildoc I will agree there are parallels and similarities. However, when has the party ever been in this much, dare i say, imminent danger of implosion from an outside rival (Trump)? I don't believe you are going to see the party come together at the last minute like they did last time. Granted, this is anecdotal, but I have heard a remarkable number of people I know who are staunch conservatives, who have told their local party leadership to fix their fuck up before another penny is donated. Even going so far as to going independent. 

One legitimate theory that was put forth was that we may not see a delegate get 51% of the votes needed for the nomination at the RNC convention. To my understanding, this has not occurred since Lincoln sought and won the nomination. In the end, from a historical perspective, these are exciting times to be observing as far as politics goes.


----------



## Devildoc (Dec 18, 2015)

ke4gde said:


> I will agree there are parallels and similarities. However, when has the party ever been in this much, dare i say, imminent danger of implosion from an outside rival (Trump)? I don't believe you are going to see the party come together at the last minute like they did last time. Granted, this is anecdotal, but I have heard a remarkable number of people I know who are staunch conservatives, who have told their local party leadership to fix their fuck up before another penny is donated. Even going so far as to going independent.
> 
> One legitimate theory that was put forth was that we may not see a delegate get 51% of the votes needed for the nomination at the RNC convention. To my understanding, this has not occurred since Lincoln sought and won the nomination. In the end, from a historical perspective, these are exciting times to be observing as far as politics goes.



Agree with all.  And this underlies both of our positions that the party must evolve, or it will implode.  I was just simply stating that the party has evolved and has only survived because of that evolution.

My first degree is political science, so I do find the whole thing sickeningly fascinating.  Kinda like driving by a car wreck.  I remain in contact with a former professor who is "in the know" with national leadership with the GOP, he says there is a whole lot of hand-wringing and the leadership is eating tums by the truck-loads and there are frequent heated discussions about the convention and Trump's role.  El Professor is also given to being bombastic, so I take it for what it's worth.


----------



## Brill (Dec 18, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


>



Do they not teach you about classic American literature on your campus?

Speaking of media bullshit...

Obama cites not watching cable news for failure to recognize terrorism fears - CNNMoney
President Obama cites not watching cable news for failure to recognize terrorism fears


----------



## Gunz (Dec 18, 2015)

I will vote for my dog, I will vote for Porky the fucking Pig. Anybody but HRC.


----------



## ZmanTX (Dec 18, 2015)

This is absolutely hilarious. Looks like Bernie isn't going down without a fight. At least he's not bending over to Hillary.

Sanders campaign sues DNC after database breach - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## compforce (Dec 18, 2015)

wait...  so sensitive data was on a server that wasn't protected properly and HRC, of all people, complained about it?


----------



## Dame (Dec 18, 2015)

compforce said:


> wait...  so sensitive data was on a server that wasn't protected properly and HRC, of all people, complained about it?


Prooof positive any idiot can access whatever she considers secure.


----------



## JBS (Dec 19, 2015)

Honestly, I'm really tired of hearing the news media talk about "fear", and how the American public are being driven by fear.

Does anyone really believe this?   I really don't know anyone who is afraid of terrorism, as much as they are angry, pissed off about it.  Yet the language on the news is always talking about fear.

This is especially true of Left leaning news outlets, where they subtly equate the tendency to espouse Right / Conservative values as a consequence of fear.   "People are supporting Donald Trump because he's speaking to their fear".  I even read an article that purported to cite data that indicated being Right Wing / Conservative in one's values is linked to a greater degree of fear/anxiety.   Of course it's bullshit, designed to elicit a response, but that's the thing now.

Why fear is more prevalent — and powerful — among conservatives

Why fear is more prevalent — and powerful — among conservatives


----------



## Brill (Dec 19, 2015)

I think Americans ARE afraid...of what this Admin will concede to the various organizations who want to destroy us.


----------



## AWP (Dec 19, 2015)

Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.


----------



## Frank S. (Dec 19, 2015)

Wahl, I got PTSD from my Ebola, but you don't hear me cry in my Coke.


----------



## TLDR20 (Dec 19, 2015)

ke4gde said:


> let other people do what they want (socially) as long as it doesn't bother me average person? The party is fracturing.



What party believes that? Sign me up.


----------



## Brill (Dec 20, 2015)

I lasted 10 seconds


----------



## x SF med (Dec 20, 2015)

@lindy ... hate for just posting that debacle...


----------



## Salt USMC (Dec 20, 2015)

Man, if Clinton's laugh bothers you that much after 10 seconds, the next 8 years is gonna be hard for you!


----------



## Ranger Psych (Dec 20, 2015)

It won't be 8 years.


----------



## racing_kitty (Dec 20, 2015)

I'd be willing to bet she dies of natural causes before the 2020 election, but it's a fucking right wing conspiracy anyway, and we all get shipped to reeducation camps because settled science.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Dec 21, 2015)

lindy said:


> I lasted 10 seconds







10:00:36


racing_kitty said:


> I'd be willing to bet she dies of natural causes before the 2020 election, but it's a fucking right wing conspiracy anyway, and we all get shipped to reeducation camps because settled science.



God but I hope you are wrong. Still, I think we are choser to that sort of movement, than we ever have been. In that case, I'll prolly see ya in the chow hall.


----------



## Brill (Jan 6, 2016)

I like how politicians talk about getting things done. What does that even mean?


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 6, 2016)

lindy said:


> I like how politicians talk about getting things done. What does that even mean?



It's that hot air, rhetorical, no-context, open-ended doublespeak that they say.  Politicians hate real goals because real goals are measurable.  "Getting things done."  "Bridge the divide."  "Bring people together."  "Start the healing process."  Blahbity blah blah fucking blah.....


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 6, 2016)

How is anyone going to vote for Ted Cruz? He isn't even American...?

White House Perfectly Trolls Birthers Over Canadian-Born Ted Cruz


----------



## Brill (Jan 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> How is anyone going to vote for Ted Cruz? He isn't even American...?
> 
> White House Perfectly Trolls Birthers Over Canadian-Born Ted Cruz



He sure put the controversy to rest VERY quickly and decisively.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 6, 2016)

lindy said:


> He sure put the controversy to rest VERY quickly and decisively.



That he isn't American though, at least not in the standard that President Obama was held to. This just is too funny.

People still think President Obama was born in Kenya, a lot of those people would be just fine voting for Cruz, who was certainly born in Canada. It is just crazy to me.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 6, 2016)

I think I've said this before but that is a really outdated law in my opinion. If someone was an immigrant, has held only US citizenship for a long time and paid their taxes...why shouldn't they be allowed to run for President? I could understand it in the late 1700s but not now.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 6, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> I think I've said this before but that is a really outdated law in my opinion. If someone was an immigrant, has held only US citizenship for a long time and paid their taxes...why shouldn't they be allowed to run for President? I could understand it in the late 1700s but not now.



Oh I totally agree, but laws are pesky in that they work both ways.


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Oh I totally agree, but laws are pesky in that they work both ways.



God I hate laws sometimes. Make me do work and shi-t.


----------



## pardus (Jan 7, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> I think I've said this before but that is a really outdated law in my opinion. If someone was an immigrant, has held only US citizenship for a long time and paid their taxes...why shouldn't they be allowed to run for President? I could understand it in the late 1700s but not now.



The ironic thing is that the first few presidents of the USA were all British citizens at birth.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 7, 2016)

pardus said:


> The ironic thing is that the first few presidents of the USA were all British citizens at birth.



That's a bit of a play of words, as the colony's were British territory, thus they were born as British citizens. However, they were born CONUS.

A more interesting issue is what is a natural born person vs an unnatural born person?


----------



## SpitfireV (Jan 7, 2016)

It's still ironic they'd set laws like that though. 

Unnatural born...could be Trump or Clinton really...


----------



## pardus (Jan 7, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> That's a bit of a play of words, as the colony's were British territory, thus they were born as British citizens. However, they were born CONUS.



CONUS was Britain. Also the law doesn't state that you have to be born CONUS, so that's meaningless. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following Presidents were born British subjects before the establishment of the United States:


George Washington
John Adams
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
John Quincy Adams
Andrew Jackson
William Henry Harrison


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 8, 2016)

pardus said:


> CONUS was Britain. Also the law doesn't state that you have to be born CONUS, so that's meaningless.
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The following Presidents were born British subjects before the establishment of the United States:
> ...



Yeah I thought I covered that, with the whole British territory comment...but challenged it with the fact that the presidents were born in the current formed territory of United States?

Anyway.


----------



## pardus (Jan 8, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Yeah I thought I covered that, with the whole British territory comment...but challenged it with the fact that the presidents were born in the current formed territory of United States?
> 
> Anyway.



Which makes makes no sense...

They were born in Britain, were British citizens, became traitors, and formed a new country and made a new set of laws.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 8, 2016)

But Nobama was born in Kenya, he can't be president.


Vote Cruz 2016

All said tongue in cheek.


----------



## Brill (Jan 8, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> But Nobama was born in Kenya, he can't be president.



Why did he take so long to put the "controversy" to rest?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 8, 2016)

lindy said:


> Why did he take so long to put the "controversy" to rest?



The "controversy" was created by idiots.


----------



## Brill (Jan 8, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> The "controversy" was created by idiots.



Exactly!  Kinda like the current one, huh? 

This, and Hillary's shit, is EXACTLY why Trump is maxing capacity at various venues.  Joe Six Pack is sick of this crap.


----------



## Jay_Pew (Jan 15, 2016)

Did anyone watch the debate last night? Solid performance by many of the cannidates.


----------



## ryno762 (Jan 15, 2016)

So I'm 80% sure Ted Cruz is a closeted homosexual. Listen to some of his speeches where he rants on and on about it, almost as if hes afraid of his own tendencies. I think he is another Ted Haggard in the making.

I really wanted to like Ben Carson, I was so happy we were going to have a science literate candidate. Turns out hes not at all...


----------



## Frank S. (Jan 15, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> A more interesting issue is what is a natural born person vs an unnatural born person?



Long is the transition, and hard
That from wonder leads to fetish.

Perhaps an answer? Cutting is better than ripping.
Is the doctor in?


----------



## Brill (Jan 16, 2016)

ryno762 said:


> So I'm 80% sure Ted Cruz is a closeted homosexual. Listen to some of his speeches where he rants on and on about it, almost as if hes afraid of his own tendencies. I think he is another Ted Haggard in the making.



_onus probandi_


----------



## AWP (Jan 16, 2016)

lindy said:


> _onus probandi_



I hate it when you make me learn and stuff.


----------



## Florida173 (Jan 16, 2016)

pardus said:


> The ironic thing is that the first few presidents of the USA were all British citizens at birth.





> No Person except a natural born Citizen, *or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution*, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.



Relevant portion in bold. "at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" modifies the second clause only.


----------



## AWP (Jan 16, 2016)

Are we seriously debating the Founding Father's legitimacy based upon their birth place? I wonder if a LexisNexis search of Poor Richard's Almanac will yield evidence of a Birther conspiracy...


----------



## pardus (Jan 16, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> *Are we seriously debating the Founding Father's legitimacy based upon their birth place?* I wonder if a LexisNexis search of Poor Richard's Almanac will yield evidence of a Birther conspiracy...



Not I.


----------



## Brill (Jan 16, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Are we seriously debating the Founding Father's legitimacy based upon their birth place? I wonder if a LexisNexis search of Poor Richard's Almanac will yield evidence of a Birther conspiracy...



Well, since you brought it up...

I jest surely.


----------



## AWP (Jan 16, 2016)

pardus said:


> Not I.



You'd argue with a rock about granite before calling it a cunt and leaving to have a beer.


----------



## pardus (Jan 16, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> You'd argue with a rock about granite before calling it a cunt and leaving to have a beer.



No I wouldn't!

You Cunt.

Right oh, off for a beer!


----------



## ryno762 (Jan 16, 2016)

lindy said:


> _onus probandi_



No it can't be proven in a court of law... Just a strong hunch. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck... holds his hands in a very effeminate way. We will until he acts on his inner urges for hard evidence.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jan 17, 2016)

ryno762 said:


> No it can't be proven in a court of law... Just a strong hunch. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck... holds his hands in a very effeminate way. We will until he acts on his inner urges for hard evidence.


Wait what? The guy is married, has a good looking wife and two kids. To quote Mr. Mackey from Southpark, "are you jelly"?


----------



## ryno762 (Jan 17, 2016)

If I'm "jelly" its of his Harvard Law education lol.


----------



## Brill (Jan 17, 2016)

ryno762 said:


> No it can't be proven in a court of law... Just a strong hunch. Walks like a duck, talks like a duck... holds his hands in a very effeminate way. We will until he acts on his inner urges for hard evidence.



You don't think he's just voicing his Christian beliefs?  He announced he was entering the race at Liberty U...if that isn't symbolism, what is?


----------



## Polar Bear (Jan 17, 2016)

I can't tell you who I like but I can tell you who I don't like. Trump, he has gone totally TARD. Carson, gut feeling he is crazy. I don't like the way his right hand moves when talking. Reminds me of someone lying. Christie, dirty old politics. Huckabee, Santorum, and Kasich don't have a chance and are just sucking up votes. The rest have a place and need to quit going at each other. If I was elected each would have a place in my cabinet, that I did not mention. At this point Democrats will win.


----------



## Florida173 (Jan 17, 2016)

Polar Bear said:


> At this point Democrats will win.


The socialist or the criminal?


----------



## Polar Bear (Jan 17, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> The socialist or the criminal?


Really doesn't matter


----------



## Florida173 (Jan 17, 2016)

I'm not much of a defeatist myself


----------



## Brill (Jan 21, 2016)

For all you WDC and East Coast residents who will be on Code Red tomorrow:






Keep in mind this was made in 2008 but is STILL current today.

Regarding Hillary's tough stance on terrorism, do a little research into the Clinton pardon of 16 convicted FALN terrorists in '99.  Coincidence that FALN was a Puerto Rican independence movement and the large PR population in NY?



> *Some Republicans have accused Clinton of making the offer of clemency to boost first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton's expected Senate candidacy in New York, a state with a large Puerto Rican population.* The White House strongly denied that.
> 
> "The president made the decision on the merits," White House spokesman Jake Siewert told reporters covering the president's vacation in upstate New York.
> 
> A spokesman for *Mrs. Clinton's campaign said she supports the clemency offer* - provided those covered renounce violence.



White House responds to criticism of clemency offer - September 2, 1999

FBI is independent though right?



> *The Justice Department on Tuesday prevented the FBI from testifying at a Senate hearing* on President Clinton's decision to grant clemency to members of the Puerto Rican independence group FALN.
> 
> In what appeared to represent continued tension between the Justice Department and the FBI, a senior Justice official sent a letter to Foreign Relations subcommittee chairman Sen. Paul Coverdell (R-Georgia) late Monday saying, "We cannot authorize their appearance at tomorrow's hearing."
> 
> ...



CNN - Justice blocks FBI testimony at FALN clemency hearing - September 14, 1999


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 22, 2016)




----------



## Florida173 (Jan 22, 2016)

Is that the Lannister sigil?


----------



## Brill (Jan 23, 2016)

Holy crap!  I bet dollars to doughnuts that the convo went something like this:

"Look Bernie, Hill is going to jail so you're going to be our man.  Don't fuck it up or I'll pull you out and put in Joe."

Obama meets with Sanders at White House, after critical comments | Fox News

I'm calling it: she's done.


----------



## compforce (Jan 27, 2016)

At some point after the general election, the President and the President-Elect meet so the President can do a knowledge transfer.  Wouldn't you give a ton to be a fly on the wall during an Obama/Trump sit down?  I'll bet it would/will be the first time the sitting President walks out in the middle due to frustration...


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 27, 2016)

compforce said:


> At some point after the general election, the President and the President-Elect meet so the President can do a knowledge transfer.  Wouldn't you give a ton to be a fly on the wall during an Obama/Trump sit down?  I'll bet it would/will be the first time the sitting President walks out in the middle due to frustration...


You assume Obama would show up.
Obama controls the Dem side of the house; Obama can put Biden or Sanders into the race by indicting Hillary, or do nothing and let her win the nomination.  We don't know what we don't know...


----------



## Brill (Jan 27, 2016)

compforce said:


> At some point after the general election, the President and the President-Elect meet so the President can do a knowledge transfer.  Wouldn't you give a ton to be a fly on the wall during an Obama/Trump sit down?  I'll bet it would/will be the first time the sitting President walks out in the middle due to frustration...



There's no way Trump would listen to him.  Would be funny if he walked in, looked him right in the eye, and said "YOU are fired."


----------



## Red-Dot (Jan 27, 2016)




----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 27, 2016)

I really hope that there are not enough idiots in America to elect Donald Trump.


----------



## Brill (Jan 27, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I really hope that there are not enough idiots in America to elect Donald Trump.



Seriously, what could it hurt? We elected a first term Senator with ZERO experience.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jan 27, 2016)

lindy said:


> Seriously, what could it hurt? We elected a first term Senator with ZERO experience.


This. At the very least the stalemate between intractable Republicans and antagonistic Democrats will be broken. Not to mention, the Republicans have only two ways to go, evolve or die. I want to see the party evolve, but won't be saddened to see it die either. Trump will either unify the country with him, or against him. However, I might just be an idiot because I want to see progress, and not a bunch of morons spouting their dogma.


----------



## compforce (Jan 27, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I really hope that there are not enough idiots in America to elect Donald Trump.



I've got to look at the alternatives...

Cruz - Decent enough guy and a Constitutional hard-liner...  that will be completely distracted by the lawsuit the Dems will bring over his birthplace.  Whether the suit is legitimate or not, it will be distracting, perhaps as much as the Clinton emails have been.  (Ann Coulter breaks it down here Ann Coulter - January 13, 2016 - WE'RE ALL RUTH BADER GINSBURG NOW) I promise you this lawsuit has already been drawn up and is only waiting for the primaries to end before being filed.  Personally, I don't like him, but other than Trump is the only viable candidate on the Republican side.  If he wins the nomination, I'll vote for him, but I would rather have someone with a business skill set.  I've been saying that for 10 years, it's not new or just about Trump.  Cruz' biggest drawback to me is his experience.  5 years as Solicitor General of Texas and 3 years in the Senate sounds pretty familiar doesn't it?  How many issues do we have right now that are very specifically caused by lack of experience in high leadership?  For reference, Obama was an attorney then State Senator for IL for 9 years and then US Senator for 3 years before becoming President.  He actually had more experience before he was elected to President than Cruz has.  I have a real problem with that.

Bush, Kasich, Paul, etc.  None of them have enough of the vote to be consequential.  Look for Paul to come back in the future after he solves the experience part of the equation.  Bush should probably give up on being President because of the public opinion of W.

Clinton - Far left candidate that routinely lies and ignores the law.  Is that really who you want to be charged with enforcing the law?
Sanders - Self professed Socialist that is on the border of the lunatic fringe

To me Trump, as loudmouthed, harsh and self-aggrandizing as he is, is the only candidate that I can take seriously and consider voting for.  You don't have to like him personally, but his policies are sound and his platform makes sense.  The only question I have is whether he can get it done with Congress.  I would wager that with the DOJ to use as a club, he can get Congress to do its job.  I'm not talking about harassment, I'm talking about all of the crap that gets shoved under the rug in the name of politics.  Enforce the law equally without regard to position...it'd do wonders for Congress (and clean out quite a few seats as well).  No political experience, true, but he does have a great deal of experience working with large budgets, negotiating major deals and with corporate politics.  To me this is a better background than someone that was an attorney, then the lead attorney followed by a short stint as Senator.  Aren't you tired of attorneys running the country?  I am.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 28, 2016)

The democrats will not file suit over the Cruz citizenship issue.  That issue has absolutely no traction on the left and they know better than to drag themselves into that circus sideshow.


----------



## compforce (Jan 28, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> they know better than to drag themselves into that circus sideshow.



Really?  and having a person that is accused, being investigated and likely to be brought up on felony charges as their leading candidate isn't a sideshow?

The DNC (and the RNC) is about power.  It always has been and it is now.  They are within spitting distance of turning the US into a socialist paradise  There are going to be 3-4 Supreme Court nominations in the next 8 years.  The only hope of getting back to our roots is a Republican in office with enough of a Congress to get things done and start undoing the damage.  You don't think they'll do whatever it takes to keep control and put the nail in the coffin?

If Cruz were to get the nomination and either was polling as a runaway winner or actually wins the election you don't think they would file that lawsuit?  How much do you want to bet?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 28, 2016)

@compforce, what would your ideal America be like? Serious question.


----------



## compforce (Jan 28, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> @compforce, what would your ideal America be like? Serious question.



That's a big question with a lot of pieces.  Let me get some coffee made and I'll try to answer it. 

I have about a million people I would rather see in office than Trump, but out of the existing candidates his platform is the closest to mine with the best chance of actually winning.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 28, 2016)

Regarding Trump - has there ever been a sitting president similar to him in personality?  Ross Perot may have been a close 2nd, but he did not win. (although I think he might have had a chance today).  Trump appears to be Teflon, and the more in your face he gets, the more people seem to gravitate to him.  My wife, sister, mom, and nearly every other woman I know HATE him because of some of his comments, but he does not back down and instead continues to attack.

Example, here is HIS Twitter post this morning regarding Megan Kelly:




Here we are less than a year before the election and he is the topic.  Last night the only conversations I heard were "will he do the debate?"  Tonight there will be more coverage about him not doing the debate, than about was actually said during the debate.  On the radio this morning I was listening to two guys and a woman discuss, "Is he right for blowing off Fox?  Is Kelly a lightweight reporter who has no business asking these types of questions?"

Personally I struggle with Trump, there is much that I like. (see most of what I mentioned above), but it does concern me that he is SO frontal and appears to show no tact.  While this plays well with a large percentage of the American public, I seriously question whether this style will work globally; but then am I not giving him enough credit?  Is he controllable enough to respect certain protocols?  Answering my own question, I would say 'yes', the man does business throughout the world, he knows how to play the game.

Forgive me if the above sounded like rambling, but I am trying to wrap my mind around the idea that he could very will be the GOP candidate this year  -


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 28, 2016)

compforce said:


> That's a big question with a lot of pieces.  Let me get some coffee made and I'll try to answer it.
> 
> I have about a million people I would rather see in office than Trump, but out of the existing candidates his platform is the closest to mine with the best chance of actually winning.



Donald Trump is basically a democrat.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 28, 2016)

compforce said:


> I've got to look at the alternatives...
> 
> Cruz....that will be completely distracted by the lawsuit the Dems will bring over his birthplace.  Whether the suit is legitimate or not, it will be distracting, perhaps as much as the Clinton emails have been...I promise you this lawsuit has already been drawn up and is only waiting for the primaries to end before being filed.



Too many semi-legal and congressional precedents for any lawsuit to stick.  IF the DNC was smart they won't push the issue.  BUT, I could see them raising hell about it as a distraction to pull attention away from emails.



lindy said:


> Seriously, what could it hurt? We elected a first term Senator with ZERO experience.



And this was the best choice after the GOP was absolutely fried for Palin as VP pick who had a great resume (regardless of how you feel about her personally, on paper she was more qualified than Obama).


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 28, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> And this was the best choice after the GOP was absolutely fried for Palin as VP pick who had a great resume (regardless of how you feel about her personally, on paper she was more qualified than Obama).



...and she came across as a complete uninformed moron.  That said, Tina Fey and Saturday Night Live should have been paid by the Dems (and maybe there were somehow) for their bits on Palin.  No question in my mind that those on the fence about a McCain/Palin presidency were swayed by those bits.  Very similar to the power, yes power, Jon Stewart had on his show.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 28, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> ...and she came across as a complete uninformed moron.  That said, Tina Fey and Saturday Night Live should have been paid by the Dems (and maybe there were somehow) for their bits on Palin.  No question in my mind that those on the fence about a McCain/Palin presidency were swayed by those bits.  Very similar to the power, yes power, Jon Stewart had on his show.



Totally agree; my point being about the hypocrisy of her not being "qualified" when they put a first-term senator in the running.

Palin did/does herself no favors when she opens her mouth.  That plus a look alike/sound alike comedian on SNL equaled certain disaster.


----------



## compforce (Jan 28, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Donald Trump is basically a democrat.



but a capitalist democrat, not a socialist one.  Big difference.  I actually fall somewhere in the middle.  I'm far right on things like the 2A and far left on things like abortion (it's a woman's body, let her choose).  You might say I'm a libertarian, but that wouldn't be accurate either.  I'm about common sense for most things with a big focus on the economy and personal rights/personal accountability.

I'm working on answering your question fully, but it may be the weekend before I get it completed.  I've got about three pages so far...  It'll be an attachment, not an inline post.



Devildoc said:


> Too many semi-legal and congressional precedents for any lawsuit to stick.  IF the DNC was smart they won't push the issue.  BUT, I could see them raising hell about it as a distraction to pull attention away from emails.



I haven't seen any legal precedent that would make him natural born.  Congress doesn't have the power to declare someone natural born so there are no precedents there.  They can naturalize someone, but they cannot create a class or definition for natural born.  On the other hand, there are SCOTUS opinions that define it pretty well.  Read that article I posted from Ann Coulter.  Yes, she's far right, but she also cites everything she says in it.



Ooh-Rah said:


> post -



When the debate was on, I watched about the first 10 minutes.  I totally agree with Trump.  It was a hatchet job that backfired.  The first round of questions started with what I thought was an incredible attack on him followed by questions to the other candidates that were designed to let them unload on him and focus attention on the negative message.  I didn't think they were fair or balanced and from the very first question kept asking myself WTF.  Moderators shouldn't be asking specific questions to candidates, they should be asking a question, letting the candidates duke it out over the question and enforcing the rules of the debate.  The way they are doing it, it's a mass interview, not a debate.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 28, 2016)

compforce said:


> I haven't seen any legal precedent that would make him natural born.  Congress doesn't have the power to declare someone natural born so there are no precedents there.  They can naturalize someone, but they cannot create a class or definition for natural born.  On the other hand, there are SCOTUS opinions that define it pretty well.  Read that article I posted from Ann Coulter.  Yes, she's far right, but she also cites everything she says in it.



The fact there are so many historians and ConLaw attorneys arguing tells me it is not so black and white.  Since I am neither I found this interesting: 

Natural-born-citizen clause - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FWIW I couldn't care less on this issue...I have no dog in the fight.



compforce said:


> but a capitalist democrat, not a socialist one.  Big difference.  I actually fall somewhere in the middle.  I'm far right on things like the 2A and far left on things like abortion (it's a woman's body, let her choose).  You might say I'm a libertarian, but that wouldn't be accurate either.  I'm about common sense for most things with a big focus on the economy and personal rights/personal accountability.



Actually, sounds quite a bit like the old Blue Dog Dems of old.  Very pro-capitalism, generally anti-socialism, skeptical of big government.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 28, 2016)

compforce said:


> Really?  and having a person that is accused, being investigated and likely to be brought up on felony charges as their leading candidate isn't a sideshow?
> 
> If Cruz were to get the nomination and either was polling as a runaway winner or actually wins the election you don't think they would file that lawsuit?  How much do you want to bet?


They actually had the opportunity in 2008 to make an issue of John McCain's citizenship.  What they did instead was introduce a senate resolution affirming their faith in his citizenship, which sidestepped the issue altogether.  There is a precedent for this.
The Obama birther controversy has been a huge national embarrassment and liberals still collectively facepalm when talking about it.  That dog absolutely won't hunt.

If we're betting, I'll donate 50$ to the site if a congressional democrat files suit over Ted Cruz's citizenship.


----------



## compforce (Jan 28, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> They actually had the opportunity in 2008 to make an issue of John McCain's citizenship.  What they did instead was introduce a senate resolution affirming their faith in his citizenship, which sidestepped the issue altogether.  There is a precedent for this.
> The Obama birther controversy has been a huge national embarrassment and liberals still collectively facepalm when talking about it.  That dog absolutely won't hunt.
> 
> If we're betting, I'll donate 50$ to the site if a congressional democrat files suit over Ted Cruz's citizenship.



John McCain was in no danger of winning the election.  And that Senate resolution does not have any legal standing.  Pure trickery.


And if the following conditions are met and there isn't a suit I'll donate $50
Cruz is the Republican candidate in the general election

Cruz has a definitive lead (55% or higher)  in the majority of major polls
OR
Cruz wins the general election popular vote


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 28, 2016)

You're right - the senate resolution had no legal standing and could've easily been challenged.  However, it was a symbolic gesture which clearly demonstrated that the resolution's authors (among whom were both Clinton and Obama) did not want to get dragged into an ugly controversy.  Democrat party unity is running high right now, and so I'm wagering that any democrat entertaining the idea of raising the issue will probably get shot down very quickly.  Clinton might deploy that tactic in order to divert attention away from the email controversy, but I don't think it's very likely.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 28, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> They actually had the opportunity in 2008 to make an issue of John McCain's citizenship.  What they did instead was introduce a senate resolution affirming their faith in his citizenship, which sidestepped the issue altogether.  There is a precedent for this.
> The Obama birther controversy has been a huge national embarrassment and liberals still collectively facepalm when talking about it.  That dog absolutely won't hunt.
> 
> If we're betting, I'll donate 50$ to the site if a congressional democrat files suit over Ted Cruz's citizenship.


How much if it's a non-congressional democrat?


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 28, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> How much if it's a non-congressional democrat?


Hmmm....let's go with 25$ for an elected Democrat outside of Congress (e.g. a governor, state legislator, etc), 15$ for a liberal non-profit or PAC, and a variable amount for suit brought on by liberal private persons based on the visibility of the person.  In that case, a George Soros suit will fetch a higher donation than, say, the liberal equivalent of Orly Taitz or Crazy Liberal Joe from down the street.


----------



## AWP (Jan 28, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Actually, sounds quite a bit like the old Blue Dog Dems of old.  Very pro-capitalism, generally anti-socialism, skeptical of big government.



My father is a retired union electrician and Blue Dog Democrat. I'm a Republican, but genuinely lament the loss of the Blue Dog's.(Not to be confused with Blue's Clues). I thought these articles address the problem rather well, but the short version is their loss has polarized the Democratic party.

Why the Blue Dogs’ decline was inevitable

The Blue Dogs’ pitiful last whimper

Blue Dog Democrats on the decline - No Labels

One item overlooked by many Republicans is the pro-2A stance taken by BDD. Gabby Giffords is considered a moderate, but prior to her shooting wasn't an anti-2A voice. Republicans may decry the concept of any Democrats in office, but for years their swing votes were a help, not a hindrance which is why controlled the House and Senate weren't sure locks for a party's platform. Our polarized political system almost guarantees a majority rule based upon political affiliation, not your beliefs.

The reality is both parties have moved to their extreme sides which leaves the bulk of Americans disenchanted with the process. Maybe I'm projecting my thoughts on the country, but I think a candidate with a slightly stronger Dem. than Repub. focus domestically but a much stronger Repub. focus internationally would win an election. It would be good for our country while also forcing both parties to reassess their positions.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 28, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Hmmm....let's go with 25$ for an elected Democrat outside of Congress (e.g. a governor, state legislator, etc), 15$ for a liberal non-profit or PAC, and a variable amount for suit brought on by liberal private persons based on the visibility of the person.  In that case, a George Soros suit will fetch a higher donation than, say, the liberal equivalent of Orly Taitz or Crazy Liberal Joe from down the street.


One lawsuit has been filed.
Three sources for you.

A New Challenge to Cruz's Eligibility

Ted Cruz not the only one with a birther challenge - CNNPolitics.com

Ted Cruz's Citizenship Status Challenged In Birther Lawsuit


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 28, 2016)

Word.  Is he a liberal?


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 28, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> My father is a retired union electrician and Blue Dog Democrat. I'm a Republican, but genuinely lament the loss of the Blue Dog's.(Not to be confused with Blue's Clues). I thought these articles address the problem rather well, but the short version is their loss has polarized the Democratic party.
> 
> Why the Blue Dogs’ decline was inevitable
> 
> ...



Spot on, and great post.  People forget that it wasn't really that long ago when both parties gravitated to the middle; you know, a real bell curve.  Republicans and Democrats routinely worked across the aisle, and most were close friends after business hours.  Hell, Tip O'Neill and Reagan were best of buddies, and even Bush Jr and Teddy Kennedy shared some similar interests.

The south used to be the epicenter of Blue Dog Democrats and the articles in which you linked are, unfortunately and sadly, correct about the extinction of the BDDs and the loss ripping the foundation out of the DNC.

Now a moderate Republican or a BDD couldn't get the backing of the local party for being seen as waffling or riding the fence on the issues.


----------



## compforce (Jan 28, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> One lawsuit has been filed.
> Three sources for you.
> 
> A New Challenge to Cruz's Eligibility
> ...




For the record, that one doesn't apply to my bet.  I'm talking about the party (DNC) or the other candidates filing suit.  There will always be nut jobs that sue for any reason (some of them are even Attorneys).  If the DNC and the other (major) candidates don't file suit and Cruz is the general election (R) candidate, I'll donate $50.00



Deathy McDeath said:


> You're right - the senate resolution had no legal standing and could've easily been challenged.  However, it was a symbolic gesture which clearly demonstrated that the resolution's authors (among whom were both Clinton and Obama) did not want to get dragged into an ugly controversy.  Democrat party unity is running high right now, and so I'm wagering that any democrat entertaining the idea of raising the issue will probably get shot down very quickly.  Clinton might deploy that tactic in order to divert attention away from the email controversy, but I don't think it's very likely.



Side note - McCain was born on an OCONUS US military base, which is American soil by definition just like the embassies.  There's no valid question about whether he is a natural born citizen that would pass legal muster.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 28, 2016)

compforce said:


> Side note - McCain was born on an OCONUS US military base, which is American soil by definition just like the embassies.  There's no valid question about whether he is a natural born citizen that would pass legal muster.


I totally agree.  It was a stupid controversy from the very outset, just like the Obama birther controversy.  We're in agreement there.  I think it's still significant, however, because of instead of using the controversy to score easy political points, they instead chose to say "This is stupid and distracting.  Let's put it to rest, like, right now."  That's not to say that liberals always take the high road, but when it comes to the birth issue they have at least one data point showing that they are.  That's all.


----------



## Brill (Jan 28, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Donald Trump is basically a democrat.



Or, more accurately, a Rockefeller Republican.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 1, 2016)

Pretty sad.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 1, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Pretty sad.



Man I could edit together video of people doing all sorts of stupid shit.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 1, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Man I could edit together video of people doing all sorts of stupid shit.



No doubt, but people signing petitions and saying "yeah I don't care what its for" or supporting 100+ year dead dude for VPOTUS? That's some dumbass people right there, regardless how you swing on politics.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 1, 2016)

Cruz rides the wave of evangelical support in Iowa for a win.  As of right now, Clinton and Sanders are tied.

Cruz wins Iowa Republican caucuses; Clinton, Sanders in tight race | Fox News


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 1, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Cruz rides the wave of evangelical support in Iowa for a win.  As of right now, Clinton and Sanders are tied.
> 
> Cruz wins Iowa Republican caucuses; Clinton, Sanders in tight race | Fox News


Either way, it's a win for Sanders and he leads in NH.


----------



## Dame (Feb 2, 2016)

And then there's Sticker Guy.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 2, 2016)

Clinton's going to prison...IDK what to think about Cruz-or Trump. I'm starting to think we are just screwed either way.


----------



## Dame (Feb 2, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Clinton's going to prison...IDK what to think about Cruz-or Trump. I'm starting to think we are just screwed either way.


Agree on Cruz/Trump. Hoping against hope you are right on that bitch Hillary.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 2, 2016)

I like Cruz, if for no other reason than his willingness to stick it to the establishment.
D2/2 He's better than Dewhurst


----------



## AWP (Feb 2, 2016)

I'm pulling for Sanders because I think the Republicans can beat him. I support Hillary for a felony conviction.


----------



## Brill (Feb 2, 2016)

Hillary cannot even tell fantasy from reality!!!



> (CNN)*Hillary Clinton declared victory *early Tuesday morning in a razor-thin contest against Bernie Sanders in Iowa. *But Democratic party officials have not yet declared a winner.*
> 
> "*Hillary Clinton has won the Iowa Caucus*," the Clinton campaign said. "After thorough reporting -- and analysis -- of results, there is no uncertainty and Secretary Clinton has clearly won the most national and state delegates."
> 
> ...



Iowa caucus results: Ted Cruz wins, Hillary Clinton declares victory - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 2, 2016)

NYT embedded a reporter in Iowa for an entire year to track the shifting caucuses over time.  The reporter, Trip Gabriel, gave a very interesting interview on NPR about a week ago.  His comments really contextualized Iowa for me and I recommend that you give it a listen.  

Embedded In Des Moines: A 'Times' Reporter's Year Covering The '16 Campaign

Some highlights:
-Iowa has a large percentage of caucusers who are evangelical  (somewhere around 25%)
-However, that doesn't really matter: Huckabee won the 2008 Iowa caucus, and Santorum squeezed out a win in 2012 (by a super slim margin over Romney)
-The democrat's caucus process is really weird and dumb
-But Iowa's democrats have consistently chosen the party's nominee, going back to 1992 when they chose Tom Harkin

What I took from this:
-A Cruz win was practically guaranteed, but that really doesn't mean anything
-Trump and Rubio were neck and neck, with Rubio taking key urban areas
-Because he couldn't secure a decisive Iowa victory, Cruz is very unlikely to be the nominee
-Hillary's coronation is on hold, for now.  Sanders has eaten away at her lead with gusto
-But Sanders' strong showing may only be due to the fact that the Democrats have a two-horse race
-I really have no idea how the Democrat race will play out!  New Hampshire will be the real fight

I'm definitely looking forward to next week!


----------



## AWP (Feb 2, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> NYT embedded a reporter in Iowa for an entire year to track the shifting caucuses over time.  The reporter, Trip Gabriel, gave a very interesting interview on NPR about a week ago.  His comments really contextualized Iowa for me and I recommend that you give it a listen.



It was, you know, a pretty good, you know, article. I made it, you know, about maybe halfway and while it was interesting something, you know, made it kind of hard, you know, to read.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 2, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> It was, you know, a pretty good, you know, article. I made it, you know, about maybe halfway and while it was interesting something, you know, made it kind of hard, you know, to read.


It's much easier to listen to.


----------



## AWP (Feb 2, 2016)

A coin toss...Hillary's pumped about a win determined by a coin toss, beating a guy who was a billion points out of the lead a few months ago.

Bill Belichick approves.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 2, 2016)

This election is absolutely magical


----------



## Dame (Feb 2, 2016)

lindy said:


> Hillary cannot even tell fantasy from reality!!!



Wag the dog, baby. Wag the dog.


----------



## AWP (Feb 2, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> This election is absolutely magical



You say "magical" I say "train wreck."


----------



## Brill (Feb 2, 2016)

Dame said:


> Wag the dog, baby. Wag the dog.



6 coin flips and she wins ALLof them? Every one ALL six times????


----------



## AWP (Feb 2, 2016)

lindy said:


> 6 coin flips and she wins ALLof them? Every one ALL six times????


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 2, 2016)

lindy said:


> 6 coin flips and she wins ALLof them? Every one ALL six times????





Deathy McDeath said:


> -The democrat's caucus process is really weird and dumb


----------



## Brill (Feb 2, 2016)

She cannot do anything without "a reasonable person" looking at the outcome and saying "hmmm".

The Iowa Democratic caucus vote count was so close last night that at least 6 precincts were decided by flipping a coin — an obscure procedure in the Iowa caucus bylaws. And in all 6 instances, the last remaining county delegate went to Hillary Clinton. *Winning 6 coin tosses in a row is extraordinarily rare, and only has a 1.6 percent probability of occurring*. As journalist Ben Norton explained, that’s broken down by calculating (1/2)^6, which is 1/64 — or 1.6 percent.

Hillary Clinton Won 6 Out of 6 Coin Tosses Last Night. Here's How Statistically Improbable That Is


----------



## BloodStripe (Feb 2, 2016)




----------



## Devildoc (Feb 3, 2016)

lindy said:


> She cannot do anything without "a reasonable person" looking at the outcome and saying "hmmm".
> 
> The Iowa Democratic caucus vote count was so close last night that at least 6 precincts were decided by flipping a coin — an obscure procedure in the Iowa caucus bylaws. And in all 6 instances, the last remaining county delegate went to Hillary Clinton. *Winning 6 coin tosses in a row is extraordinarily rare, and only has a 1.6 percent probability of occurring*. As journalist Ben Norton explained, that’s broken down by calculating (1/2)^6, which is 1/64 — or 1.6 percent.
> 
> Hillary Clinton Won 6 Out of 6 Coin Tosses Last Night. Here's How Statistically Improbable That Is



Plus maybe a tad of help in some discretionary counting:

Clinton voter fraud Polk County Iowa Caucus | Video | C-SPAN.org


----------



## Brill (Feb 3, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Plus maybe a tad of help in some discretionary counting:
> 
> Clinton voter fraud Polk County Iowa Caucus | Video | C-SPAN.org



WTF?  How the hell would a state pride itself on such actions?  I'm confident that a group of 3rd graders would be more efficient.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 3, 2016)

lindy said:


> WTF?  How the hell would a state pride itself on such actions?  I'm confident that a group of 3rd graders would be more efficient.


Common core math graduates?


----------



## compforce (Feb 4, 2016)

rofl...  Rush Limbaugh proposed the Democrat Debate Drinking Game...   Every time Hillary or Sanders mentions a new free program you take a drink...out of someone else's glass


----------



## Polar Bear (Feb 4, 2016)

Listen. _Strange women_ lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some _farcical aquatic ceremony._


----------



## Blizzard (Feb 4, 2016)

Polar Bear said:


> Listen. _Strange women_ lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some _farcical aquatic ceremony._


Be quiet!


----------



## x SF med (Feb 4, 2016)

Polar Bear said:


> Listen. _Strange women_ lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some _farcical aquatic ceremony._



Help! Help!  I'm being repressed!!!


----------



## Polar Bear (Feb 4, 2016)

You can't expect to wield _supreme power_ just 'cause some watery tart threw a sword at you!


----------



## CQB (Feb 4, 2016)

Can we have Lenin back? Vanguard central party committees don't look so bad now.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 5, 2016)

x SF med said:


> Help! Help!  I'm being repressed!!!



I couldn't help myself. You had to know this was coming.






Ya know, that was some lovely filth there .


----------



## Brill (Feb 9, 2016)

Good example of the Democrat aka progressive mindset.

What kind of America do Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders think we live in? | Fox News


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 9, 2016)

The notion that ANY educated person would consider Hillary to be an "ultra-liberal" will never stop being funny.


----------



## compforce (Feb 9, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> The notion that ANY educated person would consider Hillary to be an "ultra-liberal" will never stop being funny.



She's certainly not in the center, what would you call her?  A Conservative?


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 9, 2016)

She is slightly left-of-center.

Despite the rhetoric from either side, there really aren't that many candidates who stray too far from the center.


----------



## compforce (Feb 9, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> She is slightly left-of-center.


OK.  My last comment was tongue in cheek.  Now I'm interested, call it opposition research if you will. 
Who is further left in your mind, Obama or Hillary?


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 9, 2016)

Obama, definitely.  But it's still relative.

Hillary voted for the Iraq invasion, Keystone XL, WAS for the TPP (but has subsequently come out against it), was against single-payer healthcare (like the original incarnation of Obamacare), her SuperPAC's top donors include Citigroup/Goldman Sachs/JP Morgan/Morgan Stanley in the top 5, was originally against gay marriage (but began supporting it in the last two years or so).


Look, I know that the current political discourse is such that any candidate we don't like is automatically an "ultra-liberal communist" or "literally Hitler", but when you really evaluate every candidate on the Liberal/Conservative continuum, there aren't many that stray very far from the center.  Certain wedge issues, like immigration or gun control, might make it seem like certain candidates drift further to one side or the other simply because they're so divisive, but that's not really the case.  I believe that a true "ultra-liberal" would be calling for full government control of industry (in Marx's terms, "seiz[ing] the means of production), absolute distribution of wealth (beyond just a progressive tax scheme), and full withdrawal from international interventionism.  Bernie Sanders doesn't even advocate that, let alone Hillary.


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 9, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I believe that a true "ultra-liberal" would be calling for full government control of industry (in Marx's terms, "seiz[ing] the means of production), absolute distribution of wealth (beyond just a progressive tax scheme), and full withdrawal from international interventionism.


 What you just described is a totalitarianism


> of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures


I can agree that by strict definition, Obama and Hillary don't meet or come close to the strict definition of liberalism, however, I don't think they can be fit into a specific niche. They are certainly "left" given their desire to grow the government for their political needs. To be fair, a similar argument could be made for many conservatives and how they don't come close or meet the strict definition of conservatives. Still, your definition of ultra-liberal is flawed.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 9, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> What you just described is a totalitarianism
> I can agree that by strict definition, Obama and Hillary don't meet or come close to the strict definition of liberalism, however, I don't think they can be fit into a specific niche. They are certainly "left" given their desire to grow the government for their political needs. To be fair, a similar argument could be made for many conservatives and how they don't come close or meet the strict definition of conservatives. Still, your definition of ultra-liberal is flawed.


Far left ideology could definitely be considered totalitarian.  It requires strong central control.


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 9, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Far left ideology could definitely be considered totalitarian.  It requires strong central control.


True, the argument could also be made that far left would circle the continuum by being fascist in their own way. My point is that using the strict definition, the standard falls short. It appears that there is a rift forming between the social definition and the academic definition.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 9, 2016)

I'm not arguing that it couldn't be fascist, although fascism is typically associated with a right-wing, militaristic political ideology.  An actual leftist state can easily become fascist.  What I'm arguing is that Hillary is not an ultra-liberal by any metric.


----------



## compforce (Feb 10, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I'm not arguing that it couldn't be fascist, although fascism is typically associated with a right-wing, militaristic political ideology.  An actual leftist state can easily become fascist.  What I'm arguing is that Hillary is not an ultra-liberal by any metric.



Different measures.  Within the spectrum of Global politics and political theory you are certainly correct.  Within the spectrum of American politics she, Obama and Sanders are about as far left as we've seen in candidates with a shot at winning.  The problem is that the center has shifted.  You're speaking in absolutes where most speak in relative terms.  The "center" moves as it represents the top of the bell curve of societal beliefs at the time.  During the 70's and 80's Mitt Romney would have been a left of center candidate and the three would have been the fringe. The shift to the left of the general population has changed our definitions in American politics.

The danger is that the shift to the left will, if not corrected, result in violence and potentially destroy the country.



> "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the Public Treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the Public Treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy always followed by dictatorship."





> “When the people find that they can vote themselves money,
> that will herald the end of the republic.”  - Ben Franklin



We're almost there and Obama has done more to tear this country apart fiscally, societally and through a flood of immigration than any other President in history.  I weep for the youth that will never see the US that I grew up in.


----------



## AWP (Feb 10, 2016)

This is kind of funny in a demeaning way. I'm not surprised by HuffPo in the least, but I love how CNN can "report" this and remain above the mud. I don't like Trump, but I love how he's exposing, for anyone without blinders, how some "news" outlets work. He's gotten so far under their skin they are willing to insult citizens? That's journalism these days?

Vermin.

Huffington Post blasts Donald Trump as 'racist, sexist demagogue' - CNNPolitics.com



> (CNN)Huffington Post took a visceral and aggressive approach to Donald Trump's victory in New Hampshire on Tuesday night, blasting the GOP front-runner as a "racist, sexist demagogue."
> 
> Huffington Post wasn't the only media organization to indict New Hampshire voters. The New York Daily News, long an outspoken critic of Trump, revealed that Wednesday's headline will be: "DAWN OF THE BRAIN DEAD: Trump comes back to life with N.H. win as mindless zombies turn out in droves."


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 10, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> This is kind of funny in a demeaning way. I'm not surprised by HuffPo in the least, but I love how CNN can "report" this and remain above the mud. I don't like Trump, but I love how he's exposing, for anyone without blinders, how some "news" outlets work. He's gotten so far under their skin they are willing to insult citizens? That's journalism these days?
> 
> Vermin.
> 
> Huffington Post blasts Donald Trump as 'racist, sexist demagogue' - CNNPolitics.com


Driving more people into the Trump Camp.
Is Hillary that desperate?


----------



## AWP (Feb 10, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Driving more people into the Trump Camp.
> Is Hillary that desperate?



Trump needed to win which he did, but Sanders needed a big win. 10, maybe 15 points, and I think Sanders would be happy, but 20? 20 points over Clinton? She has to be freaking out right now.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 10, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Trump needed to win which he did, but Sanders needed a big win. 10, maybe 15 points, and I think Sanders would be happy, but 20? 20 points over Clinton? She has to be freaking out right now.



Clinton still came out with more delegates from what I understand due to "super delegates" who can vote for whoever they want.


----------



## AWP (Feb 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Clinton still came out with more delegates from what I understand due to "super delegates" who can vote for whoever they want.



Which is garbage, but that's our system.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 10, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Which is garbage, but that's our system.


No, that's the Democrat system, Republicans run theirs differently.

Funny how the Super Delegates can "ignore the people" and do whatever they please.

But Republican winner-take-all primaries are bullshit too.


----------



## AWP (Feb 10, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> No, that's the Democrat system, Republicans run theirs differently.
> 
> Funny how the Super Delegates can "ignore the people" and do whatever they please.
> 
> But Republican winner-take-all primaries are bullshit too.



Good point. Garbage is still garbage and while I hate to be pedantic, it serves as a reminder that we don't live in a democracy. "The people" are still subject to the whims of the system.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 10, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> She is slightly left-of-center.
> 
> Despite the rhetoric from either side, there really aren't that many candidates who stray too far from the center.




That's been the case for a number of years but no more. Left is getting Lefter and Right is getting Righter. The ideological differences between the two have become much clearer and better defined. The middle ground is shrinking as opposing sides move farther apart and become more firmly entrenched in their respective views. Everybody is becoming more "Ultra". The ground is moving beneath our feet.


----------



## Brill (Feb 10, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> That's been the case for a number of years but no more. Left is getting Lefter and Right is getting Righter. The ideological differences between the two have become much clearer and better defined. The middle ground is shrinking as opposing sides move farther apart and become more firmly entrenched in their respective views. Everybody is becoming more "Ultra". The ground is moving beneath our feet.



Righty tighty, lefty loosey!


----------



## ryno762 (Feb 10, 2016)

The two party system is broken. Thomas Jefferson would be appalled to see what has become of our election. He warned against this. I don't know anybody that wholeheartedly agrees with the platform of either party, you just have to pick the appalling one.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 10, 2016)

ryno762 said:


> The two party system is broken. Thomas Jefferson would be appalled to see what has become of our election. He warned against this. I don't know anybody that wholeheartedly agrees with the platform of either party, you just have to pick the appalling one.



Yeah. I would vote for a socially liberal republican. Unfortunately that doesn't exist. The closest thing is maybe Rand Paul, but he went pretty far right to appease the evangelicals. 

Evangelicals are ruining this country in my mind. The Christian agenda is a huge part of the reason I'm a liberal.


----------



## ryno762 (Feb 10, 2016)

I'm in the same boat. I believe our founders would identify more with the libertarian party than the major ones. On a brighter note neither Trump or Sanders is very religious and they both did well yesterday. 

I'm a big fan of Russ Roberts podcast EconTalk he host many Libertarians. He has influenced my political views. Nice calm rational discussion with some very smart people.


----------



## AWP (Feb 10, 2016)

Given our two party system, what's the point of being a Libertarian? I'm throwing this out for everyone, but I here I see it and I talk to people who identify as Libertarian, but so what? Maybe at the local level it means something, but at the state and national levels you might as well identify as an NHL goalie in the NBA.


----------



## Blizzard (Feb 10, 2016)

The problem with the Libertarian Party and why it's not a viable option is two fold:

1.  Their leadership and candidates are generally a bunch of crackpots and nutcases...simply check out their webpage for more than enough evidence to this; Elvis Presley is running for office in one district, for crying out loud -- who could possibly take that seriously?

2.  Their priorities are seriously messed up.  Legalizing pot/drugs is not the most pressing issue facing this country...not by a long shot.  Yet, by and large this almost always ends up near the top of the list with their candidates.  I get it...personal liberty and all but come on.  It's as annoying an issue as abortion, which is never a top 10 issue for voters but somehow becomes a debate topic for Asses and Elephants.  The LP isolationist approach to world affairs isn't realistic in a modern world either.


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Evangelicals are ruining this country in my mind.


I don't agree with most of what you say, but this is absolutely true. Christianity is not under persecution in this country. Religious freedom is a two way street. Live and let live.


----------



## Florida173 (Feb 11, 2016)

I've never met an evangelical.. Only hear about them on tv


----------



## Gunz (Feb 11, 2016)

Religious hardliners are goddam trouble-makers the world over.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 11, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah. I would vote for a socially liberal republican. Unfortunately that doesn't exist. The closest thing is maybe Rand Paul, but he went pretty far right to appease the evangelicals.
> 
> Evangelicals are ruining this country in my mind. The Christian agenda is a huge part of the reason I'm a liberal.


Funny, I would say the socialists are ruining the country and that's why I vote Republican.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 11, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> I've never met an evangelical.. Only hear about them on tv



You have never met someone who votes with their bible primarily?


----------



## Florida173 (Feb 11, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> You have never met someone who votes with their bible primarily?


 
Are we making the term so ambiguous that anyone that votes by their faith is now evangelical? I was thinking Moral Majority and Christian Coalition... All that Jerry Falwell nonsense.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 11, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> You have never met someone who votes with their bible primarily?


Actually no.
I do think a large segment of Evangelicals are clueless, but the same can be said for the free college crowd and the people touting Obama phones.
To say one segment is more clueless than another would be hard to prove/disprove.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 11, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Are we making the term so ambiguous that anyone that votes by their faith is now evangelical? I was thinking Moral Majority and Christian Coalition... All that Jerry Falwell nonsense.



There are an awful lot of people who vote based on issues that their church tells them are important. Those issues often aren't important.. The comical thing to me, is if evangelicals/Christians in general followed the New Testament teachings they professed to follow, they would be socialists.


----------



## ryno762 (Feb 11, 2016)

Blizzard said:


> The problem with the Libertarian Party and why it's not a viable option is two fold:
> 
> 1.  Their leadership and candidates are generally a bunch of crackpots and nutcases...simply check out their webpage for more than enough evidence to this; Elvis Presley is running for office in one district, for crying out loud -- who could possibly take that seriously?
> 
> 2.  Their priorities are seriously messed up.  Legalizing pot/drugs is not the most pressing issue facing this country...not by a long shot.  Yet, by and large this almost always ends up near the top of the list with their candidates.  I get it...personal liberty and all but come on.  It's as annoying an issue as abortion, which is never a top 10 issue for voters but somehow becomes a debate topic for Asses and Elephants.  The LP isolationist approach to world affairs isn't realistic in a modern world either.



1. I agree unfortunately. However there have been some great candidates.  Robert Frank comes to mind. 

2. Again I agree. I think its an important issue, considering the tax dollars we waste losing the war on drugs. It shouldn't be at the top of the list though. 

I believe strongly in capitalism and free trade. And my both my Grandpas risked their lives in combat so I could vote. The libertarian party is the closest to my views so thats the one I vote for. I'm still young and naive enough to think we could have a few more parties in the near future. Its exciting that Trump and Bernie are doing so well. I think it shows how fed up people are with the establishment of the two parties.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 11, 2016)

So...Bernie scores a big win in New Hampshire...and Hillary has almost all of the Super Delegates of the party...if she isn't the establishment candidate...I don't know what is establishment.


----------



## AWP (Feb 11, 2016)

Re: Evangelicals voting according to the Bible, you can find a ton of them in north Florida. Are they enough to swing a vote? Probably not, but pastors of Southern Baptist churches, fundamental Baptists, and Church of/ Assembly of God openly preach and exhort their parishioners to vote based upon religious lines. I attended one of those churches for several years and I do not exaggerate when I say many of them couldn't articulate a single point beyond religious beliefs.


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 11, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Are we making the term so ambiguous that anyone that votes by their faith is now evangelical? I was thinking Moral Majority and Christian Coalition... All that Jerry Falwell nonsense.


It is not ambiguous when that is the almost exact definition, one who follows the teachings of the gospel (aka Christianity). This is why religion has no place in politics, if it does then the churches need to pay taxes like everyone else. However, that is probably a discussion for a different thread.


----------



## DocIllinois (Feb 11, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> There are an awful lot of people who vote based on issues that their church tells them are important. Those issues often aren't important.. The comical thing to me, is if evangelicals/Christians in general followed the New Testament teachings they professed to follow, they would be socialists.



They would also be literally gouging out their eyes if they ever looked lustfully upon any woman not their wife, among other instructions of dubious meaning and purpose.


The truly dangerous part of voting according to a holy book is that it shuts the door on a review and critical thought about multiple, empirical factors during a decision making process, IMO.

There _is _no process outside of physically hearing the guidance of someone who is "interpreting" the holy text, then carrying out those instructions as an automaton.

Brilliant.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 11, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Actually no.
> I do think a large segment of Evangelicals are clueless, but the same can be said for the free college crowd and the people touting Obama phones.
> To say one segment is more clueless than another would be hard to prove/disprove.



Oh I agree. Many of the people clamoring for free college probably wouldn't be smart enough to get into college if a system like that was put in place. In Europe where they often point, if you aren't smart enough you are not allowed in. 

Obamaphones? Come on dude.

The Obama Phone?


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 11, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> There are an awful lot of people who vote based on issues that their church tells them are important. Those issues often aren't important.. The comical thing to me, is if evangelicals/Christians in general followed the New Testament teachings they professed to follow, they would be socialists.



No, Jesus told his followers to be charitable as individuals, not by letting government do it.
There are also references to hard work, which would impact the welfare class (no work, no food), and we are not commanded to give money to everyone, but to those truly needy.


----------



## ryno762 (Feb 11, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> So...Bernie scores a big win in New Hampshire...and Hillary has almost all of the Super Delegates of the party...if she isn't the establishment candidate...I don't know what is establishment.



If Sanders wins the popular vote, but Hillary gets the nomination via Super Delegates maybe people will lose faith in the party enough to turn to third parties in 2020. Same with Trump. Alternatively think of the brilliant political comedy that would be produced from a Trump vs Sanders election. Its a win win!


----------



## SkrewzLoose (Feb 11, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> No, Jesus told his followers to be charitable as individuals, not by letting government do it.
> There are also references to hard work, which would impact the welfare class (no work, no food), and we are not commanded to give money to everyone, but to those truly needy.


How many people would honestly be charitable without being told to or without some reward on the flip side?
Who determines which workers get what food?
Who defines needy? And who prevents those lines from being blurred (needy -> dependent on a system that can be manipulated) like they have in our current society?


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 11, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> No, Jesus told his followers to be charitable as individuals, not by letting government do it.
> There are also references to hard work, which would impact the welfare class (no work, no food), and we are not commanded to give money to everyone, but to those truly needy.



Yeah. We can just disagree. Jesus said quite a few things, about being there for your neighbor, loving all people, and helping those in need. Paul spoke at great lengths about paying taxes, and listening to the governments appointed over us. Unfortunately when it comes to politics mostly all anyone uses Jesus for is to try and keep marriage between a man and a woman, keep women from having access to abortions, and try and keep God in school.

I don't think Jesus or the bible should be used as a basis for any kind of public policy. I think that Jesus if he lived today would have views much more closely aligned with those of Bernie Sanders than those of Donald Trump or Ted Cruz.


----------



## DocIllinois (Feb 11, 2016)

SkrewzLoose said:


> How many people would honestly be charitable without being told to or without some reward on the flip side?
> Who determines which workers get what food?
> Who defines needy? And who prevents those lines from being blurred (needy -> dependent on a system that can be manipulated) like they have in our current society?



For that matter, how much genuine evidence exists that the source of any of the above is from a text written in the Bronze age by desert people who thought that the world was flat?


----------



## Gunz (Feb 11, 2016)

Bernie had breakfast with Al Sharpton. What would Jesus do?


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 11, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> It is not ambiguous when that is the almost exact definition, one who follows the teachings of the gospel (aka Christianity). This is why religion has no place in politics, if it does then the churches need to pay taxes like everyone else. However, that is probably a discussion for a different thread.


Why?
Other non-profits get to endorse candidates.
Why only restrict churches?


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 11, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Why?
> Other non-profits get to endorse candidates.
> Why only restrict churches?


Fine, include them if necessary. However, an endorsement is much different than lobbying. If the Holy Church of the Front Sight Post wants to endorse a candidate they believe in then that is fine. Anyone can endorse a candidate. Hell, you could endorse a candidate if you so chose to. The issue arises when same church decides it wants to start lobbying to enforce their will on others. Pretty much like Christianity is trying to tell everyone who they should or should not love, abortions, birth control, you get the picture. If they want to get involved, then pay taxes like everyone else. 

Religious organizations have zero place in politics if they are not paying like everyone else.


----------



## AWP (Feb 11, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Bernie had breakfast with Al Sharpton. What would Jesus do?



Probably not order bacon.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 11, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Bernie had breakfast with Al Sharpton. What would Jesus do?


 
Probably the same thing.



Freefalling said:


> Probably not order bacon.



Want to like and agree.


----------



## DocIllinois (Feb 11, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Fine, include them if necessary. However, an endorsement is much different than lobbying. If the Holy Church of the Front Sight Post wants to endorse a candidate they believe in then that is fine. Anyone can endorse a candidate. Hell, you could endorse a candidate if you so chose to. The issue arises when same church decides it wants to start lobbying to enforce their will on others. Pretty much like Christianity is trying to tell everyone who they should or should not love, abortions, birth control, you get the picture. If they want to get involved, then pay taxes like everyone else.
> 
> Religious organizations have zero place in politics if they are not paying like everyone else.




Not to mention the fact that church tax exemption: 

- Violates the Establishment Clause, treating churches differently simply because of the articles of their faith
- Provides favoritism specifically to churches vs. other charities (who have to report their income to the IRS)
- Costs the government billions of dollars in badly needed revenue in economic downturns
- Forces taxpayers to pick up religion's slack by making up the deficit in public income

Among other reasons.  I'm only proving ke4gde's point here, though; this is a tangent that could fill pages of a separate thread.


----------



## Florida173 (Feb 11, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Fine, include them if necessary. However, an endorsement is much different than lobbying. If the Holy Church of the Front Sight Post wants to endorse a candidate they believe in then that is fine. Anyone can endorse a candidate. Hell, you could endorse a candidate if you so chose to. The issue arises when same church decides it wants to start lobbying to enforce their will on others. Pretty much like Christianity is trying to tell everyone who they should or should not love, abortions, birth control, you get the picture. If they want to get involved, then pay taxes like everyone else.
> 
> Religious organizations have zero place in politics if they are not paying like everyone else.



This so called church lobby you speak of hasn't really been too successful.. Sounds like the red scare of the 50s. 

I vote to my wallet and don't really care about abortions, marriage, and who I can and can't love. 

Not quite sure what the paying taxes thing has to do with anything.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 11, 2016)

Jesus just told my pastor that all of you are wrong and that I should no longer frequent such blasphemy...

But I actually like you fucks, and enjoy reading everyone's bullshit.

Vote Michael Bloomberg!!!


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 11, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Not to mention the fact that church tax exemption:
> 
> - Violates the Establishment Clause, treating churches differently simply because of the articles of their faith
> - Provides favoritism specifically to churches vs. other charities (who have to report their income to the IRS)
> ...


Planned parenthood shoots $130M/year into the coffers of various politicians, why say a church contributing is bad, but other non-profits doing it is acceptable?


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 11, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> This so called church lobby you speak of hasn't really been too successful.. Sounds like the red scare of the 50s.
> 
> I vote to my wallet and don't really care about abortions, marriage, and who I can and can't love.
> 
> Not quite sure what the paying taxes thing has to do with anything.


You may vote your wallet, but millions of other voters vote along religious lines. Doing what the church tells them to or risk hell fire and damnation. Which is where the intent of my statement was directed. I wouldn't dare to presume your reasons for voting the way you want to. 

The church lobby is real, and one has only to look at the day's social issues to see that. What were the original justifications in the South against racial integration/slavery? Religion What are the justifications for the modern day issues of abortion, marriage equality, birth control, gun rights (which I support), and more? Religion. What are the justifications for many of the wars fought throughout history? Religion. To suggest there is no, or an ineffective church lobby is inaccurate. Right now the churches want a say in politics without having to pay the entrance fee. You pay taxes, you get a say in your government. It is that simple. Not to mention @DocIllinois points previously mentioned. 

Speaking of red scare, it was that scare that was a contributing factor in the addition to "In God We Trust" and the addition of God to the Pledge of Allegiance (gotta fight those Godless commies ect..), but that is for another day. Bottom line, this is not a Christian country, this is a country that is primarily populated by Christians. Big difference.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 11, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Planned parenthood shoots $130M/year into the coffers of various politicians, why say a church contributing is bad, but other non-profits doing it is acceptable?



Prochoicers also took issue with the only good Super Bowl Commercial, the Doritos ad. Pro-choice group cries foul over Doritos commercial 'Ultrasound' | Fox News. :wall::wall:.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 11, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Prochoicers also took issue with the only good Super Bowl Commercial, the Doritos ad. Pro-choice group cries foul over Doritos commercial 'Ultrasound' | Fox News. :wall::wall:.


People looking to get offended.



ke4gde said:


> You may vote your wallet, but millions of other voters vote along religious lines. Doing what the church tells them to or risk hell fire and damnation. Which is where the intent of my statement was directed. I wouldn't dare to presume your reasons for voting the way you want to.
> 
> The church lobby is real, and one has only to look at the day's social issues to see that. What were the original justifications in the South against racial integration/slavery? Religion What are the justifications for the modern day issues of abortion, marriage equality, birth control, gun rights (which I support), and more? Religion. What are the justifications for many of the wars fought throughout history? Religion. To suggest there is no, or an ineffective church lobby is inaccurate. Right now the churches want a say in politics without having to pay the entrance fee. You pay taxes, you get a say in your government. It is that simple. Not to mention @DocIllinois points previously mentioned.
> 
> Speaking of red scare, it was that scare that was a contributing factor in the addition to "In God We Trust" and the addition of God to the Pledge of Allegiance (gotta fight those Godless commies ect..), but that is for another day. Bottom line, this is not a Christian country, this is a country that is primarily populated by Christians. Big difference.



No different than any other lobby group.
Pro-abortion lobbies, Climate change lobbies, the NRA lobbies, wildlife refuge centers lobby, everybody lobbies
I don't see churches as any different, and I don't see why they should lose their tax status, unless you want to eliminate the non-profit tax-exempt status (which I am in favor of).


----------



## DocIllinois (Feb 11, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> This so called church lobby you speak of hasn't really been too successful.. Sounds like the red scare of the 50s.



You _must_ be kidding.  

*Lobbying for the Faithful*


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 11, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> You _must_ be kidding.
> 
> *Lobbying for the Faithful*



Just look at Prop 8 in California.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 11, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Planned parenthood shoots $130M/year into the coffers of various politicians, why say a church contributing is bad, but other non-profits doing it is acceptable?


What's your source for this?  Their FEC filings list only about $7.5M in contributions between their main PAC (which is 501(c)3 compliant) and their super PAC (501(c)4 and allowed to lobby).  Planned Parenthood: Summary | OpenSecrets


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 11, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> No different than any other lobby group.
> Pro-abortion lobbies, Climate change lobbies, the NRA lobbies, wildlife refuge centers lobby, everybody lobbies
> I don't see churches as any different, and I don't see why they should lose their tax status, unless you want to eliminate the non-profit tax-exempt status (which I am in favor of).


Sure, fair is fair. Although, what might make that pill easier to swallow is to leave non-profits that do not contribute to politics, and those that spend say no less than 90% of their income on their stated non-profit purpose. I can still see where some of them do a lot of good, but in the end if it needs to happen to get the churches to pay then let's do it. That or tell them to get out of politics. I prefer they pay their taxes though.


----------



## Brill (Feb 11, 2016)

Bernie is kicking her ass on the debate tonight.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 11, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Sure, fair is fair. Although, what might make that pill easier to swallow is to leave non-profits that do not contribute to politics, and those that spend say no less than 90% of their income on their stated non-profit purpose. I can still see where some of them do a lot of good, but in the end if it needs to happen to get the churches to pay then let's do it. That or tell them to get out of politics. I prefer they pay their taxes though.


I agree, not for profits still get city services that we pay for.
Either tax them, reduce the amount of tax free property, or charge per call.



Deathy McDeath said:


> What's your source for this?  Their FEC filings list only about $7.5M in contributions between their main PAC (which is 501(c)3 compliant) and their super PAC (501(c)4 and allowed to lobby).  Planned Parenthood: Summary | OpenSecrets


My mistake, misplaced the decimal.
I should have said 1.3, but looking it up it look like your numbers are better. $6Mil, even so that means the tax payers could reduce the money by that amount.
I am a little confused on the PP funding though, to me it looks like a direct deposit to them, and I wonder why they don't file via ObamaCare to get reimbursed for services.
That would take the wind out of the "defund PP sails", or am I missing something?


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 11, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> My mistake, misplaced the decimal.
> I should have said 1.3, but looking it up it look like your numbers are better. $6Mil, even so that means the tax payers could reduce the money by that amount.
> I am a little confused on the PP funding though, to me it looks like a direct deposit to them, and I wonder why they don't file via ObamaCare to get reimbursed for services.
> That would take the wind out of the "defund PP sails", or am I missing something?



When you say "file via Obamacare", do you mean file with personal insurance?

Funding:
In the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014, total revenue was US$1.3billion: non-government health services revenue was US$305million, government revenue (such as Medicaid reimbursements) was US$528million, private contributions totaled US$391million, and US$77million came from other operating revenue.[56] According to Planned Parenthood, 59% of the group's revenue is put towards the provision of health services, while non-medical services such as sex education and public policy work make up another 15%; management expenses, fundraising, and international family planning programs account for about 16%, and 10% of the revenue in 2013–2014 was not spent.[56]

Planned Parenthood receives above a third of its money in government grants and contracts (about $528 million in 2014).[47][56] By law, federal funding cannot be allocated for abortions,[57] but some opponents of abortion have argued that allocating money to Planned Parenthood for the provision of other medical services "frees up" funds to be re-allocated for abortion.[44][58]

It's Wikipedia, but whatever I don't feel like doing more research than that.


----------



## x SF med (Feb 12, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Vote Michael Bloomberg!!!



You deserve eternal damnation for that line, or at least a temporary vacation from the site... WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 12, 2016)

x SF med said:


> You deserve eternal damnation for that line, or at least a temporary vacation from the site... WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!



Come on man, he cares about you and me, protecting us from soda-water, cigarettes, and excessive food servings. Not to mention the scary bang sticks...


----------



## AWP (Feb 12, 2016)

Ah, Democrats continue to eat their young.

Debate Moderator Reacts To Sanders Talking Vietnam: 'Oh God' (AUDIO)



> "It's just a very different historical perspective here," Sanders said. "Kissinger was one of those people during the Vietnam era—"
> 
> Then as Sanders took a breath, a moderator was caught on the microphone saying "Oh, God."



Sanders v. Trump for 2016.


----------



## DocIllinois (Feb 12, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Sanders v. Trump for 2016.



My Scottish wife holds a particular opinion on this potential candidate match up.

"An uncompromising, ancient populist versus a phony tough, populist disaster waiting to happen."

She has threatened to take the herself and the kids back to Britain if these are the candidates.... and may not be joking...


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 12, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> My Scottish wife holds a particular opinion on this potential candidate match up.
> 
> "An uncompromising, ancient populist versus a phony tough, populist disaster waiting to happen."
> 
> She has threatened to take the herself and the kids back to Britain if these are the candidates.... and may not be joking...


Ask her what shade of black does she want the burqa to be.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 12, 2016)

lindy said:


> Bernie is kicking her ass on the debate tonight.




Yay Bernie!! Free college! Free icecream!


----------



## DocIllinois (Feb 12, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Ask her what shade of black does she want the burqa to be.



Scottish natives will virtually fight themselves out of existence before doing anything that doesn't make personal sense.

Perhaps you can ask her that for me.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 12, 2016)

The Dems rig their debates too!

PBS' Donor-Moderator Fails to Ask About Clinton Foundation


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 12, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> My Scottish wife holds a particular opinion on this potential candidate match up.
> 
> "An uncompromising, ancient populist versus a phony tough, populist disaster waiting to happen."
> 
> She has threatened to take the herself and the kids back to Britain if these are the candidates.... and may not be joking...



She is not alone in her thoughts, and plans for the future. That is no joke either.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 12, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> She is not alone in her thoughts, and plans for the future. That is no joke either.


 
Becoming an expat isn't all it's cracked up to be.  The laws in Britain combined with what's becoming an  unchecked radical Islamic problem are enough to keep me from living there. 

I'm not sure there's a place in the UK where I'd be comfortable with the laws, outside of perhaps moving to County Tyrone and joining the PSNI. 

I'll stay put and pray for the scales to swing the right way again.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 12, 2016)

I'll  wait and hope 2016.


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 12, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Scottish natives will virtually fight themselves out of existence before doing anything that doesn't make personal sense.



I've met enough Scottish socialists to argue the validity of that statement, a couple of which make Sanders look like the second coming of Ronald Reagan.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 12, 2016)

policemedic said:


> Becoming an expat isn't all it's cracked up to be.  The laws in Britain combined with what's becoming an  unchecked radical Islamic problem are enough to keep me from living there.
> 
> I'm not sure there's a place in the UK where I'd be comfortable with the laws, outside of perhaps moving to County Tyrone and joining the PSNI.
> 
> I'll stay put and pray for the scales to swing the right way again.



I would move to Norway in a heartbeat. Really any of the Nordic countries.


----------



## pardus (Feb 12, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I would move to Norway in a heartbeat. Really any of the Nordic countries.



Sweden is a terrorist supporting bunch of idiots, interspersed with a few "normal" people.

Bottom line, Scando's are weird and are to be treated accordingly.

Pardus (Danish Viking heritage).


----------



## Dame (Feb 12, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> She is not alone in her thoughts, and plans for the future. That is no joke either.


So how much do serfs make? You need any of those?


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 12, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I would move to Norway in a heartbeat. Really any of the Nordic countries.



Aside from Scandinavian women being really hot, what is it that appeals to you regarding expat life that far north?  Government?  Culture?  Snow?


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 12, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> Aside from Scandinavian women being really hot, what is it that appeals to you regarding expat life that far north?  Government?  Culture?  Snow?


Government, I like the idea of living in a culture that values the same things as me. Hard work, supportingthose less fortunate, not imprisoning those less fortunate.

The Scandanavians have managed to be pretty well off in the face of  evil socialism. They are happier to the individual. I honestly feel that if we didn't have so many shitbags in America we could do something similar. Unfortunately we have have way too many shitty non contributors in America.


----------



## pardus (Feb 13, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Government, I like the idea of living in a culture that values the same things as me. Hard work, supportingthose less fortunate, not imprisoning those less fortunate.
> 
> The Scandanavians have managed to be pretty well off in the face of  evil socialism. They are happier to the individual. *I honestly feel that if we didn't have so many shitbags in America we could do something similar. Unfortunately we have have way too many shitty non contributors in America*.



That's the price of a freer society. Freedom = acceptance of douchebags who will abuse freedom's allowances. 
Acceptance of shitty non contributors is the foundation of a socialist society. That is why Scandinavia/socialist countries have such a huge tax rate compared to here.
I come from a socialist country. It's a pretty nice life, but there is a price to pay. Higher tax, a worse health system, more vulnerable to criminals (try to defend yourself or your loved ones and you could/probably will pay dearly for that). A *lot* more oversight by government.
You seem enamored, yet unaware of the realities of the system. Don't get me wrong, it's cool, but I prefer more freedom. Each to their own.


----------



## Brill (Feb 13, 2016)

pardus said:


> That's the price of a freer society. Freedom = acceptance of douchebags who will abuse freedom's allowances.
> Acceptance of shitty non contributors is the foundation of a socialist society. That is why Scandinavia/socialist countries have such a huge tax rate compared to here.
> I come from a socialist country. It's a pretty nice life, but there is a price to pay. Higher tax, a worse health system, more vulnerable to criminals (try to defend yourself or your loved ones and you could/probably will pay dearly for that). A *lot* more oversight by government.
> You seem enamored, yet unaware of the realities of the system. Don't get me wrong, it's cool, but I prefer more freedom. Each to their own.



Which freedoms do you have here that weren't afforded in Christchurch?


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 13, 2016)

pardus said:


> That's the price of a freer society. Freedom = acceptance of douchebags who will abuse freedom's allowances.
> Acceptance of shitty non contributors is the foundation of a socialist society. That is why Scandinavia/socialist countries have such a huge tax rate compared to here.
> I come from a socialist country. It's a pretty nice life, but there is a price to pay. Higher tax, a worse health system, more vulnerable to criminals (try to defend yourself or your loved ones and you could/probably will pay dearly for that). A *lot* more oversight by government.
> You seem enamored, yet unaware of the realities of the system. Don't get me wrong, it's cool, but I prefer more freedom. Each to their own.



Oh I understand the realities. I just don't think they are that bad.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 13, 2016)

policemedic said:


> Becoming an expat isn't all it's cracked up to be.  The laws in Britain combined with what's becoming an  unchecked radical Islamic problem are enough to keep me from living there.
> 
> I'm not sure there's a place in the UK where I'd be comfortable with the laws, outside of perhaps moving to County Tyrone and joining the PSNI.
> 
> I'll stay put and pray for the scales to swing the right way again.



It is also a family consideration. I have a granddaughter that I've only seen three or four times. She is her mother's little girl in so many ways. My daughter has picked up a lot of the British flavor when she talks, but there is no mistaking she is from the States. My granddaughter is 100% British when she talks, and I love to hear her talk. Spending time on "The Farm" has always been so relaxing, and low keyed. It is very rural, and no immigration issues thus far.

I'll have to make a decision within the year. Health issuses may be the deciding point.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 13, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> It is also a family consideration.


 
Nothing more important than that.


----------



## DocIllinois (Feb 13, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> It is also a family consideration. I have a granddaughter that I've only seen three or four times. She is her mother's little girl in so many ways. My daughter has picked up a lot of the British flavor when she talks, but there is no mistaking she is from the States. My granddaughter is 100% British when she talks, and I love to hear her talk. Spending time on "The Farm" has always been so relaxing, and low keyed. It is very rural, and no immigration issues thus far.
> 
> I'll have to make a decision within the year. Health issuses may be the deciding point.



The wife has continued to spout expletives and non-confidence over the current presidential candidates.  On both sides.

Should we actually make the move back to Britain, we'd be happy to put you up should a visit to the malt whisky trail ever be in the cards.

We might also collaborate on the best home defense against @policemedic 's raving Islamic hordes.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 13, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> The wife has continued to spout expletives and non-confidence over the current presidential candidates.  On both sides.
> 
> Should we actually make the move back to Britain, we'd be happy to put you up should a visit to the malt whisky trail ever be in the cards.
> 
> We might also collaborate on the best home defense against @policemedic 's raving Islamic hordes.



RF1 is a great man and it would be an honor to put him up if you ever had him for a visit.



I have a healthy fear this year. This country needs to be righted back to a more centered approach.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 13, 2016)

Watching the Republican debate...what the fuck.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 13, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> RF1 is a great man and it would be an honor to put him up if you ever had him for a visit.
> 
> 
> 
> I have a healthy fear this year. This country needs to be righted back to a more centered approach.



What do you think our country is right now? We have a pretty right wing congress, and a left wing president. That is a recipe for keeping things right in the middle.

On to other things, people from both sides act like our country is on the fast track to either a socialist Marxist hellscape, or some kind of right wing  Hitlerfest.

Guess what? After 8 years of Bush, we were still here, after 8 years of Obama, we are still here. We will still be here despite Trump and his hair, or Bernie and his grumpiness, or gasp, that woman is elected. America stands strong because of her people, not the one person at the top of the government. 

If you want change the presidency isn't where you should be  voting, congressional elections are where shit gets done.


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 14, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> ...*snip*or gasp, that woman is elected. *snip*...



I thought Carly Fiorina dropped out.  :-"


----------



## AWP (Feb 14, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Guess what? After 8 years of Bush, we were still here, after 8 years of Obama, we are still here. We will still be here despite Trump and his hair, or Bernie and his grumpiness, or gasp, that woman is elected. America stands strong because of her people, not the one person at the top of the government.



I agree and I don't. I think what we're seeing from one presidency to the next is an incremental loss of (insert topic here). My concern regardless of who we elect is how will they set up the next guy and the next to erode our country. Once the gov't takes something it doesn't exactly give that back. If I have a ham and you ask for it, I tell you no. You ask for a slice and then another slice...because isn't a whole ham, right? Ask for enough slices and you have an entire ham.

I'm not concerned about one right/left anti-Christ, I'm worried about a Voltron anti-Christ over decades.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 14, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I agree and I don't. I think what we're seeing from one presidency to the next is an incremental loss of (insert topic here). My concern regardless of who we elect is how will they set up the next guy and the next to erode our country. Once the gov't takes something it doesn't exactly give that back. If I have a ham and you ask for it, I tell you no. You ask for a slice and then another slice...because isn't a whole him, right? Ask for enough slices and you have an entire ham.
> 
> I'm not concerned about one right/left anti-Christ, I'm worried about a Voltron anti-Christ over decades.



You said it better than me. The slippery slope is what worries me the most.


----------



## Brill (Feb 14, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I agree and I don't. I think what we're seeing from one presidency to the next is an incremental loss of (insert topic here). My concern regardless of who we elect is how will they set up the next guy and the next to erode our country. Once the gov't takes something it doesn't exactly give that back. If I have a ham and you ask for it, I tell you no. You ask for a slice and then another slice...because isn't a whole ham, right? Ask for enough slices and you have an entire ham.



Obama's SCOTUS nominee will take the last slice of the 2A ham and it'll be done.

We may not have social policies like Denmark or Norway but Australia gun laws, here we come!!!


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 14, 2016)

lindy said:


> Obama's SCOTUS nominee will take the last slice of the 2A ham and it'll be done.
> 
> We may not have social policies like Denmark or Norway but Australia gun laws, here we come!!!



I don't think so. There is no precedent, and in fact there is a shit ton of precedent saying that our gun laws are g2g. Even a liberal slant doesn't change what the law says. Even my SPLC lawyer friends say that, and they are about as liberal as they come.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 14, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> What do you think our country is right now? We have a pretty right wing congress, and a left wing president. That is a recipe for keeping things right in the middle.
> 
> On to other things, people from both sides act like our country is on the fast track to either a socialist Marxist hellscape, or some kind of right wing  Hitlerfest.
> 
> ...



Concur^^^^^. Both houses are badly in need of leadership, that has been absent for the last eight years. Everything is about the party, with the few votes have been right down party lines. It would be refreshing to have a POTUS, and a Congress that has the good of the Nation in mind, and not the party demands.

Leadership from the White House would be nice-v-Executive orders to run the nation, and that has been the case lately. There is a lot at stake with this election, and the key is the voting public.

Rather than taking for Gospel what one media sourcs says, perhaps some due dilligence in looking at multiple networks and print media, will give a more complete picture. The voting public has been putting people in office by means of knee jerks, and no thinking. I really wonder if the voters even care much at all? The people in office now, simply reflect voting ignorance. Until that changes, things inside the Capital Beltway will remain an inane mess.

That's my $.02. Back into my wee cave in The Valley.


----------



## Brill (Feb 14, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I don't think so. There is no precedent, and in fact there is a shit ton of precedent saying that our gun laws are g2g. Even a liberal slant doesn't change what the law says. Even my SPLC lawyer friends say that, and they are about as liberal as they come.



Really?  Carry a concealed weapon for your protection in MD, NY, CT and see what happens.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Imagine this ruling without Justice Scalia but another liberal justice: vote would be *5-4 against* and the Court would determine that you, as an American citizen do NOT have a guaranteed right to defend yourself within your home with a working firearm.  (The argument has yet to be decided if this right extends to OUTSIDE your home).

"JUSTICE SCALIA delivered the opinion of the Court. We consider whether a District of Columbia prohibition on the possession of usable handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment to the Constitution."

"In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District must permit him to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. * * * 

*We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution.* The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. *Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.* We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals."

This statement is the "ghost of Christmas future" if/when the leftist control the court:

Justice Stevens:

"The Second Amendment was adopted *to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia.* It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms.* Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.*"

He continues: "Until today, it has been understood that legislatures may regulate the civilian use and misuse of firearms so long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia. *The Court’s announcement of a new constitutional right to own and use firearms for private purposes* upsets that settled understanding, but leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope of permissible regulations."

How anyone can say the liberal agenda does not include overturning Heller v DC is unbelievable.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 14, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I don't think so. There is no precedent, and in fact there is a shit ton of precedent saying that our gun laws are g2g. Even a liberal slant doesn't change what the law says. Even my SPLC lawyer friends say that, and they are about as liberal as they come.


They are too the right of you politically?


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 14, 2016)

I am pro gun, pro 2A. 


DA SWO said:


> They are too the right of you politically?





lindy said:


> Really?  Carry a concealed weapon for your protection in MD, NY, CT and see what happens.
> 
> http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
> 
> ...



The point I was making, is the government isn't going to suddenly come after your guns.  They may make it so you have to get a background check before buying an AR, may overturn stand your ground laws, but I don't think they are going to do anything much crazier than that. Public opinion is against enacting new laws and the courts cannot do things unilaterally.


----------



## Brill (Feb 14, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> The point I was making, is the government isn't going to suddenly come after your guns.  They may make it so you have to get a background check before buying an AR, may overturn stand your ground laws, but I don't think they are going to do anything much crazier than that. Public opinion is against enacting new laws and the courts cannot do things unilaterally.



Ah, got ya.  Fully agree with you on the above.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 14, 2016)

I thought this was pretty interesting. I can see what it is saying and have been guilty of some of the actions described myself.
What a divided America actually hears when Obama speaks


----------



## DocIllinois (Feb 14, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I thought this was pretty interesting. I can see what it is saying and have been guilty of some of the actions described myself.
> What a divided America actually hears when Obama speaks



From the article:  '“Our public life withers when only the most extreme voices get all the attention,” Obama warned.'


Funny enough, this is exactly how Mr. Trump is the leading Repub candidate and where Corey Lewandowski's genius lies.

Donnie's not the best man for the job, but he is the most bloviating and entertaining in an extreme manner.  This is what currently captures the American public's attention and preference.

His impending candidacy is also a byproduct of having only three requirements to become President of the United States, IMO, none of which have anything whatsoever to do with qualification or experience in leadership, government service, formal study of politics of domestic/ world affairs, or even psychological maturity.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 14, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> From the article:  '“Our public life withers when only the most extreme voices get all the attention,” Obama warned.'
> 
> 
> Funny enough, this is exactly how Mr. Trump is the leading Repub candidate and where Corey Lewandowski's genius lies.
> ...


Sadly, I agree.
I think we can wait until Nov to nominate a replacement.  Let Hillary name a candidate the day after the election, then bring the Senate in for hearings.  
Ironic that his death will probably increase the number of people who vote this year.


----------



## AWP (Feb 16, 2016)

Hillary Clinton barks like a dog...

Hillary Clinton barks like a dog to slam Republicans - CNNPolitics.com



> "I want to figure out how we can do that with Republicans. We need to get that dog and follow them around and every time they say these things like, 'Oh, the Great Recession was caused by too much regulation,' arh, arh, arh, arh," Clinton said, letting out a barking noise that caused the audience to laugh and some people to mimic her.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 16, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Sadly, I agree.
> I think we can wait until Nov to nominate a replacement.  Let Hillary name a candidate the day after the election, then bring the Senate in for hearings.
> Ironic that his death will probably increase the number of people who vote this year.



I disagree. The POTUS should nominate someone and the senate should hear about it.  Im pretty sure that is part of his job description.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 16, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I disagree. The POtUs should nominate someone and the senate should hear about it.  Im pretty sure that is part of his job description.


Just like the Democrats did when Bush had 15 months left.
He can nominate all he wants, it'll go no where and president Clinton will get to place the deciding (liberal) vote on the bench.


----------



## RetPara (Feb 16, 2016)

If a moderate is nominated; that person may go through.  In the past, except for the last three 'true believers/useful idiots' that have been place, there has no been assurance that they will vote in the manner that they were nominated to.  

The Republicans in the Senate can talk big medicine now about a nomination going no where....  but if they are realistically facing a Presidents Clinton nomination....   a moderate could look pretty good before she sends them to re-education camps...


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 16, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Just like the Democrats did when Bush had 15 months left.
> He can nominate all he wants, it'll go no where and president Clinton will get to place the deciding (liberal) vote on the bench.



If your kids misbehave, do you take "well Johnny did it" as an excuse? No. Same shit here. Just because BS happened before doesn't make it right.


----------



## AWP (Feb 16, 2016)

Make the nomination and take a moderate if available. Stalling it does what? Give you the hope that your guy will win and can appoint the next Justice? I'd rather have an Obama-nominated one than one nominated by Clinton.

We could really use less partisan politics in this country.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 16, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Make the nomination and take a moderate if available. Stalling it does what? Give you the hope that your guy will win and can appoint the next Justice? I'd rather have an Obama-nominated one than one nominated by Clinton.
> 
> We could really use less partisan politics in this country.


I can't imagine Obama nominating a moderate, Hillary is just as much a Socialist as he is, but Bill can explain the value of nominating a moderate and waiting a few years to get more Liberal Justices in (Ginsberg isn't getting younger).


----------



## Brill (Feb 16, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I disagree. The POTUS should nominate someone and the senate should hear about it.  Im pretty sure that is part of his job description.



All part of our checks and balances. When the people want change, it is manifested in change of power. Clearly the electorate WANTED a Republican majority in Congress and therefore the Senate should do what it was elected to do (confirm, deny, delay, or whatever the Constitution authorizes them to do).

If delaying is opposed by the people, Bernie wins in Nov and pardons Hillary and her staff.


----------



## Dienekes (Feb 16, 2016)

I'm with TLDR20 on this one. As much as I hate to see an Obama administration appointee, Obama has every right to nominate a candidate and have him evaluated fairly by the Senate. For the Senate to mothball Obama's nomination without fair evaluation purely for the purpose to wait and see if their guy gets in office to appoint a new Justice is an insult to the Constitution.



lindy said:


> Clearly the electorate WANTED a Republican majority in Congress



I disagree with this, as only one Senator is elected at a time from any given state, and frequently, voters in any state must wait 4 years to elect a Senator, so the Senate does not necessarily accurately reflect the public's exact political views at any given point in time. It is just as bad in the House due to gerrymandering of districts. I don't have the exact numbers, but we spoke of this issue in class. 50 years ago, the parties had roughly a 35% turnover rate of controlling party of a district while today the number is roughly 7%. You can just look at Louisiana's only blue district to see that the districts weren't just thrown together.


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 16, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> If your kids misbehave, do you take "well Johnny did it" as an excuse? No. Same shit here. Just because BS happened before doesn't make it right.




"Well, Johnny did it" is as good an excuse as any when it's a legal precedent, based on consideration of facts in evidence at the time, to include Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States.  Known as the Appointments Clause, that allows the Senate to "advise and consent" as a check and balance to the president's ability to nominate a body to the court.  That means the burden is on POTUS to convince the Senate to go ahead and confirm his nominee to the Court.  And considering Johnny is now warming the chair in the Oval Office and OEOB (Obama voted in favor of a filibuster of the non-terminal appointment of Samuel Alito, and Biden led the charge in making sure Robert Bork never got confirmed), that's a fairly tangled web that has been woven, especially considering that only 11 of the 36 failed appointments (160 total nominations - 124 approved = 36 failed) to the Court were actually rejected by a down-vote as opposed to receiving no vote.  "Because I said so" is no better an excuse than "But he did it."

There's only been three times where a president has made a nomination to the Supreme Court during his terminal year, and the Senate has granted it.  Those appointments were Eisenhower(R) in 1956 (Democratic nominee, Democrat controlled Senate), Roosevelt(D) in 1940 (Democratic nominee, Democrat controlled Senate), and Hoover(R) in 1932 (Democratic nominee, Democrat controlled Senate).  If you want to take these three as establishment of a new precedent, then feel free.


----------



## Brill (Feb 16, 2016)

Dienekes said:


> I'm with TLDR20 on this one. As much as I hate to see an Obama administration appointee, *Obama has every right to nominate a candidate and have him evaluated fairly by the Senate.* For the Senate to mothball Obama's nomination without fair evaluation purely for the purpose to wait and see if their guy gets in office to appoint a new Justice is an insult to the Constitution.
> 
> I disagree with this, as only one Senator is elected at a time from any given state, and frequently, voters in any state must wait 4 years to elect a Senator, so the Senate does not necessarily accurately reflect the public's exact political views at any given point in time. It is just as bad in the House due to gerrymandering of districts. I don't have the exact numbers, but we spoke of this issue in class. 50 years ago, the parties had roughly a 35% turnover rate of controlling party of a district while today the number is roughly 7%. You can just look at Louisiana's only blue district to see that the districts weren't just thrown together.



Where does the Constitution elaborate this "right" for the President's nominee to fairly evaluated by the Senate?  How is a potential Senate delay on confirmation hearings an "insult"?  Perhaps you should read more about the Executive branch and what exactly the head of that branch has sworn to do (prosecution of the law vs enforcement the law) and reconsider said insults.

Please elaborate how a Democrat-controlled Congress could lose it's majority if the electorate is happy/pleased with their performance as a Party?


----------



## AWP (Feb 16, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> _post_



Someone discovered Google today.


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 16, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Someone discovered Google today.



Actually, I got gang-raped by Wikipedia when it came down to looking for some names.


----------



## AWP (Feb 16, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> Actually, I got gang-raped by Wikipedia when it came down to looking for some names.



Was it on a pinball table per chance?


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 16, 2016)

lindy said:


> All part of our checks and balances. When the people want change, it is manifested in change of power. Clearly the electorate WANTED a Republican majority in Congress and therefore the Senate should do what it was elected to do (confirm, deny, delay, or whatever the Constitution authorizes them to do).
> 
> If delaying is opposed by the people, Bernie wins in Nov and pardons Hillary and her staff.



Well the people clearly wanted President Obama too, so he should still put forward an appointee.


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 16, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Was it on a pinball table per chance?



Mmmmmm, pinball.


----------



## AWP (Feb 16, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> Mmmmmm, pinball.



An obscure Jodie Foster in _The Accused_ reference.


----------



## Brill (Feb 16, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Well the people clearly wanted President Obama too, so he should still put forward an appointee.



No, that's different.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 16, 2016)

lindy said:


> No, that's different.



I know you are kidding, but a lot of people aren't and they truly believe he shouldn't even nominate someone. I just can't understand that.


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 16, 2016)

lindy said:


> No, that's different.



I think that's one of the most difficult things about politics in this day and age (media tailored to your own opinions creating an echo-chamber of views, facebook memes with zero fact-checks as a prime source of information).  If you care about a particular stance it gets more and more difficult to see those with differing opinions (or the opinions themselves) in any light but abject hatred.

I don't think we have a 'favorite podcast' thread but one I really enjoy is called 'Intelligence Squared US Debates.'  They do Oxford-style debates (two pro, two con a proposition with opening remarks, questions from moderator, then questions to each other and audience, then closing remarks).  I've found it to be very educational and a great way to get facts-based argument (something rarely found on the news).  The reason I bring it up in this context is I've found myself not agreeing with a side - but feeling like they won the argument within the context of the debate in some circumstances.

It's worth checking out if that sort of thing interests you.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 16, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Well the people clearly wanted President Obama too, so he should still put forward an appointee.


......
.....and the people clearly wanted a Republican controlled Senate who has a Constitutional right to slow roll, ignore or vote no.
Checks and balances is more than an accounting class.


----------



## Brill (Feb 16, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> I think that's one of the most difficult things about politics in this day and age (media tailored to your own opinions creating an echo-chamber of views, facebook memes with zero fact-checks as a prime source of information).  If you care about a particular stance it gets more and more difficult to see those with differing opinions (or the opinions themselves) in any light but abject hatred.
> 
> I don't think we have a 'favorite podcast' thread but one I really enjoy is called 'Intelligence Squared US Debates.'  They do Oxford-style debates (two pro, two con a proposition with opening remarks, questions from moderator, then questions to each other and audience, then closing remarks).  I've found it to be very educational and a great way to get facts-based argument (something rarely found on the news).  The reason I bring it up in this context is I've found myself not agreeing with a side - but feeling like they won the argument within the context of the debate in some circumstances.
> 
> It's worth checking out if that sort of thing interests you.



LOVE all the Constitutional debates on there! Definitely queuing up for the AM commute!


----------



## Il Duce (Feb 16, 2016)

@lindy - definitely!  The UK debates go too long and are a little dry for me but 90% of the US ones I really enjoy.  I think that moderator does a great job.  I also really like the podcast 'Backstory.'  Not really much controversy/argument there but some really cool little-known (or at least little known to me) American history.


----------



## pardus (Feb 16, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Oh I understand the realities. I just don't think they are that bad.



Cool, and agreed within reason.



lindy said:


> Which freedoms do you have here that weren't afforded in Christchurch?



I had a friend who was arrested for wearing a t-shirt that had the word "fuck" on it. Offensive Behavior.  
There is a law in NZ that stipulates that 3 people who happen to0 have criminal convictions can be classified as a gang. If you are arrested and are found to be a "gang member" your sentence can be doubled (I'm going by dodgy memory, @SpitfireV can probably fill the gaps). The police can determine that any gathering of more than three people can be considered a riot/illegal gathering (or words to that effect) and have dire consequences for those involved.
Now, are those laws used a-lot, often, at all? I  couldn't tell you, but they are on the books and can be used at will.


----------



## Dienekes (Feb 16, 2016)

lindy said:


> Where does the Constitution elaborate this "right" for the President's nominee to fairly evaluated by the Senate?  How is a potential Senate delay on confirmation hearings an "insult"?  Perhaps you should read more about the Executive branch and what exactly the head of that branch has sworn to do (prosecution of the law vs enforcement the law) and reconsider said insults.
> 
> Please elaborate how a Democrat-controlled Congress could lose it's majority if the electorate is happy/pleased with their performance as a Party?



Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and *he shall nominate*, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, *judges of the Supreme Court*, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the *Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper*, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.

In the bold above, the right to nominate and Congress may vest the nomination if they choose. Essentially, and I take this from the wording, the President could appoint a judge and Congress would only shoot it down if they disagreed which means that they must evaluate the candidate. I say fairly because frankly, decisions made purely with respect to factionalism rather than critical analysis are ruining this country. The Founding Fathers warned of the this, and I consider it an insult not only to the Constitution but also to the people for elected officials to act or vote a certain way because a party tells them to though I guess that would depend on if voters vote by party rather than candidate, but that is a different discussion.


Lack of voting participation or change thereof for the following election because (insert reason here) or gerrymandering are the main two. I know of many of my parents friends that only vote in Presidential elections and only recently decided to vote in Congressional elections because they hate Obama and don't want a Democrat Congress to just go with whatever he says. Terrible example but it is sadly true.


----------



## compforce (Feb 17, 2016)

Dienekes said:


> Article 2, Section 2 of the Constitution
> but the *Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper*, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
> 
> In the bold above, the right to nominate and Congress may vest the nomination if they choose. Essentially, and I take this from the wording, the President could appoint a judge and Congress would only shoot it down if they disagreed which means that they must evaluate the candidate.



Your argument is correct, but based on a false premise.  Read the entire sentence that you bolded a portion of.  "Vest" in this instance means to delegate.  Reread the same sentence and replace the word vest with delegate.  See the difference?  They were saying that the President should not have to delegate every appointee all the way down to the smallest, but rather Congress could delegate all of the "inferior" posts to others if Congress so chooses.  It also gives Congress the right to create a law or resolution stating that for "inferior" posts they, Congress, can give that power to the President without the requirement for advise and consent, eliminating the requirement for review.

The part that supports your statement is "advise and consent" which means that the President shouldn't just go nominating someone, they should collaborate with the Judiciary Comittees in the House and Senate to get their advice.  Then the President should nominate the consensus choice whom congress would "consent to" by a ratification vote.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 17, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Was it on a pinball table per chance?


Kinky.


----------



## Dienekes (Feb 17, 2016)

compforce said:


> Your argument is correct, but based on a false premise.  Read the entire sentence that you bolded a portion of.  "Vest" in this instance means to delegate.  Reread the same sentence and replace the word vest with delegate.  See the difference?  They were saying that the President should not have to delegate every appointee all the way down to the smallest, but rather Congress could delegate all of the "inferior" posts to others if Congress so chooses.  It also gives Congress the right to create a law or resolution stating that for "inferior" posts they, Congress, can give that power to the President without the requirement for advise and consent, eliminating the requirement for review.
> 
> The part that supports your statement is "advise and consent" which means that the President shouldn't just go nominating someone, they should collaborate with the Judiciary Comittees in the House and Senate to get their advice.  Then the President should nominate the consensus choice whom congress would "consent to" by a ratification vote.



I agree, I took vest to mean vetting without looking further into it. You are right on the other as well, I also saw the advise and consent of the Senate portion, but I took it at first purely with respect to consent. I suppose then if Congress chooses to withdraw their right to advise on the nomination,  the POTUS could nominate someone and force the Senate to choose whether or not to consent which would be an effective political move for the Democrats for the election in November as they could throw the Republican Party in a bad light saying that they refuse to work with POTUS.


----------



## Florida173 (Feb 17, 2016)

> *Surprise: Trump Falls Behind Cruz in National NBC/WSJ Poll*
> Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump has fallen behind Ted Cruz in the national GOP horserace, according to a brand-new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
> 
> In the poll, Cruz is the first choice of 28 percent of Republican primary voters, while Trump gets 26 percent. They're followed by Marco Rubio at 17 percent, John Kasich at 11 percent, Ben Carson at 10 percent and Jeb Bush at 4 percent.



So of course the margin of error is between 3.5 and 4.9 which is a bit on the high side, but having looked back at every NBC/WSJ Poll in the past, they seem to be consistently polling Trump low or some of the other candidates higher. Now of course during this same time period you have two other polls; Quininipiac University at a +20 for Trump and USA Today/Suffolk at +15 for Trump.

Point being that it was interesting hearing the talking heads on the way home from work today discuss and highlight the NBC/WSJ poll as a clear sign of the GOP changing abruptly.


----------



## Brill (Feb 17, 2016)

@Dienekes the key words in all that were "shall" (indicating an obligation) and "may" (indicating a possibility or probability).  The President is obligated to nominate whereas the Senate may confirm.  The reality is, in my opinion, is the law is written as such so the occupant of 1600 Pen Ave f'ing talks to various Senators to compromise!!!  Let's see Obama try to EO his way through this one (I expect a recess appointment honestly).

I do agree that if the Republicans openly refuse, that may cost them some votes in November but I think the FEAR of Hillary or Bernie taking over the White House would overcome any obstructionist talk.

The electorate appears (based on Iowa and New Hampshire) to be frustrated with DC politics in the current state.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 17, 2016)

pardus said:


> I had a friend who was arrested for wearing a t-shirt that had the word "fuck" on it. Offensive Behavior.
> There is a law in NZ that stipulates that 3 people who happen to0 have criminal convictions can be classified as a gang. If you are arrested and are found to be a "gang member" your sentence can be doubled (I'm going by dodgy memory, @SpitfireV can probably fill the gaps). The police can determine that any gathering of more than three people can be considered a riot/illegal gathering (or words to that effect) and have dire consequences for those involved.
> Now, are those laws used a-lot, often, at all? I  couldn't tell you, but they are on the books and can be used at will.


Which explains our Freedom to Assemble/Protest Peacefully rights.


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 17, 2016)

pardus said:


> I had a friend who was arrested for wearing a t-shirt that had the word "fuck" on it. Offensive Behavior.
> There is a law in NZ that stipulates that 3 people who happen to0 have criminal convictions can be classified as a gang. If you are arrested and are found to be a "gang member" your sentence can be doubled (I'm going by dodgy memory, @SpitfireV can probably fill the gaps). The police can determine that any gathering of more than three people can be considered a riot/illegal gathering (or words to that effect) and have dire consequences for those involved.
> Now, are those laws used a-lot, often, at all? I  couldn't tell you, but they are on the books and can be used at will.



OK, I can see where you've got this and unfortunately for you it's almost all wrong  

Now, the gathering thing is dependent on a very particular set of circumstances. I think this is the section you're thinking about: 

Crimes Act 1961 No 43 (as at 07 November 2015), Public Act 86 Unlawful assembly – New Zealand Legislation

The same goes for the gang thing. There's a high threshold to prove an offence against this section and I'm not totally sure it's been used effectively before. I've got a hazy bell going off saying that the police tried with some patched members but it didn't work. The fact that you're a gang member on arrest doesn't make a lot of difference re sentencing. 

Crimes Act 1961 No 43 (as at 07 November 2015), Public Act 98A Participation in organised criminal group – New Zealand Legislation

Interestingly I didn't realise there was a subsection that says that your mates can defend the property. 

When did that happen with your mate? Offensive behaviour is, fortunately and unfortunately, a very very wide charge and can cover almost anything. Was your mate being a knob at the time by chance? I only ask to clarify.



DA SWO said:


> Which explains our Freedom to Assemble/Protest Peacefully rights.



Hey guess what? We can do that too, for as long as we like. What an assumption to make.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 17, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> Hey guess what? We can do that too, for as long as we like. What an assumption to make.


We ca do it without being labeled as gang members, which is my point.


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 17, 2016)

So can we. Which is why yours was one hell of an assumption.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 17, 2016)

I think it is funny when Americans act like America is the only place where freedom exists, the world is not Soviet Russia. The world is the freest it has ever been. People act like socialism is the equivalent of putting on the chains of oppression. Meanwhile people in Europe report having happier, longer, healthier lives. 

Normally those people who act that way haven't traveled a lot, or have only been to shitholes.


----------



## pardus (Feb 17, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> OK, I can see where you've got this and unfortunately for you it's almost all wrong
> 
> Now, the gathering thing is dependent on a very particular set of circumstances. I think this is the section you're thinking about:
> 
> ...



Interesting. Then I stand humbly corrected.

His arrest would have been in the early-mid 90's I suppose. He was a patched member or a prospect at the time, so being a knob, yup.


----------



## Florida173 (Feb 17, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I think it is funny when Americans act like America is the only place where freedom exists, the world is not Soviet Russia. The world is the freest it has ever been. People act like socialism is the equivalent of putting on the chains of oppression. *Meanwhile people in Europe report having happier, longer, healthier lives. *
> 
> Normally those people who act that way haven't traveled a lot, or have only been to shitholes.



That's because they don't know better. For the most part, the best places are the least diverse. I feel I've spent a lot of time in places around the world to have a pretty objective view of the world, and there is absolutely no better place to live than the United States.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 18, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> That's because they don't know better. For the most part, the best places are the least diverse. I feel I've spent a lot of time in places around the world to have a pretty objective view of the world, and there is absolutely no better place to live than the United States.



I agree. Because we know better. But acting like there isn't freedom elsewhere is stupid.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 18, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> Hey guess what? We can do that too, for as long as we like. What an assumption to make.





SpitfireV said:


> So can we. Which is why yours was one hell of an assumption.





TLDR20 said:


> I think it is funny when Americans act like America is the only place where freedom exists, the world is not Soviet Russia. The world is the freest it has ever been. People act like socialism is the equivalent of putting on the chains of oppression. Meanwhile people in Europe report having happier, longer, healthier lives.
> 
> Normally those people who act that way haven't traveled a lot, or have only been to shitholes.



Actually, all I did was point out some of the reasoning behind the first 10 Amendments, I never said we were the only country with "freedom" or that arrest was automatic.  
Pardus was stating that it was possible to get arrested if you had more than 3 people gathering (and they were labled as gang members), if that law doesn't exist, then state so; if it does exist then don't get butt hurt when I state that freedom of peaceful assembly (even for criminals) is written into our constitution.
@TLDR20   If you think I was saying we are the only country with freedom then you have assumed wrongly that was the point I was making.  As far as Europe goes, awesome, I'd still rather live here then there.


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 18, 2016)

You made an assumption based on a post that said itself was hazy on if the details were correct.

 You'll notice that I had addressed the issue and still you carried on with the assumption. 

I might suggest we leave this here; it is a silly and petty thing for either of us to continue.


----------



## compforce (Feb 18, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> People act like socialism is the equivalent of putting on the chains of oppression. Meanwhile people in Europe report having happier, longer, healthier lives...



...most of which is spent waiting in line for health care, subsidies and food  

(this is a joke, kinda)


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 18, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Actually, all I did was point out some of the reasoning behind the first 10 Amendments, I never said we were the only country with "freedom" or that arrest was automatic.
> Pardus was stating that it was possible to get arrested if you had more than 3 people gathering (and they were labled as gang members), if that law doesn't exist, then state so; if it does exist then don't get butt hurt when I state that freedom of peaceful assembly (even for criminals) is written into our constitution.
> @TLDR20   If you think I was saying we are the only country with freedom then you have assumed wrongly that was the point I was making.  As far as Europe goes, awesome, I'd still rather live here then there.



Did I say you said that?


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 18, 2016)

If you don't want to vote for Ted Cruz, I might as well offer another Canadian option.


----------



## AWP (Feb 20, 2016)

Fox and CNN have Hillary winning in Nevada 52 - 48 with 80-ish percent reporting. Maybe it is my total dislike of the woman, but I don't see how she could be happy with a 4 point win. CNN's take is this is a big deal for Clinton, but 4 points? I guess a win's a win.


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 20, 2016)

Trump wins SC with close to 35% of the vote.


----------



## Dame (Feb 20, 2016)

Jeb's out.


----------



## AWP (Feb 20, 2016)

Quit!


----------



## Gunz (Feb 20, 2016)

Conor McGregor is done fighting in Vegas.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 20, 2016)

We're fucked.


----------



## jjgli (Feb 21, 2016)

Clinton narrowly edged Sanders which I think long term is an obvious sign of the times. With the minority Latino vote previously locked down, she should have won by a landslide. I hope for the world's sake this win is actually more like a loss for the Clinton superpower.
President Clinton... urggghhhhhhhh


----------



## Brill (Feb 21, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Fox and CNN have Hillary winning in Nevada 52 - 48 with 80-ish percent reporting. Maybe it is my total dislike of the woman, but I don't see how she could be happy with a 4 point win. CNN's take is this is a big deal for Clinton, but 4 points? I guess a win's a win.



Sanders supporters revolt against superdelegates

The Democrat process is rigged: the superdelates are supposedly majority for Clinton. Bottom line when Sanders' young backers get the news that she'll get the overwhelming majority of delegates yet squeak by (or actually lose) in polling, they'll realize it's a sham.

Bernie said they're starting a revolution....maybe they will change their "process" that includes coin flips and standing around for hours to be counted.

What Is a Superdelegate?

But if check out the ACTUALL numbers, they don't show a huge lead. Google democratic superdelates 2016


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 21, 2016)

I swear that if I read or hear one more "grassroots" comment about anything in today's politics, my head is going to explode.

Going out and getting national cable news to drum up BS popularity, followed by a bunch of unemployed/bored people beating on doors and calling people with jobs right as you fucking sit down for dinner, followed by dumb people blindly supporting their lesser of the two evil's because they are too dumb to figure out that there zero differences and that they all represent the "establishment" or "special interest" is not a grassroots movement, its exactly the fucking opposite.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 21, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I swear that if I read or hear one more "grassroots" comment about anything in today's politics, my head is going to explode.
> 
> Going out and getting national cable news to drum up BS popularity, followed by a bunch of unemployed/bored people beating on doors and calling people with jobs right as you fucking sit down for dinner, followed by dumb people blindly supporting their lesser of the two evil's because they are too dumb to figure out that there zero differences and that they all represent the "establishment" or "special interest" is not a grassroots movement, its exactly the fucking opposite.



That is our main stream news outlets shaping and spinning the news. It will not end as it swirls around the toilet bowl.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 21, 2016)

IIRC Hillary had the majority of the Super Delegates in 2008 until the CinC started to win states.


----------



## Brill (Feb 21, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> IIRC Hillary had the majority of the Super Delegates in 2008 until the CinC started to win states.



You're right. Interesting piece on 2008 and possible implication this year.

Superdelegates Might Not Save Hillary Clinton

Democrats have a f'd up nomination process for sure.


----------



## jjgli (Feb 21, 2016)

I personally think Killary would be a really great president mainly because she's such a great coin flipper


----------



## Gunz (Feb 21, 2016)

I get the feeling Joe Biden is waiting to throw his hat in the ring if neither Hillary nor Bernie can pull off a commanding lead. He is the VP, after all, and his presidential ambitions are well documented. He may just show up late as the Democrat's white knight.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 21, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> I get the feeling Joe Biden is waiting to throw his hat in the ring if neither Hillary nor Bernie can pull off a commanding lead. He is the VP, after all, and his presidential ambitions are well documented. He may just show up late as the Democrat's white knight.



Yeah, I'm expecting something similar, I think the Clinton email might have more to do with it. She get's backed into a corner (indictment's) right before the general election, she is out, Bernie has little chance against Trump, Joe steps in to save the Dem party, none of Joe's bullshit has been tossed around over the last year, Trump's camp stumbles to dig the dirt up at the last minute, resulting a very close election of whoever wins. Joe keeps his promise to his dying son.

My$.02


----------



## AWP (Feb 21, 2016)

The only way anyone steps in is if Hillary's indicted and no one's going to touch her in an election year. If she wins, the email goes away. If she loses, some staffer takes the fall. Even trying to hang a staffer before the election looks bad and they'll only do that as an absolute last resort.

There's what I want and what I think will happen....and those are two vastly different things.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 21, 2016)

I want her to get abducted by centaurs.


----------



## jjgli (Feb 21, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> ...Bernie has little chance against Trump...



According to most major polls as of now, Sanders handily beats Trump
2016 General Election: Trump vs. Sanders - Polls - HuffPost Pollster


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 21, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Yeah, I'm expecting something similar, I think the Clinton email might have more to do with it. She get's backed into a corner (indictment's) right before the general election, she is out, Bernie has little chance against Trump, Joe steps in to save the Dem party, none of Joe's bullshit has been tossed around over the last year, Trump's camp stumbles to dig the dirt up at the last minute, resulting a very close election of whoever wins. Joe keeps his promise to his dying son.
> 
> My$.02



I think Bernie would wipe the floor with Trump.


----------



## Grunt (Feb 21, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I think Bernie would wipe the floor with Trump.



I wouldn't doubt that for a minute. He is able to speak to all ages and seem sincere about it when he does. He seems far more approachable and down-to-earth than Trump...and those are many of the things voters look at.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 21, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I think Bernie would wipe the floor with Trump.



 He's cuddly Uncle Bernie. If only he would join the NRA.


----------



## Florida173 (Feb 22, 2016)

I should read some of bernie's porn rape fiction


----------



## DocIllinois (Feb 22, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> I should read some of bernie's porn rape fiction



If you read some of the same kind of crap I wrote for my English undergrad degree work and "alternative" school papers, Bernie's piece would look like a Better Homes and Gardens article.

It was ham handed fiction.  People have gotten over it.


----------



## Florida173 (Feb 22, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> If you read some of the same kind of crap I wrote for my English undergrad degree work and "alternative" school papers, Bernie's piece would look like a Better Homes and Gardens article.
> 
> It was ham handed fiction.  People have gotten over it.


 
I wasn't looking for an apologist, but you are doing a great job.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 22, 2016)

^^^^bawhahaha


----------



## DocIllinois (Feb 22, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> I wasn't looking for an apologist, but you are doing a great job.



The reduced connections between my vmPFC and amygdala totally preclude this behavior.

Big fan of patronization, though, and have 'Liked' accordingly.


Back to applicable things, Billary's superdelegate support is going to make Sen. Sanders work tough for the near future.

*Delegate Count Leaving Bernie Sanders With Steep Climb*


----------



## Brill (Feb 22, 2016)

Hillary won ALL 6 coin flips in Iowa AND the card draw in Nevada? Oh, she drew an ace by the way.

Ace Beats Six: Hillary Clinton Wins Nevada Delegate in Card Draw Tie-Breaker


----------



## AWP (Feb 22, 2016)

Ted Cruz'  communications department is a mess.

Cruz fires top campaign spokesman over Rubio Bible video | Fox News



> Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz said Monday he’s fired campaign communications director Rick Tyler, after his top spokesman promoted a video that wrongly depicted Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as trash-talking the Bible.
> 
> Rubio also had criticized the Cruz campaign last week for using a doctored image of Rubio supposedly shaking hands with President Obama. This, after the Cruz campaign also faced accusations of spreading false rumors on Iowa caucus night that Ben Carson was dropping out -- when in fact Carson had only announced he was going to Florida to pick up some fresh clothes.


----------



## Brill (Feb 22, 2016)

Seriously, I'm not trolling but and legitimately curious why anyone would ever register as a Democrat when YOUR VOTE DOES NOT MATTER in the Presidential primary process! The original Greek idea is that majority rules yet your own party appears to know what is better for you?

The 2016 Race Is Deja Vu All Over Again

I seriously do not understand.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 22, 2016)

lindy said:


> Seriously, I'm not trolling but and legitimately curious why anyone would ever register as a Democrat when YOUR VOTE DOES NOT MATTER in the Presidential primary process! The original Greek idea is that majority rules yet your own party appears to know what is better for you?
> 
> The 2016 Race Is Deja Vu All Over Again
> 
> I seriously do not understand.


Vice did a piece about this. Apparently those delegates can vote for whoever they want, but it is unlikely they will vote against the popular vote.


----------



## Brill (Feb 22, 2016)

@TLDR20 , this one? Doesn't appear very flattering towards the party.

Is the Democratic Party Rigging the Election for Hillary Clinton?  | VICE | United States


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 22, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> I get the feeling Joe Biden is waiting to throw his hat in the ring if neither Hillary nor Bernie can pull off a commanding lead. He is the VP, after all, and his presidential ambitions are well documented. He may just show up late as the Democrat's white knight.





Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Yeah, I'm expecting something similar, I think the Clinton email might have more to do with it. She get's backed into a corner (indictment's) right before the general election, she is out, Bernie has little chance against Trump, Joe steps in to save the Dem party, none of Joe's bullshit has been tossed around over the last year, Trump's camp stumbles to dig the dirt up at the last minute, resulting a very close election of whoever wins. Joe keeps his promise to his dying son.
> 
> My$.02





Freefalling said:


> The only way anyone steps in is if Hillary's indicted and no one's going to touch her in an election year. If she wins, the email goes away. If she loses, some staffer takes the fall. Even trying to hang a staffer before the election looks bad and they'll only do that as an absolute last resort.
> There's what I want and what I think will happen....and those are two vastly different things.



I still think Hillary gets indicted just before the convention, and Biden is selected in a brokered convention.

Bernie may or may not beat Trump, but I am learning not to doubt his ability to win.
Hillary and Sanders should be taking him seriously too; the normal tactics won't work against him, and he has a razor sharp tongue.
Same goes for Biden, he'll have to do more than roll his eyes if he debates again.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 22, 2016)

Abducted by a herd of centaurs, _and _indicted.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 23, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> I still think Hillary gets indicted just before the convention, and Biden is selected in a brokered convention.
> 
> Bernie may or may not beat Trump, but I am learning not to doubt his ability to win.
> Hillary and Sanders should be taking him seriously too; the normal tactics won't work against him, and he has a razor sharp tongue.
> Same goes for Biden, he'll have to do more than roll his eyes if he debates again.



I do *so* hope there is some action taken against Hilary. This game regarding mishandeling classified information has gone on long enough. It is a mockery of the right and wrong existing in our country today. What ever happens to the Democratic ticket, is what it has earned. I would love to se a straight up debate between Biden and Trump.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 23, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I do *so* hope there is some action taken against Hilary. This game regarding mishandeling classified information has gone on long enough. It is a mockery of the right and wrong existing in our country today. What ever happens to the Democratic ticket, is what it has earned. I would love to se a straight up debate between Biden and Trump.



Although I do think we will see that debate (my opinion), I'm not sure how well Trump will do against Biden. Biden has been a pretty good debater, he is 100% polished and has his own unique charisma that can be captivating. Although I'd rather have Biden over Hillary or Sanders, I think he would be 100% inline with another 4 years of Obama style policy.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 23, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Although I do think we will see that debate (my opinion), I'm not sure how well Trump will do against Biden. Biden has been a pretty good debater, he is 100% polished and has his own unique charisma that can be captivating. Although I'd rather have Biden over Hillary or Sanders, I think he would be 100% inline with another 4 years of Obama style policy.



That is true. During the VP debates, Biden openly insulted and was demeaning of his opponent. He got away with it because the debate was under the control of one or the pro-Democratic broadcast channels. I watched the debate, and it was painful to watch. Ryan addresses the questions and the issuse, while Biden spent the bulk of his time rollong his eyes, taking cheap shots at his opponent. As a "debate" it was a disaster, but because of the ground Ryan had to debate on. It was all pro-Biden, and his lack of manners and jackassery that went on unchecked.


----------



## Brill (Feb 23, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Although I do think we will see that debate (my opinion), I'm not sure how well Trump will do against Biden. Biden has been a pretty good debater, he is 100% polished and has his own unique charisma that can be captivating. Although I'd rather have Biden over Hillary or Sanders, I think he would be 100% inline with another 4 years of Obama style policy.



Are you kidding?  All Trump would have to do is raise various issues...8 years worth...of Obama policies and his record vs his campaign promises.

"Are you better off today than you were 8 years ago?"


----------



## Gunz (Feb 23, 2016)

lindy said:


> Are you kidding?  All Trump would have to do is raise various issues...8 years worth...of Obama policies and his record vs his campaign promises.
> 
> "Are you better off today than you were 8 years ago?"




When I drive down MLK Blvd here in my little town of Brooksville, FL, I see the same dilapidated buildings, empty storefronts, the same unemployed young men loitering around...exactly the same picture you would've seen 8 years ago. No hope, no change, time at a standstill...


----------



## Brill (Feb 23, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> When I drive down MLK Blvd here in my little town of Brooksville, FL, I see the same dilapidated buildings, empty storefronts, the same unemployed young men loitering around...exactly the same picture you would've seen 8 years ago. No hope, no change, time at a standstill...



That's Bush's fault. Obama's cronies "built" places like Detroit, Baltimore, Chicago, and Flint.

It's worse than this really:
Katie Pavlich - 2013 Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities All Run By Democrats


----------



## Florida173 (Feb 23, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> When I drive down MLK Blvd here in my little town of Brooksville, FL, I see the same dilapidated buildings, empty storefronts, the same unemployed young men loitering around...exactly the same picture you would've seen 8 years ago. No hope, no change, time at a standstill...



I was just in Brooksville on Saturday. You happen to see a CH-47 drop some guys out? I got two jumps in.


----------



## AWP (Feb 23, 2016)

This debate or whatever in SC is painful to watch.


----------



## Brill (Feb 23, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> This debate or whatever in SC is painful to watch.



Season 5 of Tosh.O is WAY better.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 23, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> I was just in Brooksville on Saturday. You happen to see a CH-47 drop some guys out? I got two jumps in.



Unbelievable dude, that Chinook went right over my house late Saturday afternoon and I heard it coming. I looked up and said "shithook"... I didn't see any jumpers. About 4-4:30 I think.

You shoulda jumped on my pasture, it woulda been free beer. Seriously, I've had helos land in my pasture twice, because I've got some Vietnam buddies who fly for civilian companies. I get rides of course, but nobody's supposed to know that. When they land at my place its for a "safety check." 

Crazy. A fellow Shadowspear member flying over my house. In a big ass 47. If you guys plan another jump up here I'll pm you my lat & long coords and you can drop in for grilled meat and beer.


----------



## Brill (Feb 25, 2016)




----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 25, 2016)

lindy said:


>




Home alone which?


----------



## Gunz (Feb 25, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Home alone which?



Two, I think. It's the one where the family ends up in FL for Xmas and the little dude goes to Manhattan and gets a room at the Plaza.


----------



## Raptor (Feb 26, 2016)

Yeah, it's two. The full title is Home Alone 2: Lost in New York.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 2, 2016)

After Super Tuesday, it's looking more and more like the race is going to be Clinton vs. Trump.  Ew.
Super Tuesday election results - CNNPolitics.com
6 takeaways from Super Tuesday - CNNPolitics.com
Trump, Clinton rack up Super Tuesday wins; Cruz keeps foothold | Fox News

You know, long ago on some other forum, I laughed at the idea of Trump as a serious candidate.  I'm pretty sure that I gave him three months before dropping out.  Ohhhh boy.


----------



## compforce (Mar 2, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> After Super Tuesday, it's looking more and more like the race is going to be Clinton vs. Trump.  Ew.



I'm in the "anyone but Hillary" camp.  That's why I have to support Trump.  Cruz may be a great person, a solid conservative and someone whose platform I mostly agree with but he's too far to the right to beat Hillary.  Rubio has a better chance to beat Hillary than Cruz, but he's all for amnesty and I can't stand that thought.  Not because of the normal stated reasons, but because it's a slippery slope from amnesty to pathway to citizenship to 12 million new Dem voters.

I wish there was a candidate that fell in the political spectrum between Trump and Cruz, but didn't support amnesty and had a snowball's chance of winning.  That would be my candidate...but there isn't one so Trump it is, simply for the fact that he has the best chance to stop Hillary.


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 2, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> You know, long ago on some other forum, I laughed at the idea of Trump as a serious candidate.  I'm pretty sure that I gave him three months before dropping out.  Ohhhh boy.



He threw enough money into a campaign and shot his mouth off with populist garbage enough to stay in the limelight.

That's all it takes these days to give the impression that you're a Viable Candidate, where entertainment, pandering, and who has the least mud sticking to them trump  all else.


----------



## Bypass (Mar 2, 2016)

I'm with Trump. Mainly because I can't magically make Huckabee the nominee. I would like to nuke the republican party and start over and I think Trump will get us partially there.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 2, 2016)

Bypass said:


> I'm with Trump. Mainly because I can't magically make Huckabee the nominee. I would like to nuke the republican party and start over and I think Trump will get us partially there.



Have fun voting for a democrat. A guy that supported partial birth abortions... Falls right in line with Huckabee.






John Oliver killing it. I seriously cannot see how anyone doesn't think that Trump is just trolling America right now.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 2, 2016)

Bypass said:


> I'm with Trump. Mainly because I can't magically make Huckabee the nominee. I would like to nuke the republican party and start over and I think Trump will get us partially there.


Huckabee is no different than Trump, another Huckster.

I'll wait and see, but still am not convinced Trump is serious about being the President.
We will see if he attacks Hillary with as much energy as he attacks Cruz or Rubio.


----------



## Grunt (Mar 2, 2016)

He will feel her full wrath once it's a one-on-one race. She will set her sites on him and fire for effect. He can't imagine the power she has entrenched in "the system" that he hasn't witnessed yet. It's coming soon enough.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 2, 2016)

What I'm wondering is how long it will take before either Hillary or Trump get into office, and we see a second American civil war.


----------



## Frank S. (Mar 2, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> John Oliver killing it. I seriously cannot see how anyone doesn't think that Trump is just trolling America right now.



It's funny cause it's true...


----------



## Il Duce (Mar 2, 2016)

Zero insights into the political process or this race - but still awesome:

https://youtu.be/v75wCTMZoSY


----------



## Brill (Mar 2, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I seriously cannot see how anyone doesn't think that Trump is just trolling America right now.



You sound like Rubio!



compforce said:


> I'm in the "anyone but Hillary" camp.  That's why I have to support Trump.  Cruz may be a great person, a solid conservative and someone whose platform I mostly agree with but he's too far to the right to beat Hillary.  Rubio has a better chance to beat Hillary than Cruz, but he's all for amnesty and I can't stand that thought.  Not because of the normal stated reasons, but because it's a slippery slope from amnesty to pathway to citizenship to 12 million new Dem voters.
> 
> I wish there was a candidate that fell in the political spectrum between Trump and Cruz, but didn't support amnesty and had a snowball's chance of winning.  That would be my candidate...but there isn't one so Trump it is, simply for the fact that he has the best chance to stop Hillary.



Have "we" been here before?

Goldwater consistently refused to moderate his views, which alienated a significant portion of the more moderate wing of the Republican party from his campaign. *With the assistance of the media, who in large part also had an unfavorable opinion of Goldwater, President Johnson used this fissure in the party to portray him as an extremist.*[2] In the general election, Goldwater lost in a landslide to Lyndon Johnson, carrying only six states to Johnson's 44 and 38% of the popular vote to Johnson's 61%.

Barry Goldwater presidential campaign, 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## nobodythank you (Mar 2, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> LMAO this is good...


Holy shit is he creepy. Like hillary with a penis... if she didn't already have one... or does she?

EDIT: credit to @Il Duce for finding it first lol


----------



## Brill (Mar 2, 2016)

Well, this is interesting. ID required for absentee ballots in three states?

Judge won't block proof-of-citizenship for new voters


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 2, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> LMAO this is good...



2 posts above yours this exact thing was posted.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 2, 2016)

lindy said:


> Have "we" been here before?
> 
> Goldwater consistently refused to moderate his views, which alienated a significant portion of the more moderate wing of the Republican party from his campaign. *With the assistance of the media, who in large part also had an unfavorable opinion of Goldwater, President Johnson used this fissure in the party to portray him as an extremist.*[2] In the general election, Goldwater lost in a landslide to Lyndon Johnson, carrying only six states to Johnson's 44 and 38% of the popular vote to Johnson's 61%.
> 
> Barry Goldwater presidential campaign, 1964 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Johnson's campaign message essentially implied that if Goldwater was elected he would start a nuclear war that would lead to Armageddon.


----------



## compforce (Mar 2, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Johnson's campaign message essentially implied that if Goldwater was elected he would start a nuclear war that would lead to Armageddon.



Isn't that the same thing that Cruz implied of Trump when he said "do you really want someone with that temperament to have his finger on the button?" during the third debate?


----------



## Gunz (Mar 2, 2016)

compforce said:


> Isn't that the same thing that Cruz implied of Trump when he said "do you really want someone with that temperament to have his finger on the button?" during the third debate?



Yep. The LBJ camp produced a national TV ad that showed a little girl picking flower petals and all of a sudden a nuclear bomb goes off  no more little girl, no more flowers, no earth thanks to Barry.

It was silly but obviously effective. Cruz was planting the same seed.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 2, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> 2 posts above yours this exact thing was posted.



Didn't see it.


----------



## Blizzard (Mar 2, 2016)

For others disillusioned with the "big two" and wondering about other options out there:
2016 Third Party Presidential Candidates

If nothing else, some of the bios make for "interesting reading" (read:  hysterical, yet sad)


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 2, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Yep. The LBJ camp produced a national TV ad that showed a little girl picking flower petals and all of a sudden a nuclear bomb goes off  no more little girl, no more flowers, no earth thanks to Barry.
> 
> It was silly but obviously effective. Cruz was planting the same seed.



Yeah, those ads were doozies - Cruz or Trump worthy.


----------



## Raptor (Mar 2, 2016)

A couple of weeks ago, we had to watch several televised campaign ads in Government. I never would have guessed that Disney made one for Eisenhower, but lo and behold, a little parade of cartoon characters chanting "I like Ike" was shown through the projector. It was interesting to go from that to watching ads trying to put down other candidates and then go back to just talking about the candidate who the ad is for, with a couple of exceptions (we were shown one with Clinton talking about himself growing up and the one where one of Obama's speeches was played at the same time as quite a few people singing along with it). My favorite one that we were shown had to be where Bush's 2004 campaign took footage of John Kerry windsurfing and then making fun of all of the times he changed his mind, ending with "John Kerry: whichever way the wind blows".


----------



## compforce (Mar 3, 2016)

Raptor said:


> A couple of weeks ago, we had to watch several televised campaign ads in Government. I never would have guessed that Disney made one for Eisenhower, but lo and behold, a little parade of cartoon characters chanting "I like Ike" was shown through the projector. It was interesting to go from that to watching ads trying to put down other candidates and then go back to just talking about the candidate who the ad is for, with a couple of exceptions (we were shown one with Clinton talking about himself growing up and the one where one of Obama's speeches was played at the same time as quite a few people singing along with it). My favorite one that we were shown had to be where Bush's 2004 campaign took footage of John Kerry windsurfing and then making fun of all of the times he changed his mind, ending with "John Kerry: whichever way the wind blows".



this one...


----------



## poison (Mar 3, 2016)

The rise of American authoritarianism


Authoritarianism, the new face of America!


----------



## Gunz (Mar 3, 2016)

poison said:


> The rise of American authoritarianism
> 
> 
> Authoritarianism, the new face of America!




Interesting. It's a piece rife with left-wing panic about Nazis, but I think there's some truth in the notion that people want--not so much authority--but strong Ronald Reagan-like leadership_._ Trump is appealing to many because he's saying out loud what so many people are thinking. Most of us don't believe he could actually ban Muslims from entering the US on religious grounds alone, or that he would...but he might raise the bar.*

Politicians, left, right or center, say what they think people want to hear. We know most of it is rhetoric. Clinton, once nominated, will no doubt try to paint Trump as an American Hitler...but while she does that she'll be anticipating pushing her Leftist agenda with Right-wing power, the dream of liberal socialists.


*Keep in mind also that anti-immigration is not just an American issue; Europe is experiencing a rise in anti-immigration sentiment given the influx of refugees.



DocIllinois said:


> Yeah, those ads were doozies - Cruz or Trump worthy.




Thanks for finding those.


----------



## AWP (Mar 3, 2016)

In some ways we'd be better off with a fair, just, and benevolent dictator.


----------



## poison (Mar 3, 2016)

I think there's a lot of truth in the article. I don't think it takes sufficient account of the 'fuck you'  vote. And there's a lot of those. Not everyone is voting out of fear.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 3, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> In some ways we'd be better off with a fair, just, and benevolent dictator.



You rang?


----------



## poison (Mar 3, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> In some ways we'd be better off with a dictator.



Isn't that what we've had for the last 8 years? Fair to who? The nation is so polarized, any dictator would piss of the other half.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 3, 2016)

poison said:


> Isn't that what we've had for the last 8 years? Fair to who? The nation is so polarized, any dictator would piss of the other half.



Oh come on man.


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 3, 2016)

poison said:


> Isn't that what we've had for the last 8 years? Fair to who? The nation is so polarized, any dictator would piss of the other half.



Some features of a genuine dictatorship:

- _Extraordinary_ abuses of personal power without legislative restraint
- Suspension of elections
- Rule by decree
- Forceful repression of opposition without following the rule of law
- Cult of personality

I would suggest that applying these to the current administration would require a profound distortion of the definition of 'dictatorship.'


----------



## poison (Mar 3, 2016)

Of course, a lot of people think he's pushed the limits, though. Why would anyone here want someone to completely break the limits and go full bore?


----------



## asewland (Mar 3, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Interesting. It's a piece rife with left-wing panic about Nazis, but I think there's some truth in the notion that people want--not so much authority--but strong Ronald Reagan-like leadership_._ Trump is appealing to many because he's saying out loud what so many people are thinking. Most of us don't believe he could actually ban Muslims from entering the US on religious grounds alone, or that he would...but he might raise the bar.*
> 
> Politicians, left, right or center, say what they think people want to hear. We know most of it is rhetoric. Clinton, once nominated, will no doubt try to paint Trump as an American Hitler...but while she does that she'll be anticipating pushing her Leftist agenda with Right-wing power, the dream of liberal socialists.
> 
> ...


That article reminded me of something last I read last year that had the same theme. Managed to dig it up after some Googling: Social Justice and the Rise of Donald Trump . 
I think what Trump is doing really well is reaching out to working-class White Americans; a group that's been relatively ignored since the start of the recession. By tapping into that demographic, he's managed to catapult himself into a position of a serious contender.


----------



## Raptor (Mar 3, 2016)

I think that's a really good point. I see everyone talking about getting minority votes, but, while they are important to the vote and America in general, you don't win without majority votes, so I don't understand why they don't focus on both. Granted, I am new to voting and there's going to be stuff that confuses me, so maybe I'm just missing something.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 3, 2016)

asewland said:


> ...
> *I think what Trump is doing really well is reaching out to working-class White Americans; a group that's been relatively ignored since the start of the recession. By tapping into that demographic, he's managed to catapult himself into a position of a serious contender*.




And that's a huge demographic, the millions of white Americans (and I would include many Asian and Latino Americans, and not just working class people) who feel like they've been unfairly made to wear the yoke of guilt for slavery and every other evil in history; and it's been going on for 30 years. It's getting old. We see the candidates falling all over themselves to appease and appeal to minorities and the LGBT crowd...so what are we, chopped liver? Who gives a shit about white people? Gee, maybe Trump is on to something here...


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 3, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> And that's a huge demographic, the millions of white Americans (and I would include many Asian and Latino Americans, and not just working class people) who feel like they've been unfairly made to wear the yoke of guilt for slavery and every other evil in history; and it's been going on for 30 years. It's getting old. We see the candidates falling all over themselves to appease and appeal to minorities and the LGBT crowd...so what are we, chopped liver? Who gives a shit about white people? Gee, maybe Trump is on to something here...


Both Parties crap on their white,asian,hispanic supporters figuring we don't have a viable alternative.
That's one reason (IMO) why Trump and Sanders are doing so well, and the power brokers don't know what to do.


----------



## Frank S. (Mar 3, 2016)

Smells like sex in here...

Ah.Politics...

Just Because You're Attracted to Someone- Doesn't Mean They're Good For You |


----------



## Gunz (Mar 3, 2016)

Frank S. said:


> Smells like sex in here...
> 
> Ah.Politics...
> 
> Just Because You're Attracted to Someone- Doesn't Mean They're Good For You |



Right. They could be 200 pounds of shit in a 100 pound bag. Or to plagiarize myself, pre-wired Semtex under a pile of innocuous debris.

No matter what you post, no matter how obscure or mystifying, you can count on me to boldly attempt to accept the challenge of decipherment.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 4, 2016)

asewland said:


> I think what Trump is doing really well is reaching out to working-class White Americans; a group that's been relatively ignored since the start of the recession. By tapping into that demographic, he's managed to catapult himself into a position of a serious contender.



This is very, very key...and what the R's generally and D's specifically can't figure out.  THIS is where he is getting those independents, moderate Republicans, blue collar/blue dog Democrats.  The Establishment just can't figure out his appeal; they are trying, but it's just like a conversation between people speaking two different languages.  The combination of this large and largely-untapped pool of voters and the Fuck You voters is just snowballing.


----------



## BloodStripe (Mar 4, 2016)

Www.loser.com


----------



## Gunz (Mar 4, 2016)

Who would you rather have as First Lady? Bill Clinton or Melania Trump? It's a simple choice.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 4, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Who would you rather have as First Lady? Bill Clinton or Melania Trump? It's a simple choice.



At least Bill is American.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 4, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> At least Bill is American.



With all the great deals he gave to the PRC and his Arkansas buddy Sam Walton at the expense of American workers, I thought he was Chinese.


----------



## Brill (Mar 4, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> At least Bill is American.



Melania is hotter.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 4, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> At least Bill is American.


Melania has citizenship


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 4, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Melania has citizenship



Yeah but is she really an American?


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 4, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah but is she really an American?


Does it matter?


----------



## DasBoot (Mar 4, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah but is she really an American?


I don't want our president being Eskimo brothers with Putin...


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 4, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Does it matter?



No.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 4, 2016)

DasBoot said:


> I don't want our president being Eskimo brothers with Putin...


Like the current guy isn't?


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 4, 2016)

DasBoot said:


> I don't want our president being Eskimo brothers with Putin...



Donnie and Vlad creating disasters as concurrent world leaders.  I just spit my coffee.


----------



## Brill (Mar 5, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah but is she really an American?



Is @pardus an American? Ok, bad example.


----------



## AWP (Mar 5, 2016)

The GOP Civil War is entertaining. Once Hillary is done "berning" the Dem. nomination she'll cackle her way into the White House.


----------



## Brill (Mar 5, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> The GOP Civil War is entertaining.



The more the "establishment" tries to push people away from Trump, the more they are attracted to him because he's running on an anti-establishment platform.  I personally would like to see a Drumpf vs Sanders ballot.

Next stop...term limits for Congress!!!


----------



## Gunz (Mar 5, 2016)

I'm prepping for at least 4 years with HRC or Biden. Either way, I'm fading into the Florida Mountains with my private army of fanatical followers.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 5, 2016)

This will end (finally) the GOP as a major party.
What emerges will be interesting to watch, TEA Party/Evangelicals as a minor party and a "moderate" Republican Party forming coalitions with a large Democrat Party.
Wonder if the Libertarians will see growth?


----------



## nobodythank you (Mar 5, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> This will end (finally) the GOP as a major party.
> What emerges will be interesting to watch, TEA Party/Evangelicals as a minor party and a "moderate" Republican Party forming coalitions with a large Democrat Party.
> Wonder if the Libertarians will see growth?


This alone almost makes it worth having HRC in office, to ensure the demise of the GOP as a functioning party. They have grown weak and fractured with narrow ideological give in any direction but god, bible, and damnation.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 5, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> This alone *almost* makes it worth having HRC in office, to ensure the demise of the GOP as a functioning party. They have grown weak and fractured with narrow ideological give in any direction but god, bible, and damnation.



Agree...but with font adjustments.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 5, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> This alone almost makes it worth having HRC in office, to ensure the demise of the GOP as a functioning party. They have grown weak and fractured with narrow ideological give in any direction but god, bible, and damnation.


No, they may claim that when campaigning but actually have no values (other than getting re-elected) or spine; which is why Trump is killing them in the primaries.
The GOP is gone, no matter who moves into the White House, watch the money...
Folks I know are voting for Trump as a way of saying FUCK YOU! to Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell (and all the other established R's).
I suspect a lot of the Bernie vote is for the same reason (and they are getting pissed at the Dem establishment)


----------



## DasBoot (Mar 5, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> I'm prepping for at least 4 years with HRC or Biden. Either way, I'm fading into the Florida Mountains with my private army of fanatical followers.


Have fun out in Polk county...

I'm still waiting for that proverbial dead hooker to fall out of Trumps closet. He has to have something in his past that's on Frank Underwood status. If and when that does come out I'm picking Romney to be drafted as the nominee at a brokered convention.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 5, 2016)

DasBoot said:


> I'm still waiting for that proverbial dead hooker to fall out of Trumps closet. He has to have something in his past that's on Frank Underwood status. If and when that does come out I'm picking Romney to be drafted as the nominee at a brokered convention.


and all the Trump-eters will stay home and watch Mittens lose again.
I'm still waiting for Shrillary to get indicted and Biden to get drafted at a brokered convention.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 5, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> and all the Trump-eters will stay home and watch Mittens lose again.
> I'm still waiting for Shrillary to get indicted and Biden to get drafted at a brokered convention.



Romney=Loser...and a belated thanks to the GOP for making me cast another wasted vote for a guy who didn't stand a chance.

I feel like the GOP is in the position the Dems were BITD when they were offering up weak sucks like Mondale and Dukakis.

Trump has a chance if the party gets its head out of its ass and backs up the one guy they've got with serious momentum...but if they keep fucking around they're gonna blow the opportunity.



DasBoot said:


> Have fun out in Polk county...



I'm actually in eastern Hernando where the mountains are an incredible 230 feet above sea level.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 5, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> and all the Trump-eters will stay home and watch Mittens lose again.
> I'm still waiting for Shrillary to get indicted and Biden to get drafted at a brokered convention.



I wish I could agree x 4. It would be sweet. Try to imagine Biden and Trump as the only two on the stage for the POTUS debate. If Biden repeats his stunts like he did at the last VP debate, I just don't see the now VP doing all that well. I think Trump would take the time and mop the floor with ole "Joe".

I hope that there is more to this than hopes and dreams for our country.


----------



## Florida173 (Mar 5, 2016)

DasBoot said:


> I'm still waiting for that proverbial dead hooker to fall out of Trumps closet. He has to have something in his past that's on Frank Underwood status. If and when that does come out I'm picking Romney to be drafted as the nominee at a brokered convention.



I'm sure he has any number things in his closet as a successful business man, but to think that he is anywhere close to a fictitious politician is pure fantasy.

As far as Romney, we failed to pick him the first time around to instead pick the Manchurian candidate. We saw how good of a choice that was. Romney would have been a good alternative to everything that Obama was able to accomplish in office, but that ship has sailed.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 5, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> and all the Trump-eters will stay home and watch Mittens lose again.
> I'm still waiting for Shrillary to get indicted and Biden to get drafted at a brokered convention.



Do you know how stupid using names like this sounds?


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Mar 5, 2016)

In times like these, we need President Camacho!!!!


----------



## Gunz (Mar 5, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I wish I could agree x 4. It would be sweet. Try to imagine Biden and Trump as the only two on the stage for the POTUS debate. If Biden repeats his stunts like he did at the last VP debate, I just don't see the now VP doing all that well. I think Trump would take the time and mop the floor with ole "Joe"...



Yeah, I think Trump would hammer Biden in a debate. But Biden has an advantage of being an incumbent VP and an experienced political campaigner, which might level the playing field in the long run. Keep in mind that if HRC is out of the picture, Biden might be more palatable to the Sander's crowd simply because he isn't a Clinton.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 5, 2016)

A, I think what you say about Biden is all valid. I can see where the Sanders crowd might take to Biden.
I ran across a Fox internet news article that involved the Hollywood crowd. Those that are pro Sanders are fearful of openly showing support. It seems the Clintons carry a lot of weight among the acting crowd. It's kind of ironic if you think about it, they're all actors; including Bill & Hil.

You can say the same, I guess, of President Reagan, but he was Gov of Ca before running to become one of our best ever Presidents.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 6, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I wish I could agree x 4. It would be sweet. Try to imagine Biden and Trump as the only two on the stage for the POTUS debate. If Biden repeats his stunts like he did at the last VP debate, I just don't see the now VP doing all that well. I think Trump would take the time and mop the floor with ole "Joe".
> 
> I hope that there is more to this than hopes and dreams for our country.





Ocoka One said:


> Yeah, I think Trump would hammer Biden in a debate. But Biden has an advantage of being an incumbent VP and an experienced political campaigner, which might level the playing field in the long run. Keep in mind that if HRC is out of the picture, Biden might be more palatable to the Sander's crowd simply because he isn't a Clinton.





Red Flag 1 said:


> A, I think what you say about Biden is all valid. I can see where the Sanders crowd might take to Biden.
> I ran across a Fox internet news article that involved the Hollywood crowd. Those that are pro Sanders are fearful of openly showing support. It seems the Clintons carry a lot of weight among the acting crowd. It's kind of ironic if you think about it, they're all actors; including Bill & Hil.
> 
> You can say the same, I guess, of President Reagan, but he was Gov of Ca before running to become one of our best ever Presidents.



I can not imagine Trump letting Biden just roll his eyes during a debate, he'd call him on it; then rip the media for not calling him on it.

I wonder how much juice Trump has in Hollywood?  Not with actors, but with the people who decide which actors get hired?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 6, 2016)

That ^^^^is a good question, about Hollywood. The Hollywood connection is not something to overlook. Frank Sinatra spent considerable time and $$ to get JFK elected, not that it did Sinatra any good. I've not heard much about the subject, save the Roseanne Barr war.  I don't think that will hurt Trump, by itself.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 6, 2016)

Unfortunately we have plenty of morons in this country who listen to the crap that comes out of the pie holes of the morons in Hollywood.
:-":wall:


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 6, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Unfortunately we have plenty of morons in this country who listen to the crap that comes out of the pie holes of the morons in Hollywood.
> :-":wall:


Unless their agents say shut up, or don't make movies for a few years.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 6, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Unless their agents say shut up, or don't make movies for a few years.



Wouldn't that be political intimidation, and pretty goddamn un-American?


----------



## SpitfireV (Mar 6, 2016)

That's bollocks. Anyone of a high enough profile- on both ends of the spectrum- already shoot their mouths off. And they're of such high profile they make too much money for the studios to shut them up.

Anyone else isn't high enough profile for anyone to care what they have to say.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Wouldn't that be political intimidation, and pretty goddamn un-American?


Probably, and not the first time it's happened.
McCarthyism and Hollywood Blacklisting has happened before.
It's all about the Benjamins; Trump (or his friend/supporters) don't have to invest in a movie that stars someone they don't like (capitalism), and studios are not obligated to hire someone if they think that person may impact their ability to secure funding..
There have been anecdotal stories about conservative actors/actresses being blacklisted because they are conservative, would you consider that to be un-American?


----------



## AWP (Mar 6, 2016)

People are blacklisted all of the time. Right or wrong, it happens in just about any industry, including the military, so shutting someone down isn't new. Hell, people boycotted the Dixie Chicks...so what's the difference between me not buying an album and a studio not casting someone because of the box office repercussions?


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 6, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Probably, and not the first time it's happened.
> McCarthyism and Hollywood Blacklisting has happened before.
> It's all about the Benjamins; Trump (or his friend/supporters) don't have to invest in a movie that stars someone they don't like (capitalism), and studios are not obligated to hire someone if they think that person may impact their ability to secure funding..
> There have been anecdotal stories about conservative actors/actresses being blacklisted because they are conservative, would you consider that to be un-American?



Or that those conservative actors just suck. It isn't Daniel Day Lewis getting blacklisted if you know what I mean.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 6, 2016)

CNN Dem Debate on now.

***FYI****


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 6, 2016)

I do not buy this. Media has been digging for good dirt on Trump long before he was looking to be President. 

Cruz says the media is sitting on 'bombshell' Trump reports


----------



## Brill (Mar 7, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> CNN Dem Debate on now.
> 
> ***FYI****



Why are Mrs. Clinton's fingers so small?


----------



## CQB (Mar 7, 2016)

Well, I posted some time ago that I'd wait until the real candidate turned up. I guess I trod on my dick vis a vis Trump. I didn't think he'd get this far, though I'm not alone, I'm sure. It's been noted that the demographic he appeals to has always been there. As far back as Lincoln recognised this and Abe said that politicians ignore it and prefer to appeal to the better angels of our nature.


----------



## RetPara (Mar 7, 2016)

Interesting listens.....  Shows 295 from last August and show 301 from a week or so ago...

Dan Carlin - Common Sense


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 7, 2016)

A neighbor sent me an e-mail:

We Want The Truth - YouTube.

A little more food for thought.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 7, 2016)

Turns out that Biden is really good at talking shit

Excerpts from Biden's Gridiron Dinner speech


> In fact, the other day I walked into the Oval and said, “Barack, I think you should resign.”
> He said, “To join the Supreme Court?”
> I said, “Sure, whatever.”
> 
> ...


----------



## AWP (Mar 7, 2016)

I'm glad I work nights or Biden and his 40+ car motorcade would be really good at fucking up my day.


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 7, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I'm glad I work nights or Biden and his 40+ car motorcade would be really good at fucking up my day.



But did you die???


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 7, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> But did you die???



Your drivers smashing into pedestrians (or other cars...or each other) is a small price to pay for arriving to guest on basic cable comedy shows on time.

  JRB lives on the edge.


----------



## AWP (Mar 8, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> But did you die???



I was asleep in my villa on one of the rare days in which it rains. The locals decided the AFSF NCO leading the motorcade didn't belong, so they pulled him off the lead position and detained him (don't ask because I don't know). That's when they took over the lead vehicle and proceeded to drive around the greater "Undisclosed location in Southwest Asia" metroplex with multiple U-turns through parking lots and traffic circles. I have "contact derp" just from being on the base within hours of their departure.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 8, 2016)




----------



## Frank S. (Mar 8, 2016)

I've seen what one term or even worse, two terms, do to a president's hair. I am very worried for whatever is laying on Trump's head. I'm cereal.


----------



## SpitfireV (Mar 8, 2016)

I'm sure they'll find another orangutan in due course.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 10, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I'm glad I work nights or Biden and his 40+ car motorcade would be really good at fucking up my day.



Clinton is in my fair city today.  Biden, a few weeks ago (actually, he was about 500 yards from me doing some cancer research thing).  It is a major CF in the hospital; and trying to get home in all of the diverted traffic?  Fuhgetaboutit.....

There is an article out today that opines that should Trump be the nominee neocons will be so pissed off they will vote for Clinton.  Honestly, I don't know what to think anymore.....


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 10, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> There is an article out today that opines that should Trump be the nominee neocons will be so pissed off they will vote for Clinton.  Honestly, I don't know what to think anymore.....


The same folks will then pitch a hissy fit when she appoints liberals to the Supreme Court.
Both bases are staffed with morons.


----------



## AWP (Mar 11, 2016)




----------



## DA SWO (Mar 11, 2016)

I am not a fan of either, but watching her "bern" would be humorous, as it would be the second time she was denied.

My niece is not happy with her party, and I am watching as her friends complain about rigged primaries.


----------



## AWP (Mar 12, 2016)

Hillary Clinton, AIDS historian.

Hillary Clinton apologizes for calling Nancy Reagan a 'very effective, low-key' AIDS advocate - CNNPolitics.com



> Clinton said the former first lady, who died on Sunday, "started a national conversation" on AIDS that "penetrated the public conscience and people began to say, 'Hey, we have to do something about this, too,'" during an interview with the network at Reagan's funeral.





> Chad Griffin, the president of the Human Rights Campaign and a *former Clinton White House aide*, knocked the Clinton on Friday for incorrectly holding Reagan up as an activist.
> 
> He tweeted, "Nancy Reagan was, sadly, no hero in the fight against HIV/AIDS."



Fact checking, ain't nobody got time for dat!


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 12, 2016)

You've probably already heard about the Trump rally in Chicago that was shut down by protesters.  The other candidates have weighed in:
Presidential Candidates React To Violence At Donald Trump's Chicago Rally

Personally, I don't like Trump, but I have a stronger dislike for this kind of political violence.  First, it's not productive.  It's just one of many Trump rallies that will occur before the Republican nomination.  Second, it develops Trump's narrative even more.  A big group of liberals conspiring to disrupt free speech is the kind of thing that the Trump campaign feeds on.  And, as if his campaign didn't already have a huge media presence, this only elevates it another notch.
Third, and most important I think, is that while this election is already a batshit circus, this kind of action pushes it over into "Holy shit.  What the fuck is going on?" territory.  Election violence is what we see out of Thailand, or places like South Korea where ministers will throw down in parliament if shit doesn't go their way





Despite its faults, the American election machine generally functions without the need to throw hands.  I would hate to see it come to that.  American liberals need to calm down and realize that even if nominated, Trump will probably lose the general, but pulling shit like this is only going to help him.

As a corollary to the above statement, I should add that even if he does win the Presidency, it's not the end of the world.


----------



## Frank S. (Mar 12, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> it's not the end of the world.



No happy ending? There shoulda been a disclaimer on that vid. Four seconds into it I had violent flashbacks of suckling titties in Korean bars, drinking ungodly amounts of booze (not unheard of on Romulak), wondering where the ATM was and why my fingers smelled funny. But yeah, I agree about decorum in politics.
For sure.


----------



## Theirb123 (Mar 12, 2016)

The "Trump incites violence" is a false narrative playing the game against him. I'm not a fan, personally, but these "protesters" are carrying their "stop the hate" posters while antagonizing people in a multitude of ways. Just as in all professional sports, it's the guy that retaliates that gets caught.


----------



## Dame (Mar 13, 2016)

There are always nut jobs protesting at these things. I remember a rally with Dick Cheney I went to a decade or more ago. Some protester outside started yelling at me as I was leaving. 
Asshat: "Hey lady! So you like Dick?"
Dame: Smiles, licks lips, and nods.
Asshat: Jaw hits sidewalk while cop next to him laughs.​


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 13, 2016)

The more Bernie is "outraged" about Trump's insinuation  that Bernie's people could be behind organizing the protesters, the more I am inclined to believe Trump is on to something.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 13, 2016)

Socialist MO, anyway.  "Oh no, those aren't my people undermining reality for fallacy"  Where's the cold war vets at to break it down one time on that shit...


----------



## Brill (Mar 13, 2016)

Interesting editorial in a local paper.

"In _both_ states – one on the southern border, one on the northern – nearly 90 percent said they were either dissatisfied with or flat-out angry at the federal government. Only 8 percent said they were satisfied; only 2 percent said they felt “enthusiastic” about Washington.

What does that tell you – that 90 percent of these voters are dissatisfied?

That tells _us_ the federal government has lost the consent of the governed."

Without your consent


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 14, 2016)

Theirb123 said:


> The "Trump incites violence" is a false narrative playing the game against him. I'm not a fan, personally, but these "protesters" are carrying their "stop the hate" posters while antagonizing people in a multitude of ways. Just as in all professional sports, it's the guy that retaliates that gets caught.


This video from NYT offers some pretty damning evidence that Trump not only doesn't go far enough in discouraging violence at his rallies, but actively encourages it.
Video: Trump's History of Encouraging Violence


----------



## Brill (Mar 14, 2016)

Perhaps there would be less "violence" if the Occupy-types would let him speak and not try to stop political speech.  Regardless if the Left doesn't like it, he is able to say what he wants.

Why isn't Clinton and Sanders coming out against their operatives causing problems?  Oh, cuz it plays into their favor.

If a "right wing crazy" tried to rush the stage where Clinton or Sanders were speaking, they damn sure would have been given a hero's welcome by CNN.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 14, 2016)

It's not just about the Chicago rally.  Trump has been on this rhetorical track for months.



lindy said:


> Why isn't Clinton and Sanders coming out against their operatives causing problems?  Oh, cuz it plays into their favor.



Like this? Hillary Clinton on Twitter

Look, we are all in agreement that using violence to disrupt free speech, as we saw in Chicago, is not the answer.  I said as much earlier on this page.  But protestors at Trump rallies have been assaulted for much less than that, and I argue that Trump actively encourages it.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 14, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> It's not just about the Chicago rally.  Trump has been on this rhetorical track for months.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not like Obama supporters never threatened violence against anyone.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 14, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Not like Obama supporters never threatened violence against anyone.


Sure, but Obama never did.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 14, 2016)

I'm not so sure that Trump's reaction to protesters brings more protesters; the protesters bring more protesters. I think there is a message from active protest groups to Mr. Trump, that, if needed, people will be brought in to cause a disturbance. Obama had people fainting in front of him so he could act the hero, no other candidate ever had to do that; you'll have trouble convincing me that they were not staged. As with many protestors that get physical, some have come from outside the area, to take part in the protest. We have seen it is so many places, so many times, over a wide range of causes, and it looks the same every time. Mr Trump, IMHO has been targeted by protest groups. The message is, that where ever he goes, the picture will look the same; possibly worse if the protesters have their way. I have an awful lot of trouble believing that Trump is, all by himself, causing these violent, ugly protests. It is exposing the ugly thinking, and acting that has been our eyesore ever since the Viet Nam anti war protests. Mr. Trump is not behind the protests, protesters are. Mr. Trump is expressing his opinion regarding those who try to shut down his rallies, and disrupt his speeches. It is my belief that there is a concerted effort being made to deny Mr. Trump his right to free speech, and he is not having any it. The NYT has not been a fan of the GOP, and the NYT coverage of the protests is predictable as well.

My thoughts on the issue. Back to my wee cave here in The Valley.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 14, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Sure, but Obama never did.


His Justice Department condoned it, and he never condemned it.
Silence=approval in this case.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 14, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> His Justice Department condoned it, and he never condemned it.
> Silence=approval in this case.


What are you even talking about?  You'll have to forgive me, because I'm not understanding your reference.  I followed both of his campaigns fairly closely and off of the top of my head I can't think of any instances of protestors being beaten at Obama rallies.

Even if there were instances, and Obama remained silent on them, the difference is that Trump isn't even expressing tacit approval.  Throughout the video I linked, there are numerous examples of Trump encouraging his supporters to beat protestors.  That kind of rhetoric is far more serious and threatening.  As I've said before, I do not condone what happened in Chicago.  It is not a reasonable response to Trump or his rhetoric.  But by the same token, incidents like Chicago do not give Trump supporters carte blanche to continue assaulting protesters.  Let security handle it.



Red Flag 1 said:


> I'm not so sure that Trump's reaction to protesters brings more protesters; the protesters bring more protesters. I think there is a message from active protest groups to Mr. Trump, that, if needed, people will be brought in to cause a disturbance. Obama had people fainting in front of him so he could act the hero, no other candidate ever had to do that; you'll have trouble convincing me that they were not staged. As with many protestors that get physical, some have come from outside the area, to take part in the protest. We have seen it is so many places, so many times, over a wide range of causes, and it looks the same every time. Mr Trump, IMHO has been targeted by protest groups. The message is, that where ever he goes, the picture will look the same; possibly worse if the protesters have their way. I have an awful lot of trouble believing that Trump is, all by himself, causing these violent, ugly protests. It is exposing the ugly thinking, and acting that has been our eyesore ever since the Viet Nam anti war protests. Mr. Trump is not behind the protests, protesters are. Mr. Trump is expressing his opinion regarding those who try to shut down his rallies, and disrupt his speeches. It is my belief that there is a concerted effort being made to deny Mr. Trump his right to free speech, and he is not having any it. The NYT has not been a fan of the GOP, and the NYT coverage of the protests is predictable as well.



I agree that Trump has been targeted by protest groups.  He is a divisive figure, so that's to be expected.  But it bears reminding that peaceful protests are in themselves free speech.  Protesters have the right to protest political events, just as much as Mr. Trump has the right to hold them.  He also has the right to remove protesters from the premises (in a reasonable fashion), and his supporters also have the right to shout down.  This is all constitutionally-protected speech.






Protesting with your fist is not protected speech.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 14, 2016)

There are a few things that I will put my hands on someone for unprovoked. Hate speech against my family and disgracing the United States flag in my presence, will not only get you punched in the mouth, but a righteous monkey stomping.

I do not agree with what the old man did, he most definitely should be charged/tried/convicted of assault. The same way I would expect to be for dishing out an ass whipping for my lines in the sand. That said, the old guy IMO picked a very bad reason to pay fines and spend time on probation.

Was Trump responsible for this assault? Nope, the old guy is. Did the protester have some responsibility in the incident? Anytime you decide to disrupt events, incite a crowd or disrespect other people, you run the risk of being assaulted.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 14, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Was Trump responsible for this assault? Nope, the old guy is. Did the protester have some responsibility in the incident? Anytime you decide to disrupt events, incite a crowd or disrespect other people, you run the risk of being assaulted.


I agree that ultimate responsibility lies with the old guy, but it's irresponsible to say that Trump doesn't bear any sort of culpability in these incidents. 

See, Trump's supporters, moreso than any other candidate's, are incredibly loyal and enthusiastic.  I disagree with their views, but I give them credit for expressing so much enthusiasm for a candidate.  And Trump, as a candidate who bases a lot of his appeal on charisma and salesmanship, should understand that he has an incredible ability to influence these people.  It's the old axiom, "Words mean things".  He needs to understand that when you've got a big crowd whipped up like an old big tent religious revival, saying things like "Knock the crap out of them", or "You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this?  They would be carried out on a stretcher, folks.  I'd like to punch him in the face." has serious repercussions.  So while he does not bear all of the responsibility for the violence, he bears fulls responsibility for putting a stop to it.

Yes, that was a bit of praise for Donald Trump.  I'll cop to that.


----------



## SpitfireV (Mar 14, 2016)

That would mean he'd have to back down from his "no compromises" rhetoric though and that sure as shit won't happen.


----------



## AWP (Mar 14, 2016)

Who is "drawing first blood" in these mini-riots or whatever? Is a Trump supporter being pushed/ threatened or are they just sucker punching dudes?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 14, 2016)

Well the same could be said for the BLM and new black panther party who were calling for dead cops. I don't agree with a lot of the stuff Trump say's, I think he is very inflammatory and I don't think we need more of that right now, especially with the division in our country. However, I don't see him being responsible for the  actions of others. One of the big problems in our society, is an inability of our people to accept responsibility for their own actions, and more so a desire to deflect blame and place that responsibility on others who are not. Now if Trump was POTUS and telling people to beat up protesters or some other crazy shit, I would fully agree with you, as the difference is running for a government leader position vs actually being that government leader/leader of the free world.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 14, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I agree that Trump has been targeted by protest groups.  He is a divisive figure, so that's to be expected.  But it bears reminding that peaceful protests are in themselves free speech.  Protesters have the right to protest political events, just as much as Mr. Trump has the right to hold them.  He also has the right to remove protesters from the premises (in a reasonable fashion), and his supporters also have the right to shout down.  This is all constitutionally-protected speech.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I concur @Deathy Death, completely. As you so nicely pointed out, there are lines that, if not crossed, allow for exchange of speech and open support for one side or the other.  We really do have a blight within our nation, that feels the need to push over lines. Some do so by being caught up in the movement, and the moment. Beliefs become inflamed, and well we start to look ugly all over again. That describes the majority of the "protesters", there is, however; another person(s) in the mix. I am convinced that a small portion of the protest movement that gets ugly, are doing so because that is someone's job. That is what they do, and are likely paid for their efforts; and may even see extra bucks if the result is what someone really likes. It is the cool as a cucumber "protester" who is pushing peoples buttons to cross the line. Once crossed,  these  people become involved physically, and get arrested, and go to jail for booking and a blemish appears on their records. The cool as a cucumber  "motivator" knows how to stay away from the fray. Same person shows up at the next event.




Diamondback 2/2 said:


> There are a few things that I will put my hands on someone for unprovoked. Hate speech against my family and disgracing the United States flag in my presence, will not only get you punched in the mouth, but a righteous monkey stomping.
> 
> I do not agree with what the old man did, he most definitely should be charged/tried/convicted of assault. The same way I would expect to be for dishing out an ass whipping for my lines in the sand. That said, the old guy IMO picked a very bad reason to pay fines and spend time on probation.
> 
> Was Trump responsible for this assault? Nope, the old guy is. Did the protester have some responsibility in the incident? Anytime you decide to disrupt events, incite a crowd or disrespect other people, you run the risk of being assaulted.



I agree with you across the board @Diamondback 2/2. Both sides have a role, not unlike the gent in the video. That line is easy to cross. You're only hope is that when you,"Reach out and touch someone", wasn't recorded? In today's "connected" society, the chances are pretty good that you'll wind up on You Tube.


----------



## Brill (Mar 14, 2016)

@Deathy McDeath, I would contend this is similar (but smaller scale) to leftists activists confronting riot police then claiming police brutality. Along the lines of IMF, World Bank, etc protests.

They protestors are not arguing politics or viewpoints they are inciting/provoking violence by their actions and then play the victim card.

How many Trump supporters are seeking out Hillary/Sanders people and just beating them?


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 14, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> What are you even talking about?  You'll have to forgive me, because I'm not understanding your reference.  I followed both of his campaigns fairly closely and off of the top of my head I can't think of any instances of protestors being beaten at Obama rallies.
> 
> Even if there were instances, and Obama remained silent on them, the difference is that Trump isn't even expressing tacit approval.  Throughout the video I linked, there are numerous examples of Trump encouraging his supporters to beat protestors.  That kind of rhetoric is far more serious and threatening.  As I've said before, I do not condone what happened in Chicago.  It is not a reasonable response to Trump or his rhetoric.  But by the same token, incidents like Chicago do not give Trump supporters carte blanche to continue assaulting protesters.  Let security handle it.


Black Panthers not letting white people vote in 2008.
DoJ initially won the civil rights/voting rights case (the perps didn't show), then Obama was inaugurated and DoJ decided to reopen/drop the case.
Can you imagine the outcry had a white guy told black voters to go home?


----------



## Mindbender (Mar 14, 2016)

We are so hosed.


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 14, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I agree that ultimate responsibility lies with the old guy, but it's irresponsible to say that Trump doesn't bear any sort of culpability in these incidents.
> 
> See, Trump's supporters, moreso than any other candidate's, are incredibly loyal and enthusiastic.  I disagree with their views, but I give them credit for expressing so much enthusiasm for a candidate.  And Trump, as a candidate who bases a lot of his appeal on charisma and salesmanship, should understand that he has an incredible ability to influence these people.  It's the old axiom, "Words mean things".  He needs to understand that when you've got a big crowd whipped up like an old big tent religious revival, saying things like "Knock the crap out of them", or "You know what they used to do to guys like that when they were in a place like this?  They would be carried out on a stretcher, folks.  I'd like to punch him in the face." has serious repercussions.  So while he does not bear all of the responsibility for the violence, he bears fulls responsibility for putting a stop to it.
> 
> Yes, that was a bit of praise for Donald Trump.  I'll cop to that.



I will praise the enormous effort it must take for him to remain a psychological child where the ability to discern inappropriate/ inflammatory language is concerned.  

If he is able to discern it, which is much more likely, I am impressed by the extent of the maladaptive pathology at work for him to give less than a shit about the consequences.


Add that to the pile of reasons Donnie is a monstrous disaster waiting to happen.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 15, 2016)

For your morning reading pleasure.....

Clinton: 'We didn't lose a single person' in Libya


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 15, 2016)

...meanwhile, as Rome burns...






Obama leads Hamilton musical creator in free-style rap at White House


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 15, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> I will praise the enormous effort it must take for him to remain a psychological child where the ability to discern inappropriate/ inflammatory language is concerned.
> 
> If he is able to discern it, which is much more likely, I am impressed by the extent of the maladaptive pathology at work for him to give less than a shit about the consequences.
> 
> ...



I don't care for Trump.  Not 'my' candidate and all.  But when I take a step back and look at him, my conclusion is that he is either a) really that stupid (as he is sounding), or b) it's an act, a vehicle, to get to where he wants to be.  I think the man is far smarter and wrapped tighter than people give him credit for.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 15, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I don't care for Trump.  Not 'my' candidate and all.  But when I take a step back and look at him, my conclusion is that he is either a) really that stupid (as he is sounding), or b) it's an act, a vehicle, to get to where he wants to be.  I think the man is far smarter and wrapped tighter than people give him credit for.


I'll agree, though Cruz lost points when he blamed Trump for the riots.
I voted (reluctantly) Cruz, but will pull the lever to keep Hillary out of the White House; I'd vote Biden to keep them both at home.


----------



## Centermass (Mar 15, 2016)

Rubio just announced he's suspending his campaign.

Ohio should be interesting.


----------



## Grunt (Mar 15, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Rubio just announced he's suspending his campaign.
> 
> Ohio should be interesting.



Kasich needs to follow-suit and move on!


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 15, 2016)

Agoge said:


> Kasich needs to follow-suit and move on!


I think Rubio needs to be concerned about his re-election campaign.
He wounded himself by staying in so long, and may be vulnerable when he runs again.


----------



## Florida173 (Mar 15, 2016)

Agoge said:


> Kasich needs to follow-suit and move on!



Moreover, and somewhat unorthodox, I think that he should be considered for the VP on Trump's ticket to grab Ohio. Kasich did indeed win his own state, but honestly just barely. Way worse than what I would have expected and worse than Cruz winning Texas and OK.

We'll see. I think once people get away from the BS campaigning rhetoric, Trump definitely has a lot to offer. I keep hearing people talking about how divisive and polarizing he is yet he polls higher in every minority more than any other republican candidate in years. Seems like it's just the hip thing to say, but not until the Soros driven protesters has there been any real "violence" at his rallies. Listening to Obama today try to quell the craziness of the election was in bad form and beneath the presidency. This is nowhere near the levels from 20-50 years ago.


----------



## Dame (Mar 15, 2016)

In other news, Ted Cruz looks into a new software package...





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10156733509280294
			




COMPUTER PROGRAMMER TESTIFIES UNDER OATH HE CODED COMPUTERS TO RIG ELECTIONS
Posted by Orville Gates on Monday, March 7, 2016


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 15, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Moreover, and somewhat unorthodox, I think that he should be considered for the VP on Trump's ticket to grab Ohio. Kasich did indeed win his own state, but honestly just barely. Way worse than what I would have expected and worse than Cruz winning Texas and OK.
> 
> We'll see. I think once people get away from the BS campaigning rhetoric, Trump definitely has a lot to offer. I keep hearing people talking about how divisive and polarizing he is yet he polls higher in every minority more than any other republican candidate in years. Seems like it's just the hip thing to say, but not until the Soros driven protesters has there been any real "violence" at his rallies. Listening to Obama today try to quell the craziness of the election was in bad form and beneath the presidency. This is nowhere near the levels from 20-50 years ago.


The people that told us Dole, McCain and Romney are winners now tell us Trump can't win.:-/


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 15, 2016)

Trump scares me. I mean like REALLY scares me. Will he threaten nukes?  Insane trade wars?  I believe in much of the message he tries to convey, just wish it was someone else carrying the flag.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 15, 2016)

Dame said:


> In other news, Ted Cruz looks into a new software package...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Bit of an old story.
Here's the Wikipedia page for that guy: Clint Curtis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## ThunderHorse (Mar 15, 2016)

This whole thing is rough.


----------



## Stephen (Mar 16, 2016)

Yeah, I know lots of people say that voting third party is just throwing away a vote, but honestly, maybe people should really start looking into it. Although voting third party this election will likely not upset the political statues quo, maybe enough people will vote third party to where next election, a third party candidate is a viable option. I think it's ridiculous to vote for who you hate least as apposed to who you really want as President. Things don't have to be that way, but we let them by allowing ourselves to be divided among the bipartisan system.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 16, 2016)

Stephen said:


> Yeah, I know lots of people say that voting third party is just throwing away a vote, but honestly, maybe people should really start looking into it. Although voting third party this election will likely not upset the political statues quo, maybe enough people will vote third party to where next election, a third party candidate is a viable option. I think it's ridiculous to vote for who you hate least as apposed to who you really want as President. Things don't have to be that way, but we let them by allowing ourselves to be divided among the bipartisan system.



Sure, that's an option.  People can be principled and vote third party, the GOP can be principled and break off to support another candidate at the convention.  Being a man of principle will ensure a Hillary administration, so if people are willing to do it, then, yeah.



Florida173 said:


> Moreover, and somewhat unorthodox, I think that he should be considered for the VP on Trump's ticket to grab Ohio. Kasich did indeed win his own state, but honestly just barely. Way worse than what I would have expected and worse than Cruz winning Texas and OK.
> 
> We'll see. I think once people get away from the BS campaigning rhetoric, Trump definitely has a lot to offer. I keep hearing people talking about how divisive and polarizing he is yet he polls higher in every minority more than any other republican candidate in years. Seems like it's just the hip thing to say, but not until the Soros driven protesters has there been any real "violence" at his rallies. Listening to Obama today try to quell the craziness of the election was in bad form and beneath the presidency. This is nowhere near the levels from 20-50 years ago.



I don't think that's an unorthodox idea.  Kasich is definitely a liberal Republican, but it would not hurt being so well-liked as VPOTUS, and he polls well.  I am curious how Ohio would have turned out had Rubio not been in the race, how the vote would have settled; more for Kasich, more for Cruz, or more for Trump.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 16, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I don't think that's an unorthodox idea.  Kasich is definitely a liberal Republican, but it would not hurt being so well-liked as VPOTUS, and he polls well.  I am curious how Ohio would have turned out had Rubio not been in the race, how the vote would have settled; more for Kasich, more for Cruz, or more for Trump.


I would bet Kasich.

Immigration has been Rubio's Achilles Heal, and he is closer to Kasich than Cruz or Trump on that issue.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 16, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I don't care for Trump.  Not 'my' candidate and all.  But when I take a step back and look at him, my conclusion is that he is either a) really that stupid (as he is sounding), or b) it's an act, a vehicle, to get to where he wants to be.  I think the man is far smarter and wrapped tighter than people give him credit for.



Trump is not stupid. He knows how to market a product and right now the product is him. He is tapping into a huge voter-base of mostly white Americans who are tired of being blamed for all the world's ills; who've witnessed too many years of government pandering to minorities; who are worried about the impact of 11-million illegal immigrants in this country; and who have serious concerns about terrorism. He touching some nerves and he's saying the kinds of things people are saying to one another in their homes...in the same informal language. With all the other candidates so desperate to appeal to minorities, Muslims, the LGBT crowd--about 15% of the population--he's zeroed in on the vast majority of Americans who've felt neglected for so many years.

Like him or hate him, it's brilliant positioning.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 16, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Trump is not stupid. He knows how to market a product and right now the product is him. He is tapping into a huge voter-base of mostly white Americans who are tired of being blamed for all the world's ills; who've witnessed too many years of government pandering to minorities; who are worried about the impact of 11-million illegal immigrants in this country; and who have serious concerns about terrorism. He touching some nerves and he's saying the kinds of things people are saying to one another in their homes...in the same informal language. With all the other candidates so desperate to appeal to minorities, Muslims, the LGBT crowd--about 15% of the population--he's zeroed in on the vast majority of Americans who've felt neglected for so many years.
> 
> Like him or hate him, it's brilliant positioning.


I think Trump is the only candidate that can shred Hillary in the debates.
She'll pull out the gender card and he'll light her ass up.
My biggest concern with Trump? Is he serious, or is he going to tank his campaign to let Hillary win?


----------



## nobodythank you (Mar 16, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> I think Trump is the only candidate that can shred Hillary in the debates.
> She'll pull out the gender card and he'll light her ass up.
> My biggest concern with Trump? Is he serious, or is he going to tank his campaign to let Hillary win?


I agree that he could shred her, but where do people get the idea that he is willing to tank his campaign? What does that get him? I am a huge Trump supporter now, but even then I recognize that this guy has the biggest ego on the playing field. 

Whether you (generally not personal) like him or not he has a lot of money and knows how to move it around and make more. As is evidenced by his methods of campaign financing himself through loans to himself. For all intents and purposes he has:

 conquered the business world (regardless of failed or successful ventures, he is worth more than all of us, financially, combined many times over) 
the entertainment world (his name/brand is a big name in the industry and constantly talked about)
and now he is looking to conqueror the political world. What better crowning achievement for someone with an ego than to waltz onto the political stage and take the most powerful seat in the world? I really don't think he will tank his bid for her or anyone else. I don't believe there is anything they could offer him to do that.  
In any event, this election is fascinating because we are likely witnessing the collapse of a modern day political party, and maybe another if the Bernites get mad enough about how their party is cheating their voters ala superdelegates.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 16, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> I think Trump is the only candidate that can shred Hillary in the debates.
> She'll pull out the gender card and he'll light her ass up.
> My biggest concern with Trump? Is he serious, or is he going to tank his campaign to let Hillary win?




You are as devious as my wife because she came up with this same suspicion, that he pre-strategized this whole charade with the Clintons.

It would be mass betrayal on the grandest scale and a tremendous waste of money--unless he was promised political favors in return that would negate losses.

It's just a bit too far fetched for me.

Or _is it?????_


----------



## Grunt (Mar 16, 2016)

Trump is in it to win it. If he would have to change his party affiliation at the last moment to do so - or go forward without the RNC nod - he would do it. He has the momentum and knows it. He is saying what needs to be said and a lot of people are responding with their votes. 

This will be a very interesting convention this year!


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 16, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> I think Trump is the only candidate that can shred Hillary in the debates.
> She'll pull out the gender card and he'll light her ass up.
> My biggest concern with Trump? Is he serious, or is he going to tank his campaign to let Hillary win?



I like Trump's ability to take on an issue nose to nose, and stay with it to the end. If you wonder how far he will go, ask Rosanne Bar. I feel our nation needs that kind of leadership, and Hilary is not a leader; Bengazi points that out rather well. Not only that, she continues to lie, and cover up her role as SOS. We need a Reagan back in the White House. Clinton will fall far short of that, and right on her face if she tries. I think Trump might just be what we need now.


----------



## Frank S. (Mar 16, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> This whole thing is rough.



Used to be rough... On stage and whenever they're in public, they're all Nursultan Tulyakbais. Privately, they're all huggy/friendly with each other, all Azamat Bogatovs...

Just pour a nice Bourbon and have sexy time...

ETA: used to be they said, bullshit walks and money talks. Well... Look at bullshit twerking and autotuning now...


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 17, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I think Trump might just be what we need now.



Trump supporters who are judging their boy by his willpower and influence alone may wish to reassess, IMHO.  :-/

*Donald Trump Warns Supporters Could Riot if He Doesn't Get GOP Nomination*


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 17, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Trump supporters who are judging their boy by his willpower and influence alone may wish to reassess, IMHO.  :-/
> 
> *Donald Trump Warns Supporters Could Riot if He Doesn't Get GOP Nomination*



Not that they _should_ riot, but there's plenty of precedent.  IF he gets into the convention with the preponderance of delegates and the GOP/RNC pull some underhanded bullshit and some other candidate gets the magical number of delegates to receive the nomination, I would understand the riots.  Not I advocate it, mind you, but I understand.


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 17, 2016)

"Donnie Trump: a president who doesn't bother to say a single thing to discourage others from running around assaulting other citizens and destroying property when he 'thinks' and 'believes' there's the very real possibility that this exact thing may soon happen."

Why isn't anything like this this one of his campaign taglines?  Because its utterly ridiculous to think so?  Because it represents a childish and unreasonable act by someone who may soon be directly responsible for the security and welfare of 319 million people?


----------



## AWP (Mar 17, 2016)

When people think of a "third party" they need to check themselves because history isn't kind to that sort of thinking. Look at the Progressive (Bull Moose) Party. It accomplished little yet it split the Republican Party and allowed Wilson to win back-to-back terms. Ross Perot generally appealed to Republican voters or middle-of-the-road voters and probably allowed Clinton to win the race. Those third party "upset with the system" voters changed what? NOTHING. The parties didn't change so it was business as usual and the GOP arguable lost three presidential elections.

I can't stand Trump but it increasingly looks like it will be him and Clinton in November. You can have principles or a shot at keeping Clinton out of the WH, but you can't have both.


----------



## nobodythank you (Mar 17, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> "Donnie Trump: a president who doesn't bother to say a single thing to discourage others from running around assaulting other citizens and destroying property when he 'thinks' and 'believes' there's the very real possibility that this exact thing may soon happen."
> 
> Why isn't anything like this this one of his campaign taglines?  Because its utterly ridiculous to think so?  Because it represents a childish and unreasonable act by someone who may soon be directly responsible for the security and welfare of 319 million people?


Seriously? This is what you want to focus on as the problem with our current political system? How about focusing on the conditions that contributed to this state of angry voters that are being fleeced by the established power group on both sides, or angry voters fed up with the status quo from both parties? You have Republicans that are going to be pissed if Trump doesn't get the nomination when he played the game, or the Democrats that are pissed with the superdelegate bullshit being shoved at them. 

Funny how you don't see the same angry and violent low educated Trump supporters/protesters at a Bernie or Hillary event, and causing trouble as was done to Trump. I don't see Trump supporters starting riots in low income cities, coming to events of the other party, and disrupting political rallies. 

I guess tolerance is only ok if you believe what you are supposed to, and not what you want. Nothing personal towards you, but I can respect people not liking Trump within a policy context. Any of the other multitude of ridiculous reasons being cited is just crying at this point.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 17, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I can't stand Trump but it increasingly looks like it will be him and Clinton in November. You can have principles or a shot at keeping Clinton out of the WH, but you can't have both.



Slow golf claps.

The third party candidate cuts both ways; there was Ralph Nader in 2000.  Had he not run, Gore would have won.


----------



## Grunt (Mar 17, 2016)

Regardless, I would like to do away with the entire electoral college issue and let my individual vote count. Yep...I would have to take the good with the bad, but at least my vote counts -- or should.

Then, we wouldn't have brokered conventions and idiocy like that. We vote for who we want, if it's not our guy...so be it...win some, lose some. The thought that a few individuals can pick "our" candidate against the will of the people is atrocious.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 17, 2016)

I don't like any of the candidates, I'm an independent voter who generally leans to the right. But as with how the Democratic party has lost all faith with their super delegates system. The Republican party will lose all faith if they attempt a brokered convention and push the clear front runner out.

A third party? No I think we need to, as a people, say enough is enough and reboot the whole party concept. An honestly I personally would favor a lot more political parties. This you're either this or that, with very little middle ground, although both sides do the same bullshit when holding office, is simply insanity.


----------



## Brill (Mar 17, 2016)

Trump & Sanders are the 3rd party candidates.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 17, 2016)

Agoge said:


> Regardless, I would like to do away with the entire electoral college issue and let my individual vote count. Yep...I would have to take the good with the bad, but at least my vote counts -- or should.
> 
> Then, we wouldn't have brokered conventions and idiocy like that. We vote for who we want, if it's not our guy...so be it...win some, lose some. The thought that a few individuals can pick "our" candidate against the will of the people is atrocious.



I appreciate and understand the frustration with the current system, but "one vote-one kill" is not the way to go.  The electoral college pretty much ignores the voters of the lesser populated states, but a pure democracy would shut out probably 40 states.


----------



## Grunt (Mar 17, 2016)

I hear what you are saying, Brother! I still don't like it and it still abuses individuals votes by not counting them. An individual's vote should count...not the delegates votes who can do what they want with your vote.

I'm close minded when it comes to that issue...


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 17, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Seriously? This is what you want to focus on as the problem with our current political system? How about focusing on the conditions that contributed to this state of angry voters that are being fleeced by the established power group on both sides, or angry voters fed up with the status quo from both parties? You have Republicans that are going to be pissed if Trump doesn't get the nomination when he played the game, or the Democrats that are pissed with the superdelegate bullshit being shoved at them.
> 
> Funny how you don't see the same angry and violent low educated Trump supporters/protesters at a Bernie or Hillary event, and causing trouble as was done to Trump. I don't see Trump supporters starting riots in low income cities, coming to events of the other party, and disrupting political rallies.
> 
> I guess tolerance is only ok if you believe what you are supposed to, and not what you want. Nothing personal towards you, but I can respect people not liking Trump within a policy context. Any of the other multitude of ridiculous reasons being cited is just crying at this point.



When a strong candidate decides to respond to potential rioting directly related to his candidacy and chooses _that_ as his response?

When said candidate could hold an office wherein he will be expected to take full responsibility for the execution of his policies and administration, but hey, if it looks like something bad will happen as a result of them we'll probably just warn people about the potential damage then passively let it play out?

When the Economist Intelligence Unit calls Donnie's winning the Presidency one of the top 10 risks now facing the world?

Yep, seriously.


----------



## AWP (Mar 17, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Slow golf claps.
> 
> The third party candidate cuts both ways; there was Ralph Nader in 2000.  Had he not run, Gore would have won.



True, but that's 1 in 4 elections. History isn't kind to the GOP where third parties are concerned. With Perot you can argue Clinton would still win, but then we're still faced with two modern elections where the third option didn't matter and 2 old elections where it did and the Republicans lost.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a third party. I think it would provide a counterbalance to the establishment and serve to moderate their platforms. James Madison observed, "ambition must be made to counteract ambition" and I totally agree. Right now there's little we can do except pick a side and it is genuinely tearing this country apart.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 17, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> True, but that's 1 in 4 elections. History isn't kind to the GOP where third parties are concerned. With Perot you can argue Clinton would still win, but then we're still faced with two modern elections where the third option didn't matter and 2 old elections where it did and the Republicans lost.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have a third party. I think it would provide a counterbalance to the establishment and serve to moderate their platforms. James Madison observed, "ambition must be made to counteract ambition" and I totally agree. Right now there's little we can do except pick a side and it is genuinely tearing this country apart.



I would like multiple parties.  I hate being buttonholed into a binary system.  It's a classic example to 'to the victor goes the spoils', and as long as the Rs and Ds keep winning, they will continue to write the rules that will all but keep out third parties.

There are a lot of parties, many I had never heard of until I did a little research.  And I have a degree in poli sci.  Just goes to show how seriously (or not) they are taken.

List of political parties in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Agoge said:


> I hear what you are saying, Brother! I still don't like it and it still abuses individuals votes by not counting them. An individual's vote should count...not the delegates votes who can do what they want with your vote.
> 
> I'm closed minded when it comes to that issue...



Perhaps if there was a rule that said the delegates are bound to a specific candidate unless no single candidate goes into the convention with a majority of the delegates....or some such rule.  I agree with you.  I hate that the delegates are "owned" (my word) by the party and not by the voters that send them to the convention.


----------



## nobodythank you (Mar 17, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> When a strong candidate decides to respond to potential rioting directly related to his candidacy and chooses _that_ as his response?
> 
> When said candidate could hold an office wherein he will be expected to take full responsibility for the execution of his policies and administration, but hey, if it looks like something bad will happen as a result of them we'll probably just warn people about the potential damage then passively let it play out?
> 
> ...


 As mentioned earlier: "Not that they _should_ riot, but there's plenty of precedent." Did he call for mass rioting? Not at all. He merely stated a possibility, that is understandable, given that people are mad. Funny use of the EIU as an accurate and credible gauge of what might happen when that publication, based out of the UK, is partly owned by private investors such as the Rothschild family and others. No conflict of interest there. It is amazing that BOTH the Republican and Democrat power circles are jumping on the anti-Trump bandwagon. Could it be that if both are scared of him, there is at least the possibility of positive change? No, because people want to believe the narrative fed to them on the nightly news. Sorry if this sounds all conspiracy theorish and anti establishment, but the current system in place is deadlocked and stagnant. It is the same back and forth game by both parties, and frankly I am sick of it. 

If the world did not end because Clinton, Bush, and Obama were elected, neither will the world end if Trump is elected. We tried for hope and change and all we got was a dry plunge in the collective anus of America.


----------



## Florida173 (Mar 17, 2016)

lindy said:


> Trump & Sanders are the 3rd party candidates.


 
This is an insurgent year.


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 17, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Funny use of the EIU as an accurate and credible gauge of what might happen when that publication, based out of the UK, is partly owned by private investors such as the Rothschild family and others. No conflict of interest there.



This would suggest a worldwide collusion and conspiracy of over 100 recognized country and economy experts, all of whom are well known for clarity and independence of thought, and professional rigor in the public and private sectors, supported by a huge network of contributors in nearly every country in the world.

If we're going the unfounded conspiracy/ conflict route in this thread, I'm out.


----------



## nobodythank you (Mar 17, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> This would suggest a worldwide collusion and conspiracy of over 100 recognized country and economy experts, all of whom are well known for clarity and independence of thought, and professional rigor in the public and private sectors, supported by a huge network of contributors in nearly every country in the world.
> 
> If we're going the unfounded conspiracy/ conflict route in this thread, I'm out.


Fine, take your toys and go home, but it is hardly an unfounded conspiracy theory when the short report does nothing but offer supposition. Something strange if an august organization such as The Economist is supposed to deal in clarity, independence of thought, and professional rigor. It is well known that the "civilized" Europeans have a distaste for Trump and conservatives in general. 

The main point here is the conflict of interest. The organization is biased and not a neutral source within this context. Just as biased as a site like motherjones or rightwingews.


----------



## Brill (Mar 17, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> This is an insurgent year.



We need a UW campaign!!!


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 17, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Not that they _should_ riot, but there's plenty of precedent.  IF he gets into the convention with the preponderance of delegates and the GOP/RNC pull some underhanded bullshit and some other candidate gets the magical number of delegates to receive the nomination, I would understand the riots.  Not I advocate it, mind you, but I understand.



It is refreshing to see this amount of fire in the GOP. For the past several conventions, the GOP was a yawn, why did I waste my time watching. Then going to bed knowing their GOP is still on the fail track. This GOP race has been different, and I am glad to see it.


----------



## AWP (Mar 17, 2016)

I don't know what to think of the article, and it is TLDR territory, but it raises some interesting points. Something I had to consider is that how we view the world and how the masses view the world can be very different.

The rise of American authoritarianism


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 17, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I don't know what to think of the article, and it is TLDR territory, but it raises some interesting points. Something I had to consider is that how we view the world and how the masses view the world can be very different.
> 
> The rise of American authoritarianism



One could quibble over the terms Leadership-v-Authoritarianism. We have had zero leadership for the past eight years, and I see Trump as a leader.


----------



## Brill (Mar 17, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I don't know what to think of the article, and it is TLDR territory, but it raises some interesting points. Something I had to consider is that how we view the world and how the masses view the world can be very different.
> 
> The rise of American authoritarianism



How does Trump espouse a central authority that takes power from the people?  Fundamentally change America...one EO at a time doesn't really seem to be his politics.

(some) Americans just want a guy who rides horses, uses a chainsaw while clearing fences, chews Redman, etc.


----------



## CQB (Mar 18, 2016)

To make America great again...sorry to say (and it's been a live issue here at SS way before I've brought it to the fore here now) it's not going to happen. The slogan means nothing, as does most of the other rhetoric Trump spouts, and believe it or not, we follow it here in Oz semi-closely in part due to ANZUS. 
There is always a gap between what the potential incumbent _will say_ pre-election as opposed to what the successful incumbent _does _ post-election.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 18, 2016)

Trump supporters have a right to be angry. They see the GOP Kingmakers trying to derail the campaign of arguably the only person who has a chance of winning the White House for the "party"... if in name only.  And if they manage to sabotage Trump and nominate Cruz or Kasich, they've thrown the election away and may weaken the party to the point  of political insignificance. Then what are you left with?

A One-Party State and Hillary for 8 years.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 18, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I appreciate and understand the frustration with the current system, but "one vote-one kill" is not the way to go.  The electoral college pretty much ignores the voters of the lesser populated states, but a pure democracy would shut out probably 40 states.


or make their votes importent.
Big state can have a minimal turnout and the person winning those states wins the election.

Electoral college needs to be modified (most votes wins vice needing a set number to win) or just let the popular vote decide.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 18, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I don't know what to think of the article, and it is TLDR territory, but it raises some interesting points. Something I had to consider is that how we view the world and how the masses view the world can be very different.
> 
> The rise of American authoritarianism




This may be a point of aim for Democrats if Trump is nominated, and there is some truth in it, but as @Red Flag 1 has stated above the word authority is supplanted for _Leadership_. One could also argue that the liberal agenda for Big Government is blatant authoritarianism, force-fed social change whether the country votes on it or not, strict gun control, socialized healthcare, redistribution of wealth, the list goes on. (See Obama's use of EOs etc.)


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 18, 2016)

CQB said:


> There is always a gap between what the potential incumbent _will say_ pre-election as opposed to what the successful incumbent _does _ post-election.



Agreed, and part of this is necessity because during campaigning one promises everything in order to _get_ elected, and part of this is reality because once one is elected he sees the impossibility of actually getting those pie-in-the-sky wishes actually implemented.


----------



## Stephen (Mar 20, 2016)

This video may sound like it contains some liberal bias, which it may very well, but the message is still the same. We're heading down an authoritarian path with both Trump and Clinton...

 I hate to say this, but Trump is very popular among those I work with. I feel like I'm some political extremist when I'm with them, when in fact, I've taken plenty of political spectrum tests telling me that I'm a moderate libertarian. This no shit scares the crap out of me. I'm sure when Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini took power, their supporters never thought of themselves as authoritarians either. While Trump is certainly no Hitler, partly because you just can't get away with that stuff anymore, I believe that he's as close as you can get these days in America. Clinton is not weak either. She's an authoritarian in the essence of Stalin, who will lie and undercut behind secrecy and closed doors to achieve her ambitions.

Honestly, I think America is the greatest country in the world. I genuinely believe that. We don't need anybody to, "take it back," or "make it great again." All America needs is someone to better balance our budget, and solely in my opinion as a libertarian, expand civil liberties.

On a side note, why the hell have we not legalized marijuana? There's so much crime revolved around it through the illegal drug trade. I find it absolutely ridiculous. Would I smoke it if it were legalized, no. Would I care if other people smoked it, no. Would it cause more people to smoke it, probably, but I don't give a damn, they can do what they want as long as it's not hurting anyone else. -Rant over.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 20, 2016)

Did I just see The Economist compared to mother jones? For real?


----------



## nobodythank you (Mar 20, 2016)

Within the context of that so called intelligence report, Yes.


----------



## Florida173 (Mar 20, 2016)

Stephen said:


> While Trump is certainly no Hitler, partly because you just can't get away with that stuff anymore, I believe that he's as close as you can get these days in America.


seriously dude? That shit only flies at liberal rallies. 

I believe in the 1920s and 1930s in Germany a political organization took to the streets and disrupted the political events of those they opposed.. They were the National Socialists. Bernie might be saying that his brand of "Democratic Socialism" is different, bit this is the same story we have seen before. The idiots on the left that have been blocking highways and disrupting free thought and political speech are the same fascists that are nothing more than useful idiots.


----------



## Brill (Mar 20, 2016)

@Stephen , you really should read sources of alternative views before labeling Trump an extremist.  They're all off their rockers (who in their right mind would spend millions for job that pays $400k?).

The Shameful Washington Post

I was pro-Trump until Putin endorsed him.


----------



## AWP (Mar 20, 2016)

I love the Nazi comparisons because they are so right....for a small slice of history. Like comparing the US to Rome, you have valid arguments under certain parameters and limitations. "Oh, this how the Nazi's started" is like saying "this is how cake started" about chocolate. It isn't like chocolate is the only ingredient in that cake.

You can basically take any nation and compare it to a really bad nation. If you want to have an actual argument you need to make the comparison across multiple instances throughout history. Everyone expects the Nazis or Rome when political points are made, but you hardly ever see some long forgotten Asian dynasty or the Seleucid's mentioned.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 20, 2016)

In terms of Mr. Trump, I see leadership. We have not seen any leadership for eight years, so I guess some are looking around for a word to describe him. It is leadership.
Ms. Clinton is not a leader. That was true when she was SOS, and it will be no different if she becomes POTUS. My guess is just more of what the last eight years have been.

My $.02.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 20, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> In terms of Mr. Trump, I see leadership. We have not seen any leadership for eight years, so I guess some are looking around for a word to describe him. It is leadership.
> Ms. Clinton is not a leader. That was true when she was SOS, and it will be no different if she becomes POTUS. My guess is just more of what the last eight years have been.
> 
> My $.02.


The Nazi's were socialists who shut the opposition down, can someone point out which Clinton/Sanders rally has been shut down by Trump supporters?


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 20, 2016)

The Nazis were Nationalists as much as socialists. Trying to say what Bernie is saying/doing is anything like National socialism is a stretch to say the least, but more like a fucking warp drive into another galaxy.


----------



## 104TN (Mar 20, 2016)

Interesting theory on how this could pan out if the GOP backs a moderate Republican as a third party contender to sap enough votes from Hillary and Trump to keep them from obtaining the needed majority to be elected.  

From HuffPo: Doomsday Savior? How Paul Ryan Will Pick the Next President


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 20, 2016)

rick said:


> Interesting theory on how this could pan out if the GOP backs a moderate Republican as a third party contender to sap enough votes from Hillary and Trump to keep them from obtaining the needed majority to be elected.
> 
> From HuffPo: Doomsday Savior? How Paul Ryan Will Pick the Next President


Fairy tale.

Democrats will vote for Hillary, you'd have to attract a lot of Sanders supporters to make that 3rd Party Candidate attractive.
I still am waiting for an indictment just before the convention so Biden gets the nomination.


----------



## CQB (Mar 21, 2016)

Sounds ok, just like Australia.


----------



## Stephen (Mar 21, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> The Nazi's were socialists who shut the opposition down, can someone point out which Clinton/Sanders rally has been shut down by Trump supporters?



Come the actual Presidential election, I'm sure we'll see it happen- on both sides.

I knew I was gonna get a bunch of flack for that post, but I don't care. It's just how I feel. I don't trust him, and I don't trust Clinton. I couldn't live with myself if I voted for either one, and I wouldn't want my children to live in the worlds that either of them envision.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 21, 2016)

Stephen said:


> Come the actual Presidential election, I'm sure we'll see it happen- on both sides.
> 
> I knew I was gonna get a bunch of flack for that post, but I don't care. It's just how I feel. I don't trust him, and I don't trust Clinton. I couldn't live with myself if I voted for either one, and I wouldn't want my children to live in the worlds that either of them envision.



Who knows for sure how this election will turn out, hell we're not even sure who will be selected. If Clinton and Trump run, you can always write yourself in for POTUS, and vote for yourself. What is your plan if Clinton or Trump are elected? Canada is English speaking, well most of,  socialistic, and radar detectors get smashed on the spot if they catch you with one. Canada still loves, and sends money to the Queen. Mexico to the south is easy to get into, and cost of living is pretty low, in some areas. If you go south, drug cartels run everything, schools are poor, violence and dead bodies are everywhere, and are an expected norm,  most don't speak English. Medical care is marginal, unless you have lots of money. If you have money, and they find out, plan on body guards to reduce the risk of kidnapping of you and your family. Maybe those government leaders, and their governments are more to you liking.  Good luck with the choice you make for your children.


----------



## Stephen (Mar 22, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Who knows for sure how this election will turn out, hell we're not even sure who will be selected. If Clinton and Trump run, you can always write yourself in for POTUS, and vote for yourself. What is your plan if Clinton or Trump are elected? Canada is English speaking, well most of,  socialistic, and radar detectors get smashed on the spot if they catch you with one. Canada still loves, and sends money to the Queen. Mexico to the south is easy to get into, and cost of living is pretty low, in some areas. If you go south, drug cartels run everything, schools are poor, violence and dead bodies are everywhere, and are an expected norm,  most don't speak English. Medical care is marginal, unless you have lots of money. If you have money, and they find out, plan on body guards to reduce the risk of kidnapping of you and your family. Maybe those government leaders, and their governments are more to you liking.  Good luck with the choice you make for your children.



If either of them get elected, I'm not going to run. This is just as much my country as it is everyone else's. I'll just wait things out and if things get to be too bad, you had better believe I'll doing my best to try and change things. I'm a man of my principles, and I won't let, nor have I ever let, anyone or anything change that. If it takes running for Presidency one day, I'll do that too.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 22, 2016)

Stephen said:


> If either of them get elected, I'm not going to run. This is just as much my country as it is everyone else's. I'll just wait things out and if things get to be too bad, you had better believe I'll doing my best to try and change things. I'm a man of my principles, and I won't let, nor have I ever let, anyone or anything change that. If it takes running for Presidency one day, I'll do that too.



Good for you, I like your answer.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 22, 2016)

This is why Trump is winning.  "When" it hits home again, Hillary and the rest will say they need to now resort to whatever means necessary to ensure it does not happen again. To include supervised-enhanced-interrogation and monitoring of communication.

Trump will say, "damn it, I've been shouting it from the beginning!"  And he has.

The average unenlightened American only knows they don't want ISIL running amok in Des Moines. If someone steps up and says what they are thinking, even if they would never admit it out loud, they will vote for him. (And never admit it)

*Trump said in that interview on Fox & Friends that the US needs to 'shut the borders' and stop allowing Muslim refugees into the country*

*He advocated the use of waterboarding on terrorist suspects, saying he would go further if the laws allowed him*

*Hillary Clinton called Today after declining an interview during Trump's press push and criticized him, saying; 'We don't need to resort to torture'*
*Trump calls for the surveillance of Muslims on US soil after attacks*


----------



## Brill (Mar 22, 2016)

Belgium is dealing with Muslim refugees now.  Of course they're not all bad but until they police their own, we need to take a different tact.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 22, 2016)

Meanwhile Mexico is pushing permanent resident to get US citizenship so they can vote against Trump (which justs gives him another boost AT the Polls).

I voted Cruz (reluctantly), but will pull the Lever for Donald if he is on the ballot (or leave that portion of the ballot blank if neither Cruz or Trump are on it)


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 22, 2016)

...and here you go.

Piers Morgan sees the light when it hits even closer to home.  I've seen him do enough editorials dogging his one-time good friend - looks like he's back on board.

See,  it's all about perspective -

"Trumps a misogynist"
"Trumps a racist"
"Trumps an elitist"

then "BOOM goes the suicide bomber" and it's:

"Trump is the only one saying what I think, and I believe he might actually mean it"

Note to those who may be confused, what he's doing is displaying leadership.  Something we've sorely missed the past 8 years or so.

PIERS MORGAN: Isn’t it time we listened to Trump on terror?


----------



## AWP (Mar 22, 2016)

"He told me he wants law-abiding Muslims to root out the extremists in their midst, expressing his bafflement and anger that someone like Abdeslam was able to hide for so long in the very part of Brussels he had previously lived."

Myself and others here have screamed this for years. When I mention it to my liberal friends they hem and haw without saying anything. Rooting out their own is as much a part of the solution as "snapping necks and cashing checks" yet people ignore this. It forces the Left to admit their friendly Muslims are aiding and abetting and the Right won't acknowledge it because it doesn't have the zing of black-clad ninjas and Hellfires raining from the sky. No one wants to address this in part because no one how to address this issue. They don't have a plan so they can't discuss the solution. The Muslim community damn sure doesn't want this to see the light of day because it robs them of their political martyrdom.

Oh yeah, fuck Piers Morgan. Piece of shit. Even a clock is right twice a day.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 22, 2016)

> ="DA SWO, post: 420874, member: 108]...I still am waiting for an indictment just before the convention so Biden gets the nomination.











Stephen said:


> ...We're heading down an authoritarian path with both Trump and Clinton...



No, we're not. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with that very fear in the forefront of their minds. They dreaded, more than anything else, a First Executive becoming a monarch. And so they crafted a document--one of the most amazing documents in human history--so that *would not happen.
*
If it could happen, don't you think someone would've tried it by now?

Campaign rhetoric is not policy. It's not Law. It's feel-good bullshit to appeal to emotions and get votes. Both Clinton and Trump are in the process of marketing themselves as people who will *get the job done* when in fact whatever they manage to get done, with the approval of Congress, has to also be Constitutional.


----------



## AWP (Mar 22, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> No, we're not. The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution with that very fear in the forefront of their minds. They dreaded, more than anything else, a First Executive becoming a monarch. And so they crafted a document--one of the most amazing documents in human history--so that *would not happen.
> *
> If it could happen, don't you think someone would've tried it by now?
> 
> Campaign rhetoric is not policy. It's not Law. It's feel-good bullshit to appeal to emotions and get votes. Both Clinton and Trump are in the process of marketing themselves as people who will *get the job done* when in fact whatever they manage to get done, with the approval of Congress, has to also be Constitutional.



Disagree. Two of this country's greatest presidents, one was a Founding Father, set aside the Constitution when it suited them (Adams and Lincoln). "Oh, well, they did it for good reasons." Right, because violating this country's most sacred document is okay for the right reasons or if we win. Garbage.

I'll tell you how the Cons. won't matter one day: people won't care. Sure, that may take generations and generations, but people will reach a point when they won't care about the Cons. which is one reason I'm vehemently opposed to anti-gun laws. It will open the door a crack and some salesman will jam his foot in the door. The Constitution's strength lies in the strength of its people and we're slowly running out of strong people.


----------



## Brill (Mar 22, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Disagree. Two of this country's greatest presidents, one was a Founding Father, set aside the Constitution when it suited them (Adams and Lincoln). "Oh, well, they did it for good reasons." Right, because violating this country's most sacred document is okay for the right reasons or if we win. Garbage.
> 
> I'll tell you how the Cons. won't matter one day: people won't care. Sure, that may take generations and generations, but people will reach a point when they won't care about the Cons. which is one reason I'm vehemently opposed to anti-gun laws. It will open the door a crack and some salesman will jam his foot in the door. The Constitution's strength lies in the strength of its people and we're slowly running out of strong people.



I'm honestly shocked that "you know who" didn't reinstate the Sedition Act!


----------



## Gunz (Mar 22, 2016)

Yeah, you're probably right, but neither Adams nor Lincoln came into office with the intention of becoming dictators. And you'd have to admit Lincoln's case was unique, with the Republic on the verge of self-destruction.

What I'm saying is that in normal times there are checks and balances, otherwise Obama would have outlawed guns and jailed all his political opponents.


----------



## AWP (Mar 22, 2016)

lindy said:


> I'm honestly shocked that "you know who" didn't reinstate the Sedition Act!



A good Constitutional lawyer could probably make it happen.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 22, 2016)

Glad to see this Tweet again online - 

Preach it Hillary - the nation is listening! 

Most interesting to me, she has over 5 Million followers, yet after 4 months this Tweet has received only 3k "likes".  Even her own base won't buy into this bullshit.


----------



## AWP (Mar 22, 2016)

Serious yet crazy moment:

How many more Paris/ Brussels attacks will it take to put Trump in the White House? He's been a hard liner from the beginning and at some point, if not already, people will lose faith in Hillary's ability to deal with Muslim extremists. Fear is a powerful motivator, so how many on the fence or even Hillary supporters will take a look at Trump and think "This dude sucks in almost every category, but he's the only one with a plan to deal with ISIS and their ilk?" How many people will set aside their other beliefs because of the fear of terrorism?


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 22, 2016)

lindy said:


> Belgium is dealing with Muslim refugees now.  Of course they're not all bad but until they police their own, we need to take a different tact.


Sometimes mass punishment is warranted, I think we have hit that wall.
No more refugees until the existing population stops this shit.
No aid, no food drops, no docs without borders, nothing until they cut this crap out.
Then bomb the crap out of ISIL, accept civilian casualties (they do, theirs and ours) and martyr as many as necessary.
Hearts and mind stuff won't work (for now) carrot and stick (and carrots are out of season).



Freefalling said:


> Serious yet crazy moment:
> 
> How many more Paris/ Brussels attacks will it take to put Trump in the White House? He's been a hard liner from the beginning and at some point, if not already, people will lose faith in Hillary's ability to deal with Muslim extremists. Fear is a powerful motivator, so how many on the fence or even Hillary supporters will take a look at Trump and think "This dude sucks in almost every category, but he's the only one with a plan to deal with ISIS and their ilk?" How many people will set aside their other beliefs because of the fear of terrorism?



Trump (and Cruz) look stronger every day, but sometimes it takes a bully (Trump) to stand up to a bully.


----------



## Stephen (Mar 23, 2016)

Just putting my libertarian two cents in here because I know I'm a minority on this, but I don't want to play into their game. Islamic extremists want an extreme response. They want to be able to put images of civilians dead from airstrikes online and on TV. I don't believe that they seriously think they could win an all out war with the world, and that's why we can't treat them like we did Germany or Japan in WWII. They want less discriminate airstrikes. They want conventional troops on the ground.

I think what we should be doing is continuing to conduct special operations missions. In fact, we should really bolster our special operations to become our main weapon in Syria.

You know what, I'd fuckin find some of our best and brightest with a serious vendetta against those savages, and just get them underground Al Raqqa, like in the drainage system. Then at night they could come up, murder a few ISIS guards, mutilate their bodies, leave a note on their bodies saying that it was a local resistance group that killed them, and then return underground to the drainage system. Do that once every few days, and I bet you eventually the people would start taking care of things themselves.

-Just a farfetched idea, but what I'm really getting at is that there has got to be better ways to do this than just bombing the shit out of them and going even further in debt.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 23, 2016)

Stephen said:


> Just putting my libertarian two cents in here because I know I'm a minority on this, but I don't want to play into their game. Islamic extremists want an extreme response. They want to be able to put images of civilians dead from airstrikes online and on TV. I don't believe that they seriously think they could win an all out war with the world, and that's why we can't treat them like we did Germany or Japan in WWII. They want less discriminate airstrikes. They want conventional troops on the ground.
> 
> I think what we should be doing is continuing to conduct special operations missions. In fact, we should really bolster our special operations to become our main weapon in Syria.
> 
> ...


You have to have some sort of open response, or they use a lack of response as proof of their invincibility, and that becomes a recruiting tool.
The crux is no matter what our response is, they will try to use it as a recruiting tool, which is why getting killed has to go from an awesome martyrdom, to an oh shit event; but we don't have the spine required as we are "too civilised" for such violence.


----------



## Stephen (Mar 23, 2016)

Yeah, you're absolutely right. I think there isn't a simple answer. If there was, I'm sure we would have figured it out. I think nothing short of killing every last one of them and killing their families as well will completely root out islamic extremism. 

However, am I morally okay with making families suffer for the sins of their relatives, no.  

Gah, it's all so difficult and it frustrates me because I honestly hate how much people suffer at the hands of this plague.


----------



## Brill (Mar 23, 2016)

Hillary has the answers! Look to the unclassified Internet for intelligence!!!

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...ls-for-intelligence-surge-to-fight-isis/?_r=0


----------



## Gunz (Mar 24, 2016)

lindy said:


> Hillary has the answers! Look to the unclassified Internet for intelligence!!!



She shouted, as she was dragged off in handcuffs by Federal Agents.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 24, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> You have to have some sort of open response, or they use a lack of response as proof of their invincibility, and that becomes a recruiting tool.
> The crux is no matter what our response is, they will try to use it as a recruiting tool, which is why getting killed has to go from an awesome martyrdom, to an oh shit event; but we don't have the spine required as we are "too civilised" for such violence.



Truth, Brother.  It is truly a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation.  So,_ that_ said, I would opt for overt and covert war against those booger-eaters.  I mean, if we are screwed either way, at least take the screwing of your choice.

I will say, I like the idea of hitting the individuals, and I won't lose sleep should collateral damage occur.  I like how the Russians allegedly handled the terrorists in 1985.  The story may not have been entirely accurate, but the fact that the story may have kept Russians safe for a while is telling.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 24, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Truth, Brother.  It is truly a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation.  So,_ that_ said, I would opt for overt and covert war against those booger-eaters.  I mean, if we are screwed either way, at least take the screwing of your choice.
> 
> I will say, I like the idea of hitting the individuals, and I won't lose sleep should collateral damage occur.  I like how the Russians allegedly handled the terrorists in 1985.  The story may not have been entirely accurate, but the fact that the story may have kept Russians safe for a while is telling.


My understanding is the story is fairly accurate; if it's not accurate, then it is understated.


----------



## AWP (Mar 24, 2016)

lindy said:


> Hillary has the answers! Look to the unclassified Internet for intelligence!!!
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...ls-for-intelligence-surge-to-fight-isis/?_r=0



Anyone who reads that article and doesn't see the flaws in her logic and hypocrisy is a damn fool.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 24, 2016)

I cannot find the CNN video, there is one of Sanders at a CNN Town Hall in which he was asked about Trump rallies and violent "supporters."  He said Trump needs to take responsibility for his supporters, but when asked if he would do the same since it was pro-Sanders supporters inciting some of the violence, Sanders claimed he has millions of followers and cannot take responsibility for them.  Oh, I wish I could find it.  He used to amuse me.  Now he bugs the hell out of me.

"Trump is responsible for every single one of his followers, but I'm not accountable for any of mine"


----------



## Grunt (Mar 24, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I cannot find the CNN video, there is one of Sanders at a CNN Town Hall in which he was asked about Trump rallies and violent "supporters."  He said Trump needs to take responsibility for his supporters, but when asked if he would do the same since it was pro-Sanders supporters inciting some of the violence, Sanders claimed he has millions of followers and cannot take responsibility for them.  Oh, I wish I could find it.  He used to amuse me.  Now he bugs the hell out of me.
> 
> "Trump is responsible for every single one of his followers, but I'm not accountable for any of mine"



Yep...if that is the case...it's the good ole, "Do as I say, and not as I do." 

Remember my brother, they ARE politicians...after all!


----------



## Florida173 (Mar 24, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I cannot find the CNN video, there is one of Sanders at a CNN Town Hall in which he was asked about Trump rallies and violent "supporters."  He said Trump needs to take responsibility for his supporters, but when asked if he would do the same since it was pro-Sanders supporters inciting some of the violence, Sanders claimed he has millions of followers and cannot take responsibility for them.  Oh, I wish I could find it.  He used to amuse me.  Now he bugs the hell out of me.
> 
> "Trump is responsible for every single one of his followers, but I'm not accountable for any of mine"


 
He is way overestimating his supporters, or they aren't voting for him.


----------



## Brill (Mar 24, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Anyone who reads that article and doesn't see the flaws in her logic and hypocrisy is a damn fool.



I think you just called Iowa stupid.


----------



## AWP (Mar 24, 2016)

lindy said:


> I think you just called Iowa stupid.



Iowa's the Mississippi of the Midwest and I never cared much for Mississippi...


----------



## Dame (Mar 24, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I cannot find the CNN video, there is one of Sanders at a CNN Town Hall in which he was asked about Trump rallies and violent "supporters."  He said Trump needs to take responsibility for his supporters, but when asked if he would do the same since it was pro-Sanders supporters inciting some of the violence, Sanders claimed he has millions of followers and cannot take responsibility for them.  Oh, I wish I could find it.  He used to amuse me.  Now he bugs the hell out of me.
> 
> "Trump is responsible for every single one of his followers, but I'm not accountable for any of mine"


----------



## Brill (Mar 27, 2016)

Feel the Bern! If he grabs Wisconsin, he's within striking distance!

Three for three: Sanders wins Hawaii, Washington, Alaska


----------



## Gunz (Mar 27, 2016)

I'm happy when I know she's cringing in anger.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 28, 2016)

A slight pause for a touch of levity...


----------



## AWP (Mar 29, 2016)

CNN's reporting he's turned himself in to the po-po.

Trump campaign manager charged with simple battery - CNNPolitics.com



> _(CNN)_Donald Trump's campaign manager Corey Lewandowski has been charged in Jupiter, Florida, with simple battery of former Breitbart reporter Michelle Fields, according to a police document.
> The report states that Fields came to the Jupiter Police Department on March 11, three days after the alleged incident. According to the police officer who interviewed Fields that day, she indicated that after she asked Trump a question, she "felt someone yank her left arm," and that she "fell back but caught herself from falling."



This election cycle's missing a sex tape, Watergate-style burglary, or a straight-up murder.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 29, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> CNN's reporting he's turned himself in to the po-po.
> 
> Trump campaign manager charged with simple battery - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> ...


That would be the Clinton camp you are talking about.......


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 29, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> This election cycle's missing a sex tape, Watergate-style burglary, or a straight-up murder.


If we're lucky, the Ted Cruz sex scandal will pan out into something and sustain the controversy train for another few months.  We might even get a sex tape out of it!


----------



## Totentanz (Mar 29, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> We might even get a sex tape out of it!



I never thought I'd see the day @Deathy McDeath verbally expressed a desire to see Ted Cruz naked...


----------



## Raptor (Mar 29, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> I never thought I'd see the day @Deathy McDeath verbally expressed a desire to see Ted Cruz naked...


I never thought I'd see the day when anybody expressed desire to see him naked...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 29, 2016)

Are we getting to the part where things are beginning to crumble around The Donald?

The Sanjaya comment made me laugh out loud a bit...

*An Open Letter to Trump Voters from His Top Strategist-Turned-Defector*

Even Trump's most trusted advisors didn't expect him to fare this well.  Almost a year ago, recruited for my public relations and public policy expertise, I sat in Trump Tower being told that the goal was to get The Donald to poll in double digits and come in second in delegate count. That was it.  The Trump camp would have been satisfied to see him polling at 12% and taking second place to a candidate who might hold 50%. His candidacy was a protest candidacy.  It pains me to say, but he is the presidential equivalent of Sanjaya on _American Idol_. President Trump would be President Sanjaya in terms of legitimacy and authority.


----------



## AWP (Mar 29, 2016)

My work here is done.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 29, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> My work here is done.


So we can blame you when Hillary gets elected?


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 29, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> *An Open Letter to Trump Voters from His Top Strategist-Turned-Defector*


Pretty scathing editorial, if true.  It's a bit perverse, but the narrative of "protest-candidate-turned-actual-candidate" gives me a little bit of grudging respect for Trump.  Despite all opposition, he's managed to tap into a vein of nascent anger in the voting public and gone legit, for better or for worse.

I'm reading elsewhere that this Stephanie Cegielski was not Trump's "top strategist", as the headline claims.  Rather, she was the communications director for an affiliated SuperPAC, which by law is not allowed to coordinate with candidates.  While I'm sure she had some measure of insider info, this fact takes a little bit of wind out of her sails.  I'm hoping that the "top strategist" headline was a decision fostered by the blog that hosted it, rather than the writer.


----------



## AWP (Mar 29, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> So we can blame you when Hillary gets elected?



You can. You can blame whoever you want.

----

Susan Sarandon knocks one out of the park and on MSNBC no less.

Susan Sarandon prefers Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton


----------



## Brill (Mar 29, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> You can. You can blame whoever you want.
> 
> ----
> 
> ...



I wonder who John Travolta or DiCapo is backing?


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 30, 2016)

The other day, I watched a Donald Trump town hall meeting hosted by Anderson Cooper.  At times it hardly sounded like the man was speaking English, as he was just so incomprehensible.  For a man that supposedly "tells it like it is" and "doesn't talk like a politician", he sure has mastered the art of the non-answer.

Here's a transcript: Donald Trump did a CNN townhall last night. And it was a classic.


----------



## Florida173 (Mar 30, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> The other day, I watched a Donald Trump town hall meeting hosted by Anderson Cooper.  At times it hardly sounded like the man was speaking English, as he was just so incomprehensible.  For a man that supposedly "tells it like it is" and "doesn't talk like a politician", he sure has mastered the art of the non-answer.
> 
> Here's a transcript: Donald Trump did a CNN townhall last night. And it was a classic.



Maybe he needs a teleprompter like another president.

My experience at one of his rallies  was pretty positive.  Typical rally.  Only people acting crazy were the bernie fans.


----------



## AWP (Mar 31, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> The other day, I watched a Donald Trump town hall meeting hosted by Anderson Cooper.  At times it hardly sounded like the man was speaking English, as he was just so incomprehensible.  For a man that supposedly "tells it like it is" and "doesn't talk like a politician", he sure has mastered the art of the non-answer.
> 
> Here's a transcript: Donald Trump did a CNN townhall last night. And it was a classic.



We probably saw the same TH. Cruz was a disaster and Trump's segment went from intelligent to funny to WTF at times. He'd own Anderson Cooper in one segment and then AC would own him in another; at a bare minimum it was entertaining. As for any non-answers, that's becoming the American Way. I agree with you, but no one answers Yes or No questions anymore and interviewers won't hold them to any standard. Interviews are babbling with one or two sound bites blown out of proportion.

My girl Hillary....you can have a great candidate or can have good enough and that's me, the good enough leader.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...lary-clinton-starts-big-push-to-win-new-york/



> “It’s wasn’t about making a point. It was about making a difference,” Mrs. Clinton said.* “Some folks may have the luxury to hold out for the perfect, but a lot of Americans are hurting right now, and they can’t wait for that. They need the good, and they need it today*.”



A ding at Sanders, but...wow.


----------



## Brill (Mar 31, 2016)

@Freefalling , I think she's trying to say there that criminal records are ok.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Mar 31, 2016)

Our new yard sign -


----------



## Blizzard (Mar 31, 2016)

^ group buy?!


----------



## Brill (Apr 1, 2016)

Blizzard said:


> ^ group buy?!



Bernie's plan lets you pay for one but gives it to your neighbor.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 3, 2016)

This actually surprised me. The Donald's first significant backpedal. 

'It was a mistake': Trump regrets sharing unflattering Heidi Cruz pic


----------



## AWP (Apr 3, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> This actually surprised me. The Donald's first significant backpedal.
> 
> 'It was a mistake': Trump regrets sharing unflattering Heidi Cruz pic



Trump's about to get killed and he's scrambling to save himself. The GOP's going to be stuck with Cruz or whoever they can dredge up and then watch that person lose to Clinton.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 3, 2016)

I still don't think Hillary is unbeatable.
Likewise, she is owned by Obama, and he can still tube her career.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Apr 3, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Trump's about to get killed and he's scrambling to save himself. The GOP's going to be stuck with Cruz or whoever they can dredge up and then watch that person lose to Clinton.



Imagine if they took McCain out of his basement, dusted him off, and propped him up to read the teleprompter for a couple of months in McCain-v-Clinton:whatever:. 

I would like to see the GOP back a person who can win the election. I'm not so sure that Cruz even could beat Sanders. He would prolly give Biden a run for his money, but It will take Trump to counter Clinton.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Apr 3, 2016)

Rubio had some moments where he was very presidential and it looked like he was turning the corner and then he dropped the stick and nose dived.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 3, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Imagine if they took McCain out of his basement, dusted him off, and propped him up to read the teleprompter for a couple of months in McCain-v-Clinton:whatever:.
> 
> I would like to see the GOP back a person who can win the election. I'm not so sure that Cruz even could beat Sanders. He would prolly give Biden a run for his money, but It will take Trump to counter Clinton.


My only reason (at this point) for backing Trump is his unwillingness to back down.
He'll shred anyone the Democrats run in a debate, especially Hillary (or Biden).


----------



## Gunz (Apr 3, 2016)

GOP leadership wants Kasich. They can't control Trump and they don't like Cruz. They'd rather lose the election than nominate either of the latter two. As crazy as that sounds, I believe it to be true. With Trump or Cruz they risk losing some of their power to control the Party, power they'd still retain if they lost the election.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 3, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> GOP leadership wants Kasich. They can't control Trump and they don't like Cruz. They'd rather lose the election than nominate either of the latter two. As crazy as that sounds, I believe it to be true. With Trump or Cruz they risk losing some of their power to control the Party, power they'd still retain if they lost the election.


I agree, but the GOP Management doesn't understand the level of hate.
They could lose all the seats of power by convincing folks to stay at home.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Apr 3, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> GOP leadership wants Kasich. They can't control Trump and they don't like Cruz. They'd rather lose the election than nominate either of the latter two. As crazy as that sounds, I believe it to be true. With Trump or Cruz they risk losing some of their power to control the Party, power they'd still retain if they lost the election.



I guess loosing to obama x2 has not made any difference for the GOP. Losing control of the GOP trumps( couldn't help myself) winning control of the White House. What a great way to run a party.:wall:


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 4, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I guess loosing to obama x2 has not made any difference for the GOP. Losing control of the GOP trumps( couldn't help myself) winning control of the White House. What a great way to run a party.:wall:


Which is why the GOP is dead as a party.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 4, 2016)

wtf... now Candidate Trump wants to do away with DLI!!

“Using American tax payer money to teach American service members how to speak a language other than American is not how Americans do business,” said the former reality television star. “These are the languages of terrorists, drug dealers, and rapists! This is what seven and a half years of Obama and the liberals have brought us…American soldiers learning Spanish, Arabic, and North Koreanish [sic]!”


----------



## AWP (Apr 4, 2016)

[QUOTE="Marauder06, post: 422816, member: 19*or not, because this is, you know, satire.  ;)[/QUOTE]

I'm thinking about replacing pardus with you on my permaban list. You can't catch any fish if your net is full of holes. Satire or not, throw it in the water and see what you catch.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 4, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> [QUOTE="Marauder06, post: 422816, member: 19*or not, because this is, you know, satire.  ;)



I'm thinking about replacing pardus with you on my permaban list. You can't catch any fish if your net is full of holes. Satire or not, throw it in the water and see what you catch.[/QUOTE]

Done.


----------



## Salt USMC (Apr 8, 2016)

This 1964 article from Richard Hofstadter is a good (albeit long) look into the history of nativist politics, and the "paranoid style" of the American electorate.  While he does take some pains to portray paranoid politics and fear of "the other" from both sides, he does end up leaning harder on the Right.  Don't let that deter you from reading the article; it's really quite good, and the parallels to the current race are very apparent.

The Paranoid Style in American Politics | Harper's Magazine


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 8, 2016)

I went to a very interesting symposium at Duke today about the science of belief. Much of it was focused on how Trump appeals to people. It was interesting.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 8, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I went to a very interesting symposium at Duke today about the science of belief. Much of it was focused on how Trump appeals to people. It was interesting.


Did they pod-cast it by any chance?


----------



## Brill (Apr 9, 2016)

It's just a little law and nobody got hurt so what's the big deal?

Hillary Clinton broke the rules on the NYC subway. That's not fair | Ali Gharib


----------



## AWP (Apr 9, 2016)

lindy said:


> It's just a little law and nobody got hurt so what's the big deal?
> 
> Hillary Clinton broke the rules on the NYC subway. That's not fair | Ali Gharib



What difference does it make?


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I went to a very interesting symposium at Duke today about the science of belief. Much of it was focused on how Trump appeals to people. It was interesting.



Damn, dude, next time gimme a shout and I will buy you some coffee.

I saw this today:

The Secret Movement to Draft General James Mattis for President

Of course, it ain't happening but it's a lot of fun t think about.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 9, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Did they pod-cast it by any chance?


Not that I know of, they did live stream it. 


Devildoc said:


> Damn, dude, next time gimme a shout and I will buy you some coffee.
> 
> I saw this today:
> 
> ...



I'm at Duke all the time. My wife just got her Ph.D from there.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I'm at Duke all the time. My wife just got her Ph.D from there.



That's awesome.  I was in grad school there in the mid-90s (ran out of $, didn't finish.  I'm getting my MSN at ECU).  Seriously, I have a pretty flexible job at the hospital.  I'd love to grab some coffee, at the hospital or Bryan Center, anywhere around there.


----------



## AWP (Apr 14, 2016)

Watching the Democratic debate is hilarious. Bernie has her rather flustered and CNN's surprisingly neutral so far.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 14, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Watching the Democratic debate is hilarious. Bernie has her rather flustered and CNN's surprisingly neutral so far.


I listened for a bit, those speech transcripts must be pretty damning because she refuses to release them.


----------



## ZmanTX (Apr 14, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> I listened for a bit, those speech transcripts must be pretty damning because she refuses to release them.



Clinton Campaign Uses Noise Machine To Block Reporters From Hearing Fundraiser Speech

This is another example of some shady stuff that her campaign has done.
Z


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 15, 2016)

'Apprentice' players deplore Trump; he calls them 'wannabes'


----------



## AWP (Apr 15, 2016)

I'm not saying it's a set up, but where was this opposition 2-3 months ago?


----------



## Single Malt (Apr 20, 2016)

Some interesting stuff out of the Panama Papers and the involvement of Clinton campaign staff and Clinton Administration staff:

Panama Papers Reveal Clinton’s Kremlin Connection


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 26, 2016)

Hmmm....if this is the result, maybe Trump is worth voting for afterall!

'Now I HAVE to get elected!' Trump says Rosie, Whoopi & Lena can go


----------



## Raptor (Apr 26, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Hmmm....if this is the result, maybe Trump is worth voting for afterall!
> 
> 'Now I HAVE to get elected!' Trump says Rosie, Whoopi & Lena can go
> 
> View attachment 15352


I feel bad for Canada.


----------



## RackMaster (Apr 27, 2016)

Raptor said:


> I feel bad for Canada.



Thank you.  We don't want them!  Why don't these fuckers choose Mexico or now they can go to the socialist wonderland that is Cuba.


----------



## AWP (Apr 27, 2016)

Raptor said:


> I feel bad for Canada.



I don't. Nothing against @RackMaster and our other Canadian neighbors, but Canada planted those seeds back during Vietnam with our draft dodgers. The odds are no one will leave because douchebags of all stripes have said that for the last whatever years as though a new president signifies the end. These people are running their mouths, useless cunts that they are, with no backbone or morals. In the highly unlikely event that someone flees to Canada, good riddance, and Canada? Time to reap what you planted 50 years ago.


----------



## RackMaster (Apr 27, 2016)

Fuck you man!  Fuck you.  lol


----------



## Grunt (Apr 27, 2016)

Those crumbs aren't going anywhere! Yeah...that might go there for a little while to save face for making their ignorant statements. 

But, they aren't moving anywhere to stay. They remind me of kids who get mad and make all kinds of statements they don't mean.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 27, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I don't. Nothing against @RackMaster and our other Canadian neighbors, but Canada planted those seeds back during Vietnam with our draft dodgers. The odds are no one will leave because douchebags of all stripes have said that for the last whatever years as though a new president signifies the end. These people are running their mouths, useless cunts that they are, with no backbone or morals. In the highly unlikely event that someone flees to Canada, good riddance, and Canada? Time to reap what you planted 50 years ago.


They will take a look at the tax rates before fleeing the US.
Though I'd like to see them make a run for the border.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Apr 27, 2016)

Ted Cruz just suicide bombed his own campaign.  WTF is he thinking?  She has already been rejected as presidential candidate, what makes him think she'll be accepted as VP?

Ted Cruz drafts Carly Fiorina – who breaks into SONG on stage

And please enjoy her SINGING...:wall:


----------



## AWP (Apr 27, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Ted Cruz just suicide bombed his own campaign.  WTF is he thinking?  She has already been rejected as presidential candidate, what makes him think she'll be accepted as VP?



The Titanic just upgraded its cutlery, convinced that will aid in navigation.


----------



## Polar Bear (Apr 27, 2016)

I loved her as a candidate, but choosing a vp before being nominated is bad juju


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 27, 2016)

Zomg.... Just when I thought Ted Cruz couldn't be more unlovable...


----------



## racing_kitty (Apr 27, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Zomg.... Just when I thought Ted Cruz couldn't be more unlovable...



I didn't realize the sex tape dropped already.  Damn, who's your connection?


----------



## Florida173 (Apr 27, 2016)

Polar Bear said:


> I loved her as a candidate, but choosing a vp before being nominated is bad juju



It was a good move on his part ahead of California.  There won't be a nomination if he can grab enough delegates. Trump only has 953 right now with about 503 bound delegates left.


----------



## TLDR20 (Apr 27, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> I didn't realize the sex tape dropped already.  Damn, who's your connection?



I don't get it.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 27, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> It was a good move on his part ahead of California.  There won't be a nomination if he can grab enough delegates. Trump only has 953 right now with about 503 bound delegates left.


Dumb move as it will piss people off and give Trump more support.
I hope he gets enough delegates to win and then I can watch the Republican Party fade into the dustbin of history.


----------



## racing_kitty (Apr 28, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I don't get it.



You didn't click the link, did you. It leads to a HuffPo article, not some NSFW sight gag. 

To take all the funny out of it, there's a female that first appeared on the Maury Povich show,  and she bears more than just a striking resemblance to a certain Republican presidential candidate.  She has been offered $10,000 to make a short porno movie


----------



## Raptor (Apr 28, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> I didn't realize the sex tape dropped already.  Damn, who's your connection?


Holy crap, those two are freaking dumb.
They don't even know who the current president it... :wall::wall::wall:


----------



## Florida173 (Apr 28, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Dumb move as it will piss people off and give Trump more support.
> I hope he gets enough delegates to win and then I can watch the Republican Party fade into the dustbin of history.



Crazy how I can listen to a variety of political talk radio shows yesterday morning with people talking about what Cruz would have to do to stall the delegates most people agreed that if he was to identify a running mate, it would help going into California. A few specifically named Carly as the best choice.

I'm curious if people felt the same way as you during the past contested conventions. Lincoln and Eisenhower both came from contested Republican conventions. I don't live my life in hyperbole so not quite thinking much will change. If Trump gets the nomination before the convention than I'll vote for him. If Cruz gets the nomination at the convention, I'll vote for him.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 28, 2016)




----------



## Devildoc (Apr 28, 2016)

Rasmussen says Trump/HRC is tied, but a HUGE number just wouldn't vote.....Good article with some insight breakdown of polling data.

24% Opt Out of a Clinton-Trump Race - Rasmussen Reports™


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 28, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Rasmussen says Trump/HRC is tied, but a HUGE number just wouldn't vote.....Good article with some insight breakdown of polling data.
> 
> 24% Opt Out of a Clinton-Trump Race - Rasmussen Reports™


This is nothing considering 50% or more routinely opt out of an election.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 28, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> This is nothing considering 50% or more routinely opt out of an election.



It's closer to about 60%, but yeah.  What the article really doesn't do a good job of trying to figure out is if that 24% is in addition to that 57-60%, or inclusive of it. In any case, voter apathy is an ongoing "problem" (?).


----------



## Frank S. (Apr 28, 2016)

Would you blink if Hillary showed herself in a commercial titled "half-past MILF", opening the door to a Canyon house with no blinds or curtains on the windows to a delivery from the cleaners, a blue dress delivered by a Lewinsky with a dick (with a pump made in Thailand), followed by some spiky haired Japanese dude with a Gojira tat on his shaved scrote to gape them both, shouting "Fuckushima" (or maybe it's "Fuck you she-male"?) at every squirt..?
Two days ago, marked the 30 year anniversary of Chernobyil. Then after the Wall fell, a Walmart-wasteland of assholes have been queefing about values. Real world "Paprika" shit. Evidently, the world loves to watch, let's admit to ourselves porn makes the world go round.


----------



## Il Duce (Apr 28, 2016)

This a blog, so take it with a grain of salt if you're interested but, I thought it was a fascinating summary of a 900 page book - also, incredibly entertaining.  The book argues America was settled by four distinct groups from the UK that have had a disproportionate impact on our political development.  An idea fraught with problems inherent to any social science but still interesting.  This guy does an awesome job summarizing in my view.

Book Review: Albion’s Seed 

My favorite quote of the whole thing was the borderer prayer "Lord, grant that I may always be right, for thou knowest I am hard to turn"


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 3, 2016)

Cruz quit. 

Wow. 

President Trump?


----------



## TLDR20 (May 3, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Cruz quit.
> 
> Wow.
> 
> President Trump?



No President Clinton. No way Trump wins a general.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 3, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> No President Clinton. No way Trump wins a general.



Damn, I just don't know. I fear/hate Hilary as much as my liberal friends (and Republican for that matter) Hate/Fear Trump. People are going to walk into that booth and for the first time in years (decades?) do some real soul searching before they pull that lever. 

People who have always voted "the line" may be ready for something different- they may walk out if the booth claiming they voted for whomever, but actually checked a completely different box. 

I'm not as ready as you to concede this to Hilary.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 3, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Damn, I just don't know. I fear/hate Hilary as much as my liberal friends (and Republican for that matter) Hate/Fear Trump. People are going to walk into that booth and for the first time in years (decades?) do some real soul searching before they pull that lever.
> 
> People who have always voted "the line" may be ready for something different- they may walk out if the booth claiming they voted for whomever, but actually checked a completely different box.
> 
> I'm not as ready as you to concede this to Hilary.



I think now Trump better come with substance. He needs to come with actual plans. He needs to do more than attack.


----------



## amlove21 (May 3, 2016)

At this point, I would vote for Ross Perot in some sort of "Weekend at Bernie's" scenario where he is dead but propped up by two other dudes and paraded around for 4 years.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (May 3, 2016)

The voters who voted Obama in twice, are going to vote again this year. Who do you think they are going to vote for this time? I have no earthly idea.


----------



## Florida173 (May 3, 2016)

You'd think the democrats wouldn't vote for her for the same reason they didn't vote for her before. Trump brings democrats to the Republican party


----------



## TLDR20 (May 3, 2016)

The last time Hillary ran she hadn't spent years as a SECSTATE, she was a former Senator First Lady. She now has "experience". I'm not a fan, but I think she has the political ability to eviscerate Trump. 

I also think Trump has little to no substance. I think he is running a long con.


----------



## Etype (May 3, 2016)

RAND PAUL, 2020!!!

RAND PAUL REVOLUTION!!!


----------



## Centermass (May 3, 2016)

So,

Is Carly still running for VP???


----------



## Etype (May 3, 2016)

Sometimes I like to drink heavily and pretend it doesn't matter who the next president is. Has anyone else tried that?


----------



## compforce (May 3, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I also think Trump has little to no substance. I think he is running a long con.




Honestly, I'd rather see this rather than Hillary:


----------



## Dame (May 3, 2016)

Etype said:


> Sometimes I like to drink heavily and pretend it doesn't matter who the next president is. Has anyone else tried that?


Pretty sure it's a plot to make sure anyone with any intelligence left becomes thoroughly apathetic.


----------



## amlove21 (May 3, 2016)

Dame said:


> Pretty sure it's a plot to make sure anyone with any intelligence left becomes thoroughly apathetic.


MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

eta- I realize now that I should have responded with something more apathetic and subtle; I think we all experienced a ballet of emotions today. ALSO. I have taken leave for the first time in about 2 years and my wife is on her way to the East Coast with great friends and I am drinking.


----------



## Rapid (May 4, 2016)




----------



## Brill (May 4, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> No President Clinton.



Amen!


----------



## poison (May 4, 2016)

I hope everyone who hates the two nominees votes Johnson instead compromising their personal beliefs. I hate the whole 'you're throwing away your vote' thing. Play the long game this  time, and maybe next time a third party candidate would  be viable. 

#feelthejohnson


----------



## Gunz (May 4, 2016)

Its too late for me. Save yourselves.


----------



## nobodythank you (May 4, 2016)

Unfortunately, a third party Presidential candidate is wishful thinking at this point. The only way an outsider can have a shot is to seek the nomination of either two parties. Which is what Trump and Sanders have done. At the very least they both have blown open the rampant corruption within both parties.


----------



## DA SWO (May 4, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> No President Clinton. No way Trump wins a general.


I wouldn't count him out.
The folks telling us he can not win told us Dole, McCain and Romney were winners.
I just want to see him shred her in a debate.


----------



## Devildoc (May 4, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> No President Clinton. No way Trump wins a general.



I agree.  I think for Trump to win everything needs to break his way:

1. The anti-HRC/pro-Bernie voters will vote for him or not vote at all
2. The anti-Trump Republicans swallow their anger and vote for him
3. Trump gets the blue collar/blue dog Democrats
4. Trump picks a VP that would appeal to women and/or minorities and/or conservatives

If Trump can do these, he'll win.  If he can't do these, he'll lose.  I don't think everything will break his way.


----------



## Centermass (May 4, 2016)

**BREAKING**

Kasich just dropped out. 

Took him long enough. 

Link


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 4, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> I just want to see him shred her in a debate.



I do to.  As @TLDR20 stated on the prior page, at this point his one-liners and silly attacks need to go.  He's got his block who will vote for him no matter what, but to swing voters like myself, who currently do not know what the fuck to do come November, he needs to have something to say.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 4, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> I wouldn't count him out.
> The folks telling us he can not win told us Dole, McCain and Romney were winners.
> I just want to see him shred her in a debate.



Yeah I don't think he will. He might make fun of her, he might call her names, but I honestly do not believe he will shred her on policies, for two reasons. Firstly he has no policy experience, at all. Two, Hillary is a damned good politician. I think she will drink his milkshake.


----------



## compforce (May 4, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> I just want to see him shred her in a debate.



Sadly, he'll likely make the mistake of not letting her talk.  If he sits back and lets her speak, she'll bury herseof.


----------



## poison (May 4, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Unfortunately, a third party Presidential candidate is wishful thinking at this point. The only way an outsider can have a shot is to seek the nomination of either two parties. Which is what Trump and Sanders have done. At the very least they both have blown open the rampant corruption within both parties.



Exactly: 'at this point'. Both parties perpetuate this notion that, say, if you don't vote for trump, then you're givingit to hHillary, so you need to do it even if you don't really like it. Both sides do this, and it works in their best interest. I don't buy it, it's taking a very short view,and long term perpetuates the current state of affairs. A third party isn't viable now, but if everyone who didn't like Hillary or trump voted for a third party, next time would look different. 

I think trump will kill Hillary in a debate, not because he's so awesome, but because she has a mountain of material he can pull from to bury her. If he can't shred her he's stupid.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 4, 2016)

Some voters will look at substance not attack points.


----------



## compforce (May 4, 2016)

poison said:


> Exactly: 'at this point'. Both parties perpetuate this notion that, say, if you don't vote for trump, then you're givingit to hHillary, so you need to do it even if you don't really like it. Both sides do this, and it works in their best interest. I don't buy it, it's taking a very short view,and long term perpetuates the current state of affairs. A third party isn't viable now, but if everyone who didn't like Hillary or trump voted for a third party, next time would look different.
> 
> I think trump will kill Hillary in a debate, not because he's so awesome, but because she has a mountain of material he can pull from to bury her. If he can't shred her he's stupid.



So tell me when the last time a third party candidate was even competitive, say greater than 10% of the electoral college...    I'll help you, it was Ross Perot and helped Bill Clinton into office.  Any others you can think of?

Third party candidates can't win in today's environment.  The media won't let it happen.


----------



## nobodythank you (May 4, 2016)

poison said:


> Exactly: 'at this point'. Both parties perpetuate this notion that, say, if you don't vote for trump, then you're givingit to hHillary, so you need to do it even if you don't really like it. Both sides do this, and it works in their best interest. I don't buy it, it's taking a very short view,and long term perpetuates the current state of affairs. A third party isn't viable now, but if everyone who didn't like Hillary or trump voted for a third party, next time would look different.
> 
> I think trump will kill Hillary in a debate, not because he's so awesome, but because she has a mountain of material he can pull from to bury her. If he can't shred her he's stupid.


Gonna have to disagree on this. The GOP "party" wants nothing to do with Trump and would love to see him roast. Even at the expense of the election. They would gladly trade another 4 years of not being in the WH in exchange for being in control of both houses again. I agree however, that both parties love nothing more than to promote fear mongering among their members. A third party will never be viable as long as the two main parties work to keep the public focused on each other. Which I think, might be a contributing factor as to why Trump is so popular among voters of all stripes.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (May 4, 2016)

Time for Trump to speak to the strengths of our Nation. Solid words of his vision to support and enhance our standing amoung our allys world wide. No need to focus on anti Democrat verbage, let them do that to themselves. The time will come for words about who ends up the front runner in the other camp; now is not the time for that retoric. We need to see depth from Trump, not venom.


----------



## Devildoc (May 4, 2016)

compforce said:


> So tell me when the last time a third party candidate was even competitive, say greater than 10% of the electoral college...    I'll help you, it was Ross Perot and helped Bill Clinton into office.  Any others you can think of?
> 
> Third party candidates can't win in today's environment.  The media won't let it happen.



Not just the media.  To the victors go the spoils; the RNC and the DNC have the monopoly and write campaign rules and laws.  There are and have been dozens and dozens of political parties, none of which could gain enough traction for long enough to make any significant inroads into third party viability.  Oh, sure, Perot and Nader have made some noise, but they are statistical anomalies. 

Now in full disclosure, at the state level the rules and laws for each municipality and state are different, and there are many third party politicians holding office.


----------



## poison (May 4, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Some voters will look at substance not attack points.



I think most of us are in this thread. 





compforce said:


> So tell me when the last time a third party candidate was even competitive, say greater than 10% of the electoral college...    I'll help you, it was Ross Perot and helped Bill Clinton into office.  Any others you can think of?
> 
> Third party candidates can't win in today's environment.  The media won't let it happen.



And why is that? Yeah, back to what I said. Time to play chess, not checkers, long view and all.


----------



## Devildoc (May 4, 2016)

I was asked to read the following article by Rush Limbaugh (not someone I read, BTW).  Interesting read and underscores some points made in other posts on how Trump _might _be able to win (given certain events go down for him).

My Gut: Trump Beats Hillary in Landslide - The Rush Limbaugh Show


----------



## Gunz (May 4, 2016)

I think Mrs Trump has a lot of substance. Just saying...


----------



## amlove21 (May 4, 2016)

This is in no way a backing of Hillary- but let's say Trump gets the nom (almost assured at this point) and goes to a general against Clinton. 

It's the classic ethical conundrum, because when you pick 'the lesser of two evils', you're still choosing an evil. 

All things remaining equal- wouldn't we want a prior Secretary of State with decades of political experience over a businessman with zero political experience? I am not trying to create a strawman here, but equivocating international business experience and geopolitics isn't a good practice. 

So I get it- Hillary is a 'criminal', a liar, awful satan incarnate, whatever. Isn't that better than the reality TV guy that spends his time getting into twitter wars?


----------



## Florida173 (May 4, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Isn't that better than the reality TV guy that spends his time getting into twitter wars?



Of course not. There isn't a doom and gloom situation here. The GOP is going to support whomever it ends up being, regardless if Trump is an insurgent. Just got done listening to Newt talk about it and he is fully supportive too. So who specifically can people name that would be representative of the GOP that we all prefer and respect ('81 and '95 GOP) that won't support Trump?


----------



## amlove21 (May 4, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Of course not. There isn't a doom and gloom situation here. The GOP is going to support whomever it ends up being, regardless if Trump is an insurgent. Just got done listening to Newt talk about it and he is fully supportive too. So who specifically can people name that would be representative of the GOP that we all prefer and respect ('81 and '95 GOP) that won't support Trump?


Not following. 

I understand that the GOP will support whomever becomes the nominee, and Trump is the presumptive nominee. I don't support the Republican party in just about any tangible way, just like I don't support the Dem party either. 

My question was, "all things remaining equal, and assuming that Hillary and Trump get their respective party's nominations and go to a general election against one another,, wouldn't it make sense to vote for the candidate with actual experience as opposed to the candidate which has none"?

Or maybe more succinctly- why on earth would I vote for Trump in a head to head with Hillary?


----------



## Florida173 (May 4, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Not following.
> 
> I understand that the GOP will support whomever becomes the nominee, and Trump is the presumptive nominee. I don't support the Republican party in just about any tangible way, just like I don't support the Dem party either.
> 
> ...



We got Eisenhower in 1952 out of a contested convention against three "experienced" politicians. So what is your point? We should get Hillary because she has manipulated her career in politics for this long?


----------



## nobodythank you (May 4, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> wouldn't it make sense to vote for the candidate with actual experience as opposed to the candidate which has none"?
> 
> Or maybe more succinctly- why on earth would I vote for Trump in a head to head with Hillary?


Experience in what? Violating federal laws regarding the handling of classified information? Denying aid to American assets under siege in a foreign county? Using her position at the DOS for personal financial gain? She has experience in failure and bad judgement, while avoiding taking responsibility for those failures. Her failures go beyond conservative talking points into outright failure of her duty.

At least with Trump, he has business experience and knows when to listen to those that advise him. Why would you vote for him over her? At the very least, one candidate respects and uses the law. Not just outright disregard it because they feel above it and the citizens.


----------



## poison (May 4, 2016)

Besides, we survived 8 years being led by a community organizer, how much worse could the successful businessman do?


----------



## Florida173 (May 4, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Some voters will look at substance not attack points.



I honestly think you are going to start seeing that from here on out. Trump doesn't need to run against the party anymore. It's definitely time to come together and begin that platform. Newt was actually suggesting another "Contract with America." I think that would be a defining moment for the future of the GOP.

We just need to get rid of all the bullshit arguments that should be state issues. President should be there for leadership in the decisions, but ultimately let the States and markets decide on shit, like min. wage.


----------



## Brill (May 4, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> All things remaining equal- wouldn't we want a prior Secretary of State with decades of political experience over a businessman with zero political experience? I am not trying to create a strawman here, but equivocating international business experience and geopolitics isn't a good practice.



I would argue no simply because her foreign policy "experience" is mingled by a Federal criminal investigation of public corruption which questions her experience vs judgement.  Additionally, her fundraising is apparently international business...and business was good.

Also, let us not forget the "reset" fuck up with Lavrov and Obama apology tour (an experienced foreign policy expert would have informed POTUS those were bad ideas).


----------



## Salt USMC (May 4, 2016)

Trump is going to get shredded in the debates.  He was good in the 12,000 republican debates when it was home turf and nobody wanted to earn his ire, but when pressed just a little bit he falls apart.  For all her faults, Hillary is a really good debater, and Trump really isn't.  It's going to be "Proceed, Governor" times ten.


----------



## Brill (May 4, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Trump is going to get shredded in the debates.  He was good in the 12,000 republican debates when it was home turf and nobody wanted to earn his ire, but when pressed just a little bit he falls apart.  For all her faults, Hillary is a really good debater, and Trump really isn't.  It's going to be "Proceed, Governor" times ten.



He just needs to bring her some nickel plated jewelry for the first debate.  Don't say a word...just hold them up...hand them to her.


----------



## amlove21 (May 4, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> We got Eisenhower in 1952 out of a contested convention against three "experienced" politicians. So what is your point? We should get Hillary because she has manipulated her career in politics for this long?


That is a true statement about Eisenhower. However, I am not sure why you bring it up- to compare getting Eisenhower (a 5 star General) over other 'experienced' politicians to Trump? I don't think this is a stretch, here- but Trump is no Eisenhower. And I don't have a point, I have questions. Namely, "why pick a guy with zero experience over someone else with relevant experience." It is extremely apparent that you are personally vested in speaking out against Clinton- I am glad that we have people so passionate about things like this. 



ke4gde said:


> *Experience in what?* ...Her failures go beyond conservative talking points into outright failure of her duty.
> 
> At least with Trump, he has business experience and knows when to listen to those that advise him. Why would you vote for him over her? At the very least, one candidate respects and uses the law. Not just outright disregard it because they feel above it and the citizens.



Experience in international politics. I understand your rhetoric here, and the way you classify her failures. I wouldn't even say I disagree with some of your points. I suppose it's fine to bash Clinton, but I noticed the only thing you said about Trump is that he would listen to those that advise him. 

Can you point/link to an international business decision that was as momentous for Donald Trump (for good or for bad) as Benghazi was for Clinton? Business is business- make the wrong call, file for bankruptcy, no one dies, you get to start over. Not so in politics, and that's apparent with Clinton's missteps and failures. As it stands though, Trump hasn't made a single call, because he's never played the game. And I know the "butbutbutbutbut Hillary is a criminal/witch/actually al Sadr in drag" routine. I get it. 

Even if Hillary made 1 call that was right as SecState (and there were probably more than one that she made correctly, regardless of your personal feelings), then she is 100% more experienced than Trump. Even the calls she made that were wrong (and there are a ton) make her more experienced than Trump. You want me to believe that some amateur politician is supposed to figure out how to run America as he goes? Because he was a successful (debatable) businessman?

It's apparent that you too are personally vested in speaking out against Clinton, and that's all good. Again, I am not for/against any single candidate. Don't know who I am voting for, trying to figure it out. 



poison said:


> Besides, we survived 8 years being led by a community organizer, how much worse could the successful businessman do?


lol! Double points for the Pres Obama shade AND a Trump endorsement.


----------



## compforce (May 4, 2016)

@amlove21 

I agree with you about taking personal feelings out of the mix.  Here's my POV.  Hillary Clinton has never acted in the best interests of the country.  She's always acted in her own best interests.  Experience?  I think the major problems that we are facing are primarily financial in nature.  The economy, true unemployment, the new housing bubble, the second .com bubble, all financial problems and all the direct result of politicians spending "free" money.  It's free money because they can just tax us more.  The last three consecutive years we have raised more revenue via taxes than ever in history.  We've also raised the debt faster than ever before.  Why?  Bloated government, means tested welfare programs, yes, a war and other inefficiencies that cause us to spend money faster than we can even borrow it, let alone earn it.

I've said for years that we needed a big time business person in the White House.  Trump is certainly not the best choice, but the better choices aren't running.  We need someone that understands business, finance, and fiscal responsibility.  There isn't a single career politician that is going to make the necessary changes.  They've all learned how to spend other people's money and borrow more. 

If you want someone that is going to continue down the path set out by politicians for the last 20 years, vote for Hillary, that's what she's experienced at.  Working the system and spending other people's money.  Whether you agree with his platform or not (I do agree with most of it) Trump will necessarily bring fiscal discipline and Government reduction to the table.  That's all he knows, and all he needs to know.  His advisors can fill in the gaps just like everyone else's.  The difference is that he will listen to his.

Oh, btw, he crushed the GOP opposition with very little in the way of spending.  That's a sure sign that he is efficient and fiscally disciplined.


----------



## Gunz (May 4, 2016)

I think Trump is a shrewd man who can recognize a demand and market a product (himself) to appeal to that consumer base. And I think he's smart enough and experienced enough as a chief executive to easily make the transition into the Presidency. Before the lack of experience card is played, take a good look at some of our past Presidents including the incumbent. The staff, the advisors and experts and cabinet you pick is the key.

Hell, even I could President.


----------



## amlove21 (May 4, 2016)

compforce said:


> @amlove21
> 
> whole post


Alright, that was the first thing that resembled something I could respect about Trump. 

I like the fiscal responsibility angle, but are his glaring inadequacies in other areas going to outweigh his seeming financial prowess? Is he a guy that can be a war time president with conflicts looming from some near-peer competitors?

I personally bristle to the "they're going to run the country into the ground" rhetoric, just mainly because the amount of unilateral power the President holds isn't actually that great, so I am not worried about him passing laws about prosecuting journalists for speaking badly about him or any other wacky views he has. I mean, I worry that he has them and voices them in public because I find some of them moronic, but the truth is that he won't be able to just decide it to be so. 

I do worry, though, about some of those decisions that he _can _make. Military action, national crises, etc. How's he going to do there? As a matter of fact, how would Hillary do there? And how would you argue for one over the other?



Ocoka One said:


> I think Trump is a shrewd man who can recognize a demand and market a product (himself) to appeal to that consumer base. And I think he's smart enough and experienced enough as a chief executive to easily make the transition into the Presidency. Before the lack of experience card is played, take a good look at some of our past Presidents including the incumbent. The staff, the advisors and experts and cabinet you pick is the key.
> 
> Hell, even I could President.


And so could Hillary, by that logic. That actually takes care of some of her biggest issues right? Plenty of oversight, no unilateral calls. It actually plays better for Hillary than Trump. Familiar faces and processes- she'd be right back to the same battle rhythm while Trump has to figure out where the bathrooms are.


----------



## nobodythank you (May 4, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Experience in international politics. I understand your rhetoric here, and the way you classify her failures. I wouldn't even say I disagree with some of your points. I suppose it's fine to bash Clinton, but I noticed the only thing you said about Trump is that he would listen to those that advise him.
> 
> Can you point/link to an international business decision that was as momentous for Donald Trump (for good or for bad) as Benghazi was for Clinton? Business is business- make the wrong call, file for bankruptcy, no one dies, you get to start over. Not so in politics, and that's apparent with Clinton's missteps and failures. As it stands though, Trump hasn't made a single call, because he's never played the game. And I know the "butbutbutbutbut Hillary is a criminal/witch/actually al Sadr in drag" routine. I get it.
> 
> ...


Rhetoric? Not likely. My statement was neither rhetoric nor party dogma. This goes beyond bashing Clinton. However, the major difference between the two in the foreign arena is that Clinton was in a position an failed miserably. Trump has yet to fail internationally even if he has not been in the position. She was in no way effective except to herself. We know she cannot do the job for which she was entrusted, why are we going to entrust her with MORE responsibility. 

The fact that you bring up "butbutbutbutbut Hillary is a criminal/witch/actually al Sadr in drag" routine. I get it." is sad to me. You would likely not accept similar actions and failures from a subordinate soldier,sailor,airmen, or marine under your command. Why you would excuse those from her, and that is what you are doing by shunting it aside, is baffling to me. I realize that the conservative movement has attempted witch hunt after witch hunt against the Democratic party, however, even a broken clock is right twice a day. In Clinton's case, the Republican hounds have found their pound of flesh and are going to rightly extract it. I Would expect the same treatment if the roles were reversed. 

I will not deny, or apologize, for being a Trump supporter. However, I am personally invested in changing the stagnant system our government has evolved into. I cannot stand either party in its current form. As I said a while ago, Trump will either unite the country behind him, or against him. In either event, major change is coming to our political system. I would rather see Trump get in there and make SOME change (positive or negative), than see the same road of stagnation that we are on. One last thing, if Trump was not a successful businessman, how exactly did he grow a "small" loan of a million dollars, into billions of dollars? Even with the few bankruptcies his companies have had, in the long run, he appears to have come out ahead of where he started.


----------



## Brill (May 4, 2016)

@amlove21, inexperience is irrelevant honestly because the staff really sets the agenda because they have the pulse on what's politically feasible and how action X will be reacted too.

Clinton, Bush, and Obama all had ZERO experience and we did ok.


----------



## poison (May 4, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> lol! Double points for the Pres Obama shade AND a Trump endorsement.



Well, if you're going to bring up lack of experience when pointing to a current nominee, bringing up the current presidents previous lack of experience is valid. Obama was only more qualified than Trump in that he was a "politician", as if holding the title ensures you're ready and able to run the country. 

And that wasn't an endorsement. I'm voting Johnson, because Trump is a douchebag, and Johnson is a better choice. But 'lack of experience' isn't the point I'd raise about Trump...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 4, 2016)

poison said:


> I'm voting Johnson, because Trump is a douchebag, and Johnson is a better choice.



Hate because this is a wasted vote. You might like Gary Johnson, but he is not going to win. In fact he is not evening going to be noticed. Everyone go ahead and lecture me about no vote being a wasted vote and I will say that is naive thinking.

People who do this are the ones who voted for Ross Perot and put Clinton in the White House.

Voting to make a point is virtually guaranteeing Hilary the election.


----------



## compforce (May 4, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> I do worry, though, about some of those decisions that he _can _make. Military action, national crises, etc. How's he going to do there? As a matter of fact, how would Hillary do there? And how would you argue for one over the other?



My belief is that Hillary will continue the same path she did as FLOTUS, Senator and SecState.  She'll surround herself with people that think the same as her.  Then when a decision has to be made, she'll ask them what they think, follow their advice (which is her own opinion being parroted) and then when it goes wrong, crucify them publically.  She's been doing that her whole career, I don't see it changing.

Trump will continue to do things the way they are done in business.  He'll surround himself with diverse opinions, including those that he disagrees with.  When a decision has to be made he'll ask them what they think and why they think that way.  (I know it's TV, but watch the end of a couple of episodes before the final commercial, that's exactly how it happens in boardrooms...and the oval office).  He'll weigh the opinions, ask followup questions and then make the decision.  If it goes wrong, expect him to take ownership of the fault, just like you or I would.

Clinton is part of the social justice movement that says that everyone is responsible for everyone else.  Trump says people need to take responsiblity for themselves first and everyone else after.  Personally I agree with the second viewpoint.  Personal accountability is something that our society as a whole has lost.  We need it back.


----------



## amlove21 (May 4, 2016)

poison said:


> Well, if you're going to bring up lack of experience when pointing to a current nominee, bringing up the current presidents previous lack of experience is valid. Obama was only more qualified than Trump in that he was a "politician", as if holding the title ensures you're ready and able to run the country.


No disagreement here, actually. It was a critique with Pres Obama, and it's valid here too. @lindy , same for your comment. I agree more than I don't, but it's still a point. 



ke4gde said:


> The fact that you bring up "butbutbutbutbut Hillary is a criminal/witch/actually al Sadr in drag" routine. I get it." is sad to me. You would likely not accept similar actions and failures from a subordinate soldier,sailor,airmen, or marine under your command. Why you would excuse those from her, and that is what you are doing by shunting it aside, is baffling to me. I realize that the conservative movement has attempted witch hunt after witch hunt against the Democratic party, however, even a broken clock is right twice a day. In Clinton's case, the Republican hounds have found their pound of flesh and are going to rightly extract it. I Would expect the same treatment if the roles were reversed.
> 
> One last thing, if Trump was not a successful businessman, how exactly did he grow a "small" loan of a million dollars, into billions of dollars? Even with the few bankruptcies his companies have had, in the long run, he appears to have come out ahead of where he started.



I bring it up because it's tired. I am tired of hearing it from both sides- "Trump is a racist! Hillary is a witch and a criminal! Sanders is a communist! Cruz is the zodiac killer!" I'd like to have a conversation about politics that has to do with the best move for the country as opposed to who we hate because of an (R) or a (D) behind their name, honestly. 

Really trying to not be snarky here- but I am in charge (not command) of 20 operators and 150-180 students at any given time. And considering the only information I have ever gotten about Hillary Clinton is through a news source and not personal experience, I can't really say what I would or wouldn't do if my students did what she did/didn't/may have done. I am not excusing her from anything- if/when she is charged and convicted of a crime (and not just your personal opinion) then yeah, throw the book at her. Until then, innocent until proven guilty. It's not a party thing- it's due process thing. 

So let's say that Trump was the world's MOST successful businessman (he's not). How does that help him compare to Hillary in the terms of this election? He has more now than he did when his upper class multimillionaire father gifted him more money than I will make in my lifetime. He's done averagely, but not as well as if he retired 30 years ago and just invested his money. What about those facts would make him a better presidential candidate, other than the fiscal responsibility and budget management aspect @compforce adroitly put out there?


----------



## poison (May 4, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Hate because this is a wasted vote. You might like Gary Johnson, but he is not going to win. In fact he is not evening going to be noticed. Everyone go ahead and lecture me about no vote being a wasted vote and I will say that is naive thinking.
> 
> People who do this are the ones who voted for Ross Perot and put Clinton in the White House.
> 
> Voting to make a point is virtually guaranteeing Hilary the election.



It's thinking like that which guarantees the continuation of the 2 party bullshit we have now. It's short sighted. Of course Johnson won't win this time, but he damn well for sure won't win next time if we keep scare mongering everyone into thinking there are only two choices. If everyone voted for who they actually think is better, not this 'lesser of two evils'  crap, then we could see change.


----------



## nobodythank you (May 4, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> I bring it up because it's tired. I am tired of hearing it from both sides- "Trump is a racist! Hillary is a witch and a criminal! Sanders is a communist! Cruz is the zodiac killer!" I'd like to have a conversation about politics that has to do with the best move for the country as opposed to who we hate because of an (R) or a (D) behind their name, honestly.
> 
> Really trying to not be snarky here- but I am in charge (not command) of 20 operators and 150-180 students at any given time. And considering the only information I have ever gotten about Hillary Clinton is through a news source and not personal experience, I can't really say what I would or wouldn't do if my students did what she did/didn't/may have done. I am not excusing her from anything- if/when she is charged and convicted of a crime (and not just your personal opinion) then yeah, throw the book at her. Until then, innocent until proven guilty. It's not a party thing- it's due process thing.
> 
> So let's say that Trump was the world's MOST successful businessman (he's not). How does that help him compare to Hillary in the terms of this election? He has more now than he did when his upper class multimillionaire father gifted him more money than I will make in my lifetime. He's done averagely, but not as well as if he retired 30 years ago and just invested his money. What about those facts would make him a better presidential candidate, other than the fiscal responsibility and budget management aspect @compforce adroitly put out there?


I could agree with your first statement if the facts known at present did not indicate that Hillary has committed crimes. My personal belief is that she is a witch, the fact remains that she is also a criminal. I am not required to abide by due process, though I do try to follow that as a guideline in my personal life. However, given her social and political status, it is unlikely that she will be brought before a court of law to answer for the charges one way or the other. Which makes the entire criminal justice system a joke when those of sufficient status are implicated.

I understand you are not trying to be snarky and appreciate it. Returning the favor...Not knowing you personally, or what you do, I can safely infer from previous postings and your profile that you are an NCO, quite likely a senior NCO, and would have commanded or been in charge of troops at some point. Quite possibly an officer, but I have never read you referred to as such. As a result, it is safe to conclude that as someone in charge or command of troops, that you can look at a situation and dissect a situation, with the given facts at hand, and formulate a personal opinion one way or the other. That is not to say that new data could not change that opinion. In any event, I was not asking for an official indictment of Hillary from you personally. Just as in your training scenarios (another inference), I know you are capable of taking available information and forming a picture with it. That picture would be that if those you are in charge of behaved in the same way that Hillary did, you would likely (hopefully), not stand for it or excuse it unless there were mitigating circumstances. In essence, we are here discussing a political situation as citizens, and not as professional whatever we do. Obviously in our professional rolls we must adhere to a different standard, that of course being due process.

I never said he was the most successful businessman. However, his obvious success allows him a degree of expertise in the field of the economy. Which is the foundation of any civilization throughout time. I am sure he has his opinions of foreign policy, and other areas he has no experience in. I am also sure that he will at least hear out his advisers as @compforce noted he is likely to do. Most importantly, as I have said previously, Trump stands the best chance of breaking the stalemate that has developed over the last two decades of two-party wrestling. I understand many people want to see easy and peaceful change when a system is broken. However, that is highly unlikely and rare in the best of times. These are not, I think we can agree, the best of times. I want to see him in office to either fix the system (which will cause much butthurt), or wreck it to the ground. We cannot afford the same status quo we have had over the last several decades.

ETA: I think this is the preferred method of changing what we have versus a bloody civil war. Which is something I think most of us here would not want to see. I know I know, that escalated quickly, but I am thinking long term here.


----------



## compforce (May 4, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> He's done averagely, but not as well as if he retired 30 years ago and just invested his money.



They skipped some key facts in that article.  First, if you are in that class of investor, you don't play the stock market with the vast majority of your money.  You invest the majority in longer term zero coupon bonds.(SEC.gov |  Zero Coupon Bonds)  Second, no mention of capital gains tax which would have eaten about half the profits over that period, especially since obamacare took effect (it jumped from 15% to 43% with the ACA).  Third, they went for pure stock funds, which have a higher rate of return than the various mixed varieties.  Finally, the author is including the past 6 years, during which the S&P has tripled due to QE and the Obama free money policies.  If you went back to 2006 right before all the madness started, he'd have been wealthier at that point than he would have been playing the fund game.  The article is just intellectually dishonest.


----------



## Gunz (May 4, 2016)

(Who in the hell is Gary Johnson?)


----------



## Florida173 (May 4, 2016)

Gary Johnson is not likeable


----------



## Red Flag 1 (May 4, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> (Who in the hell is Gary Johnson?)



Here's one view:O'Reilly: There's another option besides Clinton, Trump.

I'm not an O'Reilly fan, but it is a place to start.


----------



## poison (May 4, 2016)

ida173 said:


> Gary Johnson is not likeable



Damn, you're right, trump is.


----------



## Florida173 (May 4, 2016)

poison said:


> Damn, you're right, trump is.



Yes.. But Austin Petersen is way more likeable for libertarians


----------



## amlove21 (May 4, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> I understand you are not trying to be snarky and appreciate it. Returning the favor...Not knowing you personally, or what you do, I...Obviously in our professional rolls we must adhere to a different standard, that of course being due process.


I'm an NCO, currently at our 'finishing school' here in Albuquerque. Good call on the guess. One quick rant- I have seen things here that you would not believe. Stories that you would hear that sound made up. Guys showing up to an alcohol abuse program evaluation drunk- and our hands were tied because of a technicality and we couldn't remove him from training. That's the most tame one I can think of at the moment. My point is this- it's not what you know, it's what you can prove. Clinton, I believe, has done wrong. I am not an expert (or even smart) on some of the claims of wrongdoing, and I won't pretend to be but I am of the opinion that she probably broke the law. My feelings about objective right/wrong and our judicial system an all that other stuff aside- she hasn't been charged. Is the reason that there is a sect of people in this country are so well protected that naked lawlessness goes unpunished even when its obvious to an entire country that laws were broken? I mean, maybe- but it's more likely that after a review, a federal agency decided that there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute her. At least to me. 

That being said, if new data gets presented and she's guilty? Bury her under the prison. I am all for it. And your thought experiment wasn't lost on me at all- I was fully vested, which is why I started this post the way I did. No, I would not accept that type of behavior from my instructors or students here. However, because I have really been exposed to just how multifaceted and complex even my very-easy problem set is here, I can not imagine what sort of layers must be applied when talking about international secrets violation and global impact. Short answer, of course I understand what you meant and I think it's valid. 

As to the rest, @compforce 100% correct- the article posted wasn't the best shot at a good article. I own that one. 

I partially agree with your comments about Trump shedding light on an outdated and corrupt political system that's entropic and self serving by nature; but wrecking it to the ground or being the catalyst through failure I can't get on board with. I know this probably wasn't your intent, but I don't want the country to suffer for the sake of an unsure promise later. Thinking about it, that's probably my issue here- we are at a point where collectively we are going, "Screw it. This thing is so far gone we just need to pick one and burn it to the ground."

I know it's repetitive to say "Both candidates suck!" in presidential elections- but this is the first election in my life where I really don't think either candidate should be president.


----------



## Blizzard (May 4, 2016)

This guy has no chance but perhaps he provides an option to vote my conscience at some level (perhaps just on general policy ideas) without being a slave to the two buffoon parties:  Platform – Chris Keniston 2016

I also agree with the comments about Gary Johnson.  Not a fan.  Actually, none of the Libertarian Party candidates are likeable.


----------



## amlove21 (May 4, 2016)

Blizzard said:


> This guy has no chance but perhaps he provides an option to vote my conscience at some level without being a slave to the two buffoon parties:  Platform – Chris Keniston 2016
> 
> I also agree with the comments about Gary Johnson.  Not a fan.  Actually, none of the Libertarian Party candidates are likeable.


Know what pisses me off? Being a libertarian is the most attractive option for me. Max freedom, beholden to our core docs, minimum government involvement, everyone do your own thing and don't infringe on others doing theirs, etc etc. 

BUT IT'S TOTALLY NOT LIKE THAT AT  ALL and they always put the biggest assholes out in front of their cause.


----------



## nobodythank you (May 4, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> all of it


A completely respectable line of logic and reasoning. In all honesty I can completely believe the things you've seen. Along the same lines I have seen similar moments of WTF concerning cops and public officials where I worked. You are correct in that it is what you can prove in court. 

I think the scorched earth idea is a selling point for me because it allows, to me, the most efficient and quickest path that does not involve bloodshed. I can understand your feelings on the topic. I think it is because of that scorched earth potential that I am very much on board the Trump train. If he can effect the change he promises, that would be fantastic. If he cannot, then the sooner we can get to healing. Thanks for the enlightening and stimulating discussion. Stay on the bounce.


----------



## Blizzard (May 4, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Know what pisses me off? Being a libertarian is the most attractive option for me. Max freedom, beholden to our core docs, minimum government involvement, everyone do your own thing and don't infringe on others doing theirs, etc etc.
> 
> BUT IT'S TOTALLY NOT LIKE THAT AT  ALL and they always put the biggest assholes out in front of their cause.


Preach it, brother!  I'm in the same boat.

For a party that has so many appealing ideas (for me), they can't seem to attract a single likeable candidate.  Most are, or at least come across as, total crackpots and the policies they choose to focus their energy on just aren't the right priority.  Frustrating.


----------



## amlove21 (May 4, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> snip


Yeah I think bottom line I just don't want the country to suffer while we figure it out. I laughed at the civil war comment- civil wars have been fought over much, much less than this throughout history. 

If some good comes out of this whole deal is that change happens? Awesome. If that change comes because we elect some idiot that really does negatively affect the country? That's like, not cool at all brah. 

In all seriousness though, this shit is important. We need to have these conversations. It helps us all. But shit.... I have no idea how to vote in November.



Blizzard said:


> Preach it, brother!  I'm in the same boat.
> 
> For a party that has so many appealing ideas (for me), they can't seem to attract a single likeable candidate.  Most are, or at least come across, as total crackpots and the policies they choose to focus their energy on just aren't the right priority.  Frustrating.


It's always crackpots man. When is Ron Swanson gonna run so I can finally just pick a political party?!?


----------



## Blizzard (May 4, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> In all seriousness though, this shit is important. We need to have these conversations. It helps us all. But shit.... I have no idea how to vote in November.


Agreed and the very sad reality is that one of these three will be elected to the highest office in this country come November:
Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, or Donald Trump

Scares the piss out of me.


----------



## poison (May 4, 2016)

What is unlikable about Johnson? There are a few things he might be weak on, but he seems likable enough to me.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 4, 2016)

Ladies and Gentlemen...your Republican Nominee...


----------



## TLDR20 (May 4, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Ladies and Gentlemen...your Republican Nominee...



So presidential


----------



## amlove21 (May 4, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> So presidential


I lol'd. I don't know why, but I heard a Rick Ross style lady saying "s-s-s-s-s-s-SO Presidential" saying that


----------



## poison (May 4, 2016)

I feel like that like I felt about Schwarzenegger running for gov, when the pics of him with naked chicks came up: hi five bro, naysayers are just jealous they didn't hit all that.


----------



## Rapid (May 5, 2016)

Could Ron Paul be joining Trump? Tweet below from a few years ago.


----------



## amlove21 (May 5, 2016)

Paul Ryan Won't Endorse the Presumptive Republican Nominee—Yet

Truly a shot from the GOP saying Trump is divisive to his own party, or just a savvy media play where, just as the race gets a little further down the road, the GOP can rally dramatically in order to appear unified just when they need the voters to beat Clinton?

I don't know, I am no good a this shit.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (May 5, 2016)

As important as the primary races have been for Trump, now is probably the most critical in his push for POTUS. Selection of staff will be watched critically, as will his ability to look Presidential, as @TLDR20 noted. He is a seasoned CEO, and that really is the position a POTUS should take. I think he is capable of leading our nation, with proper guidance from a well selected Cabinet. It is more so the most critical test of the GOP. In the past, the GOP has not done well in backing the chosen GOP front runner. The GOP has to be part of the team this time, with solid 100% backing; I'm not sure they can pull it off. 

For all the things that have been said about Mrs. Clinton, and I am no fan; what about Sanders? He is a hard core Socialist, and if elected we will see even bigger government. With a Government bursting at the seams now with employees, it will most likely grow even larger, and more controlling. I have not seen much said about Sanders, and I'd like to do a little digging there.

I think the 2016 election is one of the most critical in decades. We need to see another Reagan, and Sanders is not it; nor is Mrs. Clinton. I can see Trump more Reagan like than any of the others.

The real worry, is the voting public, and the media. That is who is going to decide the election outcome. I pray the media returns to a more Professional Journalistic approach to their coverage.


----------



## Blizzard (May 5, 2016)

Don't forget the arguably more critical and lasting influence our next president will have on the Supreme Court.


----------



## Florida173 (May 5, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Paul Ryan Won't Endorse the Presumptive Republican Nominee—Yet
> 
> Truly a shot from the GOP saying Trump is divisive to his own party, or just a savvy media play where, just as the race gets a little further down the road, the GOP can rally dramatically in order to appear unified just when they need the voters to beat Clinton?
> 
> I don't know, I am no good a this shit.



A shot from the GOP? The actual leader of the party is endorsing him, so nothing interesting from that douche.


----------



## Brill (May 5, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Paul Ryan Won't Endorse the Presumptive Republican Nominee—Yet
> 
> Truly a shot from the GOP saying Trump is divisive to his own party, or just a savvy media play where, just as the race gets a little further down the road, the GOP can rally dramatically in order to appear unified just when they need the voters to beat Clinton?
> 
> I don't know, I am no good a this shit.



I think The Speaker is just setting the stage for future negotiations and pretty much telling Trump to come back to the fold...until after November then he's cleared hot to fuck some shit up.  Honestly, this vote comes down to one question.

Wonder if the Obama admin will "trash" the WH like the Clinton staff did when they left?


----------



## amlove21 (May 5, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> A shot from the GOP? The actual leader of the party is endorsing him, so nothing interesting from that douche.


The speaker of the house is a pretty high ranking republican to speak out though, isn't it? 

If Ryan is willing to take that line, there has to be some number of Rep's in the party that share his distaste right? Maybe I misspoke- I don't think Ryan is speaking for the GOP, I think he represents a population inside of the GOP that dislike Trump and won't back him. The problem for the Rep's is "how many people in the GOP feel this way?"


----------



## Florida173 (May 6, 2016)

Paul Ryan represents the GOP that no one likes.


----------



## Gunz (May 6, 2016)

A lot of these GOP guys who hate Trump are guys who want the GOP to be more like the Democrats. And what's the point of that? Might as well just vote for a Democrat.

I suspect Trump and his people will spend the next few months mending fences and networking within the GOP establishment prior to the convention...and I look for him to tone down the flamboyance and the rhetoric. We'll see.

I agree that the choices we have this election are not the most desirable but they never are. Trump is not Ronald Reagan and HRC is in my jaded and biased opinion a despicable woman with a dirtbag for a husband.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 6, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> A lot of these GOP guys who hate Trump are guys who want the GOP to be more like the Democrats. And what's the point of that? Might as well just vote for a Democrat.
> 
> I suspect Trump and his people will spend the next few months mending fences and networking within the GOP establishment prior to the convention...and I look for him to tone down the flamboyance and the rhetoric. We'll see.
> 
> I agree that the choices we have this election are not the most desirable but they never are. Trump is not Ronald Reagan and HRC is in my jaded and biased opinion a despicable woman with a dirtbag for a husband.



Trump is basically a democrat.


----------



## Gunz (May 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Trump is basically a democrat.



How so? Serious question.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (May 6, 2016)

lindy said:


> I think The Speaker is just setting the stage for future negotiations and pretty much telling Trump to come back to the fold...until after November then he's cleared hot to fuck some shit up.  Honestly, this vote comes down to one question.
> 
> Wonder if the Obama admin will "trash" the WH like the Clinton staff did when they left?



It's already trashed. I doubt not so much as a wash cloth will be left behind.


----------



## Brill (May 7, 2016)

Interesting ticket! Not plausible (IMO) but could be a threat to the Republicans because of the strong anti-Trump emotions out there.

Sanders leaves door open to being Clinton's VP - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## Red Flag 1 (May 7, 2016)

^^^^^^Joining the ranks of the multitudes who elected obama twice.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (May 7, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> How so? Serious question.



For starters, Trump has a long time cozy relationship with the Clintons.  A quick Google search will net you dozens of articles/photos  of them together - including weddings.

I have seen little on Trump's desire to cut spending.  Instead I have read article after article of his plans to "borrow our way out of debt" to stimulate growth, and if things collapse, we'll just negotiate our way out of debt. 

During a 2004 CNN interview Trump said, “I probably identify more as a Democrat".  During the same interview he said, “It just seems that the economy does better under Democrats than the Republicans”

Until 2010, Democrats have received the bulk of his donations.

In 2007, he said of Hillary Clinton (who was looking to run in 08'),  “Hillary’s always surrounded herself with very good people. I think Hillary would do a good job”

According to the Clinton Foundation's nonprofit records,  Trump has given between $100,0001 and $250,000 to the Clinton Foundation.

On four separate occasions, Trump has donated to Hillary Clinton, in 2002, 2005, 2006 and in 2007.

Trump also gave to Clinton's Senate campaign indirectly, due to a $125,000 donation from Trump to the Democratic Campaign Committee of New York.

In the past, Trump has been a vocal supporter of nationalized health care .  

In Aug of last year, he supported Canada's single payer system.  Trump praises Canadian healthcare

Trump  supports higher taxes - He has also supported a 14.25 percent wealth tax beyond the hike in income taxes. That tax alone would have been the largest tax increase in history.  

I do not trust him when it comes to guns.  In 2000 he supported a ban on "assault weapons"  Donald Trump in 2000: “I Support the Ban on Assault Weapons”

In the end, Trump is as much a politician as Bernie, Cruz, or Hillary.  I have seen numerous instances where his message changes depending on the audience he is speaking to.  He is very good at reading the tea-leaves and knowing what to (or not) say.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 7, 2016)

lindy said:


>




I hate hippies, they smell, and make no sense whatsoever.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 7, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> How so? Serious question.



I am on vacation, gimme a few days, I will respond though. Call it a due out.


----------



## Gunz (May 7, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I am on vacation, gimme a few days, I will respond though. Call it a due out.



No hurry, have fun. @Ooh-Rah just gave it a shot.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 7, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> For starters, Trump has a long time cozy relationship with the Clintons.  A quick Google search will net you dozens of articles/photos  of them together - including weddings.
> 
> I have seen little on Trump's desire to cut spending.  Instead I have read article after article of his plans to "borrow our way out of debt" to stimulate growth, and if things collapse, we'll just negotiate our way out of debt.
> 
> ...



Most of my points there.


----------



## Etype (May 10, 2016)

For you Shadow Spear Sanders supporters, who is your favorite socialist?

A. Hitler
B. Stalin
C. Mao
D. None of the above.



This is a question I offered up to a Sanders fan I recently met. Said person had no idea that Nazi was short for national socialist. He told me, "Hitler wasn't a socialist, he was a Nazi." I don't think he had any idea who Mao was.


----------



## Salt USMC (May 10, 2016)

The Nazis were socialist like the DPRK is democratic.

Shit, the specific reason for the creation of Dachau was to house the communist and socialist opponents of the Nazi party.


----------



## BloodStripe (May 10, 2016)

Donald Trump More Disliked Than Nickelback, Poll Says 

Well damn.


----------



## compforce (May 10, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> Donald Trump More Disliked Than Nickelback, Poll Says
> 
> Well damn.



It doesn't count when you only poll the 5 people that like Nickelback


----------



## Frank S. (May 10, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I hate hippies, they smell, and make no sense whatsoever.








That's no hippie. Hippies wear flowers in their hair. This one's got shit in it.


----------



## Devildoc (May 11, 2016)

Dear Hillary...

Interesting article, an "anti-Republican" calling HRC out, basically telling her that her campaign sure ain't a "gimme."  Add that she and Trump are now essentially tied in three states where she had been polling significantly better, this is gonna be a long summer and fall.


----------



## Salt USMC (May 11, 2016)

There's been some accusations that Trump is not "a real  conservative", whatever that means.  NYT was nice enough to take a look at Trump's purported positions and compare them to the GOP platform, and the platforms of many contemporary conservatives.  

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

How nice of them to break it down Barney-style!


----------



## amlove21 (May 11, 2016)

Any/all Trump supporters- so, we have had a week where Trump stumbled mightily with his comments about debt which sort of draws attention to the fact that President does not equal businessman. If we are going to say, "Trump is going to take our economy under control and make a dent in the national debt because he is fiscally responsible", isn't this misstep a big enough deal to sort of raise eyebrows?

I'm not really too hip to nitpicking every little thing the news puts out- but he's a wildly successful businessman that won't release his tax statements "due to the audit" although he did in the past when trying to build a casino in Philly. So what if Trump overstated his worth as described in the article? Does this matter (other than lying isn't cool, bruh)? Is this still totally kosher @compforce

Hillary isn't doing any better, frankly. But with the current fact that prominent Republicans wont pledge support and the GOP is in no way united, do you Trump guys and gals out there have some way to square this circle?

ETA- I love that the original birther is withholding a government doc he says is harmless and useless for no good reason. It's irony at it's finest.


----------



## Salt USMC (May 12, 2016)

Hillary said, basically, that she wants to release the X-files if elected President

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/11/us/politics/hillary-clinton-aliens.html

Pack it up folks.  This election season can't get any better!


----------



## policemedic (May 12, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> There's been some accusations that Trump is not "a real  conservative", whatever that means.  NYT was nice enough to take a look at Trump's purported positions and compare them to the GOP platform, and the platforms of many contemporary conservatives.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
> 
> How nice of them to break it down Barney-style!



I don't expect much more than Barney-style reporting from the Times.


----------



## compforce (May 12, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Any/all Trump supporters- so, we have had a week where Trump stumbled mightily with his comments about debt which sort of draws attention to the fact that President does not equal businessman. If we are going to say, "Trump is going to take our economy under control and make a dent in the national debt because he is fiscally responsible", isn't this misstep a big enough deal to sort of raise eyebrows?
> 
> I'm not really too hip to nitpicking every little thing the news puts out- but he's a wildly successful businessman that won't release his tax statements "due to the audit" although he did in the past when trying to build a casino in Philly. So what if Trump overstated his worth as described in the article? Does this matter (other than lying isn't cool, bruh)? Is this still totally kosher @compforce
> 
> ...



I think Trump is having communication issues with the media misquoting his statements in the same way they misquoted his immigration policy earlier.  Let me address the points in that article.

1) Renegotiating debt does NOT mean going into default.  I actually just did some debt restructuring myself and "found" a big bunch of money by lowering interest rates on some of my older debt.  Now I have a chunk of cash in the bank and my monthly payments went down by about $200 a month (with a slightly longer term).  That's what I think he meant.

2) On taxes...   He said that he would consider changes to his tax plan that raised the tax on the higher wealth FROM HIS ORIGINAL PROPOSAL.  He also makes the point that it would still be lower than what they pay under current tax policies.  The article is mixing the two and saying that he would be raising what they pay over what they pay now.  The author mentions it in the article, but does it by stating it in a way that makes people pass over the one nugget of fact in between the inflammatory statement and the opposition statement.  How is it germaine to the article that Hillary said anything?  All it does is turn the article from a fact piece to a biased opinion piece.

Seriously, I'm getting really tired of watching the media spin any conservative's statements by willfully omitting parts of the statement or flat out paraphrasing the statements and then providing analysis on their paraphrase rather than the initial statement.  They didn't just do it to Trump, they did it to all of the conservative candidates in preparation for now.



amlove21 said:


> I'm not really too hip to nitpicking every little thing the news puts out- but he's a wildly successful businessman that won't release his tax statements "due to the audit" although he did in the past when trying to build a casino in Philly. So what if Trump overstated his worth as described in the article? Does this matter (other than lying isn't cool, bruh)? Is this still totally kosher @compforce



He's already said that he'll release his tax statements after the audit is complete. I also should mention that he's smart not to release them until after the audit.  What will the media do if he releases one number and then the IRS decides to disallow some deductions (or finds a deduction he missed) and he has to rerelease the tax statement with different numbers?  The press would have a field day with how he "lied"

Those also have absolutely nothing to do with net worth.  They have to do with gross income.  If you want to see his net worth, you need to see his personal financial statement.  It's a different document than a tax statement.  The controversy is over the valuation of his brand "Trump"  as in "Trump Towers" or "Trump University".  Yes, he's probably exaggerated that number (by several billion), but the reality is he can value that on his personal statement however he wants.  You write your own personal financial statement.  I have mine here and I will definitely say that I spent a considerable amount of time looking for ways to make it look better that I could defend.  You see, banks make business loans based on the numbers in that statement.  The better it is, the more they will loan.  In Trump's case, he can make an argument that his name is worth something.  The hypocrisy of that article is that _they_ are using Trump's name to drive advertising sales, actually validating that his name has a lot of value.



> Here’s the bottom line: Without knowing how much Trump’s business pays in taxes, it’s impossible to calculate his net worth. (from the article)



Bullshit.  Just because I pay (or receive a refund of) x amount of federal taxes on my mortgage payment does not mean that is what my house is worth...  Trump's wealth is primarily from property ownership.  It really is exactly the same thing.  If you have a house you own and rent out to someone is the rent what the house is worth?  Of course not, but that's what the article is arguing.

The funny thing about that article is that it's disingenuous as well.  They are picking at him over the term "make" where Trump uses revenue rather than net income in his statement.  Businesses use EBIT (Earnings before interest and taxes) or EBITDA as the benchmark for valuation, not taxes.  Altogether, that article clouds the issue completely and is inaccurate at best.

If they want to calculate his net worth, they need to get a personal financial statement or a balance sheet not the "personal financial disclosure from the FEC which is an income and debt statement.

Oh, wait...   Donald Trump's self-described net worth is $8.7 billion — here's the breakdown

This is why we need someone that understands finance in office...



> Despite collecting record revenues over the span of the first seven months of fiscal 2016, the federal government still ran a deficit of $354,592,000,000 during the period--as federal government spent $2,269,242,000,000 in those seven months.



$1,914,651,000,000: FY2016 Taxes Set Record Through April; $12,679 Per Worker; Feds Still Run Deficit of $354,592,000,000

So to translate...  The US had more revenue than we've ever had before and still managed to spend more than we made...

Let me draw an equivalent.  If you make 50K a year and spent 75k last year, you now have 25k in debt (unless you spend out of your savings, of which we no longer have any as a country) for which you are going to pay interest for the next several years.  If you continue to outspend your income, eventually the creditors will come after you...and you have to file bankruptcy.  We've been doing the same thing as a country for the past 7 years.  If you look at the article, you'll see that we currently spend about half as much on debt payments as we do for the entire DoD.  How long before we can no longer grow our revenue to support our debt payments? 

Ask Puerto Rico how that is working out for them.  Regulations have tied their hands (along with some really stupid local decisions) and now they are defaulting.  Do we really want to go down this path for the rest of the country?






We need someone that understands finance and doesn't use our money as their own personal checking account.


----------



## poison (May 12, 2016)

Great points above. 

I registered as a libertarian today because fuck this shit. Feels good man.


----------



## DasBoot (May 12, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Know what pisses me off? Being a libertarian is the most attractive option for me. Max freedom, beholden to our core docs, minimum government involvement, everyone do your own thing and don't infringe on others doing theirs, etc etc.
> 
> BUT IT'S TOTALLY NOT LIKE THAT AT  ALL and they always put the biggest assholes out in front of their cause.


This so many times. I associate as a small "l" libertarian and generally support the actual party's stance on Social issues. I can't stand the people in the party though- especially the star thinkers and candidates they support.


----------



## RackMaster (May 12, 2016)

compforce said:


> It doesn't count when you only poll the 5 people that like Nickelback



What if they call @Freefalling all 5 times?


----------



## Etype (May 13, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> The Nazis were socialist like the DPRK is democratic.


The point I was trying to make was that they both identify(ied) as something that's been historically detrimental to the population.

If I'm a mass murder, but I tell you I'm a serial killer- I'm pretty bad either way.


----------



## Salt USMC (May 13, 2016)

Etype said:


> The point I was trying to make was that they both identify(ied) as something that's been historically detrimental to the population.
> 
> If I'm a mass murder, but I tell you I'm a serial killer- I'm pretty bad either way.


I get what you're saying, but it's kind of a lazy argument to make.  "Hitler liked/did <thing>, so <thing> is bad".  There's even a logical fallacy named after it, Reductio ad Hitlerum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## amlove21 (May 13, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I get what you're saying, but it's kind of a lazy argument to make.  "Hitler liked/did <thing>, so <thing> is bad".  There's even a logical fallacy named after it, Reductio ad Hitlerum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Also known as "Godwin's Law". Anyway...

It's funny the way this race is going- Every time I look at CNN, there is another story about Trump doing something weird- impersonating his own publicist (maybe), the whole releasing taxes thing which honestly I don't really care that much about, changing stances on several topics, etc. I care that he's willing to be transparent and back up his claims (of personal wealth in this case) and be consistent as opposed to saying, "1, they don't matter and 2, none of your business." I actually like the discussion that follows- "Is it our business?" I am not really all that sure.


But here is the funny part- I keep seeing so many news stories so I am lead to believe that either A) there is so much material for the press to use that it's easy to dominate 3-6 of the top stories on most news outlets per day or B) they're hyper focused on trivial bullshit and not actually releasing what one would call "intellectually responsible" stories.

It almost feels like it's the latter there- can anyone actually point to some non-biased fact based intellectually responsible stories about Trump?


----------



## Blizzard (May 13, 2016)

To that point, can you imagine the shit that could be written about any one of us if the press followed us around all day waiting on bated breath?  Then again, selective journalism has long been an argument, hasn't it.  Maybe this is a case of Occam's razor?


----------



## Devildoc (May 13, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> It almost feels like it's the latter there- can anyone actually point to some non-biased fact based intellectually responsible stories about Trump?



In context of this election?  No.  In context of him and his businesses?  There is stuff all around.  But you know election season is like Halloween/Mardi Gras/Carnival for the media.  Weird shit happens and all of a sudden they just aren't responsible for anything they write.


----------



## amlove21 (May 13, 2016)

Blizzard said:


> To that point, can you imagine the shit that could be written about any one of us if the press followed us around all day waiting on bated breath?  Then again, selective journalism has long been an argument, hasn't it.  Maybe this is a case of Occam's razor?


I'd love if Occam's razor was at play here- unfortunately, every single scenario has an equal (just about infinite) number of following hypotheticals attached to it so- yeah.



Devildoc said:


> In context of this election?  No.  In context of him and his businesses?  There is stuff all around.  But you know election season is like Halloween/Mardi Gras/Carnival for the media.  Weird shit happens and all of a sudden they just aren't responsible for anything they write.


Well, I mean- they really aren't responsible for anything they write ever, right? I guess in the case of libel or losing their job with their respective organization.

It's just annoying that the option we are left with seems to be, "Here's a bunch of crap that may or may not be true, and even if it appears to be 100% true ("I want to ban Muslims from coming in the country" is something that Donald Trump said, on video, no less--- and we can pretty well verify that Hillary violated the law with her server scandal), the parties are going to blame the media and re-frame what they 'meant' or 'intended' when they said those things."


----------



## Etype (May 13, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I get what you're saying, but it's kind of a lazy argument to make.  "Hitler liked/did <thing>, so <thing> is bad".  There's even a logical fallacy named after it, Reductio ad Hitlerum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I'm familiar with the concept, but is it a lazy argument or an easy one? 

From the NSDAP, to the RSI, to the USSR- they all share the word socialist in some form. You would think a base understanding of history would render this term a political leper.


----------



## Salt USMC (May 13, 2016)

Etype said:


> I'm familiar with the concept, but is it a lazy argument or an easy one?
> 
> From the NSDAP, to the RSI, to the USSR- they all share the word socialist in some form. You would think a base understanding of history would render this term a political leper.


You aren't wrong about the Mao and Stalin comparisons.  Both of those systems were brutal communist/socialist regimes.  But trying to associate the Nazi party with socialism because of their name is not only a lazy argument, it's inaccurate.  Why it's become a right-wing talking point in the last year still baffles me.

Bernie Sanders and "Democratic Socialism"


----------



## Etype (May 13, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Why it's become a right-wing talking point in the last year still baffles me.
> 
> Bernie Sanders and "Democratic Socialism"


I wasn't aware of said talking point. 'Trump is a Fascist,' seems equally prevalent.

If I were King, I wouldn't have either one of them in my court.


----------



## Brill (May 13, 2016)

Etype said:


> If I were King, I wouldn't have either one of them in my court.



Did you just "vote" for Clinton?



Deathy McDeath said:


> You aren't wrong about the Mao and Stalin comparisons.  Both of those systems were brutal communist/socialist regimes.  But trying to associate the Nazi party with socialism because of their name is not only a lazy argument, it's inaccurate.  Why it's become a right-wing talking point in the last year still baffles me.
> 
> Bernie Sanders and "Democratic Socialism"



Nazism did incorporate many social welfare programs and it was trending socialist until the Strasser brothers were viewed as a threat (one killed and other exiled) to Hitler. It would be accurate to associate Nazis with socialists but really needs caveats.

A decent start to wet one's appetite: Nazis: Still Socialists, by Jonah Goldberg, National Review

Where's @x SF med on this topic?


----------



## Bypass (May 14, 2016)

Anyone besides HRC and Obama would be an improvement except maybe this guy with the tattoo of the worst president in history.


----------



## Etype (May 15, 2016)

Report: Romney recruiting Kasich, Sasse for third-party option

The two party system of racketeering and extortion is becoming scarred.

The people are beginning to exercise free will and not the will of the machine.

It's sad that slimy snakes like Romney would rather see an establishment Democrat be elected than the people's choice from his own party.

+1 for abolishing the two party system and sending them all to re-education camps.

ETA-
Just kidding about the camps, before I'm accused of being some sort of communist reformist.


----------



## Gunz (May 15, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> ... "intellectually responsible" stories...non-biased fact based intellectually responsible stories...




I think I saw one of those once. But that might've been the night I was smoking crack.


----------



## Florida173 (May 15, 2016)

lindy said:


> Nazism did incorporate many social welfare programs and it was trending socialist until the Strasser brothers were viewed as a threat (one killed and other exiled) to Hitler. It would be accurate to associate Nazis with socialists but really needs caveats.
> 
> A decent start to wet one's appetite: Nazis: Still Socialists, by Jonah Goldberg, National Review
> 
> Where's @x SF med on this topic?



Great article.


----------



## Gunz (May 15, 2016)

Dame said:


> Yeppers. But I also think @Frank S. is a *diabolical *genius, so take it for what it's worth.



Fixed it.


----------



## Etype (May 16, 2016)

This guy has got to be Trump's best apologist. Just like I'm numb to hearing politicians make political arguments, I'm tired of hearing the usual suspects as it pertains to political commentary (like Hannity, Matthews, Beck, Williams, etc.).

Something about an unfamiliar voice, citing something other than his own opinion- it's refreshing.


----------



## Florida173 (May 16, 2016)

Etype said:


> This guy has got to be Trump's best apologist. Just like I'm numb to hearing politicians make political arguments, I'm tired of hearing the usual suspects as it pertains to political commentary (like Hannity, Matthews, Beck, Williams, etc.).
> 
> Something about an unfamiliar voice, citing something other than his own opinion- it's refreshing.



I've been watching milo for some time now and absolutely appreciate his Dangerous Faggot tour across US campuses. The triggering of social justice warriors is great. Between him and Gavin Mcinnes, they are doing great work to destroy modern versions of feminism. Something about calling a gay guy who prefers black men a racist homophobe is funny.

I don't know if I'd call him a Trump apologist though. He does put a good amount of his perspective on the elections and supports Trump everywhere, but mostly I think as it relates to him being a professional provocateur.


----------



## Devildoc (May 16, 2016)

Trump and HRC are within the margin of error in three key states.  And that is still with Bernie in play.  Trump is picking up more "middle class male" support than women, outpacing HRC's picking up the women vote.

Trump releases SCOTUS choices....

Donald Trump unveils list of his top picks for Supreme Court :: WRAL.com


----------



## Florida173 (May 18, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Trump releases SCOTUS choices....
> 
> Donald Trump unveils list of his top picks for Supreme Court :: WRAL.com



Mark Levin approves of his choices, but puts it into perspective that he would still need to get them confirmed


----------



## Devildoc (May 19, 2016)

Trump is starting to poll higher, more often.  I swear this is going to be an exciting 6 months going into the GE.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 19, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Trump is starting to poll higher, more often.  I swear this is going to be an exciting 6 months going into the GE.



Well when your only two choices are shit sandwiches you have to nut up and take a bite..


----------



## Devildoc (May 19, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Well when your only two choices are shit sandwiches you have to nut up and take a bite..



Yes.  People are either completely resigning to the fact they are voting for one or the other, or making the definitive choice now of not voting at all.  Of course, the #neverTrump crowd is breaking apart, and some polls show a slight bump because some are getting on board with Trump.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 19, 2016)

This is how fascism comes to America

Opinion- this guy is obviously reaching a bit. I do think that Trump is many things, genuinely evil or driving us to fascism aren't two of them...


----------



## Etype (May 19, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> This is how fascism comes to America
> 
> Opinion- this guy is obviously reaching a bit. I do think that Trump is many things, genuinely evil or driving us to fascism aren't two of them...


Yeah, his arms aren't quite long enough to reach the points he was trying to make.

His first point loosely quoted, 'Trump supporters dislike the Republican Party because they won't embrace him fully.' Wrong, folks were pretty tired of the R Party before he came along thanks to names like Boehner, Ryan, Romney, and McCain.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 19, 2016)

Donald Trump Says He Doesn't Support the GI Bill

And in other news Trump says he doesn't support the GI Bill, clown shoes.


----------



## Brill (May 19, 2016)

Not very "Democrat" like to support war, big banks, etc.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html?_r=0


----------



## Salt USMC (May 20, 2016)

lindy said:


> Not very "Democrat" like to support war, big banks, etc.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html?_r=0


You remember how I argued that the characterization of Hillary as an "ultra-liberal" was asinine?

This right here is why.


----------



## Brill (May 20, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> You remember how I argued that the characterization of Hillary as an "ultra-liberal" was asinine?
> 
> This right here is why.



Her social "ideas" are pretty liberal but she'll order her staffers to suck off anyone who will pay for access.  It cracks me up when she calls Trump a loose cannon.

There are countless tales of Hillary being VERY difficult to work with because of her temper.


----------



## Marine0311 (May 20, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> You remember how I argued that the characterization of Hillary as an "ultra-liberal" was asinine?
> 
> This right here is why.



How so and why?

This is a very interesting article though.


----------



## Etype (May 20, 2016)

lindy said:


> Not very "Democrat" like to support war, big banks, etc.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html?_r=0





Deathy McDeath said:


> You remember how I argued that the characterization of Hillary as an "ultra-liberal" was asinine?
> 
> This right here is why.


Hilary is a political profiteer of the highest order.

Politicians can profit big time from war, ask Dick Cheney. Banks are tied to investors, that make contributions to, "Foundations."

She also understands that social liberalism is necessary to subjugate a voter base.


----------



## Devildoc (May 20, 2016)

HRC says she will but Bill in charge of the economy when she is POTUS.  By the way, ol' Bill made a Time magazine list of top 25 people most responsible for this country's economic mess.


----------



## racing_kitty (May 20, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> HRC says she will but Bill in charge of the economy when she is POTUS.  By the way, ol' Bill made a Time magazine list of top 25 people most responsible for this country's economic mess.



When the economy absolutely, positively has to be destroyed overnight....


----------



## Brill (May 20, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> HRC says she will but Bill in charge of the economy when she is POTUS.  By the way, ol' Bill made a Time magazine list of top 25 people most responsible for this country's economic mess.



But investment banks made trillions!


----------



## Etype (May 21, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> HRC says she will but Bill in charge of the economy when she is POTUS.  By the way, ol' Bill made a Time magazine list of top 25 people most responsible for this country's economic mess.


There was a lot of buzz, albeit by true conservatives and not the garden variety spineless Republicans, about BHO talking to his wife about decisions and influencing official gov't functions like schools.

There are certain things that require being either elected or officially appointed- I'll be interested to see the legal review on this matter should Bill actually get to do anything.


----------



## AWP (May 21, 2016)

First ladies have always influenced policy or even ran the show. They've always been an extension of their husband's office. As much as I hate HRC, if she named Bill to some post or gave him some responsibility it would be wrong, but nothing new.

With that perspective out of the way, we as a nation and system need to get out of the habit of "Well, xxx did it" when justifying one's political actions.


----------



## Gunz (May 21, 2016)

Etype said:


> ...There was a lot of buzz...about BHO talking to his wife about decisions and influencing official gov't functions like schools...




I listen to _my_ wife...theoretically.


----------



## Florida173 (May 21, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> First ladies have always influenced policy or even ran the show. They've always been an extension of their husband's office. As much as I hate HRC, if she named Bill to some post or gave him some responsibility it would be wrong, but nothing new.
> 
> With that perspective out of the way, we as a nation and system need to get out of the habit of "Well, xxx did it" when justifying one's political actions.



I suppose they've had important roles such as redecorating or be fashionable as the hostess of the White House. Current one seems to care about childhood obesity. Typically they've been traditional womanly roles. Nothing related to STEM. The FLOTUS Wiki does a pretty good job of identifying what a few of them did.


----------



## DA SWO (May 21, 2016)

Etype said:


> There was a lot of buzz, albeit by true conservatives and not the garden variety spineless Republicans, about BHO talking to his wife about decisions and influencing official gov't functions like schools.
> 
> There are certain things that require being either elected or officially appointed- I'll be interested to see the legal review on this matter should Bill actually get to do anything.


There was persistent RumInt that HRC kicked Bill's ass over Bosnia and Kosovo, we wouldn't have gone in if she hadn't forced him to make a decision is the gist of the rumor.


----------



## TLDR20 (May 21, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> I suppose they've have important roles such as redecorating or be fashionable as the hostess of the White House. Current one seems to care about childhood obesity. Typically they've been traditional womanly roles. Nothing related to STEM. The FLOTUS Wiki does a pretty good job of identifying what a few of them did.



Nancy Reagan was a pretty big part of the War On Personal Freedom(drugs).

'Just Say No': How Nancy Reagan Helped America Lose the War on Drugs | VICE News


----------



## Etype (May 26, 2016)

This dude is hilarious.


----------



## Gunz (May 26, 2016)

Bill would be First Gentleman. "Hey, baby, what color panties you got on"  Bwaaaaaahaaaaaaaaa


----------



## Dame (May 26, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Bill would be First Gentleman. "Hey, baby, what color panties you got on"  Bwaaaaaahaaaaaaaaa


"That's no gentleman. That's my husband."
                                                   -HRC


----------



## Marine0311 (Jun 5, 2016)

HRC is projected to win Puerto Rico


----------



## nobodythank you (Jun 5, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> HRC is projected to win Puerto Rico


No surprise there. The island is full of freeloaders that kicked out the last governor to come close to balancing the budget and almost removing their debt. Sad to say that most Ricans on the island are full on "gimmie free stuff" Democrats that want things provided to them.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 5, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> HRC is projected to win Puerto Rico


Fuck Puerto Rico, Bush did


----------



## AWP (Jun 5, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> HRC is projected to win Puerto Rico



Typical. The US isn't enough for her so she's also trying to take over a foreign country.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 5, 2016)

Puerto Rico does believe in the chupacabra... Just sayin.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 5, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Puerto Rico does believe in the chupacabra... Just sayin.


Don't you?


----------



## Salt USMC (Jun 5, 2016)

It's not so simple.  PR was absolutely slammed by the recession, and its recovery has been slower than the rest of the US.  People have been leaving the country in droves which has depleted the tax base, and investors have been pulling money out of the country.  This article explains it pretty well: Puerto Rico Economy Worsens With Crisis, Most Anywhere You Look


----------



## nobodythank you (Jun 5, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> It's not so simple.  PR was absolutely slammed by the recession, and its recovery has been slower than the rest of the US.  People have been leaving the country in droves which has depleted the tax base, and investors have been pulling money out of the country.  This article explains it pretty well: Puerto Rico Economy Worsens With Crisis, Most Anywhere You Look


Not so fast. PR has had problems since well before the recession. The mentality on the island is one of give me give me give me. The people leaving the island cannot be considered a tax base if there are no jobs for them to work. Going further than the people, PR fucked themselves by wanting to get one of their largest sources of income, the US Military. Roosevelt Roads, Vieques Naval Gunnery Range (I think that's what it was called in the old days), and other bases were essentially pushed off the island, and as a result were damaging to the influx of cash. Coupled with the expiration of tax credits for the island (several years ago), plus the expanding social welfare programs, the island has been in a slow motion spiral long before the most recent recession. 

Like any poor author looking to become a SME, he is looking at a very narrow view of the problems on the island. There is a long and troubled history with the island and its economy, government, and people. This isn't the thread to delve into it, but suffice it to say the influence of the island on the coming election will be minimal, however, those on the mainland are an entirely different animal and one can influence the other. To summarize, PR is trying to play both parents against each other in order to get out of their debt crisis. Any restructuring agreement, with the current local government in place, will not result in a better economic/financial situation for the island or its inhabitants.


----------



## compforce (Jun 6, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> No surprise there. The island is full of freeloaders that kicked out the last governor to come close to balancing the budget and almost removing their debt. Sad to say that most Ricans on the island are full on "gimmie free stuff" Democrats that want things provided to them.



And big pharma


----------



## Gunz (Jun 6, 2016)

Vieques is beautiful, I had tanks chasing me all over those hills for a week. There were wild ponies. We let a few whining crybabies push us off. We need to take it back.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 6, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Not so fast. PR has had problems since well before the recession. The mentality on the island is one of give me give me give me. The people leaving the island cannot be considered a tax base if there are no jobs for them to work. Going further than the people, PR fucked themselves by wanting to get one of their largest sources of income, the US Military. Roosevelt Roads, Vieques Naval Gunnery Range (I think that's what it was called in the old days), and other bases were essentially pushed off the island, and as a result were damaging to the influx of cash. Coupled with the expiration of tax credits for the island (several years ago), plus the expanding social welfare programs, the island has been in a slow motion spiral long before the most recent recession.
> 
> Like any poor author looking to become a SME, he is looking at a very narrow view of the problems on the island. There is a long and troubled history with the island and its economy, government, and people. This isn't the thread to delve into it, but suffice it to say the influence of the island on the coming election will be minimal, however, those on the mainland are an entirely different animal and one can influence the other. To summarize, PR is trying to play both parents against each other in order to get out of their debt crisis. Any restructuring agreement, with the current local government in place, will not result in a better economic/financial situation for the island or its inhabitants.


Puerto Ricans didn't understand/care about the relationship between Vieques and NAS Roosevelt Roads.  The thought they could run us out of Vieques and everything else would stay the same.

I think Bush (via Cheney) fucked them by closing everything they could, and we lost abilities in a couple of cases, but much of the Military money spent there was tied to Vieques.


----------



## pardus (Jun 6, 2016)

Love him or hate him, Christopher Hitchens was a man with a brilliant mind. Even though I don't agree with _everything_ he says, I'm in awe of the man due to his intelligence and tenacity. 

Behold, Hitch on Hillary...


----------



## Brill (Jun 8, 2016)

I like the hypotheticals in this piece (get past the email junk to the what ifs).

Hillary Clinton’s Emails Now Might Finally Take Her Down


----------



## AWP (Jun 9, 2016)

And Obama formally endorses Clinton.

Obama 'Fired up' for Clinton's campaign, urges party unity



> Obama, who enjoys strong approval ratings after nearly eight years in office, will appear with Clinton on the campaign trail next week in Wisconsin, her campaign said.
> 
> "I don't think there's ever been someone so qualified to hold this office," Obama said of Clinton in a video. "I'm with her. I am fired up, and I cannot wait to get out there and campaign for Hillary."



There won't be an eleventh hour takeover of the campaign nor any charges related to the email server.


----------



## Brill (Jun 9, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> There won't be an eleventh hour takeover of the campaign nor any charges related to the email server.



Why are members not able to agree and hate at the same time?  That's racist.

Jesus, CNN's webpage looks like she chose Obama as VP and they won.  At least they're objective in their reporting!


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 9, 2016)

lindy said:


> Why are members not able to agree and hate at the same time?  That's racist.
> 
> Jesus, CNN's webpage looks like she chose Obama as VP and they won.  At least they're objective in their reporting!



It's the site's attempt to check your privilege no doubt.


----------



## Rapid (Jun 9, 2016)

lols


----------



## Brill (Jun 9, 2016)

Let the games begin!






Another tidbit (or secondary source) that Google has chosen pro-Hillary side.  Obviously they can do whatever but I think it's good to be an honest broker.

Google search connects Trump to Hitler ... again | Fox News


----------



## Centermass (Jun 10, 2016)

It's funny (And hilarious) whenever I hear Elizabeth Warren call the Donald a "Fraud"

No problem "Pocahontas." Point taken.


----------



## Brill (Jun 13, 2016)

Shit! I just re-read this! Very misleading! My apologies that my crappy wording appeared to implying that Clinton advocated the hypothetical scenario below. My point is if the USG and States can regulate firearms they SHOULD regulate religion because it can e just as dangerous as a firearm...a hammer...a knife...or a rope.

-------------------------

Hillary has said that the Executive branch has always had the right to regulate the Constitution  (remember she IS a lawyer). 

EDITED: So let's assume that...Given this "fact" and supported by DOJ's regulation of the 2nd Amendment, the USG then has the right to regulate RELIGION.  (The 1st Amendment only says the Government may not establish or favor a religion...in other words, ones right to a religion shall not be infringed.)

The USG EDIT: WOULD THEN have the right to conduct background checks, collect fingerprints, etc of anyone who wishes to attend a particular mosque (e.g. a place where a know radical Imam preaches).

States therefore EDIT: WOULD have the RIGHT to regulate how many times a week a person can attend mosques, which mosques can be in their states, the number of worshipers at any given time, and even which sermons/schools are considered "dangerous".

States also WOULD have the right to determine WHY someone wants to attend a mosque.

Given the above "rights" (EDIT: e.g. that the Exe has the right to regulate) as espoused by Hillary Clinton and her views on the Constitution, how could you vote anyone but Trump or Johnson?

For fuck's sake people, self educate! 

My fault: should have included some links.  I'm a news junky so I assumed it was well-known.






Clinton on Individual Right to Bear Arms: 'If It Is a Constitutional Right...'

Hillary Clinton wavers on Second Amendment right to bear arms



Ooh-Rah said:


> Agreed. Anything in this thread about a candidate's alleged beliefs or comments should at minimum have a source, at best a link or video.   I cannot keep up with the he-said/she-said anymore; no way do I have time to research comment accuracy before I reply to to it. Definitely not a knock on @lindy , this thread is full of unsourced comments.



My apologies to you, @Deathy McDeath , and Board at large. I never intended to imply that Hillary said she planned to regulate Islam but rather, the President HAS ALWAYS had the power to regulate the Constitution and THEREBY, one would conclude, religion.

Yep, sounds stupid if you replace gun laws with religion.

CLINTON: If it is a constitutional right, then it — like every other constitutional right — is subject to reasonable regulations. And what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms. So I think it's important to recognize that reasonable people can say, as I do, responsible gun owners have a right. I have no objection to that. *But the rest of the American public has a right to require certain kinds of regulatory, responsible actions to protect everyone else.

------------
*
Did she just advocate Trump's call to ban Muslims from known terrorist locations?


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 15, 2016)

lindy said:


> CLINTON: If it is a constitutional right, then it — like every other constitutional right — is subject to reasonable regulations. And what people have done with that decision is to take it as far as they possibly can and reject what has been our history from the very beginning of the republic, where some of the earliest laws that were passed were about firearms. So I think it's important to recognize that reasonable people can say, as I do, responsible gun owners have a right. I have no objection to that. *But the rest of the American public has a right to require certain kinds of regulatory, responsible actions to protect everyone else.
> 
> ------------
> 
> Did she just advocate Trump's call to ban Muslims from known terrorist locations?*



What would even lead you to conclude that? That has to be one of the biggest reaches I have seen recently here. Good to see the not-so-silent minority speaking for their boy though.

The constitutional argument is one thing that unites me on both candidates (who at this point I dislike nearly equally which I thought wasn't possible 3 months ago). Trump gives no shits about free speech- remember when he said he wanted penalties for press that speak bad about him? Or how about the latest one where he wants to ban reporters that report things he doesn't like? And yea, I know, the post is a piece of shit paper, they treat him unfairly, WHAAAAAAAAAAA. Not the point. If Pres Obama said the same thing that Trump has, the conservative world would have a collective conniption fit.

And now the above Hillary position that show at the very least she's willing to "massage" the constitution to suggest/pass legislation? Great.  

We have one candidate that blatantly disregards the constitution and our country's rulings and the other wants to surreptitiously change the constitution for her own personal agenda.

All that being said- Trump needs to figure his crap out, because he's singlehandedly handing the election to Clinton at this point.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 15, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> What would even lead you to conclude that? That has to be one of the biggest reaches I have seen recently here. Good to see the not-so-silent minority speaking for their boy though.
> 
> The constitutional argument is one thing that unites me on both candidates (who at this point I dislike nearly equally which I thought wasn't possible 3 months ago). Trump gives no shits about free speech- remember when he said he wanted penalties for press that speak bad about him? Or how about the latest one where he wants to ban reporters that report things he doesn't like? And yea, I know, the post is a piece of shit paper, they treat him unfairly, WHAAAAAAAAAAA. Not the point. If Pres Obama said the same thing that Trump has, the conservative world would have a collective conniption fit.
> 
> ...





> Trump gives no shits about free speech


Are you saying the media should not be held responsible for libel? Because he is a public figure that he has no right to confront libelous claims in the media? That has absolutely nothing to do with free speech.


> ban reporters that report things he doesn't like


He specifically says "I won't kick reporters out of White House press briefing room," opposed to the current president that has done just that


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 15, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Are you saying the media should not be held responsible for libel? Because he is a public figure that he has no right to confront libelous claims in the media? That has absolutely nothing to do with free speech.
> 
> He specifically says "I won't kick reporters out of White House press briefing room," opposed to the current president that has done just that



I would throw around phrases like libel lightly. Libel needs to prove that the published statement was a lie, and was stated as a fact, not an opinion. I haven't seen too many examples of Trump being libeled


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 15, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I would throw around phrases like libel lightly. Libel needs to prove that the published statement was a lie, and was stated as a fact, not an opinion. I haven't seen too many examples of Trump being libeled



Libel being a legal term would suggest there is a legal process to arbitrate. The point is that he can't be libeled being a public figure.


----------



## Brill (Jun 15, 2016)

@amlove21 , my point was if a candidate believes the Executive branch has the authority to regulate the Constitution, there are no limits.

My post was totally hypothetical yet IS based on regulations levied on the 2nd Amendment. There are no laws prohibiting the hypothetical scenario.

I guess we accept the Muslim refugees and "hope" some change their hatred for the West or we deny their entry until proper checks are completed. In the case of no data, I say no entry.  The welfare of the masses override the welfare of the few.

“Islamic Refugee” With Gas Pipeline Plans Arrested in New Mexico Border County - Judicial Watch


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 15, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Are you saying the media should not be held responsible for libel? Because he is a public figure that he has no right to confront libelous claims in the media? That has absolutely nothing to do with free speech.
> 
> He specifically says "I won't kick reporters out of White House press briefing room," opposed to the current president that has done just that


First off, agree with @TLDR20 , Trump hasn't been libeled, and it literally has everything to do with free speech. Your speech isn't free when you have to worry about some weak willed crybaby yelling "LAWSUIT!!!" every time his press isn't favorable. 

For as much as Trump is heralded as an "anti-PC behavior" guy, he sure does pull the SJW "YOURE ASSAULTING ME YOURE BULLYING ME IM TRIGGERED IM TRIGGERED" card a lot. He has historically thin skin when it comes to criticism and goes off the deep end when it happens. Secondly, I think Pres Obama limiting the press during his official duties is wrong as well. That fact, however, doesn't absolve Trump, it makes them both equally wrong.

BL- To express your desire to hold the press legally culpable for saying things that make you personally angry and you're running for an office that could grant you the actual power to do so, it's an attack on freedom of the press and free speech.



lindy said:


> @amlove21 , my point was if a candidate believes the Executive branch has the authority to regulate the Constitution, there are no limits.
> 
> My post was totally hypothetical yet IS based on regulations levied on the 2nd Amendment. There are no laws prohibiting the hypothetical scenario.


I like thought experiments and hypotheticals- I use them all the time, here and in life. The problem is when we just throw shit out there and don't label it as such. I disagree with your point- or at least the way you put it.

Example- "Hillary Clinton is saying that the executive branch has the authority to regulate the constitution- DD HILLARY JUST SAY THAT BLACK PEOPLE SHOULD BE SLAVES AND WOMEN SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO VOTE????"

See? That's intellectually dishonest. Defending it as a hypothetical after the fact is as well.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jun 15, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> First off, agree with @TLDR20 , Trump hasn't been libeled, and it literally has everything to do with free speech.


Free Speech is only protected when in reference to the government. 


> The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from government interference.


 -Cornell Law


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 15, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> First off, agree with @TLDR20 , Trump hasn't been libeled, and it literally has everything to do with free speech. Your speech isn't free when you have to worry about some weak willed crybaby yelling "LAWSUIT!!!" every time his press isn't favorable.
> 
> For as much as Trump is heralded as an "anti-PC behavior" guy, he sure does pull the SJW "YOURE ASSAULTING ME YOURE BULLYING ME IM TRIGGERED IM TRIGGERED" card a lot. He has historically thin skin when it comes to criticism and goes off the deep end when it happens. Secondly, I think Pres Obama limiting the press during his official duties is wrong as well. That fact, however, doesn't absolve Trump, it makes them both equally wrong.


As @ke4gde has said, free speech has to do with the government.

Amazing you don't see the political game that Trump is playing with the press.. to think it's some sort of affront to freedom of speech is seriously myopic. To suggest that it is equally wrong for an actual sitting president to ban members of the press to that of a candidate is crazy.



> BL- To express your desire to hold the press legally culpable for saying things that make you personally angry and you're running for an office that could grant you the actual power to do so, it's an attack on freedom of the press and free speech.


You are again characterizing what is happening poorly by saying that he wants to hold the press culpable for just saying mean things about him. He wants to hold them to the truth. The whole point of libel. Regardless if he has been libeled is moot because he is a public figure.


----------



## Brill (Jun 16, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> I like thought experiments and hypotheticals- I use them all the time, here and in life. The problem is when we just throw shit out there and don't label it as such. I disagree with your point- or at least the way you put it.
> 
> Example- "Hillary Clinton is saying that the executive branch has the authority to regulate the constitution- DD HILLARY JUST SAY THAT BLACK PEOPLE SHOULD BE SLAVES AND WOMEN SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO VOTE????"
> 
> See? That's intellectually dishonest. Defending it as a hypothetical after the fact is as well.



No, I don't see your point.  Why would she not? What did she mean in that interview?

There's no other way to understand my post as anything but hypothetical. Deathly & oh-rah asked for supporting documentation which I provided but after the fact and then I tightened up my argument. DAYS later you come along, and accuse me of click bait.

How you could equate my post, which you obviously did not read, to the above is ridiculous. How does that even parallel regulating firearms with regulating religion as did mine?

Clinton has expressed her belief that the Executive can regulate the laws but she only has the power to enforce laws. Based on that, she would certainly make Obama's EO over reach look tame.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 16, 2016)

President Obama has put out less EO's than any 2 term president in the last century.


lindy said:


> No, I don't see your point.  Why would she not? What did she mean in that interview?
> 
> There's no other way to understand my post as anything but hypothetical. Deathly & oh-rah asked for supporting documentation which I provided but after the fact and then I tightened up my argument. DAYS later you come along, and accuse me of click bait.
> 
> ...



Executive Orders


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 16, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> President Obama has put out less EO's than any 2 term president in the last century.
> 
> 
> Executive Orders



Quality, not quantity


----------



## Salt USMC (Jun 16, 2016)

lindy said:


> @amlove21 , my point was if a candidate believes the Executive branch has the authority to regulate the Constitution, there are no limits.


It should be pointed out that she did not say that the executive has the authority to regulate the constitution.  She said that the second amendment is subject to regulation just like any other constitutional right, which is correct.  The word "executive" is never mentioned, and in fact Clinton was talking about historic 2nd amendment regulations in the context of legislative and judicial actions (specifically DC v. Heller, and the "gun tax" of the 90's).  It's a bit of a reach to infer that she was somehow tipping her hand on executive gun control in this interview.

Here's the transcript of the section of the interview I'm referring to in its entirety:


> STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's talk about the Second Amendment. As you know, Donald Drumpf has also been out on the stump, talking about the Second Amendment, saying you want to abolish the Second Amendment.
> 
> I know you reject that. But I -- but I want to ask you a specific question.
> 
> ...


----------



## AWP (Jun 16, 2016)

> STEPHANOPOULOS: Let's talk about the Second Amendment. As you know, *Donald Drumpf* has also been out on the stump, talking about the Second Amendment, saying you want to abolish the Second Amendment.
> 
> CLINTON: And once again, you have *Donald Drumpf* just making outright fabrications



@Deathy McDeath I'm sure you didn't do this, but do you have a link to the transcript?


----------



## Salt USMC (Jun 16, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> @Deathy McDeath I'm sure you didn't do this, but do you have a link to the transcript?


'This Week' Transcript: Hillary Clinton

Oh man, that's from a Chrome extension I have.  I totally didn't realize I left it intact.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 16, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> 'This Week' Transcript: Hillary Clinton
> 
> Oh man, that's from a Chrome extension I have.  I totally didn't realize I left it intact.


You have Chrome disease?


----------



## Salt USMC (Jun 16, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> You have Chrome disease?


Yup.  It causes verbal diarrhea to spread from my mouth to the internet via my hands.


----------



## AWP (Jun 16, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Oh man, that's from a Chrome extension I have.  I totally didn't realize I left it intact.



I think you'll understand why I (and probably others) find this very disappointing.


----------



## Brill (Jun 16, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> It should be pointed out that she did not say that the executive has the authority to regulate the constitution.  She said that the second amendment is subject to regulation just like any other constitutional right, which is correct.  The word "executive" is never mentioned, and in fact Clinton was talking about historic 2nd amendment regulations in the context of legislative and judicial actions (specifically DC v. Heller, and the "gun tax" of the 90's).  It's a bit of a reach to infer that she was somehow tipping her hand on executive gun control in this interview.
> 
> Here's the transcript of the section of the interview I'm referring to in its entirety:



Which branch of government regulates the Constitution? My understanding is that Government derives its powers FROM the document.



TLDR20 said:


> President Obama has put out less EO's than any 2 term president in the last century.
> 
> 
> Executive Orders



How many of those are EOs are currently before Federal judges? Man, FDR went gangbusters on EOs!


----------



## Salt USMC (Jun 16, 2016)

lindy said:


> Which branch of government regulates the Constitution? My understanding is that Government derives its powers FROM the document.


I would argue that the Supreme Court, by dint of judicial review, can impose regulations on the right enumerated in the constitution.  For example, while the first amendment enumerates our freedoms of speech, assembly, redress of grievances et. al., the Supreme Court has said that the first amendment is not without its limits.  I'm sure I don't need to tell you about the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example, but that case was Schenck v. United States in 1919.  While the case _clarified (_instead of explicitly regulated) that certain types of speech created a clear and present danger, I would argue that such judgements are a de facto form of regulation.

Constitution Check: Are there no limits on Second Amendment rights?


----------



## Brill (Jun 16, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I would argue that the Supreme Court, by dint of judicial review, can impose regulations on the right enumerated in the constitution.  For example, while the first amendment enumerates our freedoms of speech, assembly, redress of grievances et. al., the Supreme Court has said that the first amendment is not without its limits.  I'm sure I don't need to tell you about the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example, but that case was Schenck v. United States in 1919.  While the case _clarified (_instead of explicitly regulated) that certain types of speech created a clear and present danger, I would argue that such judgements are a de facto form of regulation.
> 
> Constitution Check: Are there no limits on Second Amendment rights?



I think you're actually defining "to interpret" (to explain meaning) vice "to regulate (to control or direct by rule). We're 100% on the same page though.

Judiciary doesn't make laws (typically) but rather tells us what the Constitution and case law mean.  I don't think there are any laws in the document but rather provide proper authority (power to the Branches, states, and people) to create law.  No?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 18, 2016)

All this talk of Bernie and Socialism.  Let's hear what Vin Scully has to say about the subject...(from 06/17/16 Dodgers-Brewers game)


----------



## SpitfireV (Jun 19, 2016)

I expect talk about the game, the state of the hot chips at the stadium and the weather from my sports commentators. They can keep their politics at home.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 19, 2016)

So...I'm pretty sure Trump is throwing this election.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jun 19, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> So...I'm pretty sure Trump is throwing this election.



That thought has crossed my mind. Sad to say.


----------



## RackMaster (Jun 20, 2016)

I've thought that for a while now.  It makes me wonder what's going on and if his Clinton connections are involved.


----------



## Rapid (Jun 20, 2016)

US election: Arrested man 'wanted to shoot Donald Trump' - BBC News

*US election: Arrested man 'wanted to shoot Donald Trump'*

He planned to assassinate Trump in a venue swarming with security by GRABBING A GUN OUT OF A COP'S HOLSTER. And never once did it cross his mind, "Hey, maybe I should develop more muscle mass than a string bean before I try this".

Rambo couldn't pull that shit off yet this noodle-armed cunt thought he had it in the bag.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jun 20, 2016)

I like how you guys use cunt alot.....


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 20, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> I like how you guys use cunt alot.....



kinda like Tormund Giantsbane


----------



## racing_kitty (Jun 21, 2016)

Rapid said:


> US election: Arrested man 'wanted to shoot Donald Trump' - BBC News



From the same article,  something I find highly amusing because I was "informed" the other day that white people can't be illegal immigrants 


> He told investigators he had been in the US for one and a half years, the court papers say.
> 
> Court research showed he was unemployed, living out of his car and in the US illegally, the Associated Press news agency reports.


----------



## policemedic (Jun 21, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> From the same article,  something I find highly amusing because I was "informed" the other day that white people can't be illegal immigrants



Did @pardus say that?  He's a dodgy cunt


----------



## AWP (Jun 21, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> ...I was "informed" the other day that white people can't be illegal immigrants



I think the list of tribes who laugh at that assertion is long and distinguished.


----------



## pardus (Jun 21, 2016)

policemedic said:


> Did @pardus say that?  He's a dodgy cunt


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 21, 2016)

Am I missing something? Can anyone explain Trump's reasoning by bringing HRC's chosen system of belief if any at all? Without making this thread about religion and public office, which I dont want, can anyone explain the political benefit on this one?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 21, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Am I missing something? Can anyone explain Trump's reasoning by bringing HRC's chosen system of belief if any at all? Without making this thread about religion and public office, which I dont want, can anyone explain the political benefit on this one?



None.  And that is what has worked for Trump...so far.  He's still in attack mode, because that has been what's worked.  I actually held out "this much" hope that after canning his campaign manager, we were going to see a reborn Trump who acted, at least somewhat, like a serious candidate for president.  Someone who was going to start laying out facts and bring up talking points like, "what difference does it make", etc.  Nope.  I am very disappointed.  If Hilary is smart, (and she is), she will not even respond to this.  And if asked, she should just chuckle and do not-so-subtle eye roll.

I just read the article linked below and came here to get an opinion on it, but then I find the last 4 or 5 posts in this thread to pretty much back up the theory of the writer. 

http://gawker.com/how-is-donald-trump-going-to-quit-1782312998


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 21, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> snippity snip


Very interesting.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jun 21, 2016)

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm hoping that a viable 3rd party candidate pops out of left field. I honestly don't think I could vote for the baboon in the toupee or for Smeagol in a wig. :wall:


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 21, 2016)

R.Caerbannog said:


> I don't know about anyone else, but I'm hoping that a viable 3rd party candidate pops out of left field. I honestly don't think I could vote for the baboon in the toupee or for Smeagol in a wig. :wall:


I mean, this brings up a good point, in line with the earlier post. 

Let's say Trump does exit unceremoniously and the GOP decides to field a viable last minute candidate. 

What presumptive candidate wins? I feel like thats a short freaking list, and it starts with Paul Ryan. It might end there.


----------



## AWP (Jun 22, 2016)

Does anyone legitimately think any candidate has a chance against Hillary? Honestly, what scenario keeps Hillary out of the White House? Death? Federal indictment? Earth killing asteroid?


----------



## Brill (Jun 22, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Am I missing something? Can anyone explain Trump's reasoning by bringing HRC's chosen system of belief if any at all? Without making this thread about religion and public office, which I dont want, can anyone explain the political benefit on this one?



Seems like he's saying that even over the years that she been in public view and has been elected/appointed to USG positions, the public really doesn't know ANYTHING about her.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 22, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Does anyone legitimately think any candidate has a chance against Hillary? Honestly, what scenario keeps Hillary out of the White House? Death? Federal indictment? Earth killing asteroid?



I thought Bernie was running


----------



## pardus (Jun 22, 2016)

I don't think Trump is going to pull it off.


----------



## Gunz (Jun 22, 2016)

pardus said:


> I don't think Trump is going to pull it off.




I think you're right. In the privacy of the voting booth the undecided may go with the more politically experienced HRC even if they can't stand her. I'll never be able to bring myself to vote for a Clinton, no matter what, so that leaves me with a choice of Trump or stay the fuck home.


----------



## AWP (Jun 22, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> I thought Bernie was running



You honestly think Bernie has a legit shot to beat Hillary?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 22, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> You honestly think Bernie has a legit shot to beat Hillary?



He is a legit shot at pulling votes off of Hillary.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 22, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> You honestly think Bernie has a legit shot to beat Hillary?



Has nothing to do with beating Hillary.


----------



## AWP (Jun 22, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> He is a legit shot at pulling votes off of Hillary.



But that isn't the same as beating her. The hope is the Dems. split just enough to allow Trump or some fourth party to win? That's more likely than the asteroid, but less probable than zika.



Florida173 said:


> Has nothing to do with beating Hillary.



It does within the context of my question. Does anyone have a shot against her? What legitimate scenario keeps her out of the White House?


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 22, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> But that isn't the same as beating her. The hope is the Dems. split just enough to allow Trump or some fourth party to win? That's more likely than the asteroid, but less probable than zika.
> 
> It does within the context of my question. Does anyone have a shot against her? What legitimate scenario keeps her out of the White House?



There's precedence. Where have you been? Ross Perot is one of the most recent examples with the '92 election. Took votes away from the incumbent and allowed Clinton to win the WH.


----------



## AWP (Jun 22, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> There's precedence. Where have you been? Ross Perot is one of the most recent examples with the '92 election. Took votes away from the incumbent and allowed Clinton to win the WH.



The only reason I have to read your posts is because I'm on the staff here. You are without a doubt the most argumentative member on the board. I asked a question primarily for the sake of debate. If you have a problem with me or think you're smarter than myself or even the rest of the board, cool. Got it, check, roger. Any future discussions between you and I will be in my capacity as a staff member, because I refuse to play whatever games you have in mind. 

I've mentioned Perot before, probably in this thread, so where were you? See, that's a legit shot and one you could have mentioned but instead chose to be a bit of an ass with your response. That's understandable given your apparent need to argue and win at every turn.

I'm also aware of the Bull Moose Party and its influence, but to repeat myself for everyone else:

What options are there? Right now they suck and are predicated less upon an internal strategy the GOP can influence and more upon what someone else will do. This thing's pretty much an "L" on the scoreboard unless something drastic happens.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 22, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> The only reason I have to read your posts is because I'm on the staff here. You are without a doubt the most argumentative member on the board. I asked a question primarily for the sake of debate. If you have a problem with me or think you're smarter than myself or even the rest of the board, cool. Got it, check, roger. Any future discussions between you and I will be in my capacity as a staff member, because I refuse to play whatever games you have in mind.
> 
> I've mentioned Perot before, probably in this thread, so where were you? See, that's a legit shot and one you could have mentioned but instead chose to be a bit of an ass with your response. That's understandable given your apparent need to argue and win at every turn.
> 
> ...



Sometimes we put emphasis into plain text. Anything you have against me personally can be dealt with PM. Didn't mean to trigger you.


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 22, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Does anyone legitimately think any candidate has a chance against Hillary? Honestly, what scenario keeps Hillary out of the White House? Death? Federal indictment? Earth killing asteroid?


Biden rides in to rescue us from ourselves.



Ocoka One said:


> I think you're right. In the privacy of the voting booth the undecided may go with the more politically experienced HRC even if they can't stand her. I'll never be able to bring myself to vote for a Clinton, no matter what, so that leaves me with a choice of Trump or stay the fuck home.


or they may pull the lever for Trump
The David Duke effect.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jun 22, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Biden rides in to rescue us from ourselves.


I think most of America would be okay with this.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 22, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Biden rides in to rescue us from ourselves.



At this point you never know. Before I would have said that it was likely, but a lot has changed since then.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 22, 2016)

Now "this" is more like it.  I don't even know how accurate everything is, (yet), but this is what I wanted to see from him.  Go nasty, get ugly, but make it relevant.

'World class liar': Trump's all-out attack on Clinton


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 22, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Now "this" is more like it.  I don't even know how accurate everything is, (yet), but this is what I wanted to see from him.  Go nasty, get ugly, but make it relevant.
> 
> 'World class liar': Trump's all-out attack on Clinton



I'd imagine it's in direct response to yesterday's "attack" on Trump by Hillary. Can't read the article here though.


----------



## Gunz (Jun 22, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Biden rides in to rescue us from ourselves.





Deathy McDeath said:


> I think most of America would be okay with this.





I'm not all that okay with it. Just sayin. But I don't think Uncle Joe makes a move unless HRC is derailed by indictment...and right now I don't think anything's gonna stop her train.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 22, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> I'm not all that okay with it. Just sayin. But I don't think Uncle Joe makes a move unless HRC is derailed by indictment...and right now I don't think anything's gonna stop her train.



Wasn't he once before discounted for his plagiarism in college? Doesn't seem like all that much of an issue with today's political climate.

No reconsideration for Joe Lieberman?


----------



## Salt USMC (Jun 22, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Wasn't he once before discounted for his plagiarism in college? Doesn't seem like all that much of an issue with today's political climate.
> 
> No reconsideration for Joe Lieberman?


You know, I hadn't heard of this until you mentioned it.  Sure enough, there was a bit of controversy during the 1988 Presidential campaign over some pretty blatant plagiarism he committed in law school
Biden Admits Plagiarism in School But Says It Was Not 'Malevolent'

Five pages directly lifted from another source because you didn't know the proper rule for citation and attribution?  C'mon Joe!


----------



## Brill (Jun 22, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I think most of America would be okay with this.



Looks like he's at a strip club!



Ocoka One said:


> I think you're right. In the privacy of the voting booth the undecided may go with the more politically experienced HRC even if they can't stand her. I'll never be able to bring myself to vote for a Clinton, no matter what, so that leaves me with a choice of Trump or stay the fuck home.



Exactly! I'm voting BREXIT tomorrow!


----------



## Rapid (Jun 22, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> None.  And that is what has worked for Trump...so far.  He's still in attack mode, because that has been what's worked.  I actually held out "this much" hope that after canning his campaign manager, we were going to see a reborn Trump who acted, at least somewhat, like a serious candidate for president.  Someone who was going to start laying out facts and bring up talking points like, "what difference does it make", etc.  Nope.  I am very disappointed.  If Hilary is smart, (and she is), she will not even respond to this.  And if asked, she should just chuckle and do not-so-subtle eye roll.
> 
> I just read the article linked below and came here to get an opinion on it, but then I find the last 4 or 5 posts in this thread to pretty much back up the theory of the writer.
> 
> http://gawker.com/how-is-donald-trump-going-to-quit-1782312998



Please don't give Gawker any clicks.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 22, 2016)

Rapid said:


> Please don't give Gawker any clicks.



Educate me?


----------



## Rapid (Jun 22, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Educate me?



Gladly, please watch (not necessarily the whole thing, but it's actually a really interesting video):


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 22, 2016)

Though Joe Biden's plagiarism is awful, I did some awfully stupid shit as a young man that I am ashamed of. I hope I won't be judged by those things for the rest of my life. Same goes for all candidates, I always hate seeing things dredged up from a long ago past as if it is relevant.


----------



## Brill (Jun 22, 2016)

Democrats don't get their way so they protest...inside House chambers? Where is condemnation from the President or his Candidate? Oh, he ENCOURAGED it!

If I were the Speaker, I'd order the Master of Arms to arrest them.

GOP aims to regain control of House floor following sit-in - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## racing_kitty (Jun 22, 2016)

lindy said:


> Democrats don't get their way so they protest...inside House chambers? Where is condemnation from the President or his Candidate? Oh, he ENCOURAGED it!
> 
> If I were the Speaker, I'd order the Master of Arms to arrest them.
> 
> GOP aims to regain control of House floor following sit-in - CNNPolitics.com



Apparently the 5th amendment is an even bigger nuisance than the 2nd. Who knew? Quick!!! Ban all the things, tovarisch.


----------



## amlove21 (Jun 22, 2016)

lindy said:


> Seems like he's saying that even over the years that she been in public view and has been elected/appointed to USG positions, the public really doesn't know ANYTHING about her.


That's a good point. 


Ooh-Rah said:


> Now "this" is more like it.  I don't even know how accurate everything is, (yet), but this is what I wanted to see from him.  Go nasty, get ugly, but make it relevant.
> 
> 'World class liar': Trump's all-out attack on Clinton


CNN did a fact check that was pretty good,


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 23, 2016)

moobob said:


> I judge people by their kids. This election is really about Chelsea vs Ivanka and Tiffany.



He has a boy too.


----------



## moobob (Jun 23, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> That's a good point.
> 
> CNN did a fact check that was pretty good,


Interesting that they rated "Clinton used State like her personal hedge fund" and that her server got hacked as false... Still waiting for the FBI.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 23, 2016)

lindy said:


> Democrats don't get their way so they protest...inside House chambers? Where is condemnation from the President or his Candidate? Oh, he ENCOURAGED it!
> 
> If I were the Speaker, I'd order the Master of Arms to arrest them.
> 
> GOP aims to regain control of House floor following sit-in - CNNPolitics.com



They are breaking house rules by streaming this via Periscope.  I am genuinely beginning to believe that camera phones and the internet are a catalyst to the end of the world.

*"This one time, at band camp..."



*


----------



## racing_kitty (Jun 23, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> They are breaking house rules by streaming this via Periscope.  I am genuinely beginning to believe that camera phones and the internet are a catalyst to the end of the world.



I still think the House Speaker should've sent down juice boxes and stuffed animals when they recessed for the night.  Looking at that picture, I can't help but think Lies Like Bear Rug is getting ready to pass a peace pipe loaded with crack rocks around the circle.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jun 23, 2016)

moobob said:


> What's worse? Putting people in internment camps, or idolizing the guy that did it? Although if you bring it up to most progressives, they'll give you a blank stare or blurt out "but Trump!".



I don't know if it's just me, but Trumps campaign speeches remind me of footage of Benito Mussolini's speeches. It's like they are both talking down to the audience. It just seems really smug, as if both speakers can't hide their contempt.


----------



## Gunz (Jun 24, 2016)

R.Caerbannog said:


> I don't know if it's just me, but Trumps campaign speeches remind me of footage of Benito Mussolini's speeches. It's like they are both talking down to the audience. It just seems really smug, as if both speakers can't hide their contempt.




Hillary talks to her audiences like they're 2nd graders.

If you'd seen Trump's news conference from Scotland this morning, he made a great deal of sense. If there's contempt in Trump's speeches, it's for POTUS's agenda and HRC, his rival, not for his audience. Mussolini was a fascist dictator, a murderer and Hitler's chief lackey and boot kisser...and if you're a clever enough editor or have too much free time on your hands you can find historical footage of anybody and compare it with the momentary actions, gestures and words of a contemporary public figure. I'm standing up for Trump on this one because I think the dictator comparisons are way over the top and very unfair.


----------



## AWP (Jun 24, 2016)

80% of Trump's problem is delivery, not the message.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 24, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> 80% of Trump's problem is delivery, not the message.



Might get better as he starts getting speech writers and a more focused message. His delivery is typically dynamic from the audience. It seems off when watching from TV because you don't get to see all that much else.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 24, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> 80% of Trump's problem is delivery, not the message.



I wish you would expand more on this.  If what you are saying is that Trump is too over-the-top in how he delivers his messages, then I completely agree with you. Much of what Trump says, I buy into.  What I do not buy into is his frontal way of speaking; whether his intent or not, he comes across as racist and a misogynist. Doing so makes it difficult to support him,  at least verbally.  My wife cannot stand Hillary, but she HATE'S Trump for the reasons I mentioned above.  It's not even a topic open for discussion in our home.  I said earlier, (I think in this thread) that Trump is beginning to appear more-and-more as a one-trick-pony.  Attack...attack...attack, but no real substance to the message.  Very disappointing.

There is so much of what he says that I agree with, I just wish it was someone other than Donald Trump carrying the flag.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jun 24, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I wish you would expand more on this.  If what you are saying is that Trump is too over-the-top in how he delivers his messages, then I completely agree with you. Much of what Trump says, I buy into.  What I do not buy into is his frontal way of speaking; whether his intent or not, he comes across as racist and a misogynist. Doing so makes it difficult to support him,  at least verbally.  My wife cannot stand Hillary, but she HATE'S Trump for the reasons I mentioned above.  It's not even a topic open for discussion in our home.  I said earlier, (I think in this thread) that Trump is beginning to appear more-and-more as a one-trick-pony.  Attack...attack...attack, but no real substance to the message.  Very disappointing.
> 
> There is so much of what he says that I agree with, I just wish it was someone other than Donald Trump carrying the flag.


Disagree is for the one trick pony idea. My mother feels the same way about Trump as your wife does, to include the no discussion on the topic. Although I think it is more so for the whole Hispanic angle (she can be kinda racist that way).

I get that people don't like how brash and forward Trump is, or that they feel he isn't "Presidential" enough in his bearing. However, consider this, we have had those types of politicians for several decades now and look where it has gotten the country. I will admit that the pendulum in these scenarios swings wide in both directions. It is likely, at least in my mind, that the brashness and sensationalism is needed by Trump to reach out to the voters in the most cost effective manner possible while steering the conversation. So far in the primaries he ran one of the (if not the) most cost effective campaigns in recent history. He spent a fraction of what his competitors spend, and got more traction for each dollar spent. I think the last figure was 50 mil spent in the primaries, but before Jeb dropped out, he had spent close to 250 mil. I think the same thing is happening here. Perhaps this is not a primary factor to be sure, but it can certainly be a contributing one at the least.

I believe @Florida173 was correct in that you only usually see a soundbite of Trump's speeches. Many times his words are taken out of context in order to inflame the topic and create controversy. Which translate to traffic for media sites. I also believe that Trump knows this and uses it to his advantage. Again, to spend less money for more coverage. Of course, I could be totally wrong and attributing beliefs to nonexistent plans, but I don't think so. At least I hope not.


----------



## AWP (Jun 24, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I wish you would expand more on this.  If what you are saying is that Trump is too over-the-top in how he delivers his messages, then I completely agree with you. Much of what Trump says, I buy into.  What I do not buy into is his frontal way of speaking; whether his intent or not, he comes across as racist and a misogynist. Doing so makes it difficult to support him,  at least verbally.  My wife cannot stand Hillary, but she HATE'S Trump for the reasons I mentioned above.  It's not even a topic open for discussion in our home.  I said earlier, (I think in this thread) that Trump is beginning to appear more-and-more as a one-trick-pony.  Attack...attack...attack, but no real substance to the message.  Very disappointing.
> 
> There is so much of what he says that I agree with, I just wish it was someone other than Donald Trump carrying the flag.



He can attack, and bluntly so, without being an asshole. I love the fact that he isn't a cookie cutter mouthpiece, but I think he scares off the middle ground. Right now the perception is that he's racist/ misogynist/ a Nickelback fan...whatever. I think that perception, and narrative pushed by a very biased media, is giving Hillary some votes.

Rosie O'Donnell....he'd "look into her fat, ugly face and say 'Rosie, you're fired.'" I cannot stand the woman. She's a condescending loudmouth and a bully who talks out of her ass. Does he need the "fat, ugly" part to make his point? Calling her on her looks is just stupid. He looks like a discarded Muppet and while that is CONSTANTLY brought up, does it need to be or could we actually care about someone's thoughts rather than their looks? I don't want a pretty president, I want an effective president.

His shit with the KKK. C'mon, who in their right mind allows that to pass with anything other than some version of "fuck those guys?" Donald Trump. That's probably one group where you could say "fuck those guys" with little backlash.

I don't want polished, I want a good president and someone who isn't a pussy. He can and should be blunt without sounding like an "-ist" asshole or another bland politician.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jun 24, 2016)

Firing his campaign manager was the best decision that Trump has made this season.  "Let Trump be Trump" worked for the primaries, but his lack of filter is really hurting national appeal.  I think he has enough time before November to turn it around, do some fundraising, and make some substantitive issue statements.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 24, 2016)

I saw a political sign on a lawn this morning, and I may stop and ask wehre they got it. It says," Everyone for 2016 Sucks"



Ooh-Rah said:


> They are breaking house rules by streaming this via Periscope.  I am genuinely beginning to believe that camera phones and the internet are a catalyst to the end of the world.
> 
> *"This one time, at band camp..."
> 
> ...




How many of the folks pictured above seem to care about anything. It looks like play time in DC, and they're just sitting around on our dime doing nothing at all, and they are laughing and applauding each other. Above is the takeaway picture of our congress for the past eight years.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jun 24, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Hillary talks to her audiences like they're 2nd graders.
> 
> If you'd seen Trump's news conference from Scotland this morning, he made a great deal of sense. If there's contempt in Trump's speeches, it's for POTUS's agenda and HRC, his rival, not for his audience...


I'm not a fan of Hillary either. We have threads full of reasons why she should be in a cell. My Trump observation came from a comment about Mussolini in the WW2 in color documentary, on Netflix. I remember the narrator saying that Mussolini's grandstanding was one of the reasons why he was so popular (they played the same Mussolini footage). All this came from the mention of internment camps.

Based on his mannerisms and business practices, I just don't see him as anything more than a thug in a nice suit. I'm sorry if that seems harsh but, he just seems like an opportunistic coyote. Vice did a story about the migrant workers building the Trump estates in Dubai. The way a man treats his fellows is a good indicator of his character.





*There is a longer version, I couldn't find it.

As for Hillary, she scares the crap out of me. She is the physical embodiment of the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing.



Red Flag 1 said:


> I saw a political sign on a lawn this morning, and I may stop and ask where they got it. It says," Everyone for 2016 Sucks"






I think Ace Ventura sums up the feelings of a lot of people.


----------



## Brill (Jun 24, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> If by "the right conditions," you mean alcohol poisoning, with alcoholic hepatitis, and early onset Alzheimer's disease.  I wouldn't fuck that tuna-faced cunt if I had a 20' long rubber dong attached to a 350 short block to stick in that swamp donkey's crooked canyon.



Attention SS board members: if you do not like THIS post above, you are a communist.

No one on this board could get away with using "20' long rubber dong" in a sentence.

This supports Trumps claim that she used DOS as her personal hedge fund. When she was on the job, she worked for the People.

Clinton's State Dept. calendar missing scores of entries | Fox News


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 24, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> 80% of Trump's problem is delivery, not the message.



I think his problem is he has no message.


----------



## Brill (Jun 26, 2016)

George Will leaving the GOP and now they lay this shit on us? Trump is anti-Scandanavian?

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...ndinavian-americans-and-their-ancestral-lands

This sure seems like Clinton is anti-business to me. I'm confident that ALL of her big business backers did the EXACT same: exploit a situation for profit. If they didn't, they would be NGOs or non-profit organizations. Hell, even Clinton Foundation donors did the same when they donated in exchange for access.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 26, 2016)

lindy said:


> George Will leaving the GOP and now they lay this shit on us? Trump is anti-Scandanavian?
> 
> http://www.economist.com/news/unite...ndinavian-americans-and-their-ancestral-lands



Didn't really tie in well at the end of that article. Grasping to make his article somehow relevant.


----------



## Brill (Jun 26, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Didn't really tie in well at the end of that article. Grasping to make his article somehow relevant.



Exactly why I posted it!


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 26, 2016)

lindy said:


> Exactly why I posted it!



Most of his articles have been like that lately.


----------



## Dame (Jun 26, 2016)

lindy said:


> George Will leaving the GOP and now they lay this shit on us? Trump is anti-Scandanavian?
> 
> http://www.economist.com/news/unite...ndinavian-americans-and-their-ancestral-lands



I smell a @pardus election grab.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 26, 2016)

Dame said:


> I smell a @pardus election grab.



In an effort to follow our national election cycle and the brexit, we are no longer allowing immigrants.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 27, 2016)




----------



## BloodStripe (Jul 11, 2016)

In bashing Donald Trump, some say Ruth Bader Ginsburg just crossed a very important line

And this ladies and gentlemen (@pardus  falls under the lady part) is everything that is wrong with the way the SCOTUS is operating now. A sitting Justice should not be openly discussing politics. Yes, they are allowed to hold their own political views, but when a sitting Justice actively speaks out against a nominee, it crosses a major line.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 11, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> In bashing Donald Trump, some say Ruth Bader Ginsburg just crossed a very important line
> 
> And this ladies and gentlemen (@pardus  falls under the lady part) is everything that is wrong with the way the SCOTUS is operating now. A sitting Justice should not be openly discussing politics. Yes, they are allowed to hold their own political views, but when a sitting Justice actively speaks out against a nominee, it crosses a major line.


Yikes.  Gotta say I agree with @NavyBuyer.  I think RBG is a fantastic justice, but openly speaking out against a candidate who has the (albeit slim) chance of becoming the next Executive sets a very bad precedent.  It would tarnish any decision that she makes against a Trump administration case, and leave the door open for further doubt about the impartiality of the Supreme Court.  I hope that she takes the high road and retracts her comments soon.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 11, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Yikes.  Gotta say I agree with @NavyBuyer.  I think RBG is a fantastic justice, but openly speaking out against a candidate who has the (albeit slim) chance of becoming the next Executive sets a very bad precedent.  It would tarnish any decision that she makes against a Trump administration case, and leave the door open for further doubt about the impartiality of the Supreme Court.  I hope that she takes the high road and retracts her comments soon.



Hard Agree


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 11, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Yikes.  Gotta say I agree with @NavyBuyer.  I think RBG is a fantastic justice, but openly speaking out against a candidate who has the (albeit slim) chance of becoming the next Executive sets a very bad precedent.  It would tarnish any decision that she makes against a Trump administration case, and leave the door open for further doubt about the impartiality of the Supreme Court.  I hope that she takes the high road and retracts her comments soon.


Disagree, she needs to retire.
She crossed a line that can not be uncrossed and will have to recuse herself from every case if he gets elected.
Major fuck up on her part.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 11, 2016)

She needs to resign so President Trump can load in another conservative.


----------



## AWP (Jul 11, 2016)

Imagine a case goes before the court to decide the President, shades of 2000.

She just gave Trump a win. A 4-4 Court drops to 4-3 with her out of the picture...unless the FBI Director has anything to say about it....


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 11, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Imagine a case goes before the court to decide the President, shades of 2000.
> 
> She just gave Trump a win. A 4-4 Court drops to 4-3 with her out of the picture...unless the FBI Director has anything to say about it....


So they have to bump off another Conservative Justice?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 11, 2016)

"like" because this made me laugh out loud!



Freefalling said:


> unless the FBI Director has anything to say about it....


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 12, 2016)

Some opposing viewpoints on the RBG Trump comments, courtesy of NYTimes: Can a Supreme Court Justice Denounce a Candidate? - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com

In other news, it looks like Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana is likely to be tapped as Trump's running mate:
Pence’s unflappability could help Trump stay cool
Salon’s two cents: Why Gov. Mike Pence will be tapped as VP by Donald Trump

Seems like a good choice.  Pence is a fairly popular governor who hits all of the right conservative wickets.  Based one what I've seen of his policy positions, he may not be hard-right but he leans right basically 100% of the time.  He could practically be a GOP poster boy, which is what Trump may not to bring establishment conservatives into the fold.


----------



## Locksteady (Jul 13, 2016)

The top legal representative of the US Department of Justice is refusing to confirm that lying under oath or sharing classified information with uncleared individuals is illegal.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 13, 2016)

Justice Ginsburg is back at it. Politics aside, what the hell is she doing ?  Surely she knows how inappropriate this is. 

Trump says he wants Ginsburg off SCOTUS after she calls him a 'faker'


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 13, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Justice Ginsburg is back at it. Politics aside, what the hell is she doing ?  Surely she knows how inappropriate this is.
> 
> Trump says he wants Ginsburg off SCOTUS after she calls him a 'faker'



Maybe she is planning a retirement.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 13, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Maybe she is planning a retirement.


She should go visit a ranch in West Texas.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 13, 2016)

Interesting potential VP pick for Clinton, but I see where she is going with it....

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/u...idis-hillary-clinton-vice-president.html?_r=0


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 13, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> She should go visit a ranch in West Texas.



Dang.


----------



## AWP (Jul 13, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> She should go visit a ranch in West Texas.



Nicely done.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 14, 2016)

Here’s how unprecedented Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s anti-Trump comments were


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 14, 2016)

So, Gov. Mike Pence it is for Trump......


----------



## AWP (Jul 14, 2016)

Ima start killing puppies if y'all don't post links.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 14, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Ima start killing puppies if y'all don't post links.



Fair enough.  But for my own edification, what breed of puppies??

http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/07/14/report-pence-trumps-vp-pick/87075866/

BREAKING: TRUMP'S PICK FOR VICE PRESIDENT LEAKED | RedState

Sources: Signs point to Mike Pence as Trump's VP pick - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## AWP (Jul 14, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Fair enough.  But for my own edification, what breed of puppies??
> 
> http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2016/07/14/report-pence-trumps-vp-pick/87075866/
> 
> ...



Pugs. Ugly-ass dogs.


----------



## 104TN (Jul 14, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> So, Gov. Mike Pence it is for Trump......


Who?


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 14, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Pugs. Ugly-ass dogs.



I could be down with that.  I don't like small dogs.  Especially ones that sound like they have emphysema.



rick said:


> Who?



He is a very conservative governor in Indiana; has said some bone-headed things, has favored some controversial legislation, but is generally well-liked.  He has conservative bona fides, especially with the economy and security.  His immigration policies are disliked by the left and the right.  He is an evangelical, but doesn't push it in people's faces.  He is a smart choice, especially given the talk of Christy and Gingrich.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 14, 2016)

NPR reported this morning that Jeff Sessions of Alabama would be Trump's VP and intimated that he has a racist past. And they also defended Ginsberg (The Diane Rehms Show) and compared Trump to Hitler. :wall: Again. :wall::wall: _Really??? 
_
What's next? Trump kills puppies?

As far as RBG goes, the damage is already done. She's retracted her statements but any denunciation of a candidate during a presidential election is a tacit endorsement of that candidate's opponent. She might as well have said, "_VOTE FOR HILLARY!"

_


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 14, 2016)

The left REALLY likes comparing Trump to Hitler...

Maddow researches Hitler’s past to prepare for a possible Trump win


----------



## Dienekes (Jul 14, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Here’s how unprecedented Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s anti-Trump comments were



I understand the point of the article and agree with it's premise that other Justices have gotten somewhat political in the past, but comparing the quotes and situations of the other Justices with Ginsburg's, it seems that Ginsburg's comments are much more political and rhetorical.

Both quotes have very little political connotation from my view at least.
For example: 
Justice Stevens on Court appointment: "I personally regard him as a very well-qualified candidate and one who will be a very welcome addition to the court. There are many, many reasons that lead me to that conclusion." 
This quote seems like he very carefully chose his words. All he said was the guy is qualified, and the Court would welcome any qualified candidate. Arguably less political because the guy he was talking about (Reagan appointee and very conservative) was on the far end of the spectrum from himself (Center-Left).

Justice Ginsburg on Court appointment: "I think he is about as well qualified as any nominee to this court,” she said. “Super bright and very nice, very easy to deal with. And super prepared. He would be a great colleague." 
She said he's qualified, but then goes on to talk about the person. "Oh, he's really nice and easy to deal with." Leads one to believe that a working group could be made as opposed to critical self-evaluation of the problem at hand, and much more personal about the candidate than Justice Stevens. Far Left talking about an Obama Appointee who is Center-Left from what I've gathered. Essentially he's someone in her own party as opposed to Justice Stevens' comments about someone from another party.

Those quotes have very little political rhetoric to me at least, but a large difference in the choice of words. Also, the other examples they give of Ginsburg in the bottom seem much more inflammatory talking about issues than the other Justices the quote. Could just be poor choice of careful wording but probably isn't.


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 14, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> The left REALLY likes comparing Trump to Hitler...
> 
> Maddow researches Hitler’s past to prepare for a possible Trump win



How do people keep missing the connection between fascism and socialism?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 14, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> How do people keep missing the connection between fascism and socialism?



I thought President Obama already made us socialist?


----------



## racing_kitty (Jul 14, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I thought President Obama already made us socialist?



Newsweek was absolutely giddy with that thought. See where that landed them, don't we?


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jul 14, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> The left REALLY likes comparing Trump to Hitler...
> 
> Maddow researches Hitler’s past to prepare for a possible Trump win


Eh...those accusations don't really fit Trump. Hillary is a ringer for Stalin though, something about the purges and mysterious deaths surrounding her associates are what do it for me.


----------



## Brill (Jul 14, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Pugs. Ugly-ass dogs.



Lynx?


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 15, 2016)

It's official: Mike Pence is Trump's running mate Donald Trump selects Mike Pence as VP - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## Brill (Jul 15, 2016)

What would Hillary do about coup in Turkey?

News about coup in turkey on Twitter


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 15, 2016)

Go for a swim in her money like Scrooge McDuck?


----------



## nobodythank you (Jul 15, 2016)

Check her email?


----------



## Brill (Jul 15, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Check her email?



Call Putin for network restoration.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jul 15, 2016)

Have sys admin staffer fall down an elevator and into a hail of gunfire?


----------



## Brill (Jul 16, 2016)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Have sys admin staffer fall down an elevator and into a hail of gunfire?



And claim it as suicide!


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jul 16, 2016)

lindy said:


> And claim it as suicide!


All while saying, "I am transparent. I am like the window. I am see-through. I'm like Saran Wrap."


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 17, 2016)

So for all you Libertarians supporting Gary Johnson - These are not the opinions I would be looking for if I was going to seek to an alternative to Trump.
Cripes all mighty, is he interviewing for  a cabinet position in the new Clinton administration!?!


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 17, 2016)

This was a video where Johnson clarifies his stance on calling Trump a pussy

Gary Johnson Called Donald Trump A Pussy Again


----------



## DasBoot (Jul 18, 2016)

We need better Libertarian candidates. The ideas they espouse make them a solid "centrist" party as parts of their platform appeal to people on both sides of the isle. I'm left leaning but would be on board with a strong LP. With that sad, I offer you the type of no-bullshit, whiskey drinking, freedom loving, woodworking, carnivore we need to lead the charge- I present to you, Swanson 2016.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 18, 2016)

Jesus.  They literally had to prop ol' Bob Dole up.

I would give about anything to have Melania curse me out in her native tongue -


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 19, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Jesus.  They literally had to prop ol' Bob Dole up.
> 
> I would give about anything to have Melania curse me out in her native tongue -



I wonder if she could come up with an original thought.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 19, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I wonder if she could come up with an original thought.



If you are referring to her speech being compared to Michelle Obama's, I only kinda-sorta agree.  It is not unrealistic that she (and her writers) studied prior First Lady speeches and then highlighted ideas that resonated.   In the end, there are only so many ways to articulate those ideas without sounding similar.  I'm no where near being on "Team Trump" but I do think too much is being made of this.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 19, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> If you are referring to her speech being compared to Michelle Obama's, I only kinda-sorta agree.  It is not unrealistic that she (and her writers) studied prior First Lady speeches and then highlighted ideas that resonated.   In the end, there are only so many ways to articulate those ideas without sounding similar.  I'm no where near being on "Team Trump" but I do think too much is being made of this.
> 
> View attachment 16120



I just think it is funny.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 19, 2016)

Yep - it is funny.  With two additional observations -

- There are people whose job it was to look for similarities in the speech 
- That her speech writers did not think there would people whose job it was to look for similarities in the speech


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 19, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Yep - it is funny.  With two additional observations -
> 
> - There are people whose job it was to look for similarities in the speech
> - That her speech writers did not think there would people whose job it was to look for similarities in the speech



I mean if I turned that in in a speech class I would have failed for plagiarism.


----------



## Queeg (Jul 19, 2016)

People high up seem to getting away with lots of stuff these days...ITSEC violations come to mind.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 19, 2016)

If this is what we're complaining about...we need new lives and more gym time.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 19, 2016)

She can plagiarize me anytime.


----------



## BuckysBadger24 (Jul 19, 2016)

It was good humor.  I cared about what she had to say about as much as I cared what Michelle had to say.  Which is to say, very little.  Once they're in the White House, I'll give it a little more attention.


----------



## AWP (Jul 19, 2016)

I'll bet the people complaining of plagiarism are the same ones who overlook that pesky email server.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 19, 2016)

It's not good optics, sure, but then again Melania isn't running for office.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 19, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I'll bet the people complaining of plagiarism are the same ones who overlook that pesky email server.



I mean, are we not allowed to complain about anything anyone does because "emails and Benghazi" 

That speech was clown shoes. The walkout with smoke, and Queen? Bigger clown shoes. This isn't the WWE this is the Presidency of the United States.


----------



## AWP (Jul 19, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I mean, are we not allowed to complain about anything anyone does because "emails and Benghazi"
> 
> That speech was clown shoes. The walkout with smoke, and Queen? Bigger clown shoes. This isn't the WWE this is the Presidency of the United States.



We're certainly allowed to complain and I probably should clarify my point. The people screaming the loudest and making the most noise are probably blowing off the email issue. A secondary subset are those looking for any reason to throw shade on Trump. My issues with the speech based on the transcripts:
1. No one thought this would go unnoticed? Assuming someone took the time to steal from the 2008 speech?
2. The only passages I saw were pretty minor, hence my comment about those making the most noise.
3. None of us had a book report, read a passage, and never copied it? I know I've done it more than I can count, not because I meant to or I'm lazy, but it sticks in your head or you have a hard time making the same point. Try it with a history or programming class.

I expect a higher standard from every candidate and think this should have been caught, but I also think this is minor. Even if intentional it is trivial in the grand scheme of things if for no other reason than the scope of the material.

I still hate both candidates but this is being blown out of proportion. We also passed the WWE point months ago. This election is just thumbing its nose at voters.


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 19, 2016)

Interesting perspective

Michelle Obama Copied Alinsky in Speech Melania Trump Plagiarized


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 19, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> We're certainly allowed to complain and I probably should clarify my point. The people screaming the loudest and making the most noise are probably blowing off the email issue. A secondary subset are those looking for any reason to throw shade on Trump. My issues with the speech based on the transcripts:
> 1. No one thought this would go unnoticed? Assuming someone took the time to steal from the 2008 speech?
> 2. The only passages I saw were pretty minor, hence my comment about those making the most noise.
> 3. None of us had a book report, read a passage, and never copied it? I know I've done it more than I can count, not because I meant to or I'm lazy, but it sticks in your head or you have a hard time making the same point. Try it with a history or programming class.
> ...



Yeah Trump isn't the candidate America needs, he is the candidate America deserves.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 19, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> That speech was clown shoes. The walkout with smoke, and Queen? Bigger clown shoes. This isn't the WWE this is the Presidency of the United States.



That was my original reaction but the more I think about it, the more I feel that is what you get with Trump.  It's a convention, and he's trying to have some fun with it...especially important since a good number of folks in attendance want nothing to do with him.  Again he bucked tradition, since he never should have even been seen last night, much less heard.  It is difficult to know what to think of any of this, and in the spirit of full disclosure, if Hillary tried the same type of entrance I'd roll my eyes so hard I'd likely blind myself.


----------



## BuckysBadger24 (Jul 19, 2016)

Well Obama has the monopoly on turning the DNC into a Coachella festival.  I suppose the RNC has to catch up somehow.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 19, 2016)

After seeing this video, I have to think that Melania's speech was very carefully orchestrated


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 19, 2016)




----------



## Dienekes (Jul 19, 2016)

Though I've personally never read it, a coworker of mine said that it is the same/similar strategy that Trump lays out in his book the Art of the Deal.  Trump knew that it would be noticed and is again leveraging the media's need to make a story out of every minor thing to get free publicity. I would be willing to bet all the meager amount of money that I have that Mrs. Trump did not write her speech and that this was coordinated. I would also be willing to bet that same amount that Trump does not take all that much advice from his wife either way so she is insignificant regardless. I could really care less what any (potential) First Lady has to say so long as 1. she does it with class and 2. makes the US look good/doesn't embarrass the US. I would even argue for the reduction of the importance of the First Lady as an entity. Having her own personal staff from taxpayer money? I could see an assistant and a few advisors to keep her from screwing up, but a full blown staff? No need at all.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 20, 2016)

Oh...how lovely: If Trump wins, a coup isn't impossible here in the U.S.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 20, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Oh...how lovely: If Trump wins, a coup isn't impossible here in the U.S.



That article might hold more for me if the author's personal bio did not read like a checklist of things that would make you question his bias and agenda in regards to Trump.  

About - James Kirchick


----------



## AWP (Jul 20, 2016)

Wouldn't an anti-Trump coup be the most horrific and ironic act in American history? That's like a Dairy Queen Blizzard of history, politics, and social issues.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 20, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> That article might hold more for me if the author's personal bio did not read like a checklist of things that would make you question his bias and agenda in regards to Trump.


For the fiftieth time, *opinion pieces and editorials are supposed to be biased*.  They are not meant to be a completely objective representation of facts and research.  They do, however, use facts and research in the furtherance of a stated opinion.  Furthermore, some facts may be weighted heavier than others when the author is evaluating their opinion - the very definition of "bias".  Therefore, accusing an editorial writer of "bias" is just pointless and asinine.

Okay, back to your regularly scheduled programming.


----------



## Blizzard (Jul 20, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> That article might hold more for me if the author's personal bio did not read like a checklist of things that would make you question his bias and agenda in regards to Trump.
> 
> About - James Kirchick


It would hold more for me if he just didn't come across as such a douche.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 20, 2016)

@Deathy McDeath -

Disagree because that type of headline is irresponsible, - and unlike the NY Post, the LA Times is not supposed to be a tabloid newspaper.  To add, the author does not work for the Times, but they publish his writing.  I just expect better from a Newspaper of that size.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 20, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> @Deathy McDeath -
> 
> Disagree because that type of headline is irresponsible, - and unlike the NY Post, the LA Times is not supposed to be a tabloid newspaper.  To add, the author does not work for the Times, but they publish his writing.  I just expect better from a Newspaper of that size.



Editorial bro. That is what you get. They publish all kinds of shit that represents a wide spectrum of beliefs and issues.


----------



## AWP (Jul 20, 2016)

The convention is too big of a story to ignore. To that end I sold 4 low mileage goats to a friendly mullah and paid for @pardus to report from Cleveland as events unfold.







Godfuckingdammnitsomuch, Pardus....


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 20, 2016)

Read this here "Of course, the portrait of an ambitious, church-avoidant, truth-indifferent, judgment-addled, entitled politician who — shall we say — has an expansive definition of traditional marriage sounds a lot like the _other_ candidate in the race. (Trump can claim innocence to the charge of a long career in government.) Before he ran for president, _Trump_ may have even accepted the critique."


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 20, 2016)

The past number of months have been very interesting for me politically - I have joked a few times that the board is turning me into a liberal, but in reality it (specifically @TLDR20 and @Deathy McDeath ) have helped me see the more human side of issues when it comes to a number of the hot topics of today.  That said, I find I cannot actively support the Democrat side any more than I can the Republican - I'd expect Hillary and her group to call up the Hollywood elite and their ilk, but to bring up as speakers, the mothers of  Trayvon Martin and Eric Garner, whose deaths were controversial to say the least, is a slap in the face to the Police Departments who were affected by these deaths.  Why not instead bring up and honor the widows of the officers slain over the past months (weeks?).

I'll be so glad when this whole comedy is over and the overt pandering is no longer a televised  daily spectacle.

Trayvon Martin's mother and Bill Clinton headline Democratic convention

And Ted Cruz...you are just as bad.

Republican convention boos Cruz as he refuses to endorse Donald Trump


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 20, 2016)

Why was he given the opportunity to speak?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 21, 2016)

For entertainment purposes only, please let this be true! 

Is Trump Speechwriter Meredith McIver A Real Person?

The Fascinating Theory That Melania Trump's Speechwriter Is Completely Made Up


----------



## Gunz (Jul 21, 2016)

A guy from the "Revolutionary Communist Party"  tried to burn an American flag outside the convention arena and set himself on fire.  Way to go, Komrad


----------



## 104TN (Jul 21, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> And Ted Cruz...you are just as bad.
> 
> Republican convention boos Cruz as he refuses to endorse Donald Trump


May be reading your post wrong. Do you think Cruz should have endorsed Trump?


----------



## AWP (Jul 21, 2016)

rick said:


> May be reading your post wrong. Do you think Cruz should have endorsed Trump?



I don't like Trump or Cruz, but Cruz should have put his head down and made a neutral speech about the GOP's platform and not used it as his personal platform. The Republicans are trying to give this thing to Clinton, like they don't have enough problems.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 21, 2016)

rick said:


> May be reading your post wrong. Do you think Cruz should have endorsed Trump?


Yes.


----------



## 104TN (Jul 21, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I don't like Trump or Cruz, but Cruz should have put his head down and made a neutral speech about the GOP's platform and not used it as his personal platform. The Republicans are trying to give this thing to Clinton, like they don't have enough problems.





Ooh-Rah said:


> Yes.


Ehh. Trump did talk sh** about Cruz's wife. 
Someone talks about your wife you're obligated to smash them in the mouth, not endorse them as your party's candidate for President.


----------



## AWP (Jul 21, 2016)

rick said:


> Ehh. Trump did talk sh** about Cruz's wife.
> Someone talks about your wife you're obligated to smash them in the mouth, not endorse them as your party's candidate for President.



I don't think he should have endorsed him, but I see your point.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jul 21, 2016)

rick said:


> Ehh. Trump did talk sh** about Cruz's wife.
> Someone talks about your wife you're obligated to smash them in the mouth, not endorse them as your party's candidate for President.


No offense, but C'mon, are you 12? You're gonna assault someone for saying something bad about your spouse? Did it put your spouse in any danger of death or great bodily harm? I would like to think we are a bit smarter than that. 

Sorry, I am not gonna ruin my or my family's lives for some antiquated sense of masculinity unless there is a direct threat. They both traded barbs and knew the field they were in. Families should have been left out, but they were not and no one got harmed.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 21, 2016)

rick said:


> Ehh. Trump did talk sh** about Cruz's wife.
> Someone talks about your wife you're obligated to smash them in the mouth, not endorse them as your party's candidate for President.



Cruz was being a douche.  Cruz claimed it was personal vis-a-vis the attacks in his family, but accepted the invitation and gave a tepid speech and didn't endorse Trump.  How is _that_ not personal?  He can't have it both ways.

The convention is the big pre-general (election) pep rally, everyone gets on the same sheet of music.  If Cruz really thought it was personal and knew he wasn't going to endorse Trump, he never should have accepted the invitation.


----------



## 104TN (Jul 21, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> No offense, but C'mon, are you 12? You're gonna assault someone for saying something bad about your spouse? Did it put your spouse in any danger of death or great bodily harm? I would like to think we are a bit smarter than that.
> 
> Sorry, I am not gonna ruin my or my family's lives for some antiquated sense of masculinity unless there is a direct threat. They both traded barbs and knew the field they were in. Families should have been left out, but they were not and no one got harmed.


There's always the one guy on the internet that takes everything literal. 

To simplify my position, Trump crossed a line that went beyond a personal attack on Cruz and I don't think he can be faulted for giving Trump the Heisman because of it. 

From the Chicago Tribute, "Cruz said. 'I'm not going to get into criticizing or attacking Donald Trump, but I'll give you this response: I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father.'"

While I'm not a Cruz fan, that's a fair sentiment and I think if more politicians from both parties were willing to stand behind their convictions like this we'd be in a much better position as a country.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jul 21, 2016)

rick said:


> There's always the one guy on the internet that takes everything literal.


Nice, how about we learn how to properly convey thoughts and arguments? 

On topic, Cruz is behaving like a spoiled child because he did not get his way. Even though he pledged to support the nominee, if he did not want to then he should not have spoken. I don't fault him for being upset about the personal attacks. However, he is a slimeball and showed his colors. It had nothing to do with convictions. Cruz is the epitome of what is wrong with the Republican party.


----------



## AWP (Jul 21, 2016)

Why don't you two slow your roll a bit. Continue to disagree and debate, but take some of the invective out of your future posts.

ETA: I genuinely like both of you, but take it down a notch.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 21, 2016)

rick said:


> From the Chicago Tribute, "Cruz said. 'I'm not going to get into criticizing or attacking Donald Trump, but I'll give you this response: I am not in the habit of supporting people who attack my wife and attack my father.'"
> 
> While I'm not a Cruz fan, that's a fair sentiment and I think if more politicians from both parties were willing to stand behind their convictions like this we'd be in a much better position as a country.



As for the quote from the Trib, his response with his speech was a type of attack, just veiled in a different way.  When you give a speech at a convention, you do it for one reason, and that is to support/endorse the candidate.  If he really wanted to rise above it, when he received the invite, he should have just said, "no, thanks."

As for your assessment, I completely concur.


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 21, 2016)

I hereby disavow all connections to Ted Cruz, he is no longer the future Canuckistani Emperor.


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 21, 2016)

Cruz should try his luck in Canada.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 21, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> The convention is the big pre-general (election) pep rally, everyone gets on the same sheet of music. If Cruz really thought it was personal and knew he wasn't going to endorse Trump, he never should have accepted the invitation.



Agree - and there should have been no doubt that Cruz would do this, I was surprised he got the invite in the first place. To add - if the more established names had participated, (Bush and Romney for starters)  I don't think Cruz would have even been seen, much less heard.


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 21, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Cruz should try his luck in Canada.



Canada is overwhelmed with liberal, anti-religion, hug it out, SJW's and numbers are only increasing.  The Conservatives lost the last election cause people thought Stephen Harper was to far right.  They'd consider Cruz Hitler reincarnated.   lol


----------



## Poccington (Jul 21, 2016)

I would've thought the fact that Donald Trump is the Republican presidential candidate is the epitome of what's wrong with the Republican Party?


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 21, 2016)

Poccington said:


> I would've thought the fact that Donald Trump is the Republican presidential candidate is the epitome of what's wrong with the Republican Party?



I would not say so much as "the epitome" but rather one of the last few nails on the old GOP coffin.  The Republican Party has been going south (or, more accurately, moving center/center-left) for years.


----------



## Blizzard (Jul 21, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Agree - and there should have been no doubt that Cruz would do this, I was surprised he got the invite in the first place. To add - if the more established names had participated, (Bush and Romney for starters)  I don't think Cruz would have even been seen, much less heard.


Regardless of how I feel about Trump, Cruz committed political seppuku last night.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jul 21, 2016)

Poccington said:


> I would've thought the fact that Donald Trump is the Republican presidential candidate is the epitome of what's wrong with the Republican Party?


Disagree because I don't believe it is Trump that is the problem with the Republicans. Unless I am misreading your statement, which is possible. 

I stated Cruz as the epitome because of his previous actions, religious zealotry, and his strong rhetoric. He in effect, has alienated those of us that are somewhere in the middle but lean conservative. Not all conservatives believe in god, think homos are an abomination, believe everyone that is poor is lazy, etc.... I know I am painting with a broad brush, but the party has turned from its core values and roots IMHO.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 21, 2016)

GOP has no one to blame but themselves.  The party had 8 years to identify a good candidate to go up against HC....and failed.


----------



## AWP (Jul 21, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> GOP has no one to blame but themselves.  The party had 8 years to identify a good candidate to go up against HC....and failed.



I've screamed this for years. It cracks me up that we see it and the GOP is clueless.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jul 21, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Oh...how lovely: If Trump wins, a coup isn't impossible here in the U.S.


I snickered when I read this. What are they going to do, storm the library? I'd give them a 33.333% (repeating of course) chance of success, that's with the librarians on holiday. 



Deathy McDeath said:


> For the fiftieth time, *opinion pieces and editorials are supposed to be biased*.  They are not meant to be a completely objective representation of facts and research.  They do, however, use facts and research in the furtherance of a stated opinion.  Furthermore, some facts may be weighted heavier than others when the author is evaluating their opinion - the very definition of "bias".  Therefore, accusing an editorial writer of "bias" is just pointless and asinine.
> 
> Okay, back to your regularly scheduled programming.


There has to be a better selection process, considering that people take these biased articles as fact. To me this reeks of yellow journalism, repacked with the ozone smell and shiny goodness of the internet.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 21, 2016)

Ivanka is a very good speaker.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 21, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Disagree because I don't believe it is Trump that is the problem with the Republicans. Unless I am misreading your statement, which is possible.
> 
> I stated Cruz as the epitome because of his previous actions, religious zealotry, and his strong rhetoric. He in effect, has alienated those of us that are somewhere in the middle but lean conservative. Not all conservatives believe in god, think homos are an abomination, believe everyone that is poor is lazy, etc.... I know I am painting with a broad brush, but the party has turned from its core values and roots IMHO.



Yeah, I still think Cruz is worse than Trump.

I think the candidates that couldn't beat President Obama, could beat Clinton, Rimney and McCain could both beat Hillary I think.

I don't think Trump can.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 21, 2016)

Random observation - will you hear the chant of "USA...USA...USA" or "Put America first" at the Democrat convention?  If not, I'm not interested.



TLDR20 said:


> I think the candidates that couldn't beat President Obama, could beat Clinton, Rimney and McCain could both beat Hillary I think.
> 
> I don't think Trump can.



As of today...and I hold the right to amend after I see a "real" debate between Trump and Hillary, but as of today I see Trump in a landslide.  The Bernie folks are still bitter and either won't vote, or will write Bernie in.  And for Trump, rednecks who have not voted since Reagan, will come down from the mountains and vote for Trump.  While their motives may not be pure, they will vote.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 21, 2016)

Saw Ivana's speech....she is so hot!!


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 21, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Random observation - will you hear the chant of "USA...USA...USA" or "Put America first" at the Democrat convention?  If not, I'm not interested.



It isn't like Democrats hate America. I don't partake in shouts of "USA", as my privilege often prevents me from doing so without too much white guilt.  But I fucking love America. I would bleed on the flag to keep the stripes red.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 21, 2016)

The POTUS plagiarized too....Facebook


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 21, 2016)

Interesting strategy - he has mentioned Bernie in a positive light two or three times now.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 22, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> The POTUS plagiarized too....Facebook


I've reposted this link so many times in the past few days that it's practically worn out my Ctrl and V keys
The Melania Trump Plagiarism Case Is Nothing Like Obama and Patrick's

BLUF: Deval Patrick was an aide to Obama, and suggested that he use those words in a speech.  That's, like, the opposite of plagiarism.  Also, it took less than two seconds to find.  WHAT ARE YOU DOING EL TEE?!


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 22, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I've reposted this link so many times in the past few days that it's practically worn out my Ctrl and V keys
> The Melania Trump Plagiarism Case Is Nothing Like Obama and Patrick's
> 
> BLUF: Deval Patrick was an aide to Obama, and suggested that he use those words in a speech.  That's, like, the opposite of plagiarism.  Also, it took less than two seconds to find.  WHAT ARE YOU DOING EL TEE?!


Deadlifting and Rugby...while attempting to train for a sprint-tri. I'm tired.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jul 22, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I don't partake in shouts of "USA", as my privilege often prevents me from doing so without too much white guilt.










Hard agree on Cruz. We call him the grand mullah at our house. Although I don't think any of the other candidates you mentioned would have a shot at Clinton. This is certainly going to be an election for the ages.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 22, 2016)

After watching Trump's speech at the RNC tonight, my first thought was "The fact-checkers are going to have a field day with this."
Surprisingly, Vox managed to put out a pretty comprehensive list of fact checks a little under an hour after the speech concluded.  Now, I've watched a lot of Trump speeches, and in the past he's had an eye-rollingly tenuous relationship with the truth.  He loved to rely on bombastic, misleading, and outright made-up rhetoric when speaking off the cuff.  But tonight when he spoke from the 'prompter, he actually kinda sorta sounded like a presidential candidate!  I don't mean that disrespectfully; part of his charm is high rough-around-the-edges style, but tonight he not only gave a coherent speech with actual policy positions, quite a few of his statements were actually true!
Every claim in Donald Trump's convention speech, fact-checked

Though I haven't counted them, the number of statements rated "True" and "Mostly true" seems to be higher than his Politifact average as of late.  So kudos to D. Trump and his speechwriters!  You've earned some kudos from this liberal today!


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 22, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Disagree because I don't believe it is Trump that is the problem with the Republicans. Unless I am misreading your statement, which is possible.
> 
> I stated Cruz as the epitome because of his previous actions, religious zealotry, and his strong rhetoric. He in effect, has alienated those of us that are somewhere in the middle but lean conservative. Not all conservatives believe in god, think homos are an abomination, believe everyone that is poor is lazy, etc.... I know I am painting with a broad brush, but the party has turned from its core values and roots IMHO.



The whole far-right religious demagoguery started during the Reagan era, the whole Moral Majority thing.  Before Reagan the "social" platform just wasn't that big a deal for the GOP.  Reagan talked the talk--I loved Reagan--but the GOP took a strong turn during his eight years.  And since then, the GOP likes to talk up cutting taxes and limited government and limited spending, but they aren't really _that_ far off from the Democrats in this area. 

So you are right, but as far as the widening gap in differences between the "old" GOP and what Trump, Cruz, et al, have now, that door has been slowly closing for many, many years.



Devildoc said:


> The whole far-right religious demagoguery started during the Reagan era, the whole Moral Majority thing.  Before Reagan the "social" platform just wasn't that big a deal for the GOP.  Reagan talked the talk--I loved Reagan--but the GOP took a strong turn during his eight years.  And since then, the GOP likes to talk up cutting taxes and limited government and limited spending, but they aren't really _that_ far off from the Democrats in this area.
> 
> Cruz and the "real" conservatives are just a different spin of what the Tea party movement tried to become, and unfortunately the foundational conservative values are being marginalized.
> 
> So you are right, but as far as the widening gap in differences between the "old" GOP and what Trump, Cruz, et al, have now, that door has been slowly closing for many, many years.


----------



## CQB (Jul 22, 2016)

Fact checkers have been at work here too & the results where underwhelming. The speech here has been described as dark and threatening which is silly, it wasn't that bad & the analysts IMO may think that the majority of readers didn't watch it live like I did. It was big on foreign policy, not dark and scary, it ticked boxes. One mention of health care...be able to choose your own doctor, awesome.  There is also an outside theory that should Trump in fact win, he will quit being POTUS as it is difficult and not a "snap your fingers" type of position to get things done. As such he won't go the distance as he'll become frustrated. He has confounded every political wonk and analyst so far and may well do again.
In a ten horse race all entrants are 9/1, this is a two horse race so it's even money for both.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 22, 2016)

HRC better keep Slick Willie away from Melania and Ivanka... His libido could fuck up the whole shitshow.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 22, 2016)

Tim Kaine is Hilary's VP pick...guess I need to go dig up some info on the man.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/23/us/politics/tim-kaine-hillary-clinton-vice-president.html?_r=0


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 22, 2016)

He was governor for half the time I attended the Funny Farm...thought he was more of a conservative Democrat...but he can go jump off a bridge now.


----------



## Etype (Jul 22, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> He was governor for half the time I attended the Funny Farm...thought he was more of a conservative Democrat...but he can go jump off a bridge now.


You were in a mental institution?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 22, 2016)

VMI...


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jul 22, 2016)

Really LT? :-/


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 23, 2016)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Really LT? :-/


Hey man, everyone sells their soul to someone when they're in Politics.  He just chose to sell his to the Devil.  Ask Robert Johnson about how that went.  Now, in all seriousness Governor Kaine just went into my not ever book.  So being figurative...the bridge he jumps off is over water and he'll be able to swim to shore.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jul 23, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Hey man, everyone sells their soul to someone when they're in Politics.  He just chose to sell his to the Devil.  Ask Robert Johnson about how that went.  Now, in all seriousness Governor Kaine just went into my not ever book.  So being figurative...the bridge he jumps off is over water and he'll be able to swim to shore.


Sorry, I messed up. Wasn't talking about the Governor. Heck, I think that politicians are scum suckers. Was just trying to communicate that sometimes, you set yourself up for jokes. Wasn't sure if you caught it. :-"

Edit: Hijack over


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 23, 2016)

So Hillary a middle of the road Democrat chooses an even more moderate running mate, and people are upset? Surprising to me.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 23, 2016)

It only gets deeper, and yet it matters not: Wikileaks Revelation: DNC Had Hillary Moles Inside Bernie Campaign


----------



## Poccington (Jul 24, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Disagree because I don't believe it is Trump that is the problem with the Republicans. Unless I am misreading your statement, which is possible.
> 
> I stated Cruz as the epitome because of his previous actions, religious zealotry, and his strong rhetoric. He in effect, has alienated those of us that are somewhere in the middle but lean conservative. Not all conservatives believe in god, think homos are an abomination, believe everyone that is poor is lazy, etc.... I know I am painting with a broad brush, but the party has turned from its core values and roots IMHO.



@Kraut783 and @Freefalling summed it up better than I could.

I just think it's insane that the GOP has let this situation develop to the point where Donald Trump has become their presidential candidate. It's not like they didn't know an election was coming.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 24, 2016)

Meanwhile, at the RNC...

LEO to flag burner:  "You're on fire, stupid!"  And yes, there is video.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 24, 2016)

So a friend of mine spent some time this weekend and came up with his greatest hits so far of the new data dump on the DNC and Clinton from Wikileaks:

Some of the best leaks so far.

DNC member killing horses for insurance money.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/578

DNC making fun of black womans name.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/17942

DNC telling each other, "I love you too. no homo."
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/425

DNC requesting a pull an MSNBC commentary segment.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6107

DNC controlling the narrative with time released stories.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12450

DNC conspiring to create false Trump information and release with Reuters.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7102

DNC Hillary supporters infiltrated Sanders campaign.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4776

DNC members going to complain to Morning Joe producers about his mentioning of a "rigged system."
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8806

DNC discussing their relationship with NBC/MSNBC/CNN and how to get better treatment.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13762

Super PAC paying young voters to push back online Sanders supporters. Paid shills.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351

DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz having an off the record meeting in MSNBC President Phil Griffin's office.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8867

DNC being messed with by the Washington Examiner.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/5304

DNC discussing Hillary's policies as unfeasible.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/519

$200k for a private dinner with Hillary.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/17287

Offering to send interns out to fake a protest against the RNC.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13366

Faking outrage and pasting in a video later.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7102

A mole working inside of the Sanders campaign.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7793

Bringing up Sanders religion to scare the southern voters.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/11508

Possible money laundering by moving money back and forth to bypass legal limits.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/6230

Politico writer sending his stories to the DNC before he sends them to his editor.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808

DNC feeding CNN the questions they want to be asked in interviews.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4077

Creating a fake job ad for a Trump business to paint him as a sexist.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/12803

Hillary funding 2 million dollars in a cooridanted campaign in battleground states to win back the Senate.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7784

DNC is upset that their "allies" didn't send in protestors so they sent out interns.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13366

"Clinton Foundation quid-pro-quo worries are lingering, will be exploited in general."
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351

$50,000 - Lawrence Benenson.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/14700

Daily Fundraising Report for the DNC.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2875

Content & Social Strategy Discussion.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7512

Re: BuzzFeed and DNC connection.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10933

Draft linking news articles about trump to use as negative press.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/7586

Fwd: State Dinner Countdown.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/1901

Some chick is angry she hasn't been given more stuff from the Obama administration...might be interesting to follow up.

Re: State Dinner Countdown.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/2946

Tim O'Brien: Trump's Fixation on Inflating his Net Worth is a Cause for Concern.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/4496

RE: May Fundraising Numbers.
WikiLeaks - Search the DNC email database
WikiLeaks - Search the DNC email database

Hillary for America Raised $26.4 Million in April, Began May with More than $30 Million Cash on Hand.
WikiLeaks - Search the DNC email database

Re: For approval: Trump supporter graphics. https://www.wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/788

Press talking points, states Hillary is their candidate, dated May 5, 2016. More of a smoking gun than the ambiguous talk in the emails themselves.
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/fileid/5254/2728

Consultant calling megyn kelly a bimbo. Has PDF attached that says the same.
WikiLeaks - Search the DNC email database

DNC trying to get away with violating the Hatch Act.
WikiLeaks - Search the DNC email database

Democrats using interns to organize fake "protests."
https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/13830

RE: Action on DNC tomorrow (Immigration Raids).
https://www.wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/9736​


----------



## AWP (Jul 24, 2016)

The Democrats have more email woes. Trump should drive this home like no tomorrow and even use it to further drive a wedge between Clinton's and Sanders' camps.

Wasserman Schultz sidelined from convention as more emails show Sanders slams | Fox News

Pressure mounts on Wasserman Schultz to resign - CNNPolitics.com



> In one, she practically laughed off Sanders after he vowed to replace her as DNC chairwoman if elected.
> 
> “This is a silly story. He isn't going to be president,” she wrote in the May 21 email.
> 
> DNC chief financial officer Brad Marshall wrote, “This would make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jul 24, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> The Democrats have more email woes. Trump should drive this home like no tomorrow and even use it to further drive a wedge between Clinton's and Sanders' camps.
> 
> Wasserman Schultz sidelined from convention as more emails show Sanders slams | Fox News
> 
> Pressure mounts on Wasserman Schultz to resign - CNNPolitics.com



Not the best time for this much turmoil in the DNC. It does suggest a lack of leadership. It should have been obama as the party leader, until Clinton was named front runner. Sanders could make some hay out of this if he plays his cards right. I think Sanders would be harder for Trump to get the win.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 24, 2016)

Wasserman-Schultz was a certifiable idiot long before this little flap. I'm happy to see that she's being true to form and fucking things up.


----------



## Jay_Pew (Jul 24, 2016)

Looks like she's stepping down...great way for the democrats to start the convention this week!!

Wasserman Schultz to step down as DNC chairwoman, amid email fallout | Fox News


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 24, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Jesus.  They literally had to prop ol' Bob Dole up.
> 
> I would give about anything to have Melania curse me out *with* her native tongue -



Fixed it for you.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 24, 2016)

Jay_Pew said:


> Looks like she's stepping down...great way for the democrats to start the convention this week!!
> 
> Wasserman Schultz to step down as DNC chairwoman, amid email fallout | Fox News


It's about time!


----------



## Marine0311 (Jul 24, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> It's about time!



I bet that warms your cold liberal heart.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 24, 2016)

So...it's pretty clear to me that there's one party in this fight that is corrupt, anti-semitic, and racist.  Demarcus Owens on Twitter

And it's pretty clear to me not many people care.


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 24, 2016)

Jay_Pew said:


> Looks like she's stepping down...great way for the democrats to start the convention this week!!
> 
> Wasserman Schultz to step down as DNC chairwoman, amid email fallout | Fox News



She's not stepping down, she's stepping up, to the Clinton campaign and a political appointment in the Clinton Administration.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 25, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> She's not stepping down, she's stepping up, to the Clinton campaign and a political appointment in the Clinton Administration.


Just got a promotion.


----------



## Centermass (Jul 25, 2016)

This shit show just keeps getting better and better. 

So, Wasserman finds out Wikileaks hacked the email account and released the details regarding Sanders. 

Emails also revealed collusion with those within Clinton's campaign and the protests at Trump speaking events. 

Instead of waiting to be fired, she quote Steps down, unquote, and then, is immediately hired by Clinton. 

And now you have Clinton's campaign, suggesting that Trump was somehow in cahoots with the Russians and Putin, when it came to getting the emails.


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 25, 2016)

Centermass said:


> This shit show just keeps getting better and better.
> 
> So, Wasserman finds out Wikileaks hacked the email account and released the details regarding Sanders.
> 
> ...



I read some BS comment on an article about this on FaceCrap yesterday claiming Malania Trump is a Russian sleeper.  LOL


----------



## Marauder06 (Jul 25, 2016)

Centermass said:


> ...
> 
> And now you have Clinton's campaign, suggesting that Trump was somehow in cahoots with the Russians and Putin, when it came to getting the emails.



Oh, those sneaky Russians… and their non-stop hacking of Hillary Clinton.

The Washington Post reported yesterday that the recent Wikileaks release of sensitive Democratic National Committee (DNC) documents related to potential improprieties during the 2006 Democratic Primaries may have been carried out by Russia.  Their motivation?  To help Donald Trump become President of the United States, of course



Those sneaky Russians. Maybe it’s time to update the Kaspersky?


----------



## Jay_Pew (Jul 25, 2016)

Centermass said:


> And now you have Clinton's campaign, suggesting that Trump was somehow in cahoots with the Russians and Putin, when it came to getting the emails.



Do they actually think people are gonna believe this bs?


----------



## Marine0311 (Jul 25, 2016)

Jay_Pew said:


> Do they actually think people are gonna believe this bs?



Yes.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 25, 2016)

Jay_Pew said:


> Do they actually think people are gonna believe this bs?



Yes, there are a lot of people who believe everything their television says to them. :wall::wall::wall:

20 to 1 Putin is praying for a Clinton victory.



Marauder06 said:


> She's not stepping down, she's stepping up, to the Clinton campaign and a political appointment in the Clinton Administration.



And you'll never need a better example of Stupidity in Government.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 25, 2016)

And yet with all of these damning emails, it is not going to matter one whit to dem voters.  Not one.  They _may _influence some fence-sitters and indies.

In other news, Trump's post-convention bounce was pretty healthy, 6 points.  The last "real" bounce was Bush with 8 (Gore also got 8).  Better than Romney, McCain.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 25, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> So...it's pretty clear to me that there's one party in this fight that is corrupt, anti-semitic, and racist.  Demarcus Owens on Twitter
> 
> And it's pretty clear to me not many people care.


It's a reference to this image:


----------



## Centermass (Jul 25, 2016)

Did anyone else watch the 60 Minutes interview last night? Scott Pelley asks her about the Leaked DNC emails. (Part 3) 

_"No, I didn't know about any of that and I haven't read any of those" 
_
And then, later......._ 

"Again, I don't know anything about these emails" "I haven't followed it"_

The news about the emails came to light Saturday, the 23rd. The 60 minutes interview was done on the 24th. 

Yeah right. Hillary Clinton? You're a bald face liar.  

Not to mention when she was asked about her role and responsibility for the tragedy in Benghazi, and her response. (Part 2) 

I don't particularly care for Trump, but honestly, this woman just absolutely makes me sick to my stomach.  

The Democratic Ticket: Clinton and Kaine


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 25, 2016)

Centermass said:


> I don't particularly care for Trump, but honestly, this woman just absolutely makes me sick to my stomach.
> 
> The Democratic Ticket: Clinton and Kaine



I do not think I have seen any political candidate of any party that I have despised and reviled as much as HRC.


----------



## AWP (Jul 25, 2016)

@Deathy McDeath will still vote for her. I have faith. I tried to tell y'all he's a Commie, but you voted anyway...

------

ETA even though this is a different topic:

Clinton says there is an unfair 'Hillary standard' on trust and honesty - CNNPolitics.com

[QUOTE*]"I often feel like there's the Hillary standard and then there's the standard for everybody else," *she said.
Asked to explain that, Clinton cited "unfounded, inaccurate, mean-spirited attacks with no basis in truth" which "take on a life of their own," pointing to Republicans' criticism at the party's convention in Cleveland last week.
"And for whatever reasons -- and I don't want to try to analyze the reasons. I see it. I understand it," she said. "People are very willing to say things about me, to make accusations about me that are -- I don't get upset about them anymore, but they are very regrettable."[/QUOTE]

Get in line, Hillary. After your bullshit with the email server and the FBI, we think the same thing. Oh, the gall of this woman...

By the way, CNN had this story buried under one about a Chinese seaplane and condoms for Olympic athletes in Rio.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 25, 2016)

Yeah there is a Hillary Standard, hers happens to be a lot lower than everyone else's and thus gets what she wants.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 25, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Yeah there is a Hillary Standard, hers happens to be a lot lower than everyone else's and thus gets what she wants.




With the assistance of much of the global media...which would be there for any non-conservative candidate.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 25, 2016)

Has anyone been reading these e-mails?  Some really good stuff in here - Searchable links at bottom of story -

<these two items are not Wikileaks - but there are wikileak links with the story>

HERE IT IS=> Detailed List of Findings in Wikileaks DNC Document Dump

DNC staffers used slurs and created a Craigslist ad to disgrace Trump

The one in yellow below is my favorite...

*<<WARNING>>* * If you want to read the e-mails, they are linked within the above stories, but be advised that  the source is WikiLeaks* *<<WARNING>>*


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 25, 2016)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Karma's a bitch


----------



## AWP (Jul 25, 2016)

The best part about all of this?

It will matter very little unless leveraged properly.


----------



## Brill (Jul 25, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> It will matter very little unless leveraged properly.



Nope.  Too much at stake plus she has the highest top cover.  I'm willing to bet this (wiki leaks release) was Putin's way of saying "You fuck on me?  I fuck on you!".  After this, Hillary is fully on board and now yet another Putin puppet.

The leverage you speak of is Putin's possession of her server emails...all...of...them.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 25, 2016)

Delusions of Chaos

I know it is an editorial, but I do like the points he makes. Trump is selling a false fear.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 25, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> The best part about all of this?
> 
> It will matter very little unless leveraged properly.





lindy said:


> Nope.  Too much at stake plus she has the highest top cover.  I'm willing to bet this (wiki leaks release) was Putin's way of saying "You fuck on me?  I fuck on you!".  After this, Hillary is fully on board and now yet another Putin puppet.
> 
> The leverage you speak of is Putin's possession of her server emails...all...of...them.



I think Trump is one of the few people who can leverage this properly.
He used the Democrat playbook against all his (spineless) Republican opponents, and will now use their playbook against Hillary.


----------



## Tdog (Jul 25, 2016)

This isn't really going to contribute to the discussion but, Hillary looks like the kind of person who would go mad with power.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 25, 2016)

Tdog said:


> This isn't really going to contribute to the discussion but, Hillary looks like the kind of person who would go mad with power.



And what would Trump do? Lose some ego?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 25, 2016)

Bernie Sanders, Michelle, Elizabeth, all sellouts.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 26, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Delusions of Chaos
> 
> I know it is an editorial, but I do like the points he makes. Trump is selling a false fear.



The author raises some interesting points, but certainly draws his own conclusions.  My conclusions are different, but his point in that Trump (and Clinton as well) is hedging on chaos is true.  But to be fair, it's not like Trump is doing something every other presidential candidate hasn't done...painting the margins and rarities as averages and the norm.


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 26, 2016)

I watched some of the DNC yesterday and it has truly gone crazy.  I honestly don't get the party loyalty with everything going on.  I'm a Conservative by heart but I've voted Green in the past to keep a clear conscious.  I seem to find more loyalty among the liberal minded, no matter the nation. 

@Deathy McDeath and @TLDR20 given all the corruption and stupidity amongst the DNC, centred around Hillary; do you still support that party?  If so, how?


----------



## AWP (Jul 26, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Bernie Sanders, Michelle, Elizabeth, all sellouts.



What cracks me up about Sanders is he sold out to the very machine that helped break him. Could he have won? Unlikely. For all of his bluster though he supported the woman and organization that worked to destroy him.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 26, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> I watched some of the DNC yesterday and it has truly gone crazy.  I honestly don't get the party loyalty with everything going on.  I'm a Conservative by heart but I've voted Green in the past to keep a clear conscious.  I seem to find more loyalty among the liberal minded, no matter the nation.
> 
> @Deathy McDeath and @TLDR20 given all the corruption and stupidity amongst the DNC, centred around Hillary; do you still support that party?  If so, how?



I have no allegiance to any party. I would consider myself a moderate liberal. I voted for McCain in 2008, but couldn't vote for Romney in 2012. I am pretty liberal about a lot of things, though not all. Foreign Policy, defense, and guns I am all pretty conservative about.


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 26, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I have no allegiance to any party. I would consider myself a moderate liberal. I voted for McCain in 2008, but couldn't vote for Romney in 2012. I am pretty liberal about a lot of things, though not all. Foreign Policy, defense, and guns I am all pretty conservative about.



Thank you.   I didn't take you as a card carrying Democrat.  

I think in most areas we probably agree on things.  I believe is where both America's political system is at fault and Canada is following suit; the de facto 2 party system.  Sure there's third and even fourth parties but they don't really have a chance at gaining power.  It doesn't truly allow a real middle ground candidate a chance.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 26, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I have no allegiance to any party. I would consider myself a moderate liberal. I voted for McCain in 2008, but couldn't vote for Romney in 2012. I am pretty liberal about a lot of things, though not all. Foreign Policy, defense, and guns I am all pretty conservative about.



You sound like an old Blue Dog dem of the days of yore.  When people talk about the democratic South, they aren't referring to historically liberal dems but rather financially conservative, pro-defense, pro-gun, moderate democrats.  But most of them are/were Bible thumpers, too, and you don't strike me as much of a Bible thumper.


----------



## AWP (Jul 26, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Out of curiosity...was Palin the deal breaker for you?



Romney's running mate was Paul Ryan.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 26, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Out of curiosity...was Palin the deal breaker for you?  It was for me, and still infuriates me that they did such a horseshit job of vetting her and chose her over Minnesota's Tim Pawlenty (Governor at the time).  I genuinely believe it would have been a different race if they had, and as popular as he Pawlenty was, I think the Republicans could have carried Minnesota that year.



It wasn't just the vetting that made her a shit-show.  Apparently she went off-script all the time and refused help with briefings and pressers.  McCain's staff hating working with her.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 26, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Romney's running mate was Paul Ryan.



:wall:Oh for the love of christ.:wall:  They all meld together after a while...thanks for that.  Maybe Mitt didn't win because he was so unforgettable...that said, I still believe that the spirit of my post is correct...McCain would have won, or at least done much better, without Palin.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 26, 2016)

I couldn't vote for a Mormon. I don't know that I can trust someone that goes to church where others are not allowed to. Makes me wonder to who their allegiance lies.



Devildoc said:


> You sound like an old Blue Dog dem of the days of yore.  When people talk about the democratic South, they aren't referring to historically liberal dems but rather financially conservative, pro-defense, pro-gun, moderate democrats.  But most of them are/were Bible thumpers, too, and you don't strike me as much of a Bible thumper.



I'm not fiscally conservative. It is impossible to be a "social liberal and fiscal conservative"


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 26, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I'm not fiscally conservative. It is impossible to be a "social liberal and fiscal conservative"



Wouldn't that be more Libertarian?  Do what you want just don't make me pay for it?


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 26, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> I watched some of the DNC yesterday and it has truly gone crazy.  I honestly don't get the party loyalty with everything going on.  I'm a Conservative by heart but I've voted Green in the past to keep a clear conscious.  I seem to find more loyalty among the liberal minded, no matter the nation.
> 
> @Deathy McDeath and @TLDR20 given all the corruption and stupidity amongst the DNC, centred around Hillary; do you still support that party?  If so, how?


Honestly, this is something I'm going to have to reflect on in the next few weeks.  I have two key questions: Will the shenanigans end now that DWS is out?  Will they end after the election (regardless of whether Hillary wins)?  Is it fair to oblige a political party NOT to push back against a candidate who only recently wasn't a part of them (i.e. Bernie's switch from independent to democrat)?  And finally: can I still support the party in down-ticket races?

The Johnson/Weld ticket is looking more attractive each day.


----------



## 104TN (Jul 26, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> The Johnson/Weld ticket is looking more attractive each day.


I'm seeing more of the people I know that have historically been on opposing "sides" share this sentiment.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 26, 2016)

rick said:


> I'm seeing more of the people I know that have historically been on opposing "sides" share this sentiment.


He's definitely a good in-between candidate, and he's been able to jettison some of the more unpalatable ideas of the Libertarian party.  I still have my concerns, however.  The first and foremost is that I believe in a strong central government, and a relatively strong executive.  I know that that's not necessarily the framer's intent, but I feel that history has shown us that America's issues are better managed by a strong federal government.  

With that being said, Gary Johnson has almost no political cachet, and I sincerely doubt that he would be able to get much done in Congress.  If anything, his Presidency would be pretty similar to the Obama Presidency.  He would either have to work extremely hard to build a supporting coalition in Congress (difficult, but doable if you're a third party), or resort to executive actions where he could.

This is a big part of the reason why I see absolutely no point in voting for Trump.  Even if you support every single point of his platform, he is so thoroughly despised by Congress that I could see him being a lame duck President by the second year of his term.  Just imagine the level of obstructionism by the 110th through 114th Congress cranked up to 11.  Yes, he would probably get two Supreme court appointments, but it's conceivable that those appointments would be about the only lasting impression the Trump Presidency leaves.  Ignoring, of course, the entire shitshow of a campaign.

Love or hate Hillary, she is a political operative _par excellence_.  It's hard to deny that she would absolutely get shit done.  Now, if you don't like a strong federal government (or strong President) then I can't imagine that you would like that.  However, if you're like me then this has obvious appeal.  Still, it would require voting for a terrible human being and putting the stamp of approval on an arguably corrupt system.  I'm not sure if I can hold my nose long enough to do that.

Anyway, that's my piece.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jul 26, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I'm not fiscally conservative. It is impossible to be a "social liberal and fiscal conservative"



Why not?


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 26, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> He's definitely a good in-between candidate, and he's been able to jettison some of the more unpalatable ideas of the Libertarian party.  I still have my concerns, however.  The first and foremost is that I believe in a strong central government, and a relatively strong executive.  I know that that's not necessarily the framer's intent, but I feel that history has shown us that America's issues are better managed by a strong federal government.
> 
> With that being said, Gary Johnson has almost no political cachet, and I sincerely doubt that he would be able to get much done in Congress.  If anything, his Presidency would be pretty similar to the Obama Presidency.  He would either have to work extremely hard to build a supporting coalition in Congress (difficult, but doable if you're a third party), or resort to executive actions where he could.
> 
> ...



Interesting.  I read it a couple times; your perspective is intriguing to say the least.

Prediction about Trump's success in the Oval aside, do you not feel that HRC is equally despised, and because of her history, the GOP would be obstructionist at every turn?  I think that regardless of who ends up as POTUS, it'll end up being gridlock.

I think she would get shit done, but mainly in over-reaching and Constitutionally-dubious EOs.


----------



## AWP (Jul 26, 2016)

I have to wonder if Trump would be tempered by the "machine" in office while Clinton would either not care or bully her way through. Trump for all his bluster might actually slow down in office while Clinton ramps up.



Deathy McDeath said:


> The Johnson/Weld ticket is looking more attractive each day.



I'm voting for them. I don't believe in their ticket and barely know who they are but I'm voting for them. I would vote for the devil over Clinton and can't fathom voting for Trump. People say I'm throwing away my vote, but honestly, America needs more people to "throw away" their vote. Nothing will change until we manage to fire every incumbent, every slick career politician who gives us the same crap year in and year out. We need a revolution and not the kind with guns. We need to stand up and reject the status quo in some form or fashion, perhaps in several forms.

We the People are causing our own misery because we've bought into a two party "must vote" system and every single candidate knows that. They need to work for our votes or "get got" and the only way we're going to demonstrate that is through the ballot box.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 26, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> He's definitely a good in-between candidate, and he's been able to jettison some of the more unpalatable ideas of the Libertarian party.  I still have my concerns, however.  The first and foremost is that I believe in a strong central government, and a relatively strong executive.  I know that that's not necessarily the framer's intent, but I feel that history has shown us that America's issues are better managed by a strong federal government.
> 
> With that being said, Gary Johnson has almost no political cachet, and I sincerely doubt that he would be able to get much done in Congress.  If anything, his Presidency would be pretty similar to the Obama Presidency.  He would either have to work extremely hard to build a supporting coalition in Congress (difficult, but doable if you're a third party), or resort to executive actions where he could.
> 
> ...


Trumps "Trump card" would be the Republican Base.
Agree, with a slight disagree.  He had more than 10 million cast for him (more than any Republican Candidate ever) and I think his (extremely vocal) base will keep moderate Republicans in-check.
I also think Ryan losing in the Primary and Trump winning would send a powerful message to the surviving RINO's.

None of the candidate will enjoy a Republican Hose or Senate, Hillary needs a Democratic Senate to rig the Supreme Court and zap the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 26, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Prediction about Trump's success in the Oval aside, do you not feel that HRC is equally despised, and because of her history, the GOP would be obstructionist at every turn?  I think that regardless of who ends up as POTUS, it'll end up being gridlock.
> 
> I think she would get shit done, but mainly in over-reaching and Constitutionally-dubious EOs.


Good point.  It's obvious that conservative media and Tea Party Republicans have a huge hate-boner for her, but I kind of assumed that establishment Republicans would be more accepting since she had a relatively inoffensive career in the Senate.  But you're probably right; though she undoubtedly has curried some favor by being in politics as long as she has, the GOP has really cranked up the outrage machine to 11 with Benghazi and the Email thing.  Still, she enjoys support among Democrats, which is more than Trump could claim.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 26, 2016)

As I watch the news channels and read different editorials, I have to wonder if this is the election where Gary Johnson could make an impact.  It seems there are as many Dems who are not pleased their candidate is Hillary, as there are Republicans unamused that they have to vote for Trump. 

He needs to get onto the debates or the conversation is a non-factor but given a 3rd option...hmmm...


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 26, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Good point.  It's obvious that conservative media and Tea Party Republicans have a huge hate-boner for her, but I kind of assumed that establishment Republicans would be more accepting since she had a relatively inoffensive career in the Senate.  But you're probably right; though she undoubtedly has curried some favor by being in politics as long as she has, the GOP has really cranked up the outrage machine to 11 with Benghazi and the Email thing.  Still, she enjoys support among Democrats, which is more than Trump could claim.



So you bring up an interesting point.  Her stay in the Senate _was _inoffensive.  Pretty bland by many measures.  So what changed?  I know her stepping into her poo vis-a-vis the emails and Benghazi were big "oopsies" with the GOP (because, face it, the dems just don't care).  But politically, has she moved much, or are her talking points being forced to be liberalized because of the nomination?

And yes, Trump has no support, really.  If he wins, when he walks into the capitol for the State of the Union, it'll be crickets.....


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 26, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> So you bring up an interesting point.  Her stay in the Senate _was _inoffensive.  Pretty bland by many measures.  So what changed?  I know her stepping into her poo vis-a-vis the emails and Benghazi were big "oopsies" with the GOP (because, face it, the dems just don't care).  But politically, has she moved much, or are her talking points being forced to be liberalized because of the nomination?


It's probably a little bit of both.  She has demonstrated that she's come around on gay marriage and a few other issues, likely because the rest of the party has as well.  But we mustn't discount the Bernie effect - as much as it might be simple pandering, she has definitely cribbed a few lines from Sanders' playbook.  Income inequality is a big issue, as is the burgeoning college loan bubble.  Whether she actually takes action on those issues remains to be seen, but for now she's at least talking about them.  

As for scandals, I'm not certain if Benghazi hurt her that much.  Romney tried and failed to weaponize it in 2012, and I think that most people outside of conservative media are just sick of hearing about it.  The e-mails are another story, though.  Those definitely put a dent in her armor.  If you watch the RCP poll average in the weeks before the FBI announcement as well as right after, her numbers barely move.  If anything, they take a slight dip.  If the public had a more positive view of the email incident, I believe that we would've seen a decent bump after Comey cleared her of charges.  The fact that her numbers didn't move and have started to slide in recent weeks is indicative that the email scandal has rhetorical power, and as @DA SWO pointed out, Trump would be foolish not to bludgeon her with it.


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 26, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> It's probably a little bit of both.  She has demonstrated that she's come around on gay marriage and a few other issues, likely because the rest of the party has as well.  But we mustn't discount the Bernie effect - as much as it might be simple pandering, she has definitely cribbed a few lines from Sanders' playbook.  Income inequality is a big issue, as is the burgeoning college loan bubble.  Whether she actually takes action on those issues remains to be seen, but for now she's at least talking about them.
> 
> As for scandals, I'm not certain if Benghazi hurt her that much.  Romney tried and failed to weaponize it in 2012, and I think that most people outside of conservative media are just sick of hearing about it.  The e-mails are another story, though.  Those definitely put a dent in her armor.  If you watch the RCP poll average in the weeks before the FBI announcement as well as right after, her numbers barely move.  If anything, they take a slight dip.  If the public had a more positive view of the email incident, I believe that we would've seen a decent bump after Comey cleared her of charges.  The fact that her numbers didn't move and have started to slide in recent weeks is indicative that the email scandal has rhetorical power, and as @DA SWO pointed out, Trump would be foolish not to bludgeon her with it.



I honestly doubt she's changed and would follow through with most Bernie type changes.  She's just buying votes from the Sanders camp, they are pissed and rightfully so.  Frankly if the party cared as much as they should about their membership and the American people; the first speech at the DNC should have dropped her.  Permitting a "reset" of sorts.  I don't like Bernie's extreme socialist agenda but the man deserved a chance.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 26, 2016)

Another one bites the dust...Killed DNC Staffer ‘Wanted to Make a Difference,’ Family Says

RIP


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 26, 2016)

Looks like Hillary'so acceptance speech has been leaked...

Let Me Remind You Fuckers Who I Am


----------



## Brill (Jul 26, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> Looks like Hillary'so acceptance speech has been leaked...
> 
> Let Me Remind You Fuckers Who I Am



LOVE!!!!!


----------



## Rapid (Jul 26, 2016)

Feel the Bern


----------



## Centermass (Jul 26, 2016)

All that work, all that money. And most recently, the corruption in his own party against him. 

In the end, he towed the party line and folded like a cheap suit. 

So much for sticking to your guns and principles.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 26, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Wouldn't that be more Libertarian?  Do what you want just don't make me pay for it?



No. I think the government has an important part to play, and think taxes are their main revenue. There is no one who can stand up to certain problem parties except the government. You and I can't stand up to Duke Energy while they ruin parts of NC, our state government currently won't either.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 27, 2016)

So Donald was like...Russia, we don't have her emails but I'm sure you do, so release them.  And then people attack him for it being an issue of National Security...well HRC made it an issue, he's just pushing the ball up the court.


----------



## Brill (Jul 27, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> So Donald was like...Russia, we don't have her emails but I'm sure you do, so release them.  And then people attack him for it being an issue of National Security...well HRC made it an issue, he's just pushing the ball up the court.



I don't see how the MSM is spinning his comments that he told Russia to hack Clinton. Really does show how the American public is being subjected to internal MISO.

The system is rigged.

Donald Trump encourages Russia to hack Hillary Clinton - CNNPolitics.com

Donald Trump's Plea to Russian Hackers Roils Presidential Campaign

What if they DO release the deleted emails? What then?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jul 27, 2016)

Putin wants clinton as POTUS.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 27, 2016)

Trump can screw up a wet dream.....sometimes he needs to just shut up...if he wants to win this thing.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 27, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> Trump can screw up a wet dream.....sometimes he needs to just shut up...if he wants to win this thing.



LOL - it took Mike Pence about 30 seconds to distance himself and PC it up a bit.  I think we just saw an example of what this administration might look like.

SHOW YOUR SUPPORT FOR DONALD TRUMP


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 27, 2016)

You know, about a month ago I ruminated that the firing of Corey Lewandowski, Trump's former campaign manager, would be a good thing for his campaign.  I figured this to be true because Lewandowski's philosophy to campaign management was just "Just let Trump say whatever the fuck he wants."  With these latest statements, it's clear that ol' DJT is back to his usual schtick.  One really has to wonder if a guy with Trump's outsize personality and ego can actually be managed!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 27, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> One really has to wonder if a guy with Trump's outsize personality and ego can actually be managed!



Because it has yet to hurt him.  His base becomes that much more entertained, his foes have dug in even further, and me...I'm left even more confused about which lever to pull in November.

Anyone know the real story on Gabby Giffords?  I just watched her give a speech at the DNC and wondered again whether she is actually all there mentally, or if "they" are using her as a puppet of the anti-gun folks (an effective puppet mind you).  Similar as far as I am concerned, the way that the NRA used Charlton Heston well beyond what his Alzheimer's symptoms should have permitted.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 27, 2016)

So I spent the evening deadlifting and benching...twitter is apparently in love with the CinC's speech.  Reading some of the quotes I go: "there's no way he believes any of this shit right?"


----------



## Brill (Jul 28, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> So I spent the evening deadlifting and benching...twitter is apparently in love with the CinC's speech.  Reading some of the quotes I go: "there's no way he believes any of this shit right?"



Doesn't matter as long as we the people continue to "feel thrills" when he speaks.

Still a classic:






And the Democrats try to unite America...

Pelosi says Clinton struggles with white male vote because of 'guns, gays and God' | Fox News


----------



## Jay_Pew (Jul 28, 2016)

lindy said:


> And the Democrats try to unite America...
> 
> Pelosi says Clinton struggles with white male vote because of 'guns, gays and God' | Fox News



Pelosi is delusional in my book. She should be escorted to a nursing home at this point. Anyone remember her genius support for ObamaCare saying "we need to pass the bill so we know what's in it".


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 28, 2016)

Biden actually delivered a pretty baller speech.  You can understand his reasons for not running, but I wager that a lot of Americans really wish he had.
Tim Kaine was pretty flat.  His Spanish phrases drew loud applause and sounded pretty cool, but otherwise the guy has little charisma.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 28, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> So I spent the evening deadlifting and benching...twitter is apparently in love with the CinC's speech.  Reading some of the quotes I go: "there's no way he believes any of this shit right?"



The Talking Heads compared his speech to his speech four years ago accepting the nomination, said the two were very similar.  The conclusion was the Obama is propping HRC to be an extension of his administration, and there was little difference between them.



Deathy McDeath said:


> With these latest statements, it's clear that ol' DJT is back to his usual schtick.  One really has to wonder if a guy with Trump's outsize personality and ego can actually be managed!



You know, the whole email thing, Benghazi, it doesn't matter to anyone not a Republican.  For all the Dems it's just white noise and won't change their vote.  Trump's bluster and statements have the same effect on the pro-Trump crowd.  The people who are getting up in arms over his speeches won't vote for him anyway.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jul 28, 2016)

Founds this interesting:






On the Bravo channel no less. A typically left leaning entertainment channel.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 28, 2016)

Bernie goes back to Independentstan....

Bernie Sanders Leaves the Democratic Party


----------



## AWP (Jul 28, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Bernie goes back to Independentstan....
> 
> Bernie Sanders Leaves the Democratic Party



I don't care for his platform but I could respect him.

"Could."


----------



## Centermass (Jul 28, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Bernie goes back to Independentstan....
> 
> Bernie Sanders Leaves the Democratic Party



while driving his $180,000.00 R8 to get there.......


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jul 28, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Anyone know the real story on Gabby Giffords?  I just watched her give a speech at the DNC and wondered again whether she is actually all there mentally, or if "they" are using her as a puppet of the anti-gun folks (an effective puppet mind you).  Similar as far as I am concerned, the way that the NRA used Charlton Heston well beyond what his Alzheimer's symptoms should have permitted.



She survived a GSW to the head: http://www.biography.com/people/gabrielle-giffords-20550593.

Her recovery has been beyond what I expected to see.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 28, 2016)

Thanks for the response @Red Flag 1 - I remember when she was shot, and the prognosis given at the time.  That's what caused me to ask the question; if her opinions are her own, then more power to her. Just really curious to know how much she has truly recovered.


----------



## RustyShackleford (Jul 28, 2016)

Centermass said:


> while driving his $180,000.00 R8 to get there.......



You would too...if you could afford one!


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 28, 2016)

Centermass said:


> while driving his $180,000.00 R8 to get there.......


Fake
Unbelievers try to tar Bernie with expensive sports car claim. And fail.


----------



## AWP (Jul 28, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> She survived a GSW to the head: http://www.biography.com/people/gabrielle-giffords-20550593.
> 
> Her recovery has been beyond what I expected to see.



Before she was pro- or at least out of the gun rights debate. I can appreciate her trauma and recovery, but she's removed all logic from the debate and I think is used as a tool...even if she's a willing participant. Her arguments are fueled by emotion and I have a hard time that regardless of the cause.

The Navy then named a ship after her.


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 28, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Fake
> Unbelievers try to tar Bernie with expensive sports car claim. And fail.



Fake that he was driving the car or that he used campaign funds to purchase it. I'm confused


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jul 28, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Before she was pro- or at least out of the gun rights debate. I can appreciate her trauma and recovery, but she's removed all logic from the debate and I think is used as a tool...even if she's a willing participant. Her arguments are fueled by emotion and I have a hard time that regardless of the cause.
> 
> The Navy then named a ship after her.



That she was able to make any address from the podium is really remarkable.

Clinton should hang her head in shame for putting her up there to bang the anti-gun drum. It really was a gamble for Gabby, more than clinton will ever realize, or even care for that matter.  Even if Gabby stumbled badly and failed to deliver, clinton would still have made her point; and that was really all that mattered.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 28, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Fake that he was driving the car or that he used campaign funds to purchase it. I'm confused


That he was driving the car.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 28, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Fake that he was driving the car or that he used campaign funds to purchase it. I'm confused



Both. FALSE: Bernie Sanders Bought a $172,000 Car with Campaign Donations


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 28, 2016)

I think o l' Bern has a Town Car SUV.  Not the Prius I had expected.


----------



## AWP (Jul 28, 2016)

Bern's a quitter and who stuck around long enough to endorse the party and candidate that wrecked him. He then took his ball and went home after taking his supporter's money only to fold like a cheap suit.

He's garbage.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 28, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> You know, the whole email thing, Benghazi, it doesn't matter to anyone not a Republican.  For all the Dems it's just white noise and won't change their vote.  Trump's bluster and statements have the same effect on the pro-Trump crowd.  The people who are getting up in arms over his speeches won't vote for him anyway.


Agree, but I disagree with the notion that Benghazi chatter should be taken seriously any more.  Like I've said before: the email scandal is legit, Benghazi is not (at least, not any more).  From where I stand, if seven (or is it eight?) separate investigations can't come up with any evidence of wrongdoing, then it's a dead issue.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 28, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Bern's a quitter and who stuck around long enough to endorse the party and candidate that wrecked him. He then took his ball and went home after taking his supporter's money only to fold like a cheap suit.
> 
> He's garbage.



Bernie was beat, then he was beaten, he was politically emasculated, with HRC and the DNC essentially making fun of him like he was the special needs little brother.  He is of no use to them now, and he knows it.  He went from a man of principle to a sad, pathetic little man.



Deathy McDeath said:


> Agree, but I disagree with the notion that Benghazi chatter should be taken seriously any more.  Like I've said before: the email scandal is legit, Benghazi is not (at least, not any more).  From where I stand, if seven (or is it eight?) separate investigations can't come up with any evidence of wrongdoing, then it's a dead issue.



The thing is, though, _you _may disagree, and every democrat _will_ disagree, but there are a whole lot of people who will cling to it as gospel.  And even if it were true, her supporters still wouldn't vote against her because like the emails, it would just a "vast right-wing conspiracy" footnote.

My point is no matter how outrageous, how nutty, how insane a candidate's speech is, or their actions are, their supporters will support them, and the other side will villify them.  I don't think politics has always been like that, but it sure seems like it has been that way the past few election cycles.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 28, 2016)

Trump's gonna be a fun president. Problem is, he's probably not going to be president.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jul 28, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Trump's gonna be a fun president. Problem is, he's probably not going to be president.



I so hope he wins, fun or not.


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 28, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Both. FALSE: Bernie Sanders Bought a $172,000 Car with Campaign Donations



Basing it off of this alone. The snopes people are only refuting the campaign donations used to purchase it. I'd question why anyone would automatically think he used campaign donations to purchase it, or if he even purchased it at all. Still might be him driving, but I don't see how that matters one way or another to people.


> The claims are highly questionable, though, as it is extremely unlikely that Bernie Sanders would be driving himself in a vehicle trailing his own campaign bus (especially without Secret Service protection in tow), even more so as Sanders was stumping in Arizona that day and was not scheduled to appear with "Black Men for Bernie."


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 28, 2016)

Well he certainly doesn't own an R8. He most likely want driving that one. So saying/implying he owns a 180k car is dumb.


----------



## Brill (Jul 28, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Both. FALSE: Bernie Sanders Bought a $172,000 Car with Campaign Donations



Democrat dirty tricks?



Deathy McDeath said:


> Agree, but I disagree with the notion that Benghazi chatter should be taken seriously any more.  Like I've said before: the email scandal is legit, Benghazi is not (at least, not any more).  From where I stand, if seven (or is it eight?) separate investigations can't come up with any evidence of wrongdoing, then it's a dead issue.[/QUOTyE]
> 
> Who did the investigating that you're talking about?
> 
> ...


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 28, 2016)

lindy said:


> Who did the investigating that you're talking about?


In chronological order:

-State Department accountability review board
-The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
-The Senate Committee On Homeland Security And Governmental Affairs
-The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
-The House Committee on Foreign Affairs
-The House Committee on the Judiciary
-The House Committee on Armed Services
-The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
And finally, The House Select Committee on Benghazi

So it was more like 9.  Courtesy of the fine folks at Politifact


----------



## AWP (Jul 28, 2016)

lindy said:


> I strongly disagree.  I believe he never had a chance and his rise in the primaries certainly scared the Clinton camp. I think Clinton was pre-ordained to be the Democrat's nominee after Obama which is why she became SECSTATE: to claim experience. The association of and timing of the last two chairs of the DNC with the Clinton's should raise some eyebrows. Yes, I know, it's just yet another coincidence and there's no there there.



To me you're partially proving my point. The guy's platform was based around taking on the system. He was then played by the system and his own party, so his response is to endorse Clinton and then leave? This guy was going to fight on behalf of the poor and downtrodden or whatever, but he sold out and ran with his tail between his legs?

Of course Clinton was preordained and he never stood a chance, but my problem is he took on the system and then ran away when he lost, even after it was proven his own peeps worked to undermine his campaign. He just crapped on every single Sanders supporter and those idiots will STILL vote a straight Dem. ticket because Trump.

Sanders and many Dems. are like domestic violence victims: They'll take the punches and kicks but stick around "because he/ she loves me." The best part is those morons will still rail about the system and inequality, forgetting they ran away from the fight.

Madness. All of it.


----------



## Brill (Jul 28, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> To me you're partially proving my point. The guy's platform was based around taking on the system. He was then played by the system and his own party, so his response is to endorse Clinton and then leave? This guy was going to fight on behalf of the poor and downtrodden or whatever, but he sold out and ran with his tail between his legs?
> 
> Of course Clinton was preordained and he never stood a chance, but my problem is he took on the system and then ran away when he lost, even after it was proven his own peeps worked to undermine his campaign. He just crapped on every single Sanders supporter and those idiots will STILL vote a straight Dem. ticket because Trump.



Sometimes, when you're surrounded and in a no win situation, you do the unthinkable so the enemy doesn't win.  In his view, Hillary is better than Donald.  I think he saw behind the curtain of the american politik and he was frightened of the Babadook. (If you don't know, Netflix them shits.)

Or

It could be that he was made an offer he couldn't refuse.

I believe that Ockham's Razor applies here.  All Americans should be in an uproar over this but instead...oh look, Big Bang is on tonight!



Deathy McDeath said:


> In chronological order:
> 
> -State Department accountability review board
> -The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
> ...



When the standing AG (at the time) is held in CRIMINAL contempt of  Congress, the message is clear to the rest of the Executive branch: Congress is a paper tiger so there's no need to cooperate.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 28, 2016)

Congress needs to use it's power then.  Checks and Balances et al.  But yeah, that means there's definitely a duck walking.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jul 28, 2016)

lindy said:


> I believe that Ockham's Razor applies here.  All Americans should be in an uproar over this but instead...oh look, Big Bang is on tonight!








Some levity....Return to your regularly scheduled debate.

#threadjack


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 28, 2016)

Stay classy BLM -

'Black Lives Matter' chants interrupt moment of silence for slain cops


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jul 28, 2016)

From the Patriot Post:

*Tim Kaine:*

“Can I be honest with you about something?”

No, this is the Democrat National Convention, and you’re Hillary Clinton’s running mate.

:blkeye::wall:


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 28, 2016)

lindy said:


> When the standing AG (at the time) is held in CRIMINAL contempt of  Congress, the message is clear to the rest of the Executive branch: Congress is a paper tiger so there's no need to cooperate.


None of the reviews recommended significant reviews, let alone criminal charges.  Was Holder just supposed to say "Nah fuck that, I'mma start charging people!"  Come on man.


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 28, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Stay classy BLM -
> 
> 'Black Lives Matter' chants interrupt moment of silence for slain cops



You could hear it on CNN. I was joking that it would be news soon.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 28, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> You could hear it on CNN. I was joking that it would be news soon.



I will be surprised (impressed) if any Network other that FOX gives it more of a blub.  If anything at all.


----------



## Brill (Jul 29, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> None of the reviews recommended significant reviews, let alone criminal charges.  Was Holder just supposed to say "Nah fuck that, I'mma start charging people!"  Come on man.



The AG was held in criminal contempt but I never said anything about criminal charges for anyone.  My point was that it's tough to find anything when there's zero cooperation (e.g. IRS targeting of conservative organizations).  Again, I get it: there's nothing there, it's just a coincidence there are 9 separate Congressional investigations all just trying to dig up shit on Hillary.

Do you honestly think that's how Congress operates?  They simply pick a target and go gangbusters?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 29, 2016)

lindy said:


> The AG was held in criminal contempt but I never said anything about criminal charges for anyone.  My point was that it's tough to find anything when there's zero cooperation (e.g. IRS targeting of conservative organizations).  Again, I get it: there's nothing there, it's just a coincidence there are 9 separate Congressional investigations all just trying to dig up shit on Hillary.
> 
> Do you honestly think that's how Congress operates?  They simply pick a target and go gangbusters?



When it is the opponents nominee for president? Yes I do believe that.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jul 29, 2016)

lindy said:


> The AG was held in criminal contempt but I never said anything about criminal charges for anyone.  My point was that it's tough to find anything when there's zero cooperation (e.g. IRS targeting of conservative organizations).  Again, I get it: there's nothing there, it's just a coincidence there are 9 separate Congressional investigations all just trying to dig up shit on Hillary.
> 
> Do you honestly think that's how Congress operates?  They simply pick a target and go gangbusters?



Yes.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 29, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Stay classy BLM -
> 
> 'Black Lives Matter' chants interrupt moment of silence for slain cops



Sickening.  And two San Diego cops shot last night, one fatal.  I have since dropped any naiveté that there is no correlation between BLM and the rise of LEO shootings.  Fuck BLM.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 29, 2016)

Trump's twitter was hilarious last night...Melania must have given him his phone back.


----------



## Rapid (Jul 29, 2016)

This seems pretty fucked up.


----------



## Brill (Jul 29, 2016)

Rapid said:


> This seems pretty fucked up.



Nope, totally legit as long as for the correct side.  In the mayoral race in Baltimore ad more votes cast than voters who checked in. Previous MD election software had Republican votes changed to Democrat.


----------



## Rapid (Jul 29, 2016)

Hillary says "We will work to get money out of politics!" on the same day she accepts a $25 million donation from George Soros

Just too funny.


----------



## compforce (Jul 29, 2016)

Rapid said:


> This seems pretty fucked up.



While I do believe there is quite a bit of election fraud going on, this guy didn't "prove" anything.  He simply made allegations based on assumption and pure conjecture.  Unless he reverse engineers the software and finds that it is actually programmed to steal or pad votes in one direction or the other, he hasn't proven anything.  It IS possible for the demographics to have swung in the opposite direction.

I do wish someone would actually prove voter fraud.  This guy and his statement ain't it.


----------



## Rapid (Jul 29, 2016)

compforce said:


> While I do believe there is quite a bit of election fraud going on, this guy didn't "prove" anything.  He simply made allegations based on assumption and pure conjecture.  Unless he reverse engineers the software and finds that it is actually programmed to steal or pad votes in one direction or the other, he hasn't proven anything.  It IS possible for the demographics to have swung in the opposite direction.
> 
> I do wish someone would actually prove voter fraud.  This guy and his statement ain't it.



I thought the sensationalist title was obvious, and this is more about Schrodinger's vote. Any election that relies on computers is both rigged and not rigged until we can see through the software.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 29, 2016)

Rapid said:


> This seems pretty fucked up.


These guys keep harping on unadjusted exit polling data, which is not reflective of actual polling demographics.

Here is their dataset: Democratic Primaries

And here's an explanation on why they are dumb: Reminder: Exit-Poll Conspiracy Theories Are Totally Baseless


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 29, 2016)

Is that the same software from the GW Bush reelection? You'll get accusations of election fraud with any electronic system; which is why I believe that paper is best.


----------



## Brill (Jul 31, 2016)

Only 100 more days of this back & forth. Cannot wait for it to be over.

Blog: Recovering from my DNC Nausea


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 31, 2016)

lindy said:


> Only 100 more days of this back & forth. Cannot wait for it to be over.
> 
> Blog: Recovering from my DNC Nausea



Could not agree harder.  This week I am back on my "Hillary is no different than the rest of em', she just lives with a microscope on her", kick. 

Getting away from all the back/forth rhetoric - I'm not so concerned that the jack-booted thugs are going to kick my door in and take my guns the day she is elected (If there was a way, Obama would have made that happen), my Hillary concerns lie more around:

- She is going to be able to appoint one, if not more Supreme Court justices, and their stances on the 1st and 2nd Amendment are very important (or the sacredness of the Constitution as a whole for that matter)

- I would really like to "know" what her involvement in the whole Benghazi debacle was.  There have been countless stories claiming her distain for the military and the Secret Service, this issue does not make me sleep any better.

- Could we please get at least one debate out of the way so that I can see Trump have to stand on his two feet and argue back without calling her a "name".  PLEASE?


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 31, 2016)

Might be an entertaining book

"Within Arms Reach" 

'Get the f*** away from me,' Hillary shouted at Secret Service agent


----------



## AWP (Jul 31, 2016)

We have/ had a member here who flew on the HMX-1 birds. He has NOTHING positive to say about his personal interaction with the Clintons. I have zero doubt whenever I hear about her character when dealing with the commoners here in the US.

Trump needs to debate her. Any evasion on his part, even if he does debate, makes him look weak and afraid.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 31, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> We have/ had a member here who flew on the HMX-1 birds. He has NOTHING positive to say about his personal interaction with the Clintons. I have zero doubt whenever I hear about her character when dealing with the commoners here in the US.
> 
> Trump needs to debate her. Any evasion on his part, even if he does debate, makes him look weak and afraid.


I think he will do well in a debate, her public speaking skills suck and the only way she wins is if CNN feeds her the questions a week out.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 31, 2016)

Disagree because nothing Trump has shown me yet, makes me believe he will do well in the debates.


----------



## amlove21 (Jul 31, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Disagree because nothing Trump has shown me yet, makes me believe he will do well in the debates.


He just seems like the kind of guy that hits the heavy bag well and gets smoked when a live human is across from him. 

Twitter, his little press conferences, talk shows, etc- he's only good cause it's going one way and he gets to say whatever he wants and that's it.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 31, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> I think he will do well in a debate, her public speaking skills suck and the only way she wins is if CNN feeds her the questions a week out.


Almost forgot to write a response along with my disagree!

Trump is many things, but when he's not up in front of the hometown crowd with Jock Jams vol. 3 blaring, he has yet to show himself to be a good orator.  He seems to have his verbal "safe space" that he retreats to when pressed, which demonstrates to me that his mental agility is not the greatest.  He can talk about his business success and how cool America is, but if you press him for specifics he just goes back to his previous talking points.  One thing he does really well is avoiding the impression that he's getting flustered.  His demeanor is calm even when his mind is struggling for a succinct and definite answer.  I suppose you could say that he hides his fluster with bluster.  That particular quality is on full display in the recent interview he gave to 60 Minutes along with Mike Pence.  You can watch the full interview here, but if you value your time you can just watch the greatest (worst?) hits of the interview here

Keep in mind, however, that lacking an agile mind is not always a bad thing; GWB was not the most articulate debater, but he had an unmistakable charisma and presence that were considerably at odds with Gore in the 2000 election, and again with John Kerry in 2004.  Though he wasn't always the most erudite, Bush managed to hold his own and then bolster his image away from the debate stage.  We'll see if Trump can boost his image any further in the public eye or if he's already blown his load.

As for Hillary, she has all the charisma of a wet dishrag but has such a keen grasp of the issues and practiced debate style that I think the betting odds are heavily in her favor.  She was good against Obama in 2008, and pretty good against Bernie this time around.  I say only "pretty good" because the democratic debates were pretty saccharine affairs this year, especially after O'Malley left.  Who knows?  Perhaps she'll fall flat.  Perhaps Trump will take his debate prep seriously and put on a great performance.  Either way, I'm going to clear out my schedule during those time slots and prepare to drink the pain away.


----------



## AWP (Jul 31, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> hits the heavy bag well and gets smoked when a live human is across from him.



This is:

A. A euphemism for masturbation
B. A euphemism for your mom
C. An actual quote or thought
D. All of the above

My SAT scores were pretty low, so I'm going with "All of the above."


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 31, 2016)

An interesting thing this happened this weekend.  Remember Khizr Khan?  The Pakistani father of a slain U.S. Army soldier, who was Muslim, who gave a fiery speech at the DNC last week?  

It turns out that his speech caused the "Pocket constitution" to become the #2 best-seller on Amazon, right behind the new Harry Potter book.  Kind of bizarre that Democrats would be doing the work of promoting the constitution in the year of our lord 2016!

After Khan speech, pocket Constitution becomes best-seller


----------



## SpitfireV (Jul 31, 2016)

For those moments when you just have to pull out the Constitution at the pub and prove somebody wrong?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 31, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> An interesting thing this happened this weekend.  Remember Khizr Khan?  The Pakistani father of a slain U.S. Army soldier, who was Muslim, who gave a fiery speech at the DNC last week?
> 
> It turns out that his speech caused the "Pocket constitution" to become the #2 best-seller on Amazon, right behind the new Harry Potter book.  Kind of bizarre that Democrats would be doing the work of promoting the constitution in the year of our lord 2016!
> 
> After Khan speech, pocket Constitution becomes best-seller



Fucking Trump.  He really cannot get out of his own way and Republicans are starting to make a show of distancing themselves from him.  At this point the Russian's could provide audio/video of Hillary giving a direct order to let the ambassador in Benghazi die, and saying "fuck those mercenary's too...let them figure it out."...against Trump no one will care.  Damn it.

:wall:


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 1, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> An interesting thing this happened this weekend.  Remember Khizr Khan?  The Pakistani father of a slain U.S. Army soldier, who was Muslim, who gave a fiery speech at the DNC last week?
> 
> It turns out that his speech caused the "Pocket constitution" to become the #2 best-seller on Amazon, right behind the new Harry Potter book.  Kind of bizarre that Democrats would be doing the work of promoting the constitution in the year of our lord 2016!
> 
> After Khan speech, pocket Constitution becomes best-seller



....or people could just buy stuff from Larue and get a copy for free.  Win-win. 



DA SWO said:


> I think he will do well in a debate, her public speaking skills suck and the only way she wins is if CNN feeds her the questions a week out.



I like this, in spite of your vicious attack on me personally by disliking my NLF thread post about the Panthers (kidding...).

I think generally you are right...I think that one 'wins' a debate only if the other person follows the script.  I don't think Trump will.  One will be playing chess, one, checkers.  She'll come out with all sorts of policy stuff, he'll just say "because Benghazi".  His supporters will eat that up.

Very, very few voters will change their minds because of the debates.  Sure, there may be some indies floating around, but not many.  Trump could kill puppies on national TV, his people will still vote for him.  Clinton can admit full culpability in Benghazi and admit she lost a billion top secret emails, her people will still vote for her.


----------



## Single Malt (Aug 1, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> An interesting thing this happened this weekend.  Remember Khizr Khan?  The Pakistani father of a slain U.S. Army soldier, who was Muslim, who gave a fiery speech at the DNC last week?
> 
> It turns out that his speech caused the "Pocket constitution" to become the #2 best-seller on Amazon, right behind the new Harry Potter book.  Kind of bizarre that Democrats would be doing the work of promoting the constitution in the year of our lord 2016!
> 
> After Khan speech, pocket Constitution becomes best-seller



Every naturalized citizen is given a pocket constitution, I wonder if the one he pulled out was the one he was given when he became a citizen (not sure if he was naturalized but going off the probability).


----------



## AWP (Aug 1, 2016)

A pocket Constitution....for those days when downloading it for free off the net and operating a printer are too difficult...


----------



## Rapid (Aug 1, 2016)

Clinton took $100k cash from & was director of company that gave money to ISIS Paris strikes astonishing partnership with secret Isis sponsor tied to Hillary Clinton [EXCLUSIVE] | The Canary docs: Search WikiLeaks

— WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) August 1, 2016


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 1, 2016)

I am beginning to believe that this could be one of the lowest voter turnouts in election history.  Aside from the over-the-top "Trump/Hillary can do no wrong crowd", the more rational people I know are similar to me.  No clue WTF to do in November - see so much baggage in both candidates that even voting seems a hopeless waste of time.


----------



## AWP (Aug 1, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I am beginning to believe that this could be one of the lowest voter turnouts in election history.  Aside from the over-the-top "Trump/Hillary can do no wrong crowd", the more rational people I know are similar to me.  No clue WTF to do in November - see so much baggage in both candidates that even voting seems a hopeless waste of time.



I'm going with a third party or write-in vote because I think this country needs a revolution at the polls. If we're unwilling to check our country's decline then we deserve whatever happens in the next 20-30 years. Voting for an incumbent, hell, even voting for someone within the system is a vote for the status quo.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 1, 2016)

Leave the Presidential choice empty and vote for the other candidates and issues.


Ooh-Rah said:


> I am beginning to believe that this could be one of the lowest voter turnouts in election history.  Aside from the over-the-top "Trump/Hillary can do no wrong crowd", the more rational people I know are similar to me.  No clue WTF to do in November - see so much baggage in both candidates that even voting seems a hopeless waste of time.


----------



## Brill (Aug 1, 2016)

Not voting is a vote for Hillary. Her organization and ability to get votes counted is unmatched.

The ONLY way We the People can win is vote Johnson in high enough numbers to cause a delay in the count.

My premise is a delay would indicate the Democrats needed more time to readjust their vote count. Oh, she'll "win" but by just enough to appear legit.


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 1, 2016)

Rapid said:


> Clinton took $100k cash from & was director of company that gave money to ISIS Paris strikes astonishing partnership with secret Isis sponsor tied to Hillary Clinton [EXCLUSIVE] | The Canary docs: Search WikiLeaks
> 
> — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) August 1, 2016



In 1992. That's like saying the current directors of IBM should be held to account for the help IBM gave to Nazi Germany.


----------



## Rapid (Aug 1, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> In 1992. That's like saying the current directors of IBM should be held to account for the help IBM gave to Nazi Germany.



No, that's not at all comparable as it wasn't that long ago. If this were the 1960s and the directors of IBM were running for office, then maybe it'd be comparable... and in that case, yes, it'd be scandalous to put them in office.

Clinton was just the _director_ of Lafarge in 1992. That doesn't mean their ties ended there. They are still closely linked to the Clinton Foundation.

How can you read everything in the text below and not at least think, what the fuck?



> Then just before her husband, Bill Clinton, was elected president in 1992, Lafarge was fined $1.8 million by the Environmental Protection Agency for these pollution violations. Hillary Clinton had left the board of Lafarge in spring, just after her husband won the Democrat nomination. A year later, under Bill’s presidency, the Clinton administration reduced Lafarge’s EPA fine to less than $600,000.
> 
> Lafarge remains close to the Clintons to this day.
> 
> ...



Regardless, there's bigger stuff than that coming up.

- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton knew that the US was sending arms from Libya to Syria back in 2011, a year before the Benghazi consulate attacks.

- Hillary Clinton denied she knew about the weapons shipments during public testimony (under oath) in early 2013 after the Benghazi terrorist attack.

- Senator Rand Paul questioned Hillary Clinton about this gun running program back in January 2013 during her testimony on the Benghazi terrorist attack.






On Tuesday Julian Assange told Democracy Now that the Wikileaks DNC emails contains information on the weapons shipments to Syria.

_Julian Assange: So, those Hillary Clinton emails, they connect together with the cables that we have published of Hillary Clinton, creating a rich picture of how Hillary Clinton performs in office, but, more broadly, how the U.S. Department of State operates. So, for example, the disastrous, absolutely disastrous intervention in Libya, the destruction of the Gaddafi government, which led to the occupation of ISIS of large segments of that country, weapons flows going over to Syria, being pushed by Hillary Clinton, into jihadists within Syria, including ISIS, that’s there in those emails. There’s more than 1,700 emails in Hillary Clinton’s collection, that we have released, just about Libya alone._


----------



## compforce (Aug 1, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> In 1992. That's like saying the current directors of IBM should be held to account for the help IBM gave to Nazi Germany.



No, the current directors were not _personally_ involved in helping the Nazis.  Hillary was directly involved in LaFarge and was on the board when they were assisting ISIS, although at the end of it, as well as continuing to accept donations to her foundation from them now.  The difference?  Hillary _is_ personally involved.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 2, 2016)

compforce said:


> No, the current directors were not _personally_ involved in helping the Nazis.  Hillary was directly involved in LaFarge and was on the board when they were assisting ISIS, although at the end of it, as well as continuing to accept donations to her foundation from them now.  The difference?  Hillary _is_ personally involved.


That's not what I read at all.  Unless I missed something, she left the board of directors almost 20 years before ISIS even existed.  Yes, they donated to the Clinton foundation regularly, but fuck, a lot of people did.  The foundation has reportedly raised $2 billion as of 2016.  That means that a _lot_ of people donated to them.  Yeah, some are probably not super savory, but that's not indicative of wrongdoing.  The link proffered in that leak is super tenuous and a really big stretch.


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 2, 2016)

Deathy got in there before I could.


----------



## compforce (Aug 2, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> That's not what I read at all.  Unless I missed something, she left the board of directors almost 20 years before ISIS even existed.  Yes, they donated to the Clinton foundation regularly, but fuck, a lot of people did.  The foundation has reportedly raised $2 billion as of 2016.  That means that a _lot_ of people donated to them.  Yeah, some are probably not super savory, but that's not indicative of wrongdoing.  The link proffered in that leak is super tenuous and a really big stretch.



Oops, meant facilitating the CIA arms trade to Saddam, not ISIS while she was on the board.


----------



## CQB (Aug 2, 2016)

I really like the twists and turns with Hilary that gets thrown up here, it's way past being a spectator sport.


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 2, 2016)

compforce said:


> Oops, meant facilitating the CIA arms trade to Saddam, not ISIS while she was on the board.



Government policy, no?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 2, 2016)

Random prediction -

Another election first - Mike Pence gets spooked and announces he cannot support Donald Trump's comments and is removing himself from the ticket as the VP candidate.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 2, 2016)

Is Trump tanking again?


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 2, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Is Trump tanking again?


He's kinda becoming a whiny fuckboy

Quoth the Donald, “I’m afraid the election is going to be rigged, I have to be honest”


For proper definition of "Fuckboy" see: Urban Dictionary: fuck boy


----------



## CDG (Aug 2, 2016)

This whole election just sucks. The status quo is shit, the candidates are both undeserving of being President, Congress is useless, and the American public is collectively the largest group of idiots in the history of the world. We need a MASSIVE change, and we need it sooner rather than later. Shit is depressing.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 2, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Is Trump tanking again?


His last week has been so terrible. I just don't even know what his staffers are possibly telling him. I know NOTHING about politics, at all. But if I just said, "Hey, uh, we shouldn't ever attack a gold star family for any reason right? I mean- ever? Even if they are really mean? Just leave them alone, right? Ok check that's what I thought.", that would put me at a higher approval rating this week than DJT.

Donald Trump's bad 72 hours - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## CDG (Aug 2, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> His last week has been so terrible. I just don't even know what his staffers are possibly telling him. I know NOTHING about politics, at all. But if I just said, "Hey, uh, we shouldn't ever attack a gold star family for any reason right? I mean- ever? Even if they are really mean? Just leave them alone, right? Ok check that's what I thought.", that would put me at a higher approval rating this week than DJT.
> 
> Donald Trump's bad 72 hours - CNNPolitics.com



Not a single politician out there gives a flying fuck about Gold Star families, disabled veterans, KIAs, or veterans in general. It's nothing to them but party lines, sound bites, and photo ops. I don't care what Trump said. As I said before, at least you never have to guess what his viewpoint is. I'll take open mistakes and sticking to his guns over fake apologies and the quiet, thinly veiled disgust and contempt towards the military that a HRC has.

That being said, I'm not saying I think he's a good candidate.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 2, 2016)

CDG said:


> Not a single politician out there gives a flying fuck about Gold Star families, disabled veterans, KIAs, or veterans in general. It's nothing to them but party lines, sound bites, and photo ops. I don't care what Trump said. As I said before, at least you never have to guess what his viewpoint is. I'll take open mistakes and sticking to his guns over fake apologies and the quiet, thinly veiled disgust and contempt towards the military that a HRC has.
> 
> That being said, I'm not saying I think he's a good candidate.


I see what you mean; but I do care what he said, and how he said it. I don't like the way you described HRC's stance either, for the record.

I know where DJT stands, and I don't like it. He thinks POW's are shitty soldiers (because they get caught) and he tweets insults at parents of dead soldiers. Sure, I suppose that's the lesser of two evils, in one way of looking at it. That's the thing about "the lesser of two evils", though- you're still picking an evil.


----------



## CDG (Aug 2, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> I see what you mean; but I do care what he said, and how he said it. I don't like the way you described HRC's stance either, for the record.
> 
> I know where DJT stands, and I don't like it. He thinks POW's are shitty soldiers (because they get caught) and he tweets insults at parents of dead soldiers. Sure, I suppose that's the lesser of two evils, in one way of looking at it. That's the thing about "the lesser of two evils", though- you're still picking an evil.



I'm not voting for Trump. I agree with Free's stance of doing a write in 3rd party. 

How would you describe HRCs stance?


----------



## Gunz (Aug 2, 2016)

CDG said:


> I'm not voting for Trump. I agree with Free's stance of doing a write in 3rd party...



Wouldn't voting for a third party candidate just benefit Hillary? As it did for her husband in '92? Jesus Christ, what are you guys thinking? Anybody but her!


----------



## CDG (Aug 2, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Wouldn't voting for a third party candidate just benefit Hillary? As it did for her husband in '92? Jesus Christ, what are you guys thinking? Anybody but her!



We're fucked either way. I'm not gonna throw my vote to a candidate I don't believe in. Things will have to get a lot worse, but maybe eventually enough people will quit looking at it as one of two choices. When that happens, we have a chance to turn the ship around.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 2, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Wouldn't voting for a third party candidate just benefit Hillary? As it did for her husband in '92? Jesus Christ, what are you guys thinking? Anybody but her!



Except Trump.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 2, 2016)

CDG said:


> I'm not voting for Trump. I agree with Free's stance of doing a write in 3rd party.
> 
> How would you describe HRCs stance?


I'll be honest man, I feel like she's such a piece of shit candidate for a lot of reasons. I am not voting for her.

That being said, speaking specifically about how she treats the military - we have conjecture, some second hand stories, and I don't know the broad. Does she harbor deep seated resentment for the military? Is she going to disband us and cackle as she leaves people to die overseas with no support? I don't know that, and I don't think anyone does.

Are her apologies fake? Are her policies for the military not her own, and she only begrudgingly accepts them for sake of her winning? No clue.

I'll tell you what though- she knows enough not to tell a Gold Star family "I've sacrificed lots of stuff!" in rebuke to an opinion.


----------



## Peacemaker01 (Aug 2, 2016)

#garyjohnson2016


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 2, 2016)

But to be honest, I think I secretly want Trump to win. I mean, as much as everyone complains about Our current POTUS, I can't imagine how shitty it would be to come on this site if Hillary wins. People would be bitching and moaning as if the world is ending. But if Trump wins, and if he is as liberal as I believe he will be, I actually am excited for how shitty things will get. You know that moment, when you realize someone has played a joke on you? 4 years of that please. This is a dude with zero experience, I mean less than President Obama had. He obviously doesn't surround himself with smart people, and if he did/does, he certainly didn't/doesn't/won't listen to them. You think Hillary is bad, or could be bad? Because she is a career politician? This guy is a fucking reality TV show away from being relevant at all, a dude who is a known swindler, talks shit to everybody, and doesn't seem to understand the world he lives in. People bitch about the "elites" and how they are ruining our country, look no further than billionaire trust fund kid Donnie T. Shit is clown shoes.


----------



## CDG (Aug 2, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> I'll be honest man, I feel like she's such a piece of shit candidate for a lot of reasons. I am not voting for her.
> 
> That being said, speaking specifically about how she treats the military - we have conjecture, some second hand stories, and I don't know the broad. Does she harbor deep seated resentment for the military? Is she going to disband us and cackle as she leaves people to die overseas with no support? I don't know that, and I don't think anyone does.
> 
> ...



I think when you apply the whole person concept to her, it's a very short reach to my viewpoint. The anecdotes, stories, press reports, etc all add up to the picture I currently hold of HRC. I don't think she would intentionally kill troops or disband us. What I do think is that anything positive she does is done purely for a couple extra points in a poll.



TLDR20 said:


> You think Hillary is bad, or could be bad? Because she is a career politician?



In large part, yes. The system is fucking broken dude. We don't need another career politician. We need something different. The choice most people will make this year is for one piece of shit who's not as offensive to them as the other piece of shit.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 2, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> ...


Bra-VO.

That post was so laden with pure, vitriolic disdain some got on my desk. Jesus man, I am worried about you. You're the angriest dude here today.



CDG said:


> In large part, yes. The system is fucking broken dude. We don't need another career politician. We need something different. The choice most people will make this year is for one piece of shit who's not as offensive to them as the other piece of shit.


I stand corrected!


----------



## CDG (Aug 2, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Bra-VO.
> 
> That post was so laden with pure, vitriolic disdain some got on my desk. Jesus man, I am worried about you. You're the angriest dude here today.
> 
> ...



Lol. I think I would describe my mood as contemptuously apathetic.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 2, 2016)

CDG said:


> I think when you apply the whole person concept to her, it's a very short reach to my viewpoint. The anecdotes, stories, press reports, etc all add up to the picture I currently hold of HRC. I don't think she would intentionally kill troops or disband us. What I do think is that anything positive she does is done purely for a couple extra points in a poll.



What about Donnie? Conservatively a draft dodger. Says stuff that would make hippies uncomfortable.


amlove21 said:


> Bra-VO.
> 
> That post was so laden with pure, vitriolic disdain some got on my desk. Jesus man, I am worried about you. You're the angriest dude here today.
> 
> ...



I just moved and am unpacking. I am full of hate and discontent.


----------



## CDG (Aug 2, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> What about Donnie? Conservatively a draft dodger. Says stuff that would make hippies uncomfortable.
> 
> 
> I just moved and am unpacking. I am full of hate and discontent.



I have already stated that I am not voting for Trump and that I don't think he's a good candidate.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 2, 2016)

CDG said:


> ... *contemptuously apathetic*.


And now, the new album from Screamo/Scene band "Approximate Sadness and Rage"....


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 2, 2016)

CDG said:


> I have already stated that I am not voting for Trump and that I don't think he's a good candidate.



You say you aren't voting for him, then say all the things Trump supporters say. It is a bit confusing, but I will take you at your word.


----------



## CDG (Aug 2, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> You say you aren't voting for him, then say all the things Trump supporters say. It is a bit confusing, but I will take you at your word.



What are all these things I've said?


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 2, 2016)

CDG said:


> What are all these things I've said?



"I don't care what Trump said. As I said before, at least you never have to guess what his viewpoint is. I'll take open mistakes and sticking to his guns over fake apologies and the quiet, thinly veiled disgust and contempt towards the military that a HRC has."

This quote jumps out, that was on this page.?


----------



## CDG (Aug 2, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> "I don't care what Trump said. As I said before, at least you never have to guess what his viewpoint is. I'll take open mistakes and sticking to his guns over fake apologies and the quiet, thinly veiled disgust and contempt towards the military that a HRC has."
> 
> This quote jumps out, that was on this page.?



Tracking. That was definitely not an endorsement of Trump. I don't care that he said it because I don't expect anything substantial out of either candidate. I think they both suck. I think Trump sucks less than HRC. I am not voting for him though. Less bad is still bad.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 2, 2016)

CDG said:


> Tracking. That was definitely not an endorsement of Trump. I don't care that he said it because I don't expect anything substantial out of either candidate. I think they both suck. I think Trump sucks less than HRC. I am not voting for him though. Less bad is still bad.



I got you. I was saying that what you said above is often how people justify their vote for Trump. In my mind there is no world in which I could vote for him.


----------



## CDG (Aug 2, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I got you. I was saying that what you said above is often how people justify their vote for Trump. In my mind there is no world in which I could vote for him.



Agreed. People use that in every election, and I think it's a cop out.


----------



## Brill (Aug 2, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> I'll tell you what though- she knows enough not to tell a Gold Star family "I've sacrificed lots of stuff!" in rebuke to an opinion.



Doesn't she have an ongoing dispute with Smith's mother about what she told her in Sep 2012?



CDG said:


> As I said before, at least you never have to guess what his viewpoint is. I'll take open mistakes and sticking to his guns over fake apologies and the quiet, thinly veiled disgust and contempt towards the military that a HRC has.
> 
> That being said, I'm not saying I think he's a good candidate.



This editorial echoes your sentiments that you get what you see with Trump.

Obama’s Final Revenge: The Accidental Destruction of Hillary Clinton, by Ben Shapiro, National Review


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 2, 2016)

lindy said:


> Doesn't she have an ongoing dispute with Smith's mother about what she told her in Sep 2012?


Indeed. The issue was with Pat Smith, mother of Sean Smith. From sifting through the steaming pile of frothy mouthed condemnations, here is what I can gather-

Pat Smith wants to know what happened in Benghazi. She lost her son Sean. HRC isn't forthcoming with information, Pat Smith gets (deservedly) upset, and calls HRC the murderer of her son in multiple outlets as recently as today.

So there are basically two ways to go about this- we can dissect what Hillary said, postulate about how her response then (and now) differs from DJT's, try to decide which is worse- but that's sort of shitty right? What conclusion can we come to? That both of these people are massive piles of shit? I mean, I agree. A heinous act isn't diluted by the number of times it's committed, or if your opponent did it first.

HRC acted EXACTLY like @CDG despises. Pat Smith said she "basically called me a "liar" (which she didn't actually do, because Pat Smith was calling her a murderer and saying she was responsible for Sean's death). Did Hillary come out and say it? No. She couched everything in "well I respect her loss but she's dead wrong on the events". Was that the right thing to do/say? I don't think so. Could someone lable that as "thinly veiled disgust and lies'? Sure, I guess.

And DJT did exactly what everyone expects him to do at this point- get his feelings hurt, go off on a Twitter rampage, play the victim card, and refuse to apologize. This time it wasn't Rubio, or Zodiac Killer (I am blanking on that dude's name and don't feel like looking it up), or Lady Gaga, or whoever the fuck else he  fires off at when his feelings are sore cause someone said something mean. This time his little foot stomping routine was directed at Khan and his wife (weirdly).

Neither one of these responses, I think, are what a president should do.


----------



## Brill (Aug 2, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Neither one of these responses, I think, are what a president should do.



Amen.


----------



## compforce (Aug 2, 2016)

Let me be really clear here.  There are exactly three options to choose from.

If you like Obama's policies and where he's gone, and tried to go, with the country, vote for Hillary.  That's what she will be trying to continue.  If she gets into office, we continue down the same path.  It becomes nearly impossible to reverse it in our lifetimes (eta: without a civil war).

If you don't like where Obama has been driving, vote for Trump.  Like him or not, he's not in agreement with very many of Obama's policies and won't be deliberately trying to continue them.

If you don't care for either of them, don't vote or write-in a candidate.  Either way nothing happens and you've thrown out your vote.  You're stuck with whichever one of the two wins.

Those are the choices.  There aren't any others until after the election.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 2, 2016)

I don't know. I think Trump is not going to undo anything POTUS has done, and I don't think he will reverse course. He has no plans to, he has no plans to do anything really. He is just bread and circuses.


----------



## CDG (Aug 2, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I don't know. I think Trump is not going to undo anything POTUS has done, and I don't think he will reverse course. He has no plans to, he has no plans to do anything really. He is just bread and circuses.



To further what you said, I think Trump would argue with the Republicans in Congress as often as the Democrats. He comes off as very, "My way or you're fired." Only as POTUS he can't just fire everyone like he did as a businessman. He has not shown a propensity for compromise.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 2, 2016)

Is the GOP now tanking, some of the highlights I've read today: yikes.

I'm with CDG and what he thinks about how we as Veterans and our families are used by politicians.  If they really gave a shit you'd see a lot more money devoted to Veterans Programs and the VA wouldn't be nearly as huge of a clusterfuck.


----------



## Brill (Aug 2, 2016)

CDG said:


> To further what you said, I think Trump would argue with the Republicans in Congress as often as the Democrats. He comes off as very, "My way or you're fired." Only as POTUS he can't just fire everyone like he did as a businessman. He has not shown a propensity for compromise.



No, but you CAN sick the IRS on your opponents. 

@amlove21 , this doesn't look too good.

Benghazi dad: Clinton stood by my son's casket and lied


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 2, 2016)

CDG said:


> To further what you said, I think Trump would argue with the Republicans in Congress as often as the Democrats. He comes off as very, "My way or you're fired." Only as POTUS he can't just fire everyone like he did as a businessman. He has not shown a propensity for compromise.



Arguing with Congress is better than ignoring them. I want him to engage them and actually do something. Maybe if they all hate him they will actually do something in solidarity.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 2, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Arguing with Congress is better than ignoring them. I want him to engage them and actually do something. Maybe if they all hate him they will actually do something in solidarity.


As if they don't hate the current President?


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 2, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> As if they don't hate the current President?



True. Nothing really happening either way I suppose


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 2, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> True. Nothing really happening either way I suppose



I cannot think of a single coherent argument for Trump. I have read everything posted here, and other places. Most of the stuff is laughable, some of it outright ludicrous. Someone please explain how he is at all a choice.


----------



## amlove21 (Aug 2, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I cannot think of a single coherent argument for Trump. I have read everything posted here, and other places. Most of the stuff is laughable, some of it outright ludicrous. Someone please explain how he is at all a choice.


Expert mode- do it WITHOUT mentioning the person he's running against.



lindy said:


> @amlove21 , this doesn't look too good.
> 
> Benghazi dad: Clinton stood by my son's casket and lied


Ok, I'll bite. 

Is someone on this board saying HRC is above reproach when it comes to honesty, memory, or transparency? Do you assume that I am voting for HRC or have said anything to support her? Are you saying that HRC should be held accountable for initially saying, "The video caused this" and then saying "I don't remember what I said and I don't hold anyone at fault for getting what I said wrong?" Can you verify that she lied _in that moment knowing what she did at that time_? Can you verify what was said in a private moment between the two actors in question other than what this meticulous note taker jotted down in his time of grief? Do you think Fox News is a great source of unbiased information for HRC facts?

I agree, explicitly, that HRC is a piece of shit. Said it in this thread like, I don't know, 5 times. 

Know who else is a piece of shit? DJT. Absolute fear mongering, lying, pussified entitled sycophant. 

I would compare both of them, in equal parts, to some sort of pedophilloic, woman beating, bacon hating, gun stealing, flat booty having, white privileged, mayonnaise-sex identifying, posing as a special operator tumblerina. But at this point, I would really worry about offending the good pedophilloic, woman beating, bacon hating, gun stealing, flat booty having, white privileged, mayonnaise-sex identifying, posing as a special operator tumblerina's of the world.


----------



## AWP (Aug 2, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> I would really worry about offending the good pedophilloic, woman beating, bacon hating, gun stealing, flat booty having, white privileged, mayonnaise-sex identifying, posing as a special operator tumblerina's of the world.



You know the worst form of hate?

Self hate.

You're okay, Tumblerina. We like you just the way you are. Sort of.


----------



## compforce (Aug 3, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Expert mode- do it WITHOUT mentioning the person he's running against.



Congress is gridlocked with the current system.  Trump is a good enough manipulator to take a strong position on something that he doesn't want just to get Congress to stand up in bipartisan opposition to the policy and vote in exactly what he really wanted in the first place.


----------



## CQB (Aug 3, 2016)

It may not have occured to you, but as far as HRC is concerned you all seem to be sufferering from a collective form of confirmation bias.


----------



## Marine0311 (Aug 3, 2016)

CQB said:


> It may not have occured to you, but as far as HRC is concerned you all seem to be sufferering from a collective form of confirmation bias.



Yes and we should be grateful for Her Leadership


----------



## CQB (Aug 3, 2016)

The other option is to close up the shop, leave the world to a rising China, a belligerent Russia and play Pokemon GO. If Trump is to make America great again as he wishes to do he will not achieve it with disengagement. The world cannot afford the US to do it, just to pack up and go home. The US still leads the field in a lot of areas and may not be the global imperial power it was, but there isn't any other and it is still powerful. You should really have a good look at what you're wishing for and consider the future.


----------



## compforce (Aug 3, 2016)

CQB said:


> The world cannot afford the US to do it, just to pack up and go home.



And the US cannot continue to dilute its presence on the world stage.  It's just a form of global socialism.  The US gives up everything it has to raise everyone else to a level just below surviving.  A whole world of Venezuelas will be the result.  (If China and Russia didn't step into the vacuum)


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 3, 2016)

lindy said:


> This editorial echoes your sentiments that you get what you see with Trump.
> 
> Obama’s Final Revenge: The Accidental Destruction of Hillary Clinton, by Ben Shapiro, National Review



Wow. I guess I don't live in the same America that Ben Shapiro does. By any measure our economy has improved since President Obama has taken office. Crime is lower than at almost any time in recent history, putting the rise of ISIS on him alone is rather silly. 

Lots of rhetoric there and very little substance. Seems par for the course from an editorial in the National Review. Any writing that starts by using competent and Donald Trump in the same sentence is obviously not going to go well.



compforce said:


> And the US cannot continue to dilute its presence on the world stage.  It's just a form of global socialism.  The US gives up everything it has to raise everyone else to a level just below surviving.  A whole world of Venezuelas will be the result.  (If China and Russia didn't step into the vacuum)



We give up everything we have? Really? I would like to see how that is at all based in any kind of fact? Global socialism? How can we do better? How can we enforce American standards for things like local corruption, greed, and other factors while still trying to help?

This fucking ADD clown as President.... Of the United States? Come the fuck on

Donald Trump’s Washington Post interview should make Republicans panic


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 3, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> By any measure our economy has improved since President Obama has taken office.











TLDR20 said:


> Wow. I guess I don't live in the same America that Ben Shapiro does. By any measure our economy has improved since President Obama has taken office. Crime is lower than at almost any time in recent history, putting the rise of ISIS on him alone is rather silly.
> 
> Lots of rhetoric there and very little substance. Seems par for the course from an editorial in the National Review. Any writing that starts by using competent and Donald Trump in the same sentence is obviously not going to go well.



I agree that crime is a non-issue.  Oh, BLM and cop killing sure; but they are statistical outliers.


----------



## compforce (Aug 3, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> We give up everything we have? Really? I would like to see how that is at all based in any kind of fact? Global socialism? How can we do better? How can we enforce American standards for things like local corruption, greed, and other factors while still trying to help?



My point being that I don't think either extreme is the answer.  We have to participate in the global economy, but we shouldn't give away all of our negotiating leverage to do so.  For example, TPP will crush our currently meager GDP (1.2% last month!) by outsourcing our jobs and exports to other countries with no oversight or ability to pull it back.  H1B Visas continue to be expanded to bring in cheap STEM labor even though our own STEM graduates are unable to find work related to their degrees.  We need to be smart about how we interact with the rest of the world, not pursue globalization on the grand scale, thereby ceding our own identity.



TLDR20 said:


> How can we enforce American standards for things like local corruption, greed, and other factors while still trying to help?



How about we help ourselves first...?


----------



## AWP (Aug 3, 2016)

compforce said:


> H1B Visas continue to be expanded to bring in cheap STEM labor even though our own STEM graduates are unable to find work related to their degrees.



I don't think most Americans realize how problematic this is, but I also don't think a single candidate will do anything about the problem. We lament the lack of STEM degrees, but then create an environment where they cannot be used.


----------



## Single Malt (Aug 3, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> This fucking ADD clown as President.... Of the United States? Come the fuck on
> 
> Donald Trump’s Washington Post interview should make Republicans panic



That was a seriously terrible read, he must of taken double dosage of his ADD meds before that interview. I would really like to know what a Trump supporter gets out of reading that interview. What I got out of it was that Trump think complete sentences are unnecessary and over-rated.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 3, 2016)

To be fair, I don't think any sitting POTUS has that much control over the economy which is affected by global market fluctuations. They'll take credit for any improvements and blame the political opposition for any setbacks, that much is a given.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 3, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I agree that crime is a non-issue.  Oh, BLM and cop killing sure; but they are statistical outliers.



Nifty little pictures. I love that they all have differing x and y axes that make them look oh so dramatic. Don't forget where we were in 2008.



compforce said:


> My point being that I don't think either extreme is the answer.  We have to participate in the global economy, but we shouldn't give away all of our negotiating leverage to do so.  For example, TPP will crush our currently meager GDP (1.2% last month!) by outsourcing our jobs and exports to other countries with no oversight or ability to pull it back.  H1B Visas continue to be expanded to bring in cheap STEM labor even though our own STEM graduates are unable to find work related to their degrees.  We need to be smart about how we interact with the rest of the world, not pursue globalization on the grand scale, thereby ceding our own identity.



STEM grads have a hard time getting jobs? On what planet? Engineers? Scientists? Where? Anectdotally I know off the top of my head 50 engineers all of whom had a job upon graduating, those who went back for advanced degrees had people shitting on themselves to give them jobs. If you are talking a non science biology degree then maybe, if you also count as unemployed those seeking advanced degrees, again maybe, but STEM isn't exactly a field where it is hard to find work.


----------



## compforce (Aug 3, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I don't think most Americans realize how problematic this is, but I also don't think a single candidate will do anything about the problem. We lament the lack of STEM degrees, but then create an environment where they cannot be used.



Most of the recent IT graduates certainly are understanding it...  They have plenty of time to think about it while they don't get hired.



TLDR20 said:


> STEM grads have a hard time getting jobs? On what planet? Engineers? Scientists? Where? Anectdotally I know off the top of my head 50 engineers all of whom had a job upon graduating, those who went back for advanced degrees had people shitting on themselves to give them jobs. If you are talking a non science biology degree then maybe, if you also count as unemployed those seeking advanced degrees, again maybe, but STEM isn't exactly a field where it is hard to find work.



STEM Grads Are at a Loss


> The National Institutes of Health, for example, has developed a program to help new biomedical Ph.D.s find alternative careers in the face of “unattractive” job prospects in the field



And yes, I realize the second one picks it apart.  The key point in it is that it is all based on local factors.  If you have a degree in aerospace engineering in the DC area, you probably have a job immediately.  Take that same degree anywhere else in the country and you're lucky if you're even in a related field.

In the IT industry, I can't count the number of unemployed IT professionals I know.  Literally 3/4 of them can't find a job and have had to try to do consulting which very few are successful at.  Granted, most don't have an engineering degree, but they do have an average of more than 10 years of experience.

Census: 74% of STEM grads don't get STEM jobs
Are STEM Graduates Really Having Trouble Finding Jobs?



> But a Census Bureau report published earlier this month (ed: 7/28/2014) indicates something different. The analysis of American Community Survey data found that a surprising 74 percent of STEM graduates did not have STEM jobs.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 3, 2016)

compforce said:


> STEM Grads Are at a Loss
> 
> 
> Census: 74% of STEM grads don't get STEM jobs
> Are STEM Graduates Really Having Trouble Finding Jobs?



Right, but they are employed. As an example, my wife has a Ph.D in engineering. Her current job is not in her field of biomedical engineering, therefore she fits this mold. She is employed, well, and uses her STEM education to solve problems, so while not a BME, she is still using STEM skills. Everyone who gets a biology degree doesn't work in biology. People get PH.D's in math and work the stock market, like it said in the census report, unemployment is low, employment in the same career as studies is what is off.


----------



## Centermass (Aug 3, 2016)

Journalists. Gotta love em.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 3, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Nifty little pictures. I love that they all have differing x and y axes that make them look oh so dramatic. Don't forget where we were in 2008.



...and those were the _easy_ ones to find.  Change the axes, the data remains.  This country has been no further than two quarters from recession for many, many months.  If anything the economy has been pretty stagnant.

But I get there are different interpretations.  That ass-kisser Krugman at the NYT, who thinks Obama is the niftiest thing since sliced bread, thinks the economy is so cheerful and rosy the next POTUS would be remiss in not continuing current policy.

I won't argue where we were in 2008, but I would imagine our perspectives will differ on how we got there.


----------



## compforce (Aug 3, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Right, but they are employed. As an example, my wife has a Ph.D in engineering. Her current job is not in her field of biomedical engineering, therefore she fits this mold. She is employed, well, and uses her STEM education to solve problems, so while not a BME, she is still using STEM skills. Everyone who gets a biology degree doesn't work in biology. People get PH.D's in math and work the stock market, like it said in the census report, unemployment is low, employment in the same career as studies is what is off.



But why are they in other career fields?  Yes, there will be a percentage that opt to do something else or who have the opportunity to make more somewhere else.  But given the education, wouldn't you expect the vast majority to be employed in an area related to their degree, especially immediately after graduation?


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 3, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Right, but they are employed. As an example, my wife has a Ph.D in engineering. Her current job is not in her field of biomedical engineering, therefore she fits this mold. She is employed, well, and uses her STEM education to solve problems, so while not a BME, she is still using STEM skills. Everyone who gets a biology degree doesn't work in biology. People get PH.D's in math and work the stock market, like it said in the census report, unemployment is low, employment in the same career as studies is what is off.



Same holds true with a BA in Womens' Studies.  Very, very few majors hold jobs in which they majored (or in which they studied for a graduate degree).

As for unemployment that data gets so mangled and twisted.  It's hard to figure out _who_ to believe.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 3, 2016)

compforce said:


> But why are they in other career fields?  Yes, there will be a percentage that opt to do something else or who have the opportunity to make more somewhere else.  But given the education, wouldn't you expect the vast majority to be employed in an area related to their degree, especially immediately after graduation?



Not really. There are only so many jobs for Marine biologists. That degree could be used to do many other things, that may or may not use the direct degree.


----------



## AWP (Aug 3, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> STEM grads have a hard time getting jobs? On what planet? Engineers? Scientists? Where? Anectdotally I know off the top of my head 50 engineers all of whom had a job upon graduating, those who went back for advanced degrees had people shitting on themselves to give them jobs. If you are talking a non science biology degree then maybe, if you also count as unemployed those seeking advanced degrees, again maybe, but STEM isn't exactly a field where it is hard to find work.



@compforce addressed this, but IT is one area that's hit hard. Sure some STEM degrees may not have issues, but others do. Your Comp. Sci. degree may score you an entry-level job, but moving beyond that becomes very difficult. You have cert mills in India cranking out paper certs left and right for a workforce will work for much less than their American counterparts. Comp. Sci. is becoming like other degrees where you need a Master's and some specialization to be noticed.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 3, 2016)

compforce said:


> Most of the recent IT graduates certainly are understanding it...  They have plenty of time to think about it while they don't get hired.



I can see IT being an issue, maybe that is due to required certs and experience though? Most of the dudes I know who did It in the military and have a clearance and certs have many job offers when they look.



Freefalling said:


> @compforce addressed this, but IT is one area that's hit hard. Sure some STEM degrees may not have issues, but others do. Your Comp. Sci. degree may score you an entry-level job, but moving beyond that becomes very difficult. You have cert mills in India cranking out paper certs left and right for a workforce will work for much less than their American counterparts. Comp. Sci. is becoming like other degrees where you need a Master's and some specialization to be noticed.



For sure, see above


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 3, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Not really. There are only so many jobs for Marine biologists. That degree could be used to do many other things, that may or may not use the direct degree.



This.  Case in point, poli sci (my first degree).  Who becomes an actual political scientist?  Not many, at all.  Most go into journalism, government work, NGOs, etc.

Another workforce anomaly closer to home, nursing.  You hear about the "nursing shortage."  There really isn't one.  Nurses get burned out and leave the bedside.  _There's_ the shortage.  But if everyone with a nursing license decided to work at the bedside, there would be more nurses than jobs.  But the career field has become so diversified (good thing), it's easy--and profitable--for nurses to leave the bedside.


----------



## AWP (Aug 3, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I can see IT being an issue, maybe that is due to required certs and experience though? Most of the dudes I know who did It in the military and have a clearance and certs have many job offers when they look.



If you have a TS in any field you are "instaemployable" around the DoD. A Janitor can make 120k a year in remote locations. Without the TS it becomes much more difficult. A decade ago you didn't even need a cert to be marketable. Now a cert + degree places you in the middle of the pack. You have to plan and work towards some specialization early in your career if you want to avoid a mid-career/ experienced professional level wall. In a few years even the specialization won't help you as the market changes. H1B visas are the devil to the IT industry.


----------



## Centermass (Aug 3, 2016)

Ok. Back on topic before I lock this thread..........































:-"


----------



## Brill (Aug 3, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> By any measure our economy has improved since President Obama has taken office. ....putting the rise of ISIS on him alone is rather silly.



Improved from the near death experience, yes but growing, not really. We're still on life support.

Past 10 Years Of U.S. GDP Growth Reveal Disturbing Trend - See It Market

I agree that IS isn't Obama's creation but vacating Iraq threw gas on the fire and then his "non-war" in Libya was also a catalyst to spread/create another safe haven.

To be fair, his admin has never been strong on foreign policy.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 3, 2016)

lindy said:


> Improved from the near death experience, yes but growing, not really. We're still on life support.
> 
> Past 10 Years Of U.S. GDP Growth Reveal Disturbing Trend - See It Market
> 
> ...



No arguments from me there. I think he felt he ran on a promise to get America out of a war many had no desire to be in anymore. That may have been stupid, but there was a lot of stupid in Iraq before he took over, and there will be a lot no matter who is next.


----------



## Brill (Aug 3, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> No arguments from me there. I think he felt he ran on a promise to get America out of a war many had no desire to be in anymore. That may have been stupid, but there was a lot of stupid in Iraq before he took over, and there will be a lot no matter who is next.



Finally, I think we agree on something!


----------



## AWP (Aug 3, 2016)

lindy said:


> I agree that IS isn't Obama's creation but vacating Iraq threw gas on the fire and then his "non-war" in Libya was also a catalyst to spread/create another safe haven.
> 
> To be fair, his admin has never been strong on foreign policy.



Didn't we bail on Iraq because of the SOFA? Iraq wanted the authority to try servicemembers in their courts and we told them to stick it? I only remember the withdrawal because it sent a bunch of spoiled, out-of-touch, entitled douchebags to my country.


----------



## Brill (Aug 3, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Didn't we bail on Iraq because of the SOFA? Iraq wanted the authority to try servicemembers in their courts and we told them to stick it? I only remember the withdrawal because it sent a bunch of spoiled, out-of-touch, entitled douchebags to my country.



Are you telling me Obama can negotiate with Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions, negotiate with Cuba, etc but cannot "convince" Iraq to allow some troops to stay on in an advise and assist role?


----------



## AWP (Aug 3, 2016)

lindy said:


> Are you telling me Obama can negotiate with Iran to give up its nuclear ambitions, negotiate with Cuba, etc but cannot "convince" Iraq to allow some troops to stay on in an advise and assist role?



I'm saying Bush signed the SOFA calling for a 2011 departure. Obama took credit for something Bush did and tried to keep troops in country, but the Iraqis shot down our requirements. I can't stand the...."gentleman" but keeping troops in country past the deadline was madness and we were "right" to leave. Given the turd the Iraqis dropped on us, they can rot on their own. 

Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com



> But ending the U.S. troop presence in Iraq was an overwhelmingly popular demand among Iraqis, and Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki appears to have been unwilling to take the political risk of extending it. While he was inclined to see a small number of American soldiers stay behind to continue mentoring Iraqi forces, the likes of Shi’ite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, on whose support Maliki’s ruling coalition depends, were having none of it. Even the Obama Administration’s plan to keep some 3,000 trainers behind failed because the Iraqis were unwilling to grant them the legal immunity from local prosecution that is common to SOF agreements in most countries where U.S. forces are based.


----------



## Brill (Aug 3, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I'm saying Bush signed the SOFA calling for a 2011 departure. Obama took credit for something Bush did and tried to keep troops in country, but the Iraqis shot down our requirements. I can't stand the...."gentleman" but keeping troops in country past the deadline was madness and we were "right" to leave. Given the turd the Iraqis dropped on us, they can rot on their own.
> 
> Iraq’s Government, Not Obama, Called Time on the U.S. Troop Presence | TIME.com



Leaving enabled IS to occupy Mosul and leaving directly contributed to the massacre of the Albu Nimr tribesmen and Yazidis by IS.  Iran doesn't have the infrastructure to stop IS advance and we weren't able to start a good air campaign...those black flags are hard to see...so IS ditacted when and where we would respond.

I think we should have stayed but appeared to have left.

God knows what the current idiots would do.


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 3, 2016)

lindy said:


> Leaving enabled IS to occupy Mosul and leaving directly contributed to the massacre of the Albu Nimr tribesmen and Yazidis by IS.  Iran doesn't have the infrastructure to stop IS advance and we weren't able to start a good air campaign...those black flags are hard to see...so IS ditacted when and where we would respond.
> 
> I think we should have stayed but appeared to have left.
> 
> God knows what the current idiots would do.



I'm pretty sure the Iraqi's had all the troops and equipment needed.   Now if they actually kept their uniforms on and held their positions...


----------



## compforce (Aug 3, 2016)

WATCH: Crowd Cheers Clinton's Call To 'Raise Taxes On The Middle Class'

She just vowed to raise taxes on the Middle Class, that's most of us on this site...


----------



## Brill (Aug 3, 2016)

compforce said:


> She just vowed to raise taxes on the Middle Class, that's most of us on this site...



Who do you expect to pay for Bill's hookers & blow?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 3, 2016)




----------



## Brill (Aug 3, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


>



You just won the internets!


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 4, 2016)

Use this handy-dandy printout to compare your hands to Trump's!

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/custom/Meena/TrumpsHand-outline.pdf


----------



## Brill (Aug 4, 2016)

Not bad in my opinion.

CNN's second Libertarian town hall in 90 seconds - CNN Video

What Libertarian Gary Johnson believes in 2 minutes - CNN Video


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 4, 2016)

lindy said:


> Not bad in my opinion.
> 
> CNN's second Libertarian town hall in 90 seconds - CNN Video
> 
> What Libertarian Gary Johnson believes in 2 minutes - CNN Video


CNN is pretty committed to giving air time to the third party candidates this year.  In addition to the Johnson town hall, they'll be hosting Jill Stein & Co. in about two weeks.  Not bad for the "Clinton News Network", eh?


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 4, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> CNN is pretty committed to giving air time to the third party candidates this year.  In addition to the Johnson town hall, they'll be hosting Jill Stein & Co. in about two weeks.  Not bad for the "Clinton News Network", eh?



It is funny every democrat thinks Gary Johnson is going to take votes from Hillary, but every Republican thinks he is going to take votes from that yellow haired d-bag.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 4, 2016)

In all honesty I have a feeling Gary Johnson isn't going to be much of a threat to anybody. And Trump may self-destruct himself right out of contention.


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 4, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Use this handy-dandy printout to compare your hands to Trump's!
> 
> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/custom/Meena/TrumpsHand-outline.pdf



 He's got tiny fat fingers.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 4, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> STEM grads have a hard time getting jobs? On what planet? Engineers? Scientists? Where? Anectdotally I know off the top of my head 50 engineers all of whom had a job upon graduating, those who went back for advanced degrees had people shitting on themselves to give them jobs. If you are talking a non science biology degree then maybe, if you also count as unemployed those seeking advanced degrees, again maybe, but STEM isn't exactly a field where it is hard to find work.


You know 50 out of what population of recent STEM graduates?



TLDR20 said:


> Right, but they are employed. As an example, my wife has a Ph.D in engineering. Her current job is not in her field of biomedical engineering, therefore she fits this mold. She is employed, well, and uses her STEM education to solve problems, so while not a BME, she is still using STEM skills. Everyone who gets a biology degree doesn't work in biology. People get PH.D's in math and work the stock market, like it said in the census report, unemployment is low, employment in the same career as studies is what is off.


Are you missing or ignoring the point?
We bring H1B Visa STEM workers in because Industry claims American Universities are not producing enough STEM Graduates?
They go into non-STEM jobs because the guy (gal) from China or India gets hired over the American.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 4, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> You know 50 out of what population of recent STEM graduates?



Well on here we often use anectdotal evidence, and I did say it was anectdotal. Many of the people I know are engineers, as all my wife's friends are such, granted she went to an excellent school at NCSU, and did her Ph.D at Duke, and we lived in an area of very low unemployment due to the Research Triangle. Including things like computer science as STEM certainly sways those stats. It was something I didn't think of, as I usually equate STEM as mostly engineering.



DA SWO said:


> Are you missing or ignoring the point?
> We bring H1B Visa STEM workers in because Industry claims American Universities are not producing enough STEM Graduates?
> They go into non-STEM jobs because the guy (gal) from China or India gets hired over the American.



I'm not doing either. The way I look at the problem is different than you, having seen my wife look for jobs first as a new undergraduate, then later as A Ph.D. Many new graduates solely look for work they think is owed to them. Their "dream job" so to speak. My wife wanted to do tissue engineering, with a bachelors degree. There are not a lot of jobs in that field, period, and those that do exist require advanced schooling. As she matured from being a 21 year old new grad she realized her mistake and moved her goalpost. I think that is a common problem with new graduates, they think they are owed a great salary at their dream job straight away with little experience. When they don't get it, or apply to the right jobs, obviously forms look to other resources to hire the people that help them.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 4, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> It is funny every democrat thinks Gary Johnson is going to take votes from Hillary, but every Republican thinks he is going to take votes from that yellow haired d-bag.



Well analysis from FiveThirtyEight, a site that I have great respect for, seems to support the idea that Johnson will likely take more votes from Hillary than Trump (based on polling data from early July).  I posted about it in the Hillary email thread



Deathy McDeath said:


> Election Update: Is Gary Johnson Taking More Support From Clinton Or Trump?



It does seem kind of counter-intuitive, but that's what the data shows.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 4, 2016)

Hmmm...slip of the tongue, or "nothing to see here".

Manafort misspeaks on Ryan: 'I'm going to be supporting him as a candidate for president, too'

Manafort's giant gaffe: Trump chief backs Ryan for president


----------



## Rapid (Aug 4, 2016)

Interesting. _Hillary for Hospital 2016_


----------



## Brill (Aug 4, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> CNN is pretty committed to giving air time to the third party candidates this year.  In addition to the Johnson town hall, they'll be hosting Jill Stein & Co. in about two weeks.  Not bad for the "Clinton News Network", eh?



Yep, no bias in their Clinton love fest. Their news" is broadcast in the office so I get the privilege of listening to it and they are definitely pushing a pro-Clinton agenda as they can since it's a private entertainment company.



Rapid said:


> Interesting. _Hillary for Hospital 2016_



FOREIGNER TRYING TO INFUENCE OUR ELECTION!


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 4, 2016)

lindy said:


> Yep, no bias in their Clinton love fest. Their news" is broadcast in the office so I get the privilege of listening to it and they are definitely pushing a pro-Clinton agenda as they can since it's a private entertainment company.


It's kinda hard not to when the opposition is Donald Trump.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 4, 2016)

Rapid said:


> Interesting. _Hillary for Hospital 2016_


Infowars make this?


----------



## Rapid (Aug 4, 2016)

No idea, just saw it linked elsewhere. Not a fan of Alex Jones though.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 4, 2016)

lindy said:


> Yep, no bias in their Clinton love fest. Their news" is broadcast in the office so I get the privilege of listening to it and they are definitely pushing a pro-Clinton agenda as they can since it's a private entertainment company.



One of the beauties of working in the "sterile" surgical suites, was no outside distractions. The TV's in the several lounges, and break rooms would see: Daily Soap operas, Bloomburg/Financial, HGTV (Gag), Fox/CNN at one end of the Cafeteria. We had music in the surgery rooms, but I controlled the volume in every case that was ongoing.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 4, 2016)

The more I think about this, the more I am beginning to believe that if Trump wins ... both parties will finally become united on one thing.  Their hatred for the President.  Within 6 months they will impeach him.  I really believe this; we are well past the point of him just calling people names or promoting silly conspiracies.  At this point he's  making jokes about wearing a Purple Heart, accusing the Debate Committee of conspiring against him by scheduling games during NFL games, and don't even get me started on Captain Khan and his family.  The man has shown no ability to know his audience and I greatly question his rational decision making ability.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 4, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> The more I think about this, the more I am beginning to believe that if Trump wins ... both parties will finally become united on one thing.  Their hatred for the President.  Within 6 months they will impeach him.  I really believe this; we are well past the point of him just calling people names or promoting silly conspiracies.  At this point he's  making jokes about wearing a Purple Heart, accusing the Debate Committee of conspiring against him by scheduling games during NFL games, and don't even get me started on Captain Khan and his family.  The man has shown no ability to know his audience and I greatly question his rational decision making ability.



I'm still think he is going to drop out. I have thought so for a long time, I may have posted that earlier in this thread somewhere.


----------



## Brill (Aug 4, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> The more I think about this, the more I am beginning to believe that if Trump wins ... both parties will finally become united on one thing.  Their hatred for the President.  Within 6 months they will impeach him.  I really believe this; we are well past the point of him just calling people names or promoting silly conspiracies.  At this point he's  making jokes about wearing a Purple Heart, accusing the Debate Committee of conspiring against him by scheduling games during NFL games, and don't even get me started on Captain Khan and his family.  The man has shown no ability to know his audience and I greatly question his rational decision making ability.



I think the staff that makes the President successful or not.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 4, 2016)

lindy said:


> I think the staff that makes the President successful or not.



I totally agree. Do you think he will listen to his staff? In my mind he has made it pretty clear he will not listen to anyone.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 5, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I'm still think he is going to drop out. I have thought so for a long time, I may have posted that earlier in this thread somewhere.


It would be complete chaos if Trump dropped out and the GOP had to find a last-minute replacement.  Obviously the backup candidate would get creamed, but I reckon that faith in the GOP would be absolutely shattered and there would be significant deleterious effects on the down-ticket races.  I don't even see it bolstering support for a significant third party; I think a lot of disillusioned Republicans would probably just not participate in local races.  That would be really bad.

Secondary, of course, is the ridiculous amount of bloviating that we would hear from conservative news sources.  Allen West would get web traffic the likes of which he would have never seen, Glenn Beck would probably get his TV show back, and Rush would regret signing that most recent contract with the hefty pay cut.  Breitbart's servers will explode harder than Andrew Breitbart's coke and rage-addled heart.  I'll just hang my head in shame.


----------



## Brill (Aug 5, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I totally agree. Do you think he will listen to his staff? In my mind he has made it pretty clear he will not listen to anyone.



I honestly think the staff he currently has is all he'll need.  I have friends and in-laws in very small towns in middle America, basically the type of people who believe in Pelosi's "3 g's" and during the primaries they were overwhelmingly Trump supporters but now, that support is gone. There is serious concern about his judgement because of the crap he's said last week. It seems that people are embarrassed to be affiliated with him now. Even the Trump yard signs that were all over my street are gone.


----------



## Marine0311 (Aug 5, 2016)

lindy said:


> I honestly think the staff he currently has is all he'll need.  I have friends and in-laws in very small towns in middle America, basically the type of people who believe in Pelosi's "3 g's" and during the primaries they were overwhelmingly Trump supporters but now, that support is gone. There is serious concern about his judgement because of the crap he's said last week. It seems that people are embarrassed to be affiliated with him now. Even the Trump yard signs that were all over my street are gone.



It's the same around my area.


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 5, 2016)

lindy said:


> I honestly think the staff he currently has is all he'll need.  I have friends and in-laws in very small towns in middle America, basically the type of people who believe in Pelosi's "3 g's" and during the primaries they were overwhelmingly Trump supporters but now, that support is gone. There is serious concern about his judgement because of the crap he's said last week. It seems that people are embarrassed to be affiliated with him now. Even the Trump yard signs that were all over my street are gone.



Things he's said through the lens of the media.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 5, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Things he's said through the lens of the media.



True.

At this point I'll probably still vote against HRC...but with reservations. The problem is, I think a lot of ardent Trump supporters, like me, who really liked many of the things he was saying early on were expecting him to start acting a bit more presidential after the nomination. Maybe that's too much to expect from such a flamboyant personality. But I still can't summon up the bile to vote for that bitch. God help us.


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 5, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> True.
> 
> At this point I'll probably still vote against HRC...but with reservations. The problem is, I think a lot of ardent Trump supporters, like me, who really liked many of the things he was saying early on were expecting him to start acting a bit more presidential after the nomination. Maybe that's too much to expect from such a flamboyant personality. But I still can't summon up the bile to vote for that bitch. God help us.



His son suggested in an interview that the months following the convention are typically the worse. Attacks will increase to manipulate one way or another. We're all just sheep


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 5, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Things he's said through the lens of the media.


Do you believe that the media distorts the things he says?


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 5, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Do you believe that the media distorts the things he says?



It's not a distortion when it's a direct quote, but it is manipulating when they take the more offensive and outlandish things and let them stand on their own. Just see the things he said about Kahn. There's plenty of him giving respect to him but you wouldn't know it


----------



## Gunz (Aug 5, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Do you believe that the media distorts the things he says?



The media engages in selective editing. All the time. They all do it depending on their agenda and they _all_ have an agenda. You can take a simple story of a guy robbing a bank and slant it dozens of ways to shift the blame in any direction you want...and still be telling enough of the truth to get away with it.  Trump is so outspoken he makes it easy for them.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 5, 2016)

Is Trump a Putin pawn?  Found this article pretty interesting. Especially this paragraph- I've watch Putin on 60 Minutes, he is charismatic. 

_A career intelligence officer, the Russian leader is' trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them,' the former CIA head said. 'Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump’s vulnerabilities by complimenting him. He responded just as Mr. Putin had calculated.'_

Former head of CIA endorses Clinton and says Trump is Putin's pawn


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 5, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Is Trump a Putin pawn?  Found this article pretty interesting. Especially this paragraph- I've watch Putin on 60 Minutes, he is charismatic.
> 
> _A career intelligence officer, the Russian leader is' trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them,' the former CIA head said. 'Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump’s vulnerabilities by complimenting him. He responded just as Mr. Putin had calculated.'_
> 
> Former head of CIA endorses Clinton and says Trump is Putin's pawn


Does the article address private e-mail servers?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 5, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Does the article address private e-mail servers?



 I guess I should've been more clear. My question is more along the lines of people's opinion on whether or not Putin is looking for ways to help trump succeed, because he feels he can control trump more than he can influence Hillary.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 5, 2016)

Came across this nice little graphic the other day which compares the stated* policy positions of the top 3 candidates.  No spin, no bluster, just a straight-up comparison.  I'll grant that it is probably a little biased towards Johnson, since it tends to contextualize some of his comments, but I'm fine with that.







*Only includes official positions, not spur-the-moment commentary stuff


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 5, 2016)

iSideWith.com

Always a fun site to have everyone in the workplace do. Although it was a lot better when we had at least 14 candidates on both sides.


----------



## Brill (Aug 5, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Things he's said through the lens of the media.



Oh, totally agree but perception is reality.

According to the press Trump is an idiot, Hillary is a liar, and the US paid $400 mil for hostage release*.

*Pretty shitty that Foley's family wanted to pay for his release but the USG wouldn't allow it.



Ooh-Rah said:


> Is Trump a Putin pawn?  Found this article pretty interesting. Especially this paragraph- I've watch Putin on 60 Minutes, he is charismatic.
> 
> _A career intelligence officer, the Russian leader is' trained to identify vulnerabilities in an individual and to exploit them,' the former CIA head said. 'Mr. Putin played upon Mr. Trump’s vulnerabilities by complimenting him. He responded just as Mr. Putin had calculated.'_
> 
> Former head of CIA endorses Clinton and says Trump is Putin's pawn



Did he discuss the Clinton's connection to Uranium One, a Russian state-owned company?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 5, 2016)

File this under, "Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!" and "it depends on what the definition of the word is, is"

Clinton again claims FBI said she was 'truthful' about her emails

_Clinton told a roomful of journalists, 'What I told the FBI, which he said was truthful, is consistent with what I have said publicly.'
'So I may have short-circuited, and for that, I will try to clarify because, I think Chris Wallace and I were probably talking past each other.'_


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 5, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Came across this nice little graphic the other day which compares the stated* policy positions of the top 3 candidates.  No spin, no bluster, just a straight-up comparison.  I'll grant that it is probably a little biased towards Johnson, since it tends to contextualize some of his comments, but I'm fine with that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Johnson has some pretty anti science stances including global warming, vaccinations, and GMO labeling. Ugh.


----------



## Poccington (Aug 5, 2016)

Ever see that episode of South Park where they have to vote for a new school mascot? The choice they have to make is between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.

That's voters in the US right now.


----------



## DasBoot (Aug 5, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Johnson has some pretty anti science stances including global warming, vaccinations, and GMO labeling. Ugh.


He lost me on the vaccinations.


----------



## Brill (Aug 5, 2016)

DasBoot said:


> He lost me on the vaccinations.



The Court could be soon lost.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 5, 2016)

lindy said:


> The Court could be soon lost.



On vaccinations?


----------



## Brill (Aug 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> On vaccinations?



No.


----------



## Marine0311 (Aug 6, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> I'm going with Trump as of now based upon his blunt style if anything. I'd like to read more into what specific polices he has.
> 
> Otherwise my 2nd choice is wide open.



I am not voting for Trump. Blah.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 6, 2016)

lindy said:


>



Nice  ad.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 6, 2016)

Finally!

A worthwhile reason to vote Trump...

LA Mayor: Trump victory could turn off IOC voters to '24 bid


----------



## Rapid (Aug 7, 2016)

Buckle up, Buckaroos!


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 8, 2016)

After almost a year of Trump controversies, some of which were stupid, and some not-so-stupid, it appears as though we've got our first *new* stupid Hillary controversy.

Conservative commentators are now saying that Hillary is suffering from seizures, based on some of the rather oddball videos we've seen of her recently.  These commentators, who are *obviously* doctors specializing in neurology, cite the erratic head movements as indicative of brain damage, or something.  Furthermore, they point to a guy following Clinton around, who totally isn't a secret service agent, carrying a small black object that you can totally tell is a diazepam dispenser based on grainy, blown-up photos.  

I mean, look at this!  Could it be any more obvious?





I suppose that if we're going to have dumb Trump controversies (e.g. the small hands thing, narcissism, etc) there has to be at least one stupid Clinton controversy.  Is the email thing passe' already?


----------



## Brill (Aug 8, 2016)

@Rapid , queue the falling ballon footage.


----------



## AWP (Aug 8, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> After almost a year of Trump controversies, some of which were stupid, and some not-so-stupid, it appears as though we've got our first *new* stupid Hillary controversy.
> 
> Conservative commentators are now saying that Hillary is suffering from seizures, based on some of the rather oddball videos we've seen of her recently.  These commentators, who are *obviously* doctors specializing in neurology, cite the erratic head movements as indicative of brain damage, or something.  Furthermore, they point to a guy following Clinton around, who totally isn't a secret service agent, carrying a small black object that you can totally tell is a diazepam dispenser based on grainy, blown-up photos.



That's a zip gun incase she's out of control. They can pop her with 11 billion cc's of something (because I'm not a med guy) and take her off to a quiet area for recalibrating. The Illuminati don't play, son!

Hillary Clinton, the Winter Politician.  Strap her into the chair and utter 7 or 8 words in Russian.

"Whitewater
Blowjob
Mogadishu
Obama
Embassy
Electronic Mail
Mistress
Humiliated

Good morning, Comrade"

"Ready to comply."


----------



## Brill (Aug 8, 2016)

Short circuited on job growth? Her Senate record isn't too good but she sure did rack up some donations...go figure.

As senator, Clinton promised 200,000 jobs in Upstate New York. Her efforts fell flat.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 8, 2016)

Transparency. It is such a comfort to know the people who lead our nation, or are competing for same, are all so honest, open, and we know we can trust all of them all the time.

I'm glad to have the Olympics to watch. Everything else is pure theater.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 8, 2016)

lindy said:


> Short circuited on job growth? Her Senate record isn't too good but she sure did rack up some donations...go figure.
> 
> As senator, Clinton promised 200,000 jobs in Upstate New York. Her efforts fell flat.


Got a link for those of us without a WaPo subscription?

Edit: Or maybe quote some relevant sections?


----------



## Brill (Aug 8, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Got a link for those of us without a WaPo subscription?
> 
> Edit: Or maybe quote some relevant sections?



Should be free...unless you've exceeded your free views for the month.  If so, just use a different browser.:-"


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Aug 8, 2016)

Deathy, use my log in if you need. 

username:  Trump4Life
password: HI!!aryi$tH3deviL666


:-":wall:


----------



## Gunz (Aug 8, 2016)

She's obviously insane.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 9, 2016)

Jim Bishop's book,"FDR" covers in detail, FDR's last year. The results of his pre-election physical, were swept under the rug. It was very clear the FDR was months away from dying. To hide any physical illness, no matter how bad it may be, is not something that has not been done before.


----------



## AWP (Aug 9, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Jim Bishop's book,"FDR" covers in detail, FDR's last year. The results of his pre-election physical, were swept under the rug. It was very clear the FDR was months away from dying. To hide any physical illness, no matter how bad it may be, is not something that has not been done before.



It cost us, and the world, at Yalta.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 9, 2016)

Did Donald Trump just "suggest" that someone assassinate Hillary Clinton?'






*RESPONSE BY BOTH CAMPS -

*


----------



## Gunz (Aug 9, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Ummm...
> 
> Ummm did...
> 
> Did Donald Trump just "suggest" that someone assassinate Hillary Clinton?'



Nothing actionable.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 9, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> It cost us, and the world, at Yalta.



The only positive thing that FDR did, was to be a buffer  between Churchill and Stalin. All of the scut work and negotiations were done by staff, with not much more than a nod or two from FDR. FDR was physically good for photo shoots, and signing some papers, but not much else. If you take a look at FDR sitting between Churchill and Stalin, it is easy to see just how wasted and frail he was then. Because FDR was unable to attend critical meetings, a lot of ground was lost to Stalin. FDR was unable to argue much beyond his meals for the day.


----------



## Rapid (Aug 9, 2016)

You know, Trump says some stupid shit, but the limp-wristed pussy-ass reaction from Clinton's side (to most of what he says) is way fucking worse.

They act so indignant and shit, so _offended_. Man, shut the fuck up. People are tired of that crap, and that's the only reason Trump is so popular in the first place.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 9, 2016)

Well, that big-dick bravado seems to be hurting Trump these days.  It would seem like the "limp-wristed pussy-ass reaction" is the smart campaign move.


----------



## Rapid (Aug 9, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Well, that big-dick bravado seems to be hurting Trump these days.  It would seem like the "limp-wristed pussy-ass reaction" is the smart campaign move.



Not acting like a bunch of pussies and pandering to the 'outrage crowd' would be the smart campaign move... in an ideal world. But since politics in Western nations are increasingly influenced by emotional women (and men who act like women), then maybe the pussy ass move _is_ the right move.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 9, 2016)

I fucking love you, @Rapid .


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 9, 2016)

Rapid said:


> You know, Trump says some stupid shit, but the limp-wristed pussy-ass reaction from Clinton's side (to most of what he says) is way fucking worse.
> 
> They act so indignant and shit, so _offended_. Man, shut the fuck up. People are tired of that crap, and that's the only reason Trump is so popular in the first place.



Trump isn't very popular. You might know that if you were you know in America. Pretty ignorant of you to assume people from another country fee the same way you do....

Obviously dripping in sarcasm. Obvious "shit posting"


----------



## Brill (Aug 9, 2016)

Recent polling data looks good for Clinton

RealClearPolitics - 2016 Latest Polls

Until you dig into the sample...majority of polled were democrats.  Apparently the latest gallop (had equal percentage of Rs and Ds) was statistically tied.

Vast majority view both very poorly.


----------



## nobodythank you (Aug 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Trump isn't very popular. You might know that if you were you know in America. Pretty ignorant of you to assume people from another country fee the same way you do....
> 
> Obviously dripping in sarcasm. Obvious "shit posting"


The size of each candidate's rallies would beg to differ. @Rapid is dead on the mark.


----------



## Brill (Aug 9, 2016)

"Second Amendment people, maybe there is (something they could do)."

That is inciting violence? 2A people are assassins? Gun owners are killers?


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 9, 2016)

lindy said:


> Recent polling data looks good for Clinton
> 
> RealClearPolitics - 2016 Latest Polls
> 
> Until you dig into the sample...majority of polled were democrats.  Apparently the latest gallop (had equal percentage of Rs and Ds) was statistically tied.


What is "random sample" polling, Alex?
When every poll is quote-unquote oversampling democrats, that means that there are simply more self-identified democrats than republicans in America.  It's not a statistical aberration, it's simple demographics.



ke4gde said:


> The size of each candidate's rallies would beg to differ. @Rapid is dead on the mark.


If Bernie Sanders taught us anything, it's that big rallies don't guarantee victory.


----------



## Rapid (Aug 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Trump isn't very popular. You might know that if you were you know in America. Pretty ignorant of you to assume people from another country fee the same way you do....
> 
> Obviously dripping in sarcasm. Obvious "shit posting"



So unpopular he beat out all your other excuses for a Republican candidate?

If you're trying to define this as 'popular enough' to win the White House, then maybe not, unless there's an October bombshell... or a similar situation to that seen with *Brexit*. As in, there's always the chance that a lot of shy/secret Trump voters are keeping their true intentions hidden until voting day. Either way, he's certainly popular enough with a very large number of people... and that's understandable, because his rise to power was engineered by leftist idiocy and right wing complacency. How many naive morons were saying things like 'he'll never win the nomination' or 'surely this latest remark will be the end of him'? OVER AND OVER FOR MONTHS. It's like those people (including a lot of _supposedly_ intelligent ones) are living in a bubble and they just don't understand why Trump gets votes, or how he got to his current position in the first place.

Like I said, there's a very good reason Trump is even a choice. The Democrats are heading even further to the left (at full-retard pace) pandering to BLM and other bullshit social justice causes, while the Republicans are trying to play it safe by sitting somewhere on the middle of the fence, not being as conservative on some issues as a lot of their voters would like them to be. All the Republicans had to do was come up with one other candidate who wasn't a corrupt career politician (apparently hard to find these days) and who wasn't trying to play it safe. If Trump can be so popular while remaining so reckless, it kind of proves the point that conservative voters are tired of mainstream politicians and their pussyfooting around.

In a parallel universe, with all other things being the same, a well-spoken version of Trump would probably win the election by a landslide. The Democrats should count their lucky stars that he is who he is, with all his imperfections, rather than a slightly more refined candidate with the same level of focus and high energy.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 9, 2016)

lindy said:


> "Second Amendment people, maybe there is (something they could do)."
> 
> That is inciting violence? 2A people are assassins? Gun owners are killers?


Can't believe I'm agreeing with @lindy here.  Trump has said some dumb shit in the past, but if you listen to him long enough you'll find that he really doesn't speak in nuance and innuendo all that often.  He's generally pretty plainly-spoken, which is part of his appeal.  With a few exceptions, there usually isn't any sort of hidden meaning behind his words.  I don't think he was inciting violence - in the full video from his rally, he leads up to this statement by talking about gun violence and gun owners collectively opposing 2A stuff.  I mean, if you just listened to the 15-second video, it does sound pretty bad.  But when placed in the larger context of his speech, it's pretty innocuous.

I promise that this is the last time I'll defend Donny this week.


----------



## Brill (Aug 9, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> What is "random sample" polling, Alex?
> When every poll is quote-unquote oversampling democrats, that means that there are simply more self-identified democrats than republicans in America.  It's not a statistical aberration, it's simple demographics.



523 more Democrats than Republicans. Wonder who would lead that poll?

NBC News SurveyMonkey Toplines and Methodology 8 1-8 7



Deathy McDeath said:


> Can't believe I'm agreeing with @lindy here.  Trump has said some dumb shit in the past, but if you listen to him long enough you'll find that he really doesn't speak in nuance and innuendo all that often.  He's generally pretty plainly-spoken, which is part of his appeal.  With a few exceptions, there usually isn't any sort of hidden meaning behind his words.  I don't think he was inciting violence - in the full video from his rally, he leads up to this statement by talking about gun violence and gun owners collectively opposing 2A stuff.  I mean, if you just listened to the 15-second video, it does sound pretty bad.  But when placed in the larger context of his speech, it's pretty innocuous.
> 
> I promise that this is the last time I'll defend Donny this week.




HOLY HELL!


----------



## nobodythank you (Aug 9, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> If Bernie Sanders taught us anything, it's that big rallies don't guarantee victory.


Seriously? Bernie lost because of corruption and his inability to go after his opponent. His turning point was when he dismissed Hillary's emails.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 9, 2016)

lindy said:


> 523 more Democrats than Republicans. Wonder who would lead that poll?
> 
> NBC News SurveyMonkey Toplines and Methodology 8 1-8 7


RAN
DOM
SAM
PLING

Does it not tell you anything that nearly every recent poll has "oversampled" democrats?  That's either a massive, inconceivable conspiracy across multiple organizations to fix poll numbers, or a quantifiable demographic shift.  Does it tell you anything that the FOX NEWS poll "oversampled" democrats by some 25%, and reported a 10-point lead for Hillary?


----------



## Rapid (Aug 9, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Can't believe I'm agreeing with @lindy here.  Trump has said some dumb shit in the past, but if you listen to him long enough you'll find that he really doesn't speak in nuance and innuendo all that often.  He's generally pretty plainly-spoken, which is part of his appeal.  With a few exceptions, there usually isn't any sort of hidden meaning behind his words.  I don't think he was inciting violence - in the full video from his rally, he leads up to this statement by talking about gun violence and gun owners collectively opposing 2A stuff.  I mean, if you just listened to the 15-second video, it does sound pretty bad.  But when placed in the larger context of his speech, it's pretty innocuous.
> 
> I promise that this is the last time I'll defend Donny this week.



Ok, now follow that through. Are you not physically repulsed by the stupid crap coming out of the Clinton camp and its supporters, claiming that he's trying to start some kind of civil war?

Is that level of stupid not painfully cringeworthy? This kind of shit is exactly what makes Trump voters even more likely to vote for him, as well as swinging more undecided people in his favour.

The only thing Trump had to do throughout his entire campaign was act reckless and carefree -- he handed the other side plenty of rope to hang themselves with, through their own poor reactions.

Yes, Trump does the same sort of things with some of the stupid shit he says... the difference is, people are more tired of it when it comes from Clinton's camp because the left has been doing it for years now. If anything, some people will find Trump's idiocy _refreshing_, because no one has dared to be that stupid or politically incorrect... in this ocean of political correctness we're currently lost in.





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1622071874789419


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 9, 2016)

Rapid said:


> Ok, now follow that through. Are you not physically repulsed by the stupid crap coming out of the Clinton camp and its supporters, claiming that he's trying to start some kind of civil war?
> 
> Is that level of stupid not painfully cringeworthy? This kind of shit is exactly makes Trump voters even more likely to vote for him, as well as swinging more undecided people in his favour.
> 
> The only thing Trump had to do throughout his entire campaign was act reckless and carefree -- he handed the other side plenty of rope to hang themselves with, through their own poor reactions.


It's a fundamental mistake to associate every liberal, SJW, whatever-you-want-to-call-it with the Clinton campaign.  You know what is more damning to me?  The amount of *republicans* saying that stuff.  The fact that GOP members currently IN OFFICE are backing away from their party's candidate in a very-public way is far more telling than what some 'tard on on Facebook says.  Not only that, but major republican donors, traditional endorsers, and even people in the security establishment are coming out in public and says "We don't want this guy."  Do you not understand how significant that is?  It means that the entire republican political establishment is running away from this guy because he's so fucking toxic.  I don't know if you quite understand the American political system, but without a ton of money, endorsements, and party support, there is no feasible way a candidate can make it to November.  The fucking Koch Brothers don't even want to give him money, and he's practically a libertarian masturbation fantasy!

Trump did very well in the primary because he only had to appeal to the hardest of hardcore conservatives.  In America, primary participation is only something like 20-25%.  This year it was slightly higher (though not quite as high as 2008), at about 28%.  Had he realized that he needed to do the "presidential pivot" and begin tailoring his message to a broader segment of America, he might've done okay.  Instead, he and his campaign said "This is fine" and doubled down on their messaging, which even a first-year polisci student could tell you is patently retarded.  

-Make blatantly racist statements against a hispanic judge in a nation of ~55 million hispanics?  Great idea!
-Talk shit on a gold star family in a country that has a giant hard-on for its vets?  SUPERB
-Complain about election rigging three mo--okay I can't do this any more

TL;DR version: Trump could have won.  He had a legit shot.  Clinton is probably the weakest candidate that the democrats have brought out in years.  All he had to do was be a good boy and temper his statements.  Instead, he loaded a double-stack mag into his campaign's Glock and mag dumped into his own foot.  I don't think he can recover.  You've seen my posts - I hate Hillary too.  But I'm also realistic about her chances.  If she can phone in a halfway decent debate performance, and not literally die between now and November, she will win by a big EV margin.


----------



## Brill (Aug 9, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> RAN
> DOM
> SAM
> PLING
> ...



Dude, random or not, more registered Democrats were polled so of course the results would favor Clinton.

Do you really think more Americans register as Democrats? I don't. Most are Independents I believe.


----------



## nobodythank you (Aug 9, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> It means that the entire republican political establishment is running away from this guy because  he's so fucking toxic. they are running scared that their power is falling away


Fixed that for you. Have you stopped to think that the 50 or so "security" professionals don't want their work or ideology stepped on? We all can pin point fucked up areas where we have personally seen the results of said "experts". Furthermore, when have you ever seen any established body willingly accept criticism of failed policy or ideology? 

More to the point, if you look at the two candidates, Trump just wants allies to pull their weight. Clinton has actively and knowingly been a security risk for classified information. It would seem like any risk assessment would place Clinton as the greater risk to national security.  



> You've seen my posts - I hate Hillary too.  But I'm also realistic about her chances.


 Sorry no, I don't see that you hate Hillary. Virtually every recent post you have made has been in support of, or in derision of damn near anything said about her that is painted in a negative light. No offense, but if we were to go by your posts, it would seem like you are rushing to her defense. Your choices are yours of course, but I wanted to point out what it looks like to a simpleton like me, and maybe others...


----------



## Rapid (Aug 9, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> It's a fundamental mistake to associate every liberal, SJW, whatever-you-want-to-call-it with the Clinton campaign.  You know what is more damning to me?  The amount of *republicans* saying that stuff.  The fact that GOP members currently IN OFFICE are backing away from their party's candidate in a very-public way is far more telling than what some 'tard on on Facebook says.  Not only that, but major republican donors, traditional endorsers, and even people in the security establishment are coming out in public and says "We don't want this guy."  Do you not understand how significant that is?  It means that the entire republican political establishment is running away from this guy because he's so fucking toxic.  I don't know if you quite understand the American political system, but without a ton of money, endorsements, and party support, there is no feasible way a candidate can make it to November.  The fucking Koch Brothers don't even want to give him money, and he's practically a libertarian masturbation fantasy!
> 
> Trump did very well in the primary because he only had to appeal to the hardest of hardcore conservatives.  In America, primary participation is only something like 20-25%.  This year it was slightly higher (though not quite as high as 2008), at about 28%.  Had he realized that he needed to do the "presidential pivot" and begin tailoring his message to a broader segment of America, he might've done okay.  Instead, he and his campaign said "This is fine" and doubled down on their messaging, which even a first-year polisci student could tell you is patently retarded.
> 
> ...



ke4gde got there first. The establishment is coming out against someone who's anti-establishment... no surprise there. Can't respond to every point because it's late, but Hillary will win because pretty much everything is biased towards her. There are too many people with too much money to allow someone like Trump to come in and shake things up.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 9, 2016)

lindy said:


> Dude, random or not, more registered Democrats were polled so of course the results would favor Clinton.
> 
> Do you really think more Americans register as Democrats? I don't. Most are Independents I believe.


Registered?  No.  But then again, not all states require you to register for one party or another.  I do, however, believe that more Americans lean democrat (or liberal, or whatever).  The NBC poll you linked supports that: 35% registered dems, 30% registered republicans, 32% independent.  Of those, 51% voiced support for Hillary Clinton, versus 41% for Trump.  A 10 point polling advantage when the candidate only enjoys a 5 point raw demographic advantage demonstrates just how unpopular Trump is.

A reminder: I said this only two weeks ago



Deathy McDeath said:


> The Johnson/Weld ticket is looking more attractive each day.



And this earlier in the year



Deathy McDeath said:


> The New York Times is endorsing Hillary Clinton for President
> 
> Fuckers :wall:



And last year



Deathy McDeath said:


> Not trying to give Clinton an out here - I really don't like her..



I don't shill for the Hill.  I just think Trump fucking sucks.


----------



## Brill (Aug 9, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Registered?  No.  But then again, not all states require you to register for one party or another.  I do, however, believe that more Americans lean democrat (or liberal, or whatever).  The NBC poll you linked supports that: 35% registered dems, 30% registered republicans, 32% independent.  Of those, 51% voiced support for Hillary Clinton, versus 41% for Trump.  A 10 point polling advantage when the candidate only enjoys a 5 point raw demographic advantage demonstrates just how unpopular Trump is.



43% of respondents of Gallup poll from 2014 were Indy. Had no idea it was that high. Seems Americans are tired of the Establishment. A fall BREXIT redux in the US?


----------



## Dienekes (Aug 9, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Trump did very well in the primary because he only had to appeal to the hardest of hardcore conservatives. In America, primary participation is only something like 20-25%. This year it was slightly higher (though not quite as high as 2008), at about 28%. Had he realized that he needed to do the "presidential pivot" and begin tailoring his message to a broader segment of America, he might've done okay. Instead, he and his campaign said "This is fine" and doubled down on their messaging, which even a first-year polisci student could tell you is patently retarded.



This^. Most of my buddies that were dickhard for Trump during the primaries (myself included) defended him by saying that a lot of his bullshit statements were just "saying what others won't", "no President would ever actually do/say that, but he's trying to win a nomination as an anti-establishment candidate", "He'll even out after the primaries so he can get those on the fence." But he just expanded his rhetoric to the point that he went from viable anti-establishment candidate to loud jackass cartoon figure. Most people respect the office of the presidency and expect the POTUS to be the standard of class and representative of America. Regardless of how popular you start out, there is some necessary level of political savvy that keeps you from saying things that could even potentially be misconstrued as insulting a dead servicemember's parents. It is highly likely at this point that most people voting for Trump would vote for anything with a pulse over Hillary Clinton and simply don't have a better option. Also, Gary Johnson is too liberal to take much of Trump's voters. I honestly believe that the election may as well be tomorrow because these candidates are so divisive for people that no one that already has their minds' made up (probably everyone) is gonna be swayed by anything in the next couple of months.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 9, 2016)

Rapid said:


> Ok, now follow that through. Are you not physically repulsed by the stupid crap coming out of the Clinton camp and its supporters, claiming that he's trying to start some kind of civil war?
> 
> Is that level of stupid not painfully cringeworthy? This kind of shit is exactly what makes Trump voters even more likely to vote for him, as well as swinging more undecided people in his favour.
> 
> ...





Deathy McDeath said:


> It's a fundamental mistake to associate every liberal, SJW, whatever-you-want-to-call-it with the Clinton campaign.  You know what is more damning to me?  The amount of *republicans* saying that stuff.  The fact that GOP members currently IN OFFICE are backing away from their party's candidate in a very-public way is far more telling than what some 'tard on on Facebook says.  Not only that, but major republican donors, traditional endorsers, and even people in the security establishment are coming out in public and says "We don't want this guy."  Do you not understand how significant that is?  It means that the entire republican political establishment is running away from this guy because he's so fucking toxic.  I don't know if you quite understand the American political system, but without a ton of money, endorsements, and party support, there is no feasible way a candidate can make it to November.  The fucking Koch Brothers don't even want to give him money, and he's practically a libertarian masturbation fantasy!
> 
> Trump did very well in the primary because he only had to appeal to the hardest of hardcore conservatives.  In America, primary participation is only something like 20-25%.  This year it was slightly higher (though not quite as high as 2008), at about 28%.  Had he realized that he needed to do the "presidential pivot" and begin tailoring his message to a broader segment of America, he might've done okay.  Instead, he and his campaign said "This is fine" and doubled down on their messaging, which even a first-year polisci student could tell you is patently retarded.
> 
> ...



I still think Trump can win.
He used the Democrat playbook to defeat his opponents, and is still using their playbook.
Hillary's health is going from an infowars joke into the mainstream, how she handles stress will come out in the debates.
The Polls are also useless if the don't include 3rd Party candidates (who should get debate invites too).


----------



## AWP (Aug 10, 2016)

@TLDR20 explain it if you're going to drop a Disagree.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 10, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> @TLDR20 explain it if you're going to drop a Disagree.


Don't tell me what to do.



ke4gde said:


> F
> 
> Sorry no, I don't see that you hate Hillary. Virtually every recent post you have made has been in support of, or in derision of damn near anything said about her that is painted in a negative light. No offense, but if we were to go by your posts, it would seem like you are rushing to her defense. Your choices are yours of course, but I wanted to point out what it looks like to a simpleton like me, and maybe others...



That is not supported by his posts at all. I disagreed so I guess I have to post, despite Deathy being able to defend himself just fine. When someone counters a false statement with an objectively true one, it doesn't make them a supporter of a candidate, it makes them a supporter of the truth. Most of the time when Deathy has said something that even resembles supporting Hillary, it is in regards to Benghazi, and people are acting like there haven't been 8 investigations already. There is a difference between pointing out the truth and shilling for a candidate, something that in these partisan days can be difficult to remember.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 10, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> I still think Trump can win.
> He used the Democrat playbook to defeat his opponents, and is still using their playbook.
> Hillary's health is going from an infowars joke into the mainstream, how she handles stress will come out in the debates.
> The Polls are also useless if the don't include 3rd Party candidates (who should get debate invites too).



I absolutely think Trump can win.  Lookit, the media thinks comments like this will "sway" voters/potential voters.  By this point _most_ people have made up their mind.  The few that haven't, this kinda rhetoric _might _sway them, but this is a population that tends to actually weigh platforms and policies and not get wrapped up in the he said/she said crap.  This has been supported by post-election research and isn't particularly new.

I said in another post, here or somewhere else, Trump could walk all over the flag and kick puppies, his supporters will still vote for him.  HRC could admit 100% culpability with Benghazi and emails, her people will still vote for her.  Stuff what Trump said?  It's not going to make a difference.

As for polling, polls now are irrelevant.  They are talking points.  Polls in late October/early November are more important.  And it depends on who commissions them, if they are statistically validated, bias/bias error, all sorts of stuff.  One of my favorite examples was a poll in a NC senate campaign a few years ago that showed the democratic candidate well ahead of the republican.  The sample drew respondents from specific zip codes; the zip codes were in heavily democrat areas.   The computer randomly pulling the phone numbers against these zip codes didn't know that.


----------



## Single Malt (Aug 10, 2016)

lindy said:


> Recent polling data looks good for Clinton
> 
> RealClearPolitics - 2016 Latest Polls
> 
> ...


@lindy & @Deathy McDeath 

Apparently this phenomenon happened four years ago. Fivethirtyeaight.com did a piece on it yesterday that was very interesting, plenty of links within the article too if you like to read more on the topic. 

The Polls Aren’t Skewed: Trump Really Is Losing Badly


P.S. Goldwater '64


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 10, 2016)

And.. 

Poll shows Trump gaining on Clinton

Who cares about polls anymore?


----------



## nobodythank you (Aug 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> That is not supported by his posts at all. I disagreed so I guess I have to post, despite Deathy being able to defend himself just fine. When someone counters a false statement with an objectively true one, it doesn't make them a supporter of a candidate, it makes them a supporter of the truth. Most of the time when Deathy has said something that even resembles supporting Hillary, it is in regards to Benghazi, and people are acting like there haven't been 8 investigations already. There is a difference between pointing out the truth and shilling for a candidate, something that in these partisan days can be difficult to remember.


You're welcome to disagree. I also support the truth. However, using your example Benghazi (as Lindy pointed out in another thread) was a failure by various levels of government, and by members of both sides of the isle. Why haven't the Republicans uncovered a smoking gun? Because to do so would derail their agenda and expose them as culpable too. Having 8 investigations by partisan committees is akin to having the police investigate their own for wrong doing and having the sheriff/chief approve the findings. Of course they will not allow damaging evidence to surface.

I disagree and a good number of his posts are indicative of that. Notice I did not say all, but most of the recent ones. The fact is, Hillary is the least qualified and should not even be a consideration. No matter how much of a loudmouth Trump is supposed to be. She broke the law, conspired with her party towards a rigged Primary, and is a level of corruption beyond any in recent history.

I am all for the truth and calling a lie when found. I will even go so far as to say the conservatives have been gunning for the Clintons as a whole for a while. However, even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and in this case, they are correct about her. Just as the liberals were right about Cruz, and Ryan (when he was Romeny's VP pick). It has nothing to do with partisan propaganda. It has everything to do with the fact that a corrupt official, who is a criminal, has a shot at the big seat, and many want to cry about someone that is blustering too loud or forcefully.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 10, 2016)

Single Malt said:


> @lindy & @Deathy McDeath
> 
> The Polls Aren’t Skewed: Trump Really Is Losing Badly



That's a good article, and probably accurate, but also misses or ignores some points.  I saw a poll that said Republicans who will vote for Trump aren't saying they will vote for Trump, polling as undecided.  Closet voters if you will.  There are more forces at play.

All the polls could be 100% scientifically accurate and statistically valid, and HRC really could be just plowing through the electorate.  But something about all of this doesn't smell right, doesn't feel right.  For all of the media over the past eight months who have acknowledged how different this elections has been, suddenly they run to old models to predict the outcome? Something is hinkey.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 10, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> You're welcome to disagree. I also support the truth. However, using your example Benghazi (as Lindy pointed out in another thread) was a failure by various levels of government, and by members of both sides of the isle. Why haven't the Republicans uncovered a smoking gun? Because to do so would derail their agenda and expose them as culpable too. Having 8 investigations by partisan committees is akin to having the police investigate their own for wrong doing and having the sheriff/chief approve the findings. Of course they will not allow damaging evidence to surface.


So now there was a conspiracy to throw the Benghazi investigations?  Eight separate conspiracies collaborating to reach the same conclusion?  As far as I know, the only Republican "agenda" vis a vis Benghazi was an all-out effort to sink Hillary.  The fact that congress, State, and the FBI couldn't find anything is only an indicator that perhaps there wasn't anything there.  I know you probably don't trust government, but the above-mentioned groups operate more or less autonomously from each other, and so to suggest that the investigation would expose each individual "agenda" is just ludicrous.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 10, 2016)

Polls can be manipulated or just plain wrong. See Dewey vs Truman, 1948.

My impression from Bush vs Gore is that the country is divided fairly evenly between those who'd vote Democrat and those who'd vote Republican, with the overlap on a Venn diagram showing undecided or swing. There's also the pendulum, 8 years of one party often leads to a change of party...although in this election, who knows.


----------



## nobodythank you (Aug 10, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> So now there was a conspiracy to throw the Benghazi investigations?  Eight separate conspiracies collaborating to reach the same conclusion?  As far as I know, the only Republican "agenda" vis a vis Benghazi was an all-out effort to sink Hillary.  The fact that congress, State, and the FBI couldn't find anything is only an indicator that perhaps there wasn't anything there.  I know you probably don't trust government, *but the above-mentioned groups operate more or less autonomously from each other, and so to suggest that the investigation would expose each individual "agenda" is just ludicrous.*


How you can write this with a straight face, especially after the farce that was an FBI investigation into Clinton's activities, is sad. More to the point of Hillary shill. I guess the fact that State covered up and obstructed several of the investigations, the FBI admitted they found wrong doing from Clinton during her tenure with State, and Congress playing their games, just means that the rest of us who smell something dirty (with regards to Benghazi) are relegated to fringe conspirators on par with jet fuel melts steel beams. 

Given the "transparancy" of the current administration, and current Democratic candidate, what is ludicrous is that you're so willing to ignore/dismiss the possibility that there is more going on than meets the eye. Each of the above mentioned government bodies has been proven, beyond doubt, to be incompetent and inept at doing their jobs. As has been evident by the many scandals and investigations that have turned up nothing.


----------



## Rapid (Aug 10, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> So now there was a conspiracy to throw the Benghazi investigations?  Eight separate conspiracies collaborating to reach the same conclusion?  As far as I know, the only Republican "agenda" vis a vis Benghazi was an all-out effort to sink Hillary.  The fact that congress, State, and the FBI couldn't find anything is only an indicator that perhaps there wasn't anything there.  I know you probably don't trust government, but the above-mentioned groups operate more or less autonomously from each other, and so to suggest that the investigation would expose each individual "agenda" is just ludicrous.



Are you seriously serious 4 srs?

There doesn't need to be any kind of conspiracy for someone to be dissuaded from a certain course of action -- if you think it might hurt or kill your career.

And that is the problem with career politicians, and the leadership within any kind of government/military institution...

And that's the beauty of it. The system works brilliantly for those who agree to play within the system.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Aug 10, 2016)

Yeah, so I'll just leave this here...


----------



## Brill (Aug 10, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> And..
> 
> Poll shows Trump gaining on Clinton
> 
> Who cares about polls anymore?



I polled @Freefalling 's mom while listening to Nickleback.

On a serious note, if a pollster were to question 100 random people in a mall about immigration  in:

East LA
and then in
Bismarck, ND

Would the results be considered valid?  Respondents would still be random but I'm sure the results in both cases would be wildly skewed.

I'm sooooo tired of this crap.

La cosa notra is surely taking notes on "diversification", "isolation", or "cellular infrastructure".

Clinton Cash: Khizr Khan’s Deep Legal, Financial Connections to Saudi Arabia, Hillary’s Clinton Foundation Tie Terror, Immigration, Email Scandals Together - Breitbart

Khan used to work for a firm that did Clintons' taxes, donated to her campaign, the firm was a partner in a company that developed email filtering software used on her private server, and AG Lynch worked at the partner.


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 10, 2016)




----------



## Brill (Aug 11, 2016)

Interesting that MSM is shifting their pants over Trump's 2A comment, no coverage on Mateen's father behind Clinton at a rally, and is Johnson still in the race?

Goebbels would be impressed by our free press.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 12, 2016)

The internet is doing its best to make this election season great again!

Japanese Trump





Hillary Clinton: meme queen





God bless America!


----------



## Gunz (Aug 12, 2016)

What is it with the Japanese and blue-haired fairy chicks?


----------



## Brill (Aug 12, 2016)

No words.

About 60% of Hillary and Bill Clinton's income comes from speeches


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 13, 2016)

VMI once gave her an award with a Cash Prize of 25k, I would read the transcript a year later as she was unable to attend the original date for the ceremony.  I have no idea how people pay her anything, Bill has a cool sob story but she doesn't.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 15, 2016)

I got a letter from Donald Trump today addressed to me personally. So, yeah, I'm voting for him...


----------



## Brill (Aug 15, 2016)

Is there something to this? It seems to me like sensational reporting.

Trump campaign's Paul Manafort named in Ukrainian probe - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 15, 2016)

lindy said:


> Interesting that MSM is shifting their pants over Trump's 2A comment, no coverage on Mateen's father behind Clinton at a rally, and is Johnson still in the race?



It didn't get that much coverage because it's a stupid controversy.  Yeah it's "bad optics", or whatever that silly phrase is, but unless you believe that who candidates host at their rallies are an explicit reflection of their policies, then having this one guy in the background is pretty meaningless.  Unless, of course, you think Donald Trump endorses pedophilia.  

I mean, we all agree that Seddique Mateen is a dude with some shitty opinions, but he wasn't the dude who shot up the Pulse nightclub.  Foley, on the other hand, did solicit sex from underage congressional pages.  He was expelled from the House for it.  Do you see?  Both candidates have shitty people in attendance at their rallies, which is why nobody cares about it.


----------



## Brill (Aug 15, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> It didn't get that much coverage because it's a stupid controversy.  Yeah it's "bad optics", or whatever that silly phrase is, but unless you believe that who candidates host at their rallies are an explicit reflection of their policies, then having this one guy in the background is pretty meaningless.  Unless, of course, you think Donald Trump endorses pedophilia.
> 
> I mean, we all agree that Seddique Mateen is a dude with some shitty opinions, but he wasn't the dude who shot up the Pulse nightclub.  Foley, on the other hand, did solicit sex from underage congressional pages.  He was expelled from the House for it.  Do you see?  Both candidates have shitty people in attendance at their rallies, which is why nobody cares about it.



I agree that nobody cares...kinda like this "story".

Juanita Broaddrick, the Woman Who...


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 15, 2016)

lindy said:


> I agree that nobody cares...kinda like this "story".
> 
> Juanita Broaddrick, the Woman Who...


Can you address the argument at hand instead of doing this "B-but what about this OTHER scandal?" trick?  It's doing nothing to bolster your argument, and is a classic example of a Red Herring fallacy.

SHOULD we care about Seddique Mateen?  SHOULD we care about Mark Foley?  SHOULD the media care about who the candidates surround themselves with?

The Manafort-Ukraine story is actually very appropriate for this situation.  Manafort's consulting work for that pro-Russian party do raise some questions, but at this point it's too early to start speculating.  Knowing this, does retaining Manafort as his campaign manager reflect poorly on Trump, or it inconsequential?  That is, should we consider Manafort's business dealings and Trump's campaign to be separate issues?

How about we go from there?


----------



## Brill (Aug 15, 2016)

@Deathy McDeath

I was agreeing with you. I seriously don't think anyone cares about the dirt that is being dug up or if it's even really an issue.  I think this is all political theater and some are better than others.

Manafort, Mills, classified docs, bankruptcies, etc...why should we care?

Clinton's smoking weed, Bush's National Guard "service", Obama's experience, etc clearly do not predict their ability to create a cabinet and inner circle who (I think) does the real heavy lifting by advising and war gaming various scenarios.

I do disagree that the 2A vs Mateen is a stupid controversy. Trump never said gun owners take care of her but Clinton's/Trump's staff certainly vetted (or should have) vetted people behind both candidates.

Trump's guy (Foley) left the house in disgrace over alleged sexting with male pages.

The IMs That Forced Foley to Resign

Clinton's guy (Mateen) is pro-Taliban.

What has the Orlando gunman's father said?


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 15, 2016)

I've been saying this forever:

'A Lot of People Are Saying' Trump's a Democratic Plant

Finally a conspiracy theory I can get behind!


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 15, 2016)

I'm a big fan of "A lot of people are saying" evidence.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 15, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I'm a big fan of "A lot of people are saying" evidence.



Like I said, it is a conspiracy theory. But one that I love.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 15, 2016)

lindy said:


> I was agreeing with you. I seriously don't think anyone cares about the dirt that is being dug up or if it's even really an issue.  I think this is all political theater and some are better than others.


Jesus.  I must be getting senile.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 15, 2016)

My wife is still suspicious of the Trump plant theory.

Not me. We're buds.


----------



## AWP (Aug 15, 2016)

Trump a Democratic plant? That's rich. The Republicans' candidates and voter dissatisfaction have nothing to do with Trump's dominance?


----------



## Rapid (Aug 19, 2016)

Hillary Campaign: Opposition Website Has No 'Right To Exist' | The Da…

Why do Democrats hate freedom? :-"


----------



## Brill (Aug 19, 2016)

Damn, I was leaning towards Johnson but his VP is a 'tard.

http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/0...ons-mass-destruction-said-pistols-even-worse/


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 19, 2016)

Rapid said:


> Hillary Campaign: Opposition Website Has No 'Right To Exist' | The Da…
> 
> Why do Democrats hate freedom? :-"



Why do Europeans?


----------



## Rapid (Aug 19, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Why do Europeans?



Because they're Democrats ++.


----------



## Centermass (Aug 22, 2016)

So much for the Clinton News Network (And others) taking a statement the Gov of LA made and twisting it -


----------



## Single Malt (Aug 22, 2016)

Rapid said:


> Hillary Campaign: Opposition Website Has No 'Right To Exist' | The Da…
> 
> Why do Democrats hate freedom? :-"


I am sure Weld has never gone through firearms training so we shouldn't expect him to understand how a rifle works. The comments are stupid, as stupid as "Extreme, Extreme Vetting", but then again, neither of them are experts in either field or have any experience with or any exposure to the details. But worse, neither of them would understand what this means: "This is my rifle, this is my gun; this is for fighting, this is for fun".


----------



## Brill (Aug 22, 2016)

Trump is evil cuz he's rich and Sanders is a sell out because he bought a capitalist home on a lake!

Clinton takes jet 20 miles?

Hillary Flies 20 Miles In Private Jet From Martha’s Vineyard To Nantucket

Just be honest! They're all rich as fuck and they want to keep it that way. Good on 'em!


----------



## Single Malt (Aug 23, 2016)

lindy said:


> Trump is evil cuz he's rich and Sanders is a sell out because he bought a capitalist home on a lake!
> 
> Clinton takes jet 20 miles?
> 
> ...


Could it be that they took the plane on the recommendation of Secret Service? 

Regardless, it is faster which I would assume is very important to someone who is campaigning for the Oval Office. 

Lastly, should this really be news?


----------



## Brill (Aug 23, 2016)

Single Malt said:


> Could it be that they took the plane on the recommendation of Secret Service?
> 
> Regardless, it is faster which I would assume is very important to someone who is campaigning for the Oval Office.
> 
> Lastly, should this really be news?



Helicopter would probably have been faster.

It is if you campaign on the platform that rich people need to pay their fair share and care about the environment. Most Americans can relate to taking a private jet 20 miles. What was VP Biden's comment about Trump's knowledge of the middle class?

They should just call a spade a spade and be honest with Americans.

NBC turning on Clinton? I guess the shiver isn't going up anyone's legs anymore.

Hillary blasts for-profit colleges, but Bill took millions from one


----------



## Vansickle (Aug 23, 2016)

lindy said:


> Trump is evil cuz he's rich and Sanders is a sell out because he bought a capitalist home on a lake!
> 
> Clinton takes jet 20 miles?
> 
> ...



Let's hear again about their global warming policies, shall we?



Vansickle said:


> Let's hear again about their global warming policies, shall we?



her*


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Aug 23, 2016)

lindy said:


> Trump is evil cuz he's rich and Sanders is a sell out because he bought a capitalist home on a lake!
> 
> Clinton takes jet 20 miles?
> 
> ...



I wish she would have drove.....:-"

ETA...please erase this mid-november.....:blkeye:


----------



## Brill (Aug 24, 2016)

C'mon 15%-ers!

Did Gary Johnson Just Get Boxed Out of the Debates?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 25, 2016)

Clinton Attacks Mylan about Epi-Pens...Mylan CEO throws it down and says she has called multiple senators stating she is available to meet with them at their convenience, their response: crickets.


----------



## Single Malt (Aug 25, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Clinton Attacks Mylan about Epi-Pens...Mylan CEO throws it down and says she has called multiple senators stating she is available to meet with them at their convenience, their response: crickets.


Are you referring to this? 
"Mylan Halves EpiPen Price After Being Savaged by Clinton"

Mylan Halves EpiPen Price After Being Savaged by Clinton


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 25, 2016)

Wow...they should have stood firm.  Too bad we don't live in a free market.


----------



## Single Malt (Aug 25, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Wow...they should have stood firm.  Too bad we don't live in a free market.


Pharmaceutical companies have an interesting way of understanding the Free Market and how to profit (grow,budget for R&D,...etc.), sometimes at the expense of other people's health or even lives. Just an example:

Pharmaceutical Companies Buy Rivals’ Drugs, Then Jack Up the Prices


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 25, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Wow...they should have stood firm.  Too bad we don't live in a free market.


Are you seriously defending this price hike?  This is a live-saving drug whose prices have gone up almost 500% since 2009.  Even the price paid by people with insurance has gone up tremendously since then.  This isn't some anti-anxiety drug or cholesterol reducer.  A person with severe allergies can die within minutes if they have a reaction and don't carry this with them.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 25, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Wow...they should have stood firm.  Too bad we don't live in a free market.



"Disagree" because....this is yet another example of why insurance premiums (pick a type) are out of control. The man straight up says that he raised the price because 90% of America is insured now.

The insurance company is like any other business, gouge them and they simply raise their rates. In the end, they still need to make the same profit percent to make staying in business worthwhile.


----------



## DocIllinois (Aug 25, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> "Disagree" because....this is yet another example of why insurance premiums (pick a type) are out of control. The man straight up says that he raised the price because 90% of America is insured now.
> 
> The insurance company is like any other business, gouge them and they simply raise their rates. In the end, the still need to make the same profit percent to make staying in business worthwhile.



Most Bald Faced Truthy Post of the Month winner.  

Ensuring the continued good health of their members is an astonishingly low health insurance company priority.    

Any doubters are welcome to hang out with my insurance and billing assistants at work for a day.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 25, 2016)

I would love to see someone try and defend Mylar.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 25, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Wow...they should have stood firm.  Too bad we don't live in a free market.


Disagree.
Ethics, and profit are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 25, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Disagree.
> Ethics, and profit are not mutually exclusive.



Yeah

Most business ethicists would call this abhorrent behavior.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 25, 2016)

lindy said:


> NBC turning on Clinton? I guess the shiver isn't going up anyone's legs anymore.
> 
> Hillary blasts for-profit colleges, but Bill took millions from one




Interesting that the main stream media, like NBC and CNN, have tackled the Clintons on some issues. It suggests to me that she is neither well-liked nor trusted even by the people who will end up voting for her. It's such a shame--but completely understandable-- that men and women of integrity and honor shy away from politics and leave it all to the dogs.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 25, 2016)

So we're all about price control and a command economy here when it comes to pharmaceuticals here...

If it truly takes $7 to make, that's fine.  $600 is a bit outrageous, but when you control the market you set the price.  Now, the .gov buys them at $50/per pen, why do they get such a discount?  Mylan distributes Epi-Pens to schools for free, that has to come from somewhere.


----------



## Brill (Aug 25, 2016)

This election is becoming absolutely disgusting on both sides.


----------



## AWP (Aug 25, 2016)

lindy said:


> This election is becoming absolutely disgusting on both sides.



"Is becoming?" Where have you been for the last few months? :-"



ThunderHorse said:


> Mylan distributes Epi-Pens to schools for free, that has to come from somewhere.



You're justifying a price hike that's beyond ridiculous because the company donates them to schools? We're also subsidizing Europeans paying $100-150 per pen.

Mylan CEO Bresch:  'No one's more frustrated than me' about EpiPen price furor



> Mylan CEO Heather Bresch struggled Thursday to justify the repeated big price hikes of the company's lifesaving EpiPen devices as criticism continued that Mylan is gouging consumers with a retail cost of more than $600.
> 
> But she also acknowledged that high retail prices of EpiPens in the United States effectively subsidize the cost of the devices when they are sold in Europe, at just $100 or $150. Many of the countries there have government-run health-care systems that limit drug prices charged by manufacturers, unlike the U.S.
> 
> "We do subsidize the rest of the world... and as a country we've made a conscious decision to do that," Bresch said. "And I think the world's a better place for it."


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 25, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> So we're all about price control and a command economy here when it comes to pharmaceuticals here...
> 
> If it truly takes $7 to make, that's fine.  $600 is a bit outrageous, but when you control the market you set the price.  Now, the .gov buys them at $50/per pen, why do they get such a discount?  Mylan distributes Epi-Pens to schools for free, that has to come from somewhere.



Come on dude. It does truly cost 7 dollars to make, and that is with recouping any and all R&D costs. 

They don't control the market due to anything groundbreaking. They bought a patent. When they bought it the price for a pen was $57. It is now $300, with insurance. Price gouging could be defined by this example.


----------



## Brill (Aug 26, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> "Is becoming?" Where have you been for the last few months? :-"



Looking for some emails.


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 26, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> "Is becoming?" Where have you been for the last few months? :-"
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We have an organization specifically to prevent price gouging in prescription meds, which is keeping epipen prices around $100; in turn Americans are trying to get them here.

Americans turn to Canada for cheaper EpiPens | Toronto Star



> Welcome
> 
> 
> The Patented Medicine Prices Review Board (PMPRB) is an independent quasi-judicial body established by Parliament in 1987 under the _Patent Act_ (Act).
> ...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 26, 2016)

Reading more about these pens: found that they have an annual expiration date. Fire departments that carry them on rigs have to replace every year if they don't use them. 

Boy, carry an adult size and child size per truck, that becomes a pretty heavy expense.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 26, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> Americans turn to Canada for cheaper EpiPens | Toronto Star


Like every other Canadian Drug...we have laws that prevent us from getting them.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 26, 2016)

More leaked emails afoot??  Julian Assange suggested he has plenty of emails left, and will be releasing them.  He didn't come out and utter "October surprise," but talked around the idea they may be..._impactful_.  I still have my doubts.


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 26, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Like every other Canadian Drug...we have laws that prevent us from getting them.



Doesn't mean it's not happening, there's a whole sector of online pharmacies catering specifically to Americans.

Questions About Prescriptions from Canada - Security & Privacy Policy


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 26, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> So we're all about price control and a command economy here when it comes to pharmaceuticals here...
> 
> If it truly takes $7 to make, that's fine.  $600 is a bit outrageous, but when you control the market you set the price.  Now, the .gov buys them at $50/per pen, why do they get such a discount?  Mylan distributes Epi-Pens to schools for free, that has to come from somewhere.


It'c called a monopoly and that's no different than other monopolies


----------



## Brill (Aug 26, 2016)

What's driving the price: customer demand or savy marketing?

Why Did Mylan Hike EpiPen Prices 400%? Because They Could

Free market forces will introduce an alternative (if allowed).  Interesting which funds hold the stock.

MYL Major Holders | Insider Transactions | Mylan N.V. Stock - Yahoo Finance


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 27, 2016)

lindy said:


> What's driving the price: customer demand or savy marketing?
> 
> Why Did Mylan Hike EpiPen Prices 400%? Because They Could
> 
> ...


Free market can only introduce competition if the FDA allows.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 27, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Free market can only introduce competition if the FDA allows.




The FDA will keep new drugs out of "generic" sales for a number of years, seven I think. The reason is to allow the developer a chance to recoup R&D expenses. Until then, the prices remain "fixed", and somewhat high.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Aug 28, 2016)

Seeing this thread reminded me of a committee hearing on drug patents and research. I think it was on C-SPAN 27-31 July 2015. The gist of what I remember, is that the woman (short African American lady, mid 50's) who represented the FDA argued that drug manufacturers were playing a game with the drug patenting process.

That these companies, would file patents for a specific mechanisms of an already developed drug. But that as a whole, the mechanism that the company patented was of little to no consequence or importance. Sort of like a legal loophole that they were exploiting to gain leverage over preexisting drug patents. The FDA speaker later went on to say, that the majority of the most valuable patents were under the control of Federal Government (as they were developed by the FDA).

Reason I remember. The camera person taking the shots seemed weirdly concentrated on an Asian female (tall early twenties), who sitting directly behind/above the speakers. She was wearing a short skin tight grey dress; the camera seemed centered around the speaker and the region between the young woman's legs.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 28, 2016)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Seeing this thread reminded me of a committee hearing on drug patents and research. I think it was on C-SPAN 27-31 July 2015. The gist of what I remember, is that the woman (short African American lady, mid 50's) who represented the FDA argued that drug manufacturers were playing a game with the drug patenting process.
> 
> That these companies, would file patents for a specific mechanisms of an already developed drug. But that as a whole, the mechanism that the company patented was of little to no consequence or importance. Sort of like a legal loophole that they were exploiting to gain leverage over preexisting drug patents. The FDA speaker later went on to say, that the majority of the most valuable patents were under the control of Federal Government (as they were developed by the FDA).
> 
> Reason I remember. The camera person taking the shots seemed weirdly concentrated on an Asian female (tall early twenties), who sitting directly behind/above the speakers. She was wearing a short skin tight grey dress; the camera seemed centered around the speaker and the region between the young woman's legs.



Photo Journalism at it's finest.


----------



## AWP (Aug 28, 2016)

R.Caerbannog said:


> Seeing this thread reminded me of a committee hearing on drug patents and research. I think it was on C-SPAN 27-31 July 2015.



From a guy who remembers a lot of weird stuff....this is one weird thing to remember.

Also, you watch C-SPAN? I'm not saying you need an intervention, but...:-"


----------



## Brill (Aug 28, 2016)

Gary Johnson on Fox News Sunday...very well done! Actually talking about issues instead of who's crazier.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Aug 28, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> From a guy who remembers a lot of weird stuff....this is one weird thing to remember.
> 
> Also, you watch C-SPAN? I'm not saying you need an intervention, but...:-"


Sorry, I was trying to find the hearing/show and post the clip here. The date I got from my bank records, as that was when I was checked into a hotel and had seen that while flipping through channels.

I'm more of a Cartoon Network and Boomerang type person...


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 28, 2016)

lindy said:


> Gary Johnson on Fox News Sunday...very well done! Actually talking about issues instead of who's crazier.


Is there a link to a video or transcript?  I'd like to give it a listen.


----------



## Brill (Aug 28, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Is there a link to a video or transcript?  I'd like to give it a listen.



Scroll through the Trump-related "stuff" but it's there.

Kellyanne Conway on alt-right, keeping Trump on message; Gary Johnson on push to be included in presidential debates


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 29, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Are you missing or ignoring the point?
> We bring H1B Visa STEM workers in because Industry claims American Universities are not producing enough STEM Graduates?
> They go into non-STEM jobs because the guy (gal) from China or India gets hired over the American.



New hotness:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/grap...hart-2?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/revengeofthenerds


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 29, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> New hotness:
> 
> http://www.economist.com/blogs/grap...hart-2?fsrc=scn/fb/te/bl/ed/revengeofthenerds


----------



## Centermass (Aug 31, 2016)




----------



## nobodythank you (Aug 31, 2016)

Thought this was relevant to the discussion here. I recently had a debate with a liberally minded friend that believed, in all seriousness, that the media was conservatively biased. Even given the massive amount of evidence to the contrary. In any event, the article is well written, and if you can look past the fact that it is coming from the Post, it brings up some interesting points. In essence, it looks at an example from the NY Times as having lost all objectivity after having been the standard for relatively unbiased journalism. Enjoy...

*American journalism is collapsing before our eyes *


----------



## racing_kitty (Aug 31, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Thought this was relevant to the discussion here. I recently had a debate with a liberally minded friend that believed, in all seriousness, that the media was conservatively biased. Even given the massive amount of evidence to the contrary. In any event, the article is well written, and if you can look past the fact that it is coming from the Post, it brings up some interesting points. In essence, it looks at an example from the NY Times as having lost all objectivity after having been the standard for relatively unbiased journalism. Enjoy...
> 
> *American journalism is collapsing before our eyes *



I'm not home, so I can't search my browser history to find the infographic I saw a few days ago, but when you take a look at how many fine, upstanding members of American media are related -- through blood or marriage-- to members of the current administration, the bias tends to reveal itself.


----------



## Single Malt (Aug 31, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> I'm not home, so I can't search my browser history to find the infographic I saw a few days ago, but when you take a look at how many fine, upstanding members of American media are related -- through blood or marriage-- to members of the current administration, the bias tends to reveal itself.


Are you referring to the 6 people that www.breitbart.com names in their short write up? There are a whole a lot of people who work in media and politics in DC, so marriages do happen. The article also hints at some conspiracy between the aforementioned people and their ties to Benghazi, their reason is that they all worked in the White House or State Department and talked about Benghazi. I would take anything that comes from Breitbart with a couple truck loads of salt. Here is the link: CNN, CBS News, ABC News Honchos Have Obama Administration Family Ties - Breitbart

My apologies if you were referring to something else.


----------



## Devildoc (Aug 31, 2016)

New Benghazi emails*

FBI Uncovers Benghazi Emails Involving Clinton, State Department Says

*still won't make a difference....


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 31, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Thought this was relevant to the discussion here. I recently had a debate with a liberally minded friend that believed, in all seriousness, that the media was conservatively biased. Even given the massive amount of evidence to the contrary. In any event, the article is well written, and if you can look past the fact that it is coming from the Post, it brings up some interesting points. In essence, it looks at an example from the NY Times as having lost all objectivity after having been the standard for relatively unbiased journalism. Enjoy...
> 
> *American journalism is collapsing before our eyes *



Not just American media, Canada's following the same trend; I don't think it'll get better any time soon.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 31, 2016)

They should start calling the news programs for what they are: News Shows.

Unlike other TV shows, not all sponsors run adds; they just dictate the news coverage.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 31, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Thought this was relevant to the discussion here. I recently had a debate with a liberally minded friend that believed, in all seriousness, that the media was conservatively biased. Even given the massive amount of evidence to the contrary. In any event, the article is well written, and if you can look past the fact that it is coming from the Post, it brings up some interesting points. In essence, it looks at an example from the NY Times as having lost all objectivity after having been the standard for relatively unbiased journalism. Enjoy...
> 
> *American journalism is collapsing before our eyes *




It's a good piece, @ke4gde, but he's pointing out nothing that's really new. The liberal bias in the media started during Vietnam and intensified during the Kent State "massacre" and Watergate. And with the advent of cable TV and the internet and the rise of literally hundreds of news operations, competition has driven all semblance of journalistic integrity out the window. 

Newspapers are dying. They have to shout to be heard. TV reporters and anchors could give a shit about the story, it's all about them, and getting their mugs on TV.  "Investigative" reporters for magazines are looking to get dirt on somebody to get that Pulitzer Prize and further their career (see Stan McChrystal and _Rolling Stone_). There is no "journalism" any more. They're all a bunch of fucking root weevils.


----------



## DocIllinois (Aug 31, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> They should start calling the news programs for what they are: News Shows.
> 
> Unlike other TV shows, not all sponsors run adds; they just dictate the news coverage.



News Entertainment is how I'd phrase it.  

There's a reason that programs like The Daily Show are now used as "news" sources by many, IMO.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 31, 2016)

Trump went down to Mexico, and apparently had a very cordial press conference with Mexican President Peña Nieto.

Donald Trump and the president of Mexico just hosted a surreal joint press conference

It seems like Trump may have finally made his long-awaited pivot.  While it's nice to see, it may be a matter of too little, too late.  I suppose we'll see in the coming weeks.

What a weird development in this already-weird election.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 31, 2016)

What is the "main stream media"? Everyone likes to point out how it has a left wing slant, and while sure, some papers do, more people watch FNC that's anything else, and it isn't even close. Millions and millions of Americans get their news from thousands of outlets that are hardly "mainstream". To me that argument was started in 2001 and has just continued despite the reality.


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 31, 2016)

This is an old article but it proves the point.  Even local papers are no longer locally owned and run local stories.  


These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America


----------



## Brill (Aug 31, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Trump went down to Mexico, and apparently had a very cordial press conference with Mexican President Peña Nieto.
> 
> Donald Trump and the president of Mexico just hosted a surreal joint press conference
> 
> ...



A press conference? I thought all candidates were boycotting them.

I like some things voiced here in this opinion piece but disagree with the idea we have to destroy the system by voting Clinton in order to save it from Trump.

We're mad as hell about Trump, Clinton and the Clinton Foundation - CNN.com


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Aug 31, 2016)

Mt Rushmore.....soon to be called:



Mt Trumpmore......

Also, the 2022 Winter Olympics will be held here or else.....


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 31, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Trump went down to Mexico, and apparently had a very cordial press conference with Mexican President Peña Nieto.
> 
> Donald Trump and the president of Mexico just hosted a surreal joint press conference
> 
> ...


Hillary looks bad in not accepting the invitation.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 31, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Mt Rushmore.....soon to be called:
> 
> View attachment 16483
> 
> ...



He'll most likely go with a full color finish too.


----------



## Brill (Sep 1, 2016)

I thought Democrats were a peace loving anti-war group?

Clinton: Treat cyberattacks 'like any other attack'

I don't think she understands how bad the cyber-raping of US servers really is.


----------



## AWP (Sep 1, 2016)

lindy said:


> Clinton: Treat cyberattacks 'like any other attack'
> 
> I don't think she understands how bad the cyber-raping of US servers really is.



Secretary Clinton offering views on cybersecurity is like me telling someone how to train for a marathon.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Sep 2, 2016)

Sums it up.....


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 2, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Sums it up.....
> 
> View attachment 16503



Where's the slot for the $50.00 bill?


----------



## AWP (Sep 2, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Where's the slot for the $50.00 bill?



I'm pretty sure he costs more than that.


----------



## Rapid (Sep 5, 2016)

Kind of beyond a joke now...


----------



## Brill (Sep 6, 2016)

Rapid said:


> Kind of beyond a joke now...



Coughing from all the smoke...


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 6, 2016)

lindy said:


> Coughing from all the smoke...



All the dusty carpet munching...


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 6, 2016)

lindy said:


> Coughing from all the smoke...



Here's an interesting read :http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/23/7/1017.full.pdf

The above report is pretty rare, but could she have another reason for the cough?

Even if she does have something going on, you have to consider it in the context of how near death FDR was on the start of his 4th term as POTUS. Things just get buried.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 6, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Here's an interesting read :http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/23/7/1017.full.pdf
> 
> The above report is pretty rare, but could she have another reason for the cough?
> 
> Even if she does have something going on, you have to consider it in the context of how near death FDR was on the start of his 4th term as POTUS. Things just get buried.



You know, once is nothing.  Twice, a coincidence.  But when many physicians are starting to speak up, it does make you wonder.  And of course they want to bury it.  The difference between now and 1944 is in 1944 the government could very easily manipulate what the media could access.  It's much harder today.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 6, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> You know, once is nothing.  Twice, a coincidence.  But when many physicians are starting to speak up, it does make you wonder.  And of course they want to bury it.  The difference between now and 1944 is in 1944 the government could very easily manipulate what the media could access.  It's much harder today.



In the WW II era, the press was a responsible, professional reporting media. Back then, you did not tell the press. Today, they tell the press, and direct what spin to put on things. The media now works hand in hand to shape how the news is delivered. If there is no way to paint it roses; they just do not report. If anyone does say something the least bit off message, careers can be ended, and you are a liar; true we have Brian Williams, but hey, he's a nice guy and means no harm; it's just, you know,...... Brian.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Sep 6, 2016)

She's fine.....:-"


----------



## AWP (Sep 6, 2016)

When the USS Wasp was sunk the US had something like 1/2 a carrier (a damaged USS Enterprise) in the Pacific. The USN asked for the RN to send a carrier which they did in 1943. Until the RN could deliver and the Essex class came online we had one semi-functional carrier in the Pacific.

The US press knew this and didn't say a word.

The USG actually took the Wasp survivors and quarantined them on an island until it (USG) could sort out the next few moves.

Try any of that today. Go ahead, I'll wait.

The media are vermin. No more, no less.


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 6, 2016)

An interesting 50 state poll came out of WaPo today.  Sampling over 74,000 registered voters, it's one of the largest polls to date.

New poll shows how Trump-Clinton matchup is redrawing the electoral map

Here's some analysis on it, also courtesy of WaPo: A new 50-state poll shows exactly why Clinton holds the advantage over Trump

The solid blue and solid red states remain the same, as do the lean-blue or red states.  But the poll revealed some interesting tidbits about the tossup states.  For example Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan are all very close, whereas Hillary had previously enjoyed 3-5 point leads following the conventions.  Trump's support in the midwest is stronger than originally estimated.  Additionally, key swing states such as Florida and North Carolina are virtually in a dead heat, with the advantage being within the margin of error.

What was perhaps most surprising was Texas.  Texas hasn't given its electoral votes since 1976, but according to this poll Clinton is currently ahead in the Lone Star State by about 1 point.  Again, that's still within the margin of error, but when you consider the fact that Romney won Texas by 16 points, McCain by 12 points, and GWB by over 20 points both times, it's a pretty significant development.  To me that's pretty nuts!

I do have one concern with this poll, however.  As you can see in their methodology report, the poll was conducted online from a sampling of the nearly 3 million SurveyMonkey users.  This means that while respondents were registered voters, they essentially needed to opt-in twice; first to the SurveyMonkey platform, and then to this specific SurveyMonkey/WaPo poll.  I have a feeling that this could have skewed the results somewhat, though I trust the Post's statisticians more than my own undergraduate-level knowledge of statistics.



> The Post-SurveyMonkey poll used an online-based sampling methodology that differs from previous polls by The Washington Post. Those are telephone surveys based on random samples of cellular and landline phones.
> 
> The new poll was conducted online as part of SurveyMonkey’s 2016 Election Tracking project, which recruits respondents from the large number people who take polls on the company’s do-it-yourself survey platform, roughly three million each day. A subsample of respondents to this range of surveys — which includes formal and informal polls of community groups, companies, churches and other organizations — were invited to participate in a second survey with the prompt, “Where do you stand on current events? Share your opinion.” The survey was not advertised on any website, so individuals could not “click-in” in an effort to influence results. A survey invitation could be used only once.
> 
> From Aug. 9 to Sept. 1, the survey asked the sample of 74,886 registered voters about their presidential support, including between 546 and 5,147 respondents in each state. The final sample was weighted to the latest Census Bureau benchmarks for the population of registered voters in each state.



To their credit, the Post acknowledges the difficulty of achieving a truly representative sample from an online poll.



> The Post has generally avoided citing results from non-probability Internet-based surveys such as SurveyMonkey, as it is impossible to draw a random sample of Internet users, and random selection is a widely accepted standard in drawing representative samples of any population.
> 
> As Internet-based surveys have proliferated, research has grown on the ability to make accurate population estimates from these non-probability samples. Several benchmarking studies have found that probability sample surveys produce smaller errors than samples from opt-in, non-probability surveys. But research has also found that some non-probability methods have been more accurate than others. The Post has continuously reviewed this evidence with an aim of developing a standard to determine which non-probability techniques are useful and appropriate.



Here's the full survey results, including methodology report, if you're interested.

(Special thanks for @lindy for guilting me into subscribing to the Post!)


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 6, 2016)

Re: Statistics. Will Rogers said there were three seperat kinds of lies
1. Lies
2. Damned lies
3. Statistics


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Sep 6, 2016)

Agree 100% with Freefalling, the media of the 40's were still Americans first, news 2nd....nowaday....damn!  News X will sell their kids to beat News Y at a story!!!!!:wall:

Deathy, if Texas goes to Hillary, there is no more proof needed....voter fraud is real!!!!!:blkeye:


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 6, 2016)

I can't see the Hill bitch winning anything in Texas. That said, I'm not too sure Trump will either...


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 6, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I can't see the Hill bitch winning anything in Texas. That said, I'm not too sure Trump will either...


Trump will win because there are enough people who walk in and vote straight R.
Cruz is toast if Trump doesn't win, and Cornyn will be on thin ice.


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 6, 2016)

I agree that Texas probably won't go blue this election, but it's definitely a strong sign of the changing demographics in the state.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 6, 2016)

Texas is full of Latinos, they tend to vote blue/not Trump.


----------



## Il Duce (Sep 6, 2016)

@Red Flag 1 I think if you look at any biographies - especially political ones - running from WWII through Watergate you'll find them replete with stories of the press actively suppressing information on behalf of prominent figures.  Similarly you'll find hard-edged partisan media coverage to be the norm, not the exception.  Not sure where the 'golden age' of journalism is being imagined in your historical perspective but the timeline you are referring to is not it.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 6, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> @Red Flag 1 I think if you look at any biographies - especially political ones - running from WWII through Watergate you'll find them replete with stories of the press actively suppressing information on behalf of prominent figures.  Similarly you'll find hard-edged partisan media coverage to be the norm, not the exception.  Not sure where the 'golden age' of journalism is being imagined in your historical perspective but the timeline you are referring to is not it.



I really appreciate the feed back. I agree with your observation regarding the press and political figures. Jim Bishop's book,"The Last Year Of FDR" is a prime example. It continued thru the Kennedy, and Johnson administration. The personal activities of President Kennedy were not openly mentioned while he was POTUS. The media turning point began with Viet Nam, and saw it's real power with Watergate. The press made Nixon's second term useless, and carried a lot of power at the time. During the Johnson Administration, Walter Cronkite made the observation that we could not win in Viet Nam. His statement was not news, it was a personal opinion, and had no place on the "Nightly News Hour". Cronkite's statement had a lot to do with Johnson not seeking a second elected term as POTUS. He has been quoted as saying,"If I have lost Cronkite, I have lost the nation". His observation of the power Cronkite had was at the same time; telling, and prophetic. He saw what power the press had against an administration. Nixon's administration, proved it. The press became very aware of the raw power it could bring. Of late it has been put into daily use.

As for a palpable shift in news coverage, I would say the Gore loss to Bush saw the GOP loose to the press. Granted the GOP has a really good bead on it's own feet, I am of the opinion that the Democratic party, across the board, has had good press since GW Bush became POTUS. I feel it played a big role on the election of the current administration. It is having another role in this election cycle. Never before has there been such a divisive media tone between the two candidates. Both sides are spinning and shaping news. I believe that the professional journalism that was pro America is gone. The media today seems to have an agenda, and their agendas are pretty apparent.

That's my $.02 on journalism today. I appreciate that you are opening the door to both your ideas, and mine. Many red a "X" show, and go no further. If this discussion draws enough interest, we may need to open a "Power of the Press", or "Media Centered" thread.


----------



## Il Duce (Sep 6, 2016)

I was looking for the 'agree 75% option' but the admins haven't gotten around to adding that button.  I've been reading 'Before the Storm' - starting Rick Pearlstein's trilogy on the rise of the modern Republican party (this book covers SEN Goldwater's race for president in 1964 - highly recommend it) and have been struck by the state of the media then.  But, media criticism is probably another thread so I won't digress further.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Texas is full of Latinos, they tend to vote blue/not Trump.



That's not really true down here, a lot of conservative/republican hispanics in Texas.



Deathy McDeath said:


> I agree that Texas probably won't go blue this election, but it's definitely a strong sign of the changing demographics in the state.



The inner cities typically vote Dem, where the suburbs and rural areas lean Rep. What has changed alot of things is the influx of people from other states, who screwed up their state, are moving here for jobs, than voting for the Dem model that fucked up the state they come from. That's an X factor that I'm not sure how it will change Texas politically over the next few decades. To say the least, it concerning, as shit normally gets all fucked up in Texas when Democrats are running things (our Texas Democrats are a bit more crazy than the rest). I like a solid balance with a crazy Governor, keeps everyone on their toes and guessing what the hell is going to happen next.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Sep 6, 2016)

Aka...Austin.....its like Berkley and Boulder had a baby....if they could.......


----------



## Raptor (Sep 6, 2016)

The only good things in Austin are football and BBQ, but they're even trying to get rid of the BBQ.
In the town where I went to high school (in the Houston suburbs). It seemed like the families were pretty even between conservatives and liberals.


----------



## BloodStripe (Sep 7, 2016)

Green Party's Jill Stein to face charges after North Dakota protest

Just because we have the right to protest does not mean you have the right to be destructive to other people's property. You do the crime, you do the time.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 7, 2016)

Anyone watch the CinC Forum?


----------



## Brill (Sep 7, 2016)

From the CINC forum:

8:09: Questioner asks how he could have confidence in her when she compromised national security. Clinton robotically tries to explain that “classified material is designated” and marked so that “there is no dispute at all” that what is being communicated is classified. She says “what we have here is the use of an unclassified system by hundreds of people” in out government to send information with no markings. She claims she communicated about classified materials on a separate system. She also says she went into tents on foreign travel to view classified information and took it “very seriously.” *She claims she did exactly what she should have done re: handling classified information.*

8:08: Clinton claims there is no evidence that hostile actors hacked into her email account despite FBI Director Comey’s insistence that her private email server was vulnerable to hacking.

8:05: Lauer asks Clinton about her email scandal. He asks her why her email scandal is not “disqualifying.” Clinton robotically repeats that it was a “mistake” to have a personal account. She says the real question is the handling of classified material. *She says she has a lot of experience dealing with classified materials.* *She says classified materials have headers that say “secret” or “top secret” or “confidential.” She claims that “none of the emails sent or received by me” had such a header.* But she admits there were emails involving America’s “covert drone program.”


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 7, 2016)

That was...uh...something.


----------



## Kraut783 (Sep 7, 2016)

Very troublesome......I wonder who rubber stamped her yearly Infosec training.  Does the Secretary of State not travel with secure comms? Her talking about being in PK and having to talk around classified programs for strikes...really?

She deserves to be a slide in the TARP.....


----------



## Brill (Sep 8, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> That was...uh...something.



I'm not a fan of the NYP, but this was the best summary I could find:

Presidential forum proves no matter who wins, America loses



> So Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump appeared one after the other last night for a half-hour on NBC to talk about being commander in chief. Polls will tell us who “won”; frankly, I have no idea.
> 
> But overall, America lost, big time.
> 
> Listening to Clinton prevaricate about her emails and Trump prevaricate about positions he holds and doesn’t entirely seem to understand once again raises the unholy horror of the fact that out of 330 million people in the United States, these are the two who have ended up in the race for the White House in 2016.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 8, 2016)

While many polls still have HRC up, her lead is shrinking in just about all of them.  Some of her "lock" states are now toss-ups.  Here is a good article about the tightening polls.

Why the polls are tightening up


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 8, 2016)

Hmmm, looks like Ground Troops to me-

Iraq gears up for late-year push to retake Mosul from Islamic State

And more just landed:
US sends more troops to Iraq to prepare for Mosul battle


----------



## Brill (Sep 8, 2016)

More smoke?

NYPD: Hillary Clinton Was Wearing “Invisible” Earpiece To Receive Stealth Coaching During Live NBC TV Town Hall


----------



## Kraut783 (Sep 8, 2016)

Heh, probably true.....very sneaky


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 9, 2016)

lindy said:


> More smoke?
> 
> NYPD: Hillary Clinton Was Wearing “Invisible” Earpiece To Receive Stealth Coaching During Live NBC TV Town Hall


The grequency range can't be that wide, just bring a jammer and induce an audible squeal during the debates.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Sep 9, 2016)

Agree, or just let her talk........:-"


----------



## Brill (Sep 10, 2016)

HALF of Trump supporters are racist, sexist, and homophobic.

Twitter


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 10, 2016)

As I recall there was a suspicious looking square box of some kind seen on Bush during a debate so it's not like there isn't precedent.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 10, 2016)

lindy said:


> HALF of Trump supporters are racist, sexist, and homophobic.
> 
> Twitter



An open, hate deiven retoric that is intended to keep our nation divided. If she takes office,  there will be a seperate class of Americas, with a President who clearly hates them. The policies will be meant to maintain a divined nation. Liberals win,  the conservatives loose. I think of what President Lincoln said about a house divided, aand that is the declaired clinton policy; a nation divided  with so much  venom behind it. So many walls  are bing built, that are not the one Trump speeaks of: iit is the wall of the rich with power, racial didvdes wil continue, White Priveliged, except political power brokers, will be targete. A media that decides political correctness, and iis working hand in hand with the clinton White House II.

How many think Hilary will really be running the show, Bill will be back in power again, hilary does not have the leadership skills or ability, this will be Bill's third term. Somehow I don't see him hosting teas, and White House tours for the media

My $.02. Back to my wee cave in The Valley.


----------



## Kraut783 (Sep 10, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> How many think Hilary will really be running the show



I think she will do it on her own, she is that egotistical.  

I still remember when Bill first got in office.  She called a meeting of several senators and congressman to her office.....the "wife" was having elected persons summoned to her office....what arrogance.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 10, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> I think she will do it on her own, she is that egotistical.
> 
> I still remember when Bill first got in office.  She called a meeting of several senators and congressman to her office.....the "wife" was having elected persons summoned to her office....what arrogance.



She is arrogant, no doubt at all about that. The thing is, she is probably proud of that character fault.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 11, 2016)

Is the medical conspiracy becoming more real?

Report: Hillary Leaves 9/11 Mem'l Early Due To ‘Medical Episode’


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 11, 2016)

lindy said:


> HALF of Trump supporters are racist, sexist, and homophobic.
> 
> Twitter



Here's the video


----------



## Rapid (Sep 11, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Is the medical conspiracy becoming more real?
> 
> Report: Hillary Leaves 9/11 Mem'l Early Due To ‘Medical Episode’



Rumor has it she projectile vomited. And was speaking in Latin.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 11, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Is the medical conspiracy becoming more real?
> 
> Report: Hillary Leaves 9/11 Mem'l Early Due To ‘Medical Episode’



They are spinning it now.  Apparently she "overheated".


----------



## AWP (Sep 11, 2016)

Maybe after she's elected she can take comfort in Warm Springs, GA...


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 11, 2016)

We can only hope...


----------



## Rapid (Sep 11, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> They are spinning it now.  Apparently she "overheated".



Really don't want to think about HRC going into heat...


----------



## Brill (Sep 11, 2016)

Rapid said:


> Rumor has it she projectile vomited. And was speaking in Latin.



If you listen to her remarks played backwards, you can clearly hear "ego sum legion".


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 11, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Is the medical conspiracy becoming more real?
> 
> Report: Hillary Leaves 9/11 Mem'l Early Due To ‘Medical Episode’


It's pretty hot and humid in the city today.  It wouldn't surprise me if she got too hot.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 11, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> It's pretty hot and humid in the city today.  It wouldn't surprise me if she got too hot.



If it's not a legit health problem, my money's on still drunk or hungover; over it's hot and humid.


----------



## Brill (Sep 11, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> It's pretty hot and humid in the city today.  It wouldn't surprise me if she got too hot.



Google says 82 degrees and 38% humidty at 1400.  Polyester pant suit increases relative temperature well over 120.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 11, 2016)

Here's a video of the "fainting" from different angles.  Looks more than heat exhaustion to me.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 11, 2016)

Hillary passed out. Today. It's on Twitter. I'm trying to get the video. She went down like a bag of dirt.

Bwaaaahaaaa never mind Rack beat me to it


*WHOOPS there she goes bwaaaahaaaaaaa*


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 11, 2016)

Cough cough...  now it's pneumonia. 

Hillary Clinton diagnosed with pneumonia before incident at 9/11 event, campaign says


----------



## Centermass (Sep 11, 2016)




----------



## Kraut783 (Sep 11, 2016)

LOL...that's awesome Centermass.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 11, 2016)

So she got hot...whatever.

I think any controversy around her medical history is both ridiculously stupid and hilariously one sided. Donald Tump is a 70 year old obese(by BMI certainly) man, no one is even questioning his health, but Hillary is suddenly seconds from dying and afflicted by at least multiple supposed(by non medical professionals) maladies? Such a joke. 

Statistically speaking an overweight 70 year old male is at risk for just about every bad thing that happens in medicine.


----------



## racing_kitty (Sep 11, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I think any controversy around her medical history is both ridiculously stupid and hilariously one sided. Donald Tump is a 70 year old obese(by BMI certainly) man, no one is even questioning his health, but Hillary is suddenly seconds from dying and afflicted by at least multiple supposed(by non medical professionals) maladies? Such a joke.



I'm sure that George Peppard, Bernie Mac, Jim Henson, Bob Hope, James Brown, John Martyn, Leo Tolstoy, and Brittany Murphy would all agree with you that pneumonia is a joke.  Let me dust off the Ouija board to ask them.

If she was diagnosed Friday, then they should've said something Friday.  That would've gone a whole helluva lot further than "I'm fine, I'm fine, I promise I'm..." *bloop*.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 11, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> I'm sure that George Peppard, Bernie Mac, Jim Henson, Bob Hope, James Brown, John Martyn, Leo Tolstoy, and Brittany Murphy would all agree with you that pneumonia is a joke.  Let me dust off the Ouija board to ask them.
> 
> If she was diagnosed Friday, then they should've said something Friday.  That would've gone a whole helluva lot further than "I'm fine, I'm fine, I promise I'm..." *bloop*.



Over the course of this election she has been diagnosed by Internet doctors with: Parkinson's, epilepsy, pneumonia, all kinds of mental disorders(which are medical diagnosis), and many others. To act like this is the first is beyond short sighted.

Further, her medical history is her business, not ours, I'm not sure even that Doctor discussing her history isn't a violation of patient privacy...


----------



## Raptor (Sep 11, 2016)

It'd probably be the highest profile HIPPA violation ever.


----------



## racing_kitty (Sep 11, 2016)

Raptor said:


> It'd probably be the highest profile HIPPA violation ever.



If her doctor divulged that information, then yes, it would be a huge violation. But neither she, nor her campaign manager have any more advanced medical training than I do. I'm talking about managing perception, not managing patient care files. That's not HIPPA, that's PR. 

Perhaps I should've been a little more clear on that, but I thought it was common sense in brand management.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 11, 2016)

"Hillary Stumbles" was the headline on CNN. If that's all it had been, it wouldn't be news. And I noted that her aides seemed to take it in stride, like they were used to it...


----------



## AWP (Sep 11, 2016)

How long did she stand and did she lock her knees?


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 12, 2016)

So if the people who propogated the conspiracy theory about Obama's birth certificate were "birthers", what do we call the folks questioning Hillary's health?  Deathers?


----------



## AWP (Sep 12, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> So if the people who propogated the conspiracy theory about Obama's birth certificate were "birthers", what do we call the folks questioning Hillary's health?  Deathers?



I vote for either "healthers" or "medicalers" and because we can never overuse the -gate angle, I nominate "Exhaustiongate" for the overall story.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Sep 12, 2016)

Well, the currently published reasoning is pneumonia, but I trust facebook intel like I trust dispatch to get me home on time.


----------



## Brill (Sep 12, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> I'm sure that George Peppard, Bernie Mac, Jim Henson, Bob Hope, James Brown, John Martyn, Leo Tolstoy, and Brittany Murphy would all agree with you that pneumonia is a joke.  Let me dust off the Ouija board to ask them.
> 
> If she was diagnosed Friday, then they should've said something Friday.  That would've gone a whole helluva lot further than "I'm fine, I'm fine, I promise I'm..." *bloop*.



Agree. I myself to received it as a lovely parting gift from Lebanon AND Afghanistan. Strange thing was I only felt better when I ran.

NBC, the Nothing But Clinton channel, makes a good point: why didn't she go to a hospital?

9 unanswered questions about Hillary Clinton's health scare


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 12, 2016)

lindy said:


> NBC, the Nothing But Clinton channel, makes a good point: why didn't she go to a hospital?
> 
> 9 unanswered questions about Hillary Clinton's health scare



Easier to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. She did not need the hospital for such a minor, wee little, mis-step. It saves having to cover up a medical report.

The pneumonia story could be valid. If she has a couple of lobes involved, her SaO2 could drop enough for her to go down. Pneumonia in the elderly, just robs a lot of energy. Excessive fatigue with pneumonia, at her age, could keep her down for a week or so.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 12, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Easier to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. She did not need the hospital for such a minor, wee little, mis-step. It saves having to cover up a medical report.
> 
> The pneumonia story could be valid. If she has a couple of lobes involved, her SaO2 could drop enough for her to go down. Pneumonia in the elderly, just robs a lot of energy. Excessive fatigue with pneumonia, at her age, could keep her down for a week or so.



She shouldn't need to cover up a medical report, you know with HIPPA.


----------



## AWP (Sep 12, 2016)

#BenghazAIDS


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 12, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> She shouldn't need to cover up a medical report, you know with HIPPA.



That is true, and for most of us you can have someone's head for a slip of the tongue. When Christopher Reeves, Superman, had his life changing mishap, he went to University of Virginia Healthcare. There was an employe who lost her job for just such a thing. Public figures, our nation's leaders, are in a little different box, their health is a matter of national interest. That having been said, something will have to be said via official channels. Having gone to a hospital, things will be written down, and you never know who will say what. If offered enough money, would someone in great need violate HIPPA? The media will do anything to "break" a story. After that, all hell will break loose. I understand her avoiding the hospital, she and Bill are still in control; and that is key for the Clintons.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 12, 2016)

She is not in a different box yet. She is a private citizen and deserves to have her health information protected. If she chooses to release information that is one thing, but she certainly has no obligation to do so. 

Health information is personal information. Health records contain the most sensitive information there is, and as such should be protected as such. A doctor or other provider is held in trust, and to damage that trust damages not only the reputation of that provider, but of the entire profession.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Not saying she does or does not have Parkinson's but this is a pretty convincing examination of her actions in public.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 12, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> Not saying she does or does not have Parkinson's but this is a pretty convincing examination of her actions in public.



Lol. I am willing to bet if everything I did, and said was recorded and then severely over analyzed you could say that I have Parkinson's. 

It is dangerous to do things like the guy did in that video. Diagnosis can only be made via a focused nuerological examination performed in person by a neurologist. Videos like this are fucking stupid.


----------



## Rapid (Sep 12, 2016)

There's a big difference between birthers and people questioning HRC's health. Birthers were basing their claims on pretty much nothing. HRC clearly has health issues. We just don't know exactly what or to what extent. Given the type of person she is, the world will probably never know... even if it is in the people's best interest to know.

Dr. Jill Stein on Twitter

"Clinton thinks racists, misogynists & homophobes are a #*BasketOfDeplorables* - except when they donate to Clintons.

Arab nations’ donations to Clinton Foundation: Curing world’s ills or currying favor?"


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 12, 2016)

Rapid said:


> There's a big difference between birthers and people questioning HRC's health. Birthers were basing their claims on pretty much nothing. HRC clearly has health issues. We just don't know exactly what or to what extent. Given the type of person she is, the world will probably never know... even if it is in the people's best interest to know.
> 
> Dr. Jill Stein on Twitter
> 
> ...



She clearly has health issues? You base this on your in depth knowledge of medicine combined with an exhaustive reading of her medical records and a thorough physical assessment? 

Or did you see that she has a curable sickness(pneumonia maybe) and passed out while standing up while it was hot as two rats fucking in a wool sock?


----------



## Rapid (Sep 12, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> She clearly has health issues? You base this on your in depth knowledge of medicine combined with an exhaustive reading of her medical records and a thorough physical assessment?
> 
> Or did you see that she has a curable sickness(pneumonia maybe) and passed out while standing up while it was hot as two rats fucking in a wool sock?



Something something denial and Egypt...


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 12, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Lol. I am willing to bet if everything I did, and said was recorded and then severely over analyzed you could say that I have Parkinson's.
> 
> It is dangerous to do things like the guy did in that video. Diagnosis can only be made via a focused nuerological examination performed in person by a neurologist. Videos like this are fucking stupid.



Oh I agree, this is just an example of what's going on and it's not just conspiracy nuts asking questions.  

Looks like Trump is playing his cards and she'll have to counter with her own.

Trump Hopes Clinton Gets Well, Plans to Release Own Medical Test Results

Oh and if you think the low 80's is "hot as two rats fucking in a wool sock", then maybe you're not well.  Even in the land of ice and snow, we don't consider that hot; that's almost sweater weather.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 12, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> Oh and if you think the low 80's is "hot as two rats fucking in a wool sock", then maybe you're not well.  Even in the land of ice and snow, we don't consider that hot; that's almost sweater weather.



 80's in a suit? With humidity? I would be sucking.


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 12, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> Not saying she does or does not have Parkinson's but this is a pretty convincing examination of her actions in public.


In my neck of the woods, we call this "confirmation bias."

Also, this dude is an anesthesiologist.  I'm not a smarty-pants medical guy, but I know enough to recognize that an anesthesiologist, while highly trained, is in no position to be diagnosing a highly complex neurological condition based on a few videos.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 12, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> That is true, and for most of us you can have someone's head for a slip of the tongue. When Christopher Reeves, Superman, had his life changing mishap, he went to University of Virginia Healthcare. There was an employe who lost her job for just such a thing. Public figures, our nation's leaders, are in a little different box, their health is a matter of national interest. That having been said, something will have to be said via official channels. Having gone to a hospital, things will be written down, and you never know who will say what. If offered enough money, would someone in great need violate HIPPA? The media will do anything to "break" a story. After that, all hell will break loose. I understand her avoiding the hospital, she and Bill are still in control; and that is key for the Clintons.



There once was a senator from Mass....no this isn't a limerick*, there really once was a senator from Mass, who was being treated at Duke (public knowledge: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/29/health/29docs.html?_r=0).  More than one Duke employee was shit-canned for going into the chart.

I have been around politicians, celebrities, professional athletes, world leaders....my lips are sealed.  You know...Omerta and all....

*The limerick:

There once was a senator from Mass,
Who went in search for some ass;
He lucked up and found it,
He fucked up and drowned it;
Then he was in up to his ass.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 12, 2016)

There, now both are releasing medical records.

Hillary Clinton to release medical records amid growing health concerns: Report


----------



## Gunz (Sep 12, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> There, now both are releasing medical records.
> 
> Hillary Clinton to release medical records amid growing health concerns: Report



I got an early copy:

_"Mrs Clinton is in Excellent Health. And she will continue to be in Excellent Health for the next four to eight years or even longer should Presidential term limits be abolished."_


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 12, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> I got an early copy:
> 
> _"Mrs Clinton is in Excellent Health. And she will continue to be in Excellent Health for the next four to eight years or even longer should Presidential term limits be abolished."_



That is the next question, isn't it. Do you believe the statements or not?


----------



## Brill (Sep 12, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> She clearly has health issues? You base this on your in depth knowledge of medicine combined with an exhaustive reading of her medical records and a thorough physical assessment?



She's had two DVTs without genetic risk factors. Yes, she has health issues...very manageable but issues still.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 12, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> That is the next question, isn't it. Do you believe the statements or not?



Given her and her staffs history of managing sensitive documents, I trust they won't have any classification on them and that's it.


----------



## Brill (Sep 12, 2016)

It's a bad day when Axelrod goes against the Clintons.



> The Clinton campaign received intense scrutiny from the press and pundits for not immediately being forthcoming, including from David Axelrod, Obama's former chief campaign strategist, who tweeted, "Antibiotics can take care of pneumonia. *What's the cure for an unhealthy penchant for privacy that repeatedly creates unnecessary problems?*"



White House gives Clinton a pass on health transparency

She had THREE blood clots? I don't know how the "medicine" in Arkansas but my Doc told me two DVTs and your on thinners for life.

A DVT in 09 and another in 2012...was she already on Warfrin then? If so, that is very very serious.

Clinton's self-inflicted wound: Misleading the press about her pneumonia | Fox News


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 12, 2016)

lindy said:


> She's had two DVTs without genetic risk factors. Yes, she has health issues...very manageable but issues still.



Genetic risk factors for DVT? That is rare, The main risk factors for DVT are age, history of smoking, being overweight, and long periods of sitting or bed rest. I think that Trump would have all of those same risk factors but had been lucky.



lindy said:


> She had THREE blood clots? I don't know how the "medicine" in Arkansas but my Doc told me two DVTs and your on thinners for life.
> 
> A DVT in 09 and another in 2012...was she already on Warfrin then? If so, that is very very serious.
> 
> Clinton's self-inflicted wound: Misleading the press about her pneumonia | Fox News



Not that serious. While DVT's can be, they often are benign, and easily treatable. I would say roughly 100% of the population that I see is over 60, and of that 99.9% are on thinners or anti-platelet aggregators, that may be aspirin, or it may be coumadin or one of a bunch of other drugs. Why don't you not jump to conclusions, you may fall off of your pedestal of knowledge...

Also, why are we making mountains out of molehills? There are things that matter in this election, like where candidates actually stand on issues. That should be the focus. I have yet to see more than a post or two in this thread that actually attempts to attack Clinton on her positions? Hell to be honest, I haven't seen that from anyone really including Fox, CNN, or really most of the blogosphere(MSM reference). I would say almost 50% of stuff I see that is anti-Hillary is related to the emails, which is fine. The other 50% is just straight out of House of Cards type shit... She is having seizures, she has clots, I AM AN INTERNET DOCTOR AND I SAY SHE IS GOING TO DIE... WARGARBLE..... I know that I would like to see the candidates debate, look objectively at each of their stances, and then form an educated opinion about who I want to represent America. As compared to letting Alex Jones rape my mind and fill it with bat shit stupid crap.


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 12, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Also, why are we making mountains out of molehills? There are things that matter in this election, like where candidates actually stand on issues. That should be the focus.


I am ready to do that as soon as Trump gives some policy positions.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 12, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Genetic risk factors for DVT? That is rare, The main risk factors for DVT are age, history of smoking, being overweight, and long periods of sitting or bed rest. I think that Trump would have all of those same risk factors but had been lucky.
> 
> 
> 
> Not that serious. While DVT's can be, they often are benign, and easily treatable. I would say roughly 100% of the population that I see is over 60, and of that 99.9% are on thinners or anti-platelet aggregators, that may be aspirin, or it may be coumadin or one of a bunch of other drugs. Why don't you not jump to conclusions, you may fall off of your pedestal of knowledge...




There is a genetic linked clotting disorder known as: Factor V Leiden Thrombophilia. There are two copies, one being seen in 1:5,000, and a second copy in 3-8% in Caucasian European, and US populations. It is a genetic mutation, and is now being looked at with repeated bouts of DVT and/or PE. Treatment is anticoagulant therapy for life. If a patient is found to have this disorder, family members should be tested as well.

ETA: link:Factor V Leiden - Mayo Clinic


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 12, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> There is a genetic linked clotting disorder known as: Factor V Leiden Thrombophilia. There are two copies, one being seen in 1:5,000, and a second copy in 3-8% in Caucasian European, and US populations. It is a genetic mutation, and is now being looked at with repeated bouts of DVT and/or PE. Treatment is anticoagulant therapy for life. If a patient is found to have this disorder, family members should be tested as well.



Yeah. But the vast vast majority of DVT's are not caused by that. Most are post-surgical complications, followed by nursing home residents.


----------



## Brill (Sep 12, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Genetic risk factors for DVT? That is rare, The main risk factors for DVT are age, history of smoking, being overweight, and long periods of sitting or bed rest. I think that Trump would have all of those same risk factors but had been lucky.
> 
> Not that serious. While DVT's can be, they often are benign, and easily treatable. I would say roughly 100% of the population that I see is over 60, and of that 99.9% are on thinners or anti-platelet aggregators, that may be aspirin, or it may be coumadin or one of a bunch of other drugs. Why don't you not jump to conclusions, you may fall off of your pedestal of knowledge...



Fully agree with the risk factors.

You're talking to a Caucasian male, mid-40s, never smoked, normal weight marathon runner, who, upon discovery of a total blockage of the left femoral vein, learned of a positive factor V Lieden trait that runs on the paternal side.  Discovered second clot after a four month break from Xarelto (on aspirin, fish oil, and vitamin E) while training for an ultra.

Worst thing about the DVTs was losing jump status and do fear a PE but love running too much to quit.

I don't know Clinton's status but I do know about clots!


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 12, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah. But the vast vast majority of DVT's are not caused by that. Most are post-surgical complications, followed by nursing home residents.



Post op, and even admissions for several days increases the risk of a thromboebmolic event. Dan Blocker,aka "Hoss Cartwright", died from a DVT  status post Choleycystectomy. He was hard to get out of bed, and it cost him.

Another cause, and Trump and Clinton are both at risk for, is from long distance travel, by any means. Sitting and not getting up to walk around is a risk factor. As is sitting at a desk for long periods of time. Former VP Dan Quail had a PE during a plane ride. It began as a DVT that a piece broke off from and traveled.

I don't know what caused Clinton's DVTs. As long as she is medicated, and stays reasonably active, it should be a non issue for her.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Sep 12, 2016)

Trump just needs to run the clock down....and settle for a Field goal!!!!


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 12, 2016)

How is Hillary Clinton still alive?


----------



## Gunz (Sep 12, 2016)

In keeping with my habit of contributing non essential information to this thread, there is rampant speculation that the woman who appeared outside Chelsea Clinton's Manhatten apartment after the fainting episode was not Hillary, but her body double, Teresa Barnwell. The absence of Secret Service personnel during that appearance is helping to fuel the speculation.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 12, 2016)

You want Trump policies?  If you actually watched any of his speeches or press conferences, you'd learn some.  He actually provides them.  Instead of the BS spins that the MSM provide.   Here's a good site, even Hillary's are on there to compare.

PolitiPlatform - Donald Trump's Policies


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 12, 2016)

Whatever the issue is with Clinton's health, or Trump's health; we deserve honest answers to honest questions. The same is true with other key issues. The candidate's answers should be truthful. We have lost our trust in the answers. Today, we suspect there is something else going on; always. We have been led down that path by all the political leaders, not just Clinton, and the media. We are a society living with little to no confidence in the answers we hear. Distrust is on both sides of the isle. It is hard to make in informed decision when we no longer trust what we are told. Truth across the board, no longer exists.


----------



## racing_kitty (Sep 12, 2016)

Oddly enough, questions regarding advanced age, overall health, and surviving the term were fair game when it was John McCain running in '08.


----------



## Totentanz (Sep 12, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> *Whatever the issue is with Clinton's health, or Trump's health; we deserve honest answers to honest questions. The same is true with other key issues. The candidate's answers should be truthful. We have lost our trust in the answers. *Today, we suspect there is something else going on; always. We have been led down that path by all the political leaders, not just Clinton, and the media. We are a society living with little to no confidence in the answers we hear. Distrust is on both sides of the isle. It is hard to make in informed decision when we no longer trust what we are told. Truth across the board, no longer exists.



That's the biggest issue out of the whole debacle... whether Clinton is a better-disguised, barely-alive Borg Queen is less of an issue than the constant stream of lies coming out of her and her campaign.  Just another pothole in a shit road we're being dragged down.

You can always tell someone's opinion of you by the quality of lies that they tell you.


----------



## policemedic (Sep 12, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> 80's in a suit? With humidity? I would be sucking.



I wear armor and a long sleeve polyestersomethingorother shirt everyday, as well as a hat to trap even more heat.  I made it through 100+ temps and humidity that would challenge the jungle this summer.  You and others here are not strangers to this kind of thing.

I have full confidence you'd make it through fine in a suit.  Allow me to channel my inner Tom Ford and say that's what they make linen for.

That said, you and I are younger than H, and don't have her admitted chronic health conditions.  It's also true that the stress of the campaign trail could have a negative effect on her physical stamina and well-being.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 12, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> You want Trump policies?  If you actually watched any of his speeches or press conferences, you'd learn some.  He actually provides them.  Instead of the BS spins that the MSM provide.   Here's a good site, even Hillary's are on there to compare.
> 
> PolitiPlatform - Donald Trump's Policies



So many of his policies, or I guess things he said once that this site aggregated, are contradicted by others. Remove birth right citizenship, maintain constitutional laws... Close parts of the Internet? This guys is such a joke.


----------



## policemedic (Sep 12, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> That's the biggest issue out of the whole debacle... whether Clinton is a better-disguised, barely-alive Borg Queen is less of an issue than the constant stream of lies coming out of her and her campaign.  Just another pothole in a shit road we're being dragged down.
> 
> You can always tell someone's opinion of you by the quality of lies that they tell you.



Better reference- V.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 12, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> Oddly enough, questions regarding advanced age, overall health, and surviving the term were fair game when it was John McCain running in '08.



Who says they aren't fair game now? My point was those were at least mildly substantiated. He was/is old as fuck. 

My point is we are all looking at Hillary while Trump is just as old, and likely just as unhealthy. Ask any medical professional and they will tell you, the risks factors for most diseases is being old, fat and male. Trump is undeniably all of those things. The fact that this is only about Hillary is what is maddening to me personally. If you want something, want it from both candidates. Transparency? Demand it from both candidates, not just the one who is "crooked" , demand tax returns from both candidates. This election is disgusting.


----------



## policemedic (Sep 12, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Who says they aren't fair game now? My point was those were at least mildly substantiated. He was/is old as fuck.
> 
> My point is we are all looking at Hillary while Trump is just as old, and likely just as unhealthy. Ask any medical professional and they will tell you, the risks factors for most diseases is being old, fat and male. Trump is undeniably all of those things. The fact that this is only about Hillary is what is maddening to me personally. If you want something, want it from both candidates. Transparency? Demand it from both candidates, not just the one who is "crooked" , demand tax returns from both candidates. This election is disgusting.



The debates will be quite interesting, don't you think?


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 12, 2016)

policemedic said:


> The debates will be quite interesting, don't you think?



I am looking forward to them. I think they will be must watch TV. I do however think Trump will make a fool of himself, or at least come across as the liberal I think he is. He probably agrees with Hillary more than he disagrees.

Apart from immigration, which I think is a red herring, he doesn't have any set in stone plans. He has words and no implementation strategy.

I also cannot believe he has only one office in Florida, wtf?

Edited to add: he has opened offices in Florida in the last week.


----------



## AWP (Sep 12, 2016)

She released her medical records faster than her email from State? Hilarious.

I agree this is being blown out of proportion and we know people are now watching this like a hawk, but "c'mon, man." If something crops up people will trip over themselves to out the story. Time to move on.


----------



## Brill (Sep 13, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> She released her medical records faster than her email from State? Hilarious.
> 
> I agree this is being blown out of proportion and we know people are now watching this like a hawk, but "c'mon, man." If something crops up people will trip over themselves to out the story. Time to move on.



Everybody gets sick. So WHY lie about it? THAT is the real issue.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 13, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> ...we deserve honest answers to honest questions...




We're talking politicians, here, my friend


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 13, 2016)

There's more detail on his page.

DONALD J. TRUMP POSITIONS


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 13, 2016)

lindy said:


> Everybody gets sick. So WHY lie about it? THAT is the real issue.



Therein lies the rub.  Honestly, most people could not give two shits about her health.  It is...what it is.  But the lies and the obfuscation about that, on top of the lies and obfuscation about everything else, is a "tell."


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 13, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Therein lies the rub.  Honestly, most people could not give two shits about her health.  It is...what it is.  But the lies and the obfuscation about that, on top of the lies and obfuscation about everything else, is a "tell."



So it begs the question, rhetorical perhaps, how is she doing as well as she is, and why should she be POTUS?


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 13, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> So it begs the question, rhetorical perhaps, how is she doing as well as she is, and why should she be POTUS?



Well, I don't think it's rhetorical but I do think it's academic.  How she is doing as well as she is is because of her cozy relationship with the media.  I do think if she was honest and forthcoming it wouldn't nearly be the issue that it is.  But she hides so much about so much that at first pass there's at least an appearance of impropriety.  And why should she be POTUS?  Well, 'Merica.  Until she is indicted of something enough people will swallow her lines to vote her in.  It's the American way.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 13, 2016)

I guess I don't get it. How is this even a thing ? She was sick, fell out, and we are upset that she didn't immediately say she was sick? Maybe she didn't say she was sick because she didn't want idiots to think she was dying.  Again she has no responsibility to tell people her personal health information.


----------



## Il Duce (Sep 13, 2016)

Thought this was a good summary of the same points @TLDR20 has been making http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/o...0160913&nl=todaysheadlines&nlid=41336949&_r=0

I agree with @TLDR20 wholeheartedly on having consistent standards to evaluate.  I would take it even wider than the presidential elections.  Don't throw your hands up in the air in disgust when you read about Russians or Pakistanis blaming every internal problem on American intervention and conspiracy then turn around and embrace every fact-free rumor you hear about politicians you disagree with.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 13, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I guess I don't get it. How is this even a thing ? She was sick, fell out, and we are upset that she didn't immediately say she was sick? Maybe she didn't say she was sick because she didn't want idiots to think she was dying.  Again she has no responsibility to tell people her personal health information.



I agree, her health is hers and hers alone, she can tell whomever she wants, whenever she wants.  To that I totally agree.  It is a thing because it has been made a thing.  Real or not, by being made a thing (by the media, by Trump, etc) AND the ensuing mixed messages her camp has sent out, it gives an appearance of stone-walling and lying, whether it's true or not. 

Campaign season for better or worse (usually worse) opens the door to the candidates personal lives, and unless they choose to stay in front of issues like this, the opposition will drive the debate.  It was no different than Teddy Kennedy and Chappquiddick or Bush Junior and his drinking and coke.


----------



## Brill (Sep 13, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I guess I don't get it. How is this even a thing ? She was sick, fell out, and we are upset that she didn't immediately say she was sick? Maybe she didn't say she was sick because she didn't want idiots to think she was dying.  Again she has no responsibility to tell people her personal health information.



You're right. But she she's known to be untruthful so why not try for an easy win? Easier to be honest here than all the other Clinton scandals.
These two candidates are vying for registered independents, not their respective parties who will go along party lines.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 13, 2016)

Just because, you know, there isn't enough drama....

Clinton team avoided ER to conceal details of her medical treatment | New York Post


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 13, 2016)

lindy said:


> Everybody gets sick. So WHY lie about it? THAT is the real issue.


Heard some good commentary on this very issue on the FiveThirtyEight podcast.

Essentially, the well of discourse surrounding Hillary's health has been irrevocably poisoned by spurious rumors and conspiracy theories.  We can't sensibly talk about Hillary's health without the specter of some outlandish claim hanging over it.  You know what the source of the whole Clinton Seizure/Parkinson's thing was?  Fucking InfoWars.  The same site that constantly posits that the New World Order is going to destroy America any day now, that lizard people run international banking, and that the government is creating tornadoes to erase the Midwest.  Fun stuff, right?

Normally, people would dismiss his claims for the bullshit that they are, but because it was Hillary Clinton (the person whom conservative America considers the final boss of American liberalism), they enthusiastically seized upon it.  So now the news media is running with this story as nearly fact, and anything that relates to Clinton's health immediately becomes suspect.  Remember that coughing fit a few weeks back?  That kind of coughing fit would be brushed off for any normal candidate, but because it was Hillary Clinton, the alt-right weirdos tried their damndest to shoehorn it into their Seizure/Parkinson's/SuperAIDS theory.

So what do you do if you're Hillary Clinton and you develop pneumonia?  As I see it, you've got a few options:
A. Get the pneumonia diagnosis, get treatment, and tell people that you're not going to make the 9/11 memorial
B. Get the pneumonia diagnosis, get treatment, and don't tell people that you're not going to make the 9/11 memorial
C. Get the pneumonia diagnosis, get treatment, go to the 9/11 memorial and pray to god that nothing happens.

Both scenarios A and B would cause the conspiracy crowd to shout from the rooftops that Hillary's Zika Seizures are flaring up and that she's literally days away from dying.  The headlines on Drudge would read "HILLARY'S LAST DAYS?".  It would be an absolute frenzy of bullshit.  Clinton gambled on C, and it didn't work, but it was also the only option that had a shot of working, so I agree with her decision to go that way.  This incident proves that no matter what Hillary's actual health problems are, her detractors will always find some way to insert their own bizarre irreality into the narrative.


----------



## Il Duce (Sep 13, 2016)

@Deathy McDeath I think those are great points.  Also starts to get into the thought process of the Clintons I think.  I think from their perspective they've viewed almost all press coverage and opposition thought in this light - that whatever they do the wackos are going to lead the show with no discernible relationship to reality or rationality.  I think in those conditions the Clinton's lack of transparency and affinity for secrecy/privacy - even when politically damaging - makes much more sense.

Or, they're evil incarnate.  Which of course, will really upset the Cthulu for president campaign whose slogan is 'Why settle for the lesser evil?'


----------



## Ranger Psych (Sep 13, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> 80's in a suit? With humidity? I would be sucking.



Except she has effectively unlimited funds compared to prole, therefore being able to buy and dress in a suit weather-appropriate should be something within her means.

Alternatively, maybe she isn't a woman physically and mentally capable of performing in a career field primarily comprised of men? The OJ and cookies are at the campfire, you just have to quit.... Lol.



Deathy McDeath said:


> Heard some good commentary on this very issue on the FiveThirtyEight podcast.
> 
> Essentially, the well of discourse surrounding Hillary's health has been irrevocably poisoned by spurious rumors and conspiracy theories.  We can't sensibly talk about Hillary's health without the specter of some outlandish claim hanging over it.  You know what the source of the whole Clinton Seizure/Parkinson's thing was?  Fucking InfoWars.  The same site that constantly posits that the New World Order is going to destroy America any day now, that lizard people run international banking, and that the government is creating tornadoes to erase the Midwest.  Fun stuff, right?
> 
> ...



Option D, be open about a diagnosis and treatment plan, and rock a wheelchair. I might actually respect someone that does that... it's not like we have these things for a reason, or had a prez in the past that did.


----------



## Gunz (Sep 13, 2016)

The issue is, she's having _episodes_. And nobody knows when of if she'll have another one. The four-and-a-half minute coughing fit, the near face-plant the other day...and it _would've_ been a face-plant if there hadn't been people there to hold her up. And she's admitted to Anderson Cooper that's she's "passed out a few times." WTF does that mean? And how many is a few? And how normal is that? It doesn't sound normal to me. You guys think everybody in their sixties goes around passing out all the time? I've had three concussions severe enough to knock me out and I don't go around fainting.

Look, admittedly, this is going to be super-hyped by people who dont like her and super down-played by her supporters. But I think it's suspicious enough to warrant some concern. And I suspect those closest to her are also harboring more concern and worry than they would ever share publicly. This may happen to her again and nobody can prevent it.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 13, 2016)

If you wonder about the health of a candidate being important, you only need to look back to FDR's last administration. He was a man who was about to die. Some never thought he would make it to win his final election. It was all covered up. He won his fourth term, and WW II was winding down. Three leaders met at Yalta to discuss how Germany was going to be handled after the war. The War was pretty much in the bag, it was just the stuff after that they were talking about.

FDR had all he could do to attend to his personal needs, eat, shave, get dressed; all of which exhausted him. The agenda for the day's meeting was briefly discussed, and issues were divided up among his staff to get settled as best they could. FDR had very little personal input regarding discussions. The one thing that FDR did see he could do, was to come between Stalin and Churchill during their brief meetings. One such meeting was the official of the three leaders. Churchill was on FDR's right, Stalin on the left. In the photo, FDR looked totally wasted, because he was. If FDR had died a month or so earlier, it is unlikely that so much territory in Eastern Europe would have been left for Stalin to rule. I'll look for a photo to ETA.

The health of each Presidential candidate is a matter of not only National but Global interest. The same is true for honest answers to honest questions, from both candidates.. Today, that does not seem very likely.

My$.02. Back to my wee cave in The Valley


ETA Yalta Photo: The Big Three at Yalta


----------



## Il Duce (Sep 13, 2016)

I would have thought Woodrow Wilson would be the reference.  Maybe I'm misremembering but didn't he have a stroke in his second term and his wife and chief of staff essentially kept it secret from everyone?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 13, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> I would have thought Woodrow Wilson would be the reference.  Maybe I'm misremembering but didn't he have a stroke in his second term and his wife and chief of staff essentially kept it secret from everyone?



I live not far from Wilson's birthplace. I do not know enough about Wilson to use him as an example. I am not up to speed on the state of Wilson's health prior to his election. It is my understanding that the First Lady made many important "Presidential" decisions for the ailing Wilson.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 13, 2016)

Both sides are dipping into conspiracies now, Trump and Putin poisoned her.

Bennet Omalu, ‘Concussion’ doctor, suggests Clinton was poisoned: ‘I do not trust’ Trump, Putin


----------



## Brill (Sep 13, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Heard some good commentary on this very issue on the FiveThirtyEight podcast.
> 
> Essentially, the well of discourse surrounding Hillary's health has been irrevocably poisoned by spurious rumors and conspiracy theories.  We can't sensibly talk about Hillary's health without the specter of some outlandish claim hanging over it.  You know what the source of the whole Clinton Seizure/Parkinson's thing was?  Fucking InfoWars.  The same site that constantly posits that the New World Order is going to destroy America any day now, that lizard people run international banking, and that the government is creating tornadoes to erase the Midwest.  Fun stuff, right?
> 
> ...



My God, why do you defend her so? SHE FUCKED UP and it's ok. If she wants to be CINC, "damn the torpedoes and full steam ahead".

She could learn some humility from Johnson's Aleppo gaffe. He made a mistake, owned it, and reminded us it wasn't his first screw up and won't be his last.

Hillary Clinton is just a mere mortal, who knew 11 Sep 2012 wasn't caused by a video, who knew she had multiple devices to access her email, who knew there was more on her email than yoga, who knew she was pushing the boundaries on the State & Foundation "stuff", etc.

And it's ok!  EVERYONE makes mistakes. Repeatedly lying/hiding shows poor judgement. She made this an issue when nobody else did. The right-wingers didn't keep the press pool in the dark for 90 mins after the incident, lie about being overheated (on a cool day with low humidty), and completely trash SS protocol to take the principle to the pre-determined trauma center per their pre-briefed SOP.  There is no way Chelsea's apartment a briefed rally point for a medical emergency.

Even her husband said she faints/dizzy spells frequently. Probably why she got the concussion and that was her excuse for missing an appearance in front of Congress.


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 13, 2016)

I'm loathe to make any kind of comment of any medical condition she might have- I'm not a doctor and I can barely put a sticky plaster on most of the time but I know when I'm dead or not. 

But I will posit this. Could the reason they didn't take her to the ED was because the condition was pre-exisiting and they knew it wouldn't be a threat to health? Or perhaps they wanted her own doctor there (I've not read enough about it to know who was or wasn't there) to keep things a bit more private.


----------



## Brill (Sep 13, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> I'm loathe to make any kind of comment of any medical condition she might have- I'm not a doctor and I can barely put a sticky plaster on most of the time but I know when I'm dead or not.
> 
> But I will posit this. Could the reason they didn't take her to the ED was because the condition was pre-exisiting and they knew it wouldn't be a threat to health? Or perhaps they wanted her own doctor there (I've not read enough about it to know who was or wasn't there) to keep things a bit more private.



I think that to be the case. But if there is only smoke, why worry? She's 68! Of course she's not 100% but we're not electing saints but a LEADER.

Or is the fix already in?


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 13, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> I'm loathe to make any kind of comment of any medical condition she might have- I'm not a doctor and I can barely put a sticky plaster on most of the time but I know when I'm dead or not.
> 
> But I will posit this. Could the reason they didn't take her to the ED was because the condition was pre-exisiting and they knew it wouldn't be a threat to health? Or perhaps they wanted her own doctor there (I've not read enough about it to know who was or wasn't there) to keep things a bit more private.



The article insinuated the decision was political and not because of sensitivity of her health.  Maybe she wasn't sick enough to go to the ED by their standards, but I do think pneumonia with a near syncopal episode warrants more work up than her family doc can provide in he back seat of a Suburban.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 13, 2016)




----------



## racing_kitty (Sep 13, 2016)

Once Wikileaks makes another dump, shingles will be the least of her worries, although she may wish she was dead after this. Either that, or Assange will have committed suicide by shooting himself in the back of the head three times, then throwing a toaster in the bathtub he was shot in.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Sep 14, 2016)

Growing concern is also in about her "irregular heartbeat"....:-"


----------



## AWP (Sep 14, 2016)

The year when everyone ate their young. 

Oliver Stone: DNC Hack Was ‘Inside Job,’ Not Russia



> During an interview with CNN's Christiane Amanpour on Tuesday, director Oliver Stone accused the Democratic National Committee of hacking itself. Asked by the host what he makes of the reports that Russian hackers breached the DNC's email server and fed information to WikiLeaks in an attempt to influence the U.S. presidential election, Stone called that idea a "great fiction." The director, currently promoting his biopic of Edward Snowden, said the intelligence experts he has spoken with indicated that the DNC hack was "probably an inside job." He went on to specify that he believed the hack was perpetrated by Democrats within the committee.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 14, 2016)

Why does it matter how the public perceives her health?  Because those are the people who will vote for her.

Half the country thinks Clinton has lied about her health to the public


----------



## Gunz (Sep 14, 2016)

I'm in the half that thinks both she and her husband lie so much they wouldn't recognize the truth if it hit them in the face with Vince Foster's decaying left femur.


----------



## DasBoot (Sep 14, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> The year when everyone ate their young.
> 
> Oliver Stone: DNC Hack Was ‘Inside Job,’ Not Russia


Maybe if he put more time into his day job and less time in conspiracy theories he could get a movie over 50% on rotten tomatoes...

ETA- that comments to the current "Snowden" reviews and everything he's done in the last 20 years. "Platoon" is still a fucking classic


----------



## Brill (Sep 14, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> The year when everyone ate their young.
> 
> Oliver Stone: DNC Hack Was ‘Inside Job,’ Not Russia



I wonder if that murdered DNC staffer really did give those emails to Wikileaks.



Devildoc said:


> Why does it matter how the public perceives her health?  Because those are the people who will vote for her.
> 
> Half the country thinks Clinton has lied about her health to the public



Which is why the MSM shapes the Clinton perception she is fine. American news is just like Russian state-owned media: both are no shit propaganda.

Hillary collapse coverage reveals absurdity of biased media | New York Post

I can't wait for Vice News Tonight.

ANOTHER "flub" by Bill about Hillary's health? This shit is why people are suspicious.

Filling in for wife, Bill Clinton flubs Hillary diagnosis - CNNPolitics.com

(Note that this story quotes Clinton but removed the frequently remark.)


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 14, 2016)

- WHEW -

Good to know that this question has been answered. No more talk about Hillary's health now. :-"

_Hoping to put the issue of her health behind her as she gets ready to return to the campaign trail, Hillary Clinton on Wednesday released an updated review of her physical fitness and details about a recent bout of pneumonia._

Update from Clinton's doctor: Democrat is 'fit to serve'


----------



## Brill (Sep 14, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> - WHEW -
> 
> Good to know that this question has been answered. No more talk about Hillary's health now. :-"
> 
> ...



Yep, totally unfounded to question it.

Twitter

FYI, CP is Colin Powell.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Sep 14, 2016)

This is the best cartoon this season, or close to it....


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 14, 2016)

@SpongeBob*24 - "like" because it is so true!!!


----------



## Rapid (Sep 15, 2016)

Trump has been endorsed by 14 Medal of Honor recipients, shortly after being endorsed by 88 Generals

Trump nabs joint endorsement from 14 Medal of Honor recipients

How many have endorsed Hilary?


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 15, 2016)

Rapid said:


> Trump has been endorsed by 14 Medal of Honor recipients, shortly after being endorsed by 88 Generals
> 
> Trump nabs joint endorsement from 14 Medal of Honor recipients
> 
> How many have endorsed Hilary?


One.
Bethesda Medal of Honor Winner Calls Hillary Clinton “Ready to Lead” in DNC Speech

Trump has the edge in the MoH metric, but is falling behind in the "Retired Generals looking at their next career move" metric.


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 16, 2016)

Sorry, what weight does an MOH or general officer endorsement carry? It seems like a cynical move to get the military vote IMO.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 16, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> Sorry, what weight does an MOH or general officer endorsement carry? It seems like a cynical move to get the military vote IMO.



They want to be the Commander in Chief, the support of high ranking Officers and MOH recipients show that they may agree with their foreign policy stance and that the troops should be willing to follow their orders.  Across the board, that's 2 million active, NG and Reserve votes.  And another 20+ million Veteran votes.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 16, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> They want to be the Commander in Chief, the support of high ranking Officers and MOH recipients show that they may agree with their foreign policy stance and that the troops should be willing to follow their orders.  Across the board, that's 2 million active, NG and Reserve votes.  And another 20+ million Veteran votes.



Should be willing to follow orders? What?

What foreign policy expertise does an 11B MOH winner have? Seriously. 

Just because someone is a badass doesn't mean they have the chops to have an endorsement that means anything. 

Generals on the other hand, have lots of experience in policy, them I am slightly more interested in. I thought way more came out in favor of Hillary?


----------



## AWP (Sep 16, 2016)

I absolutely respect a MoH recipient. They earned the award and in many cases are a reflection of their unit as much as their actions. The reality is that the MoH doesn't make one a foreign policy expert anymore than our debates here on this forum.

General officer endorsements? Seriously? We're going to use that as our benchmark? We constantly, "we" as in "this whole damn board", complain about the direction of the military, the lack of leadership, the lack of accountability, the vast gulf between a GO and the peasant class at O-5 and below....but we're now going to champion their opinions when they support our favorite candidate? Some of those same GO's who joined the gun control group?

Given the state of our officer corps, a GO endorsement scares me. Seriously, what's the "Mattis to Wes Clark" ratio? My money's on "1:eleventeen."


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 16, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I absolutely respect a MoH recipient. They earned the award and in many cases are a reflection of their unit as much as their actions. The reality is that the MoH doesn't make one a foreign policy expert anymore than our debates here on this forum.
> 
> General officer endorsements? Seriously? We're going to use that as our benchmark? We constantly, "we" as in "this whole damn board", complain about the direction of the military, the lack of leadership, the lack of accountability, the vast gulf between a GO and the peasant class at O-5 and below....but we're now going to champion their opinions when they support our favorite candidate? Some of those same GO's who joined the gun control group?
> 
> Given the state of our officer corps, a GO endorsement scares me. Seriously, what's the "Mattis to Wes Clark" ratio? My money's on "1:eleventeen."



Right and I don't utilize our debates here as a yardstick against which I measure candidate worthiness. 

Regardless of what we think about general officers they are often subject matter experts that understand the long term goals, and effects of policy better than we do.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 16, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Right and I don't utilize our debates here as a yardstick against which I measure candidate worthiness.
> 
> Regardless of what we think about general officers they are often subject matter experts that understand the long term goals, and effects of policy better than we do.


More politician looking for a post-retirement gig.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 16, 2016)

Huh.

Hillary "misspoke" when she made the "deplorable" comment about Trump supporters.  Funny, she "misspoke" the first time just the day before when interviewed by an Israel station.  






If you are interested, here is the full interview...


----------



## Brill (Sep 16, 2016)

We have CNN airing in the office and therefore, I was exposed to the wisdom from the Congressional Black Caucus. I'm pretty sick of this election cycle but honestly wonder:

How is questioning whether President Obama was born in the US a racist comment?


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 16, 2016)

lindy said:


> We have CNN airing in the office and therefore, I was exposed to the wisdom from the Congressional Black Caucus. I'm pretty sick of this election cycle but honestly wonder:
> 
> How is questioning whether President Obama was born in the US a racist comment?



Implying the first black president was born in Africa? No way that's racist.


----------



## Brill (Sep 16, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Implying the first black president was born in Africa? No way that's racist.



No, it's ignorant, uninformed, etc but in no way a disparaging comment against an entire ethnic race of people.

I think the implication is just as stupid as the inference.

ETA: I agreed because it's not, but I know your being sarcastic.

Can anyone find Trump quoted as saying Obama was/may have been born in Africa (not outside the US, but specifically Africa)? I tried but have weak Google-fu.

Here's an interview where Trump quotes an author who claimed Obama was born in Kenya

Mitt Romney’s New BFF: Donald Trump

This part seems like he's on board:



> “That’s what he told the literary agent,” Trump insisted. “That’s the way life works… He didn’t know *he was running for president, so he told the truth*. The literary agent wrote down what he said… *He said he was born in Kenya* and raised in Indonesia… Now they’re saying it was a mistake. Just like his Kenyan grandmother said he was born in Kenya, and she pointed down the road to the hospital, and after people started screaming at her she said, ‘Oh, I mean Hawaii.’ *Give me a break.*



I think this comment makes him look pretty stupid (news, I know), but I still maintain it's not racist because of the absence of derogatory comments about his ethnicity. He questioned Cruz's citizenship and eligibility for POTUS along the EXACT same lines.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 16, 2016)

Cruz was the Canadian Manchurian...


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 16, 2016)

lindy said:


> No, it's ignorant, uninformed, etc but in no way a disparaging comment against an entire ethnic race of people.
> 
> I think the implication is just as stupid as the inference.



Maybe it isn't aggressively racist, but the implication has racist undertones.



lindy said:


> Here's an interview where Trump quotes an author who claimed Obama was born in Kenya
> 
> Mitt Romney’s New BFF: Donald Trump
> 
> ...



Cruz was definitely not born in America.


----------



## Brill (Sep 16, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Maybe it isn't aggressively racist, but the implication has racist undertones.



That's technically impossible.  The implication is that Obama's EOs and laws signed are unlawful as is his presidency but has nothing to do with his race or ethnic origin.

The race baiters are inferring that Trump's comment about Obama's birthplace are rooted in a non-stated belief that whites are superior to blacks and they, the baiters, are implying that very idea to their followers. Trump never said such things. Hell, I heard a member of the CBC state today that Trump actually marked the job applications of non-white applicants with a C and NONE were hired! Odd that no lawsuits were filed.

I don't think there is a successful politician who has vocalized such nonsense of racial superiority.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 16, 2016)

lindy said:


> That's technically impossible.  The implication is that Obama's EOs and laws signed are unlawful as is his presidency but has nothing to do with his race or ethnic origin.
> 
> The race baiters are inferring that Trump's comment about Obama's birthplace are rooted in a non-stated belief that whites are superior to blacks and they, the baiters, are implying that very idea to their followers. Trump never said such things. Hell, I heard a member of the CBC state today that Trump actually marked the job applications of non-white applicants with a C and NONE were hired! Odd that no lawsuits were filed.
> 
> I don't think there is a successful politician who has vocalized such nonsense of racial superiority.



It is technically impossible for something to have a racist undertone?


----------



## Brill (Sep 16, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> It is technically impossible for something to have a racist undertone?



Not something but Trump's previous assertion that Obama was born in Kenya, yes, there cannot be a racist implication because he did not imply one race was superior than another or other races were inferior.

I'm not saying his comments were not retarded...just saying that Obama's birthplace, regardless where it was or wasn't, has zero connection to race whatsoever.

Why do you think otherwise?


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Sep 16, 2016)

*According to the Constitution anyone who wishes to become president must be:*

At least thirty-five years old.
A resident of the United States for at least fourteen years.
A natural-born citizen.
If anyone questions any of these, it is not wrong if you love America....its just as much your right as someone to Kneel during the National Anthem....Trump attacked #3, lets attack #1.

Picture a beautiful white Republican female who is 34 yrs old runs for president in 2024, cause we all know Hillary has the next 2 terms if the Flu doesn't get her......:-"

The Dems call out her false birth certificate saying its fake, she's not 35, but 34 and here is the proof in a book she wrote about her trials as a female with no shoes in the kitchen.

Is this sexism......NOPE!!!!!  Thanks, I'll be here all night....


----------



## poison (Sep 16, 2016)

Fucking Gary Johnson excluded from the debates. What a load of shit.


----------



## Brill (Sep 16, 2016)

poison said:


> Fucking Gary Johnson excluded from the debates. What a load of shit.



Bunch of communist shit right there! Johnson 2016!


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 16, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> *According to the Constitution anyone who wishes to become president must be:*
> 
> At least thirty-five years old.
> A resident of the United States for at least fourteen years.
> ...



I don't think that is a good example. A better example is that the first black man with a weird sounding name runs for president. People spend 6 years claiming he was born in Africa, is a Muslim(8 years for that one). The question is why? Are they saying he was born in Africa and is a Muslim because he is named Barack, and is black? It certainly wouldn't be as likely if his name was Donald and he was white. I think there were racist underpinnings for the movement. Do I think it was overt? No. Just like I don't think cops are racist. I think that there are underpinnings to their policies that are, just like I do in this case.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 16, 2016)

Gary Who?

That is part of the problem.


----------



## poison (Sep 16, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Gary Who?
> 
> That is part of the problem.



Gary 'I'm the only candidate who upholds freedom for all' Johnson. That guy. Not the orange bigot ignoramus, nor the conniving lying cutthroat.


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 16, 2016)

lindy said:


> Not something but Trump's previous assertion that Obama was born in Kenya, yes, there cannot be a racist implication because he did not imply one race was superior than another or other races were inferior.


Your very narrow definition of "racism" smacks of pedantry.  Within the common-use definition, it's most definitely racism.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Sep 17, 2016)

Going after The Presidents place of birth is no more racist then wondering what illness Hillary has is sexist.
Is that a better Parable......??? 

Enjoy your weekend....

Fun fact there are 8 Christians to every 1 muslim in Kenya....:-"


----------



## Rapid (Sep 17, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Your very narrow definition of "racism" smacks of pedantry.  Within the common-use definition, it's most definitely racism.



"Common use" is retarded, because so are commoners. Next thing you know, ShadowSpear will be discussing how there are more than two genders... because that's becoming a pretty common topic now, too. That doesn't make it right though, so that kind of argument is just mind-blowingly weak. A statement isn't any more correct whether it's believed by one fool or a hundred million fools. Erroneous thinking tends to be pretty "common".

Trump is prejudiced, even very prejudiced, but let's stick to the actual definitions of words. Trump has never come out or hinted at one race being superior to another. That's what racism is. None of this "racism = power + privilege" bullshit. If Liberals want to call that a thing, they should find a new word. Oh wait, that would mean creating something rather than taking something from other people...

Anyone that philosophically opposes Liberals will be labeled as misogynistic, racist, Islamophobic, homophobic, deplorable, or anything else they can think of. It's a new form of censorship, and it's pretty worrying.


----------



## Brill (Sep 17, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Your very narrow definition of "racism" smacks of pedantry.  Within the common-use definition, it's most definitely racism.



I linked to Webster's online dictionary!



Rapid said:


> Anyone that philosophically opposes Liberals will be labeled as misogynistic, racist, Islamophobic, homophobic, deplorable, or anything else they can think of. It's a new form of censorship, and it's pretty worrying.



Especially when website moderators subscribe to this philosophy.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 17, 2016)

lindy said:


> Especially when website moderators subscribe to this philosophy.



You feel like you are being censored because we disagree?


----------



## DasBoot (Sep 17, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Should be willing to follow orders? What?
> 
> What foreign policy expertise does an 11B MOH winner have? Seriously.
> 
> ...


It's like reading foreign policy on sofrep- 
"So do you have any foreign policy experience or an advanced degree in international relations? 

"No but I was a Sniper at 3/75 and shot a lot of people" 

"Well shit you think you could give us a 4000 word breakdown on how to defeat ISIS?" 

"Say no more fam"


----------



## Brill (Sep 17, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> You feel like you are being censored because we disagree?



No, I meant sites that actively participate in media (info-tainment) bias.  Do you feel guilty about something?

Regarding common-use definition:

The Argument from Common Usage - Less Wrong



> But once any empirical proposition is at stake, _or_ any moral proposition, you can no longer appeal to common usage.



Sen Reid accused CNN polling of being biased towards Trump?  Hilarious!


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 17, 2016)

Rapid said:


> "Common use" is retarded, because so are commoners. Next thing you know, ShadowSpear will be discussing how there are more than two genders... because that's becoming a pretty common topic now, too. That doesn't make it right though, so that kind of argument is just mind-blowingly weak. A statement isn't any more correct whether it's believed by one fool or a hundred million fools. Erroneous thinking tends to be pretty "common".


I've said this seemingly a million times, but English is a living language and meanings do change.  Dictionaries  Your pedantic appeal to the dictionary actually has a logical fallacy named, appropriately, Appeal to Definition.  The problem with appealing to a narrow dictionary definition is that Dictionaries are static, reflect a certain definition at the time of writing, and have no pedagogical stake in the words contained within their pages.

I mean, come on.  In the very next paragraph you're weaseling out of the argument by saying, "Yeah, Trump's words were bad I guess but TECHNICALLY IT'S NOT RACISM! Ha!  Checkmate, libtards






  Smug Obama approves



> Trump is prejudiced, even very prejudiced, but let's stick to the actual definitions of words. Trump has never come out or hinted at one race being superior to another. That's what racism is. None of this "racism = power + privilege" bullshit. If Liberals want to call that a thing, they should find a new word. Oh wait, that would mean creating something rather than taking something from other people...


See, nobody here was equating 'racism' with the critical race theory version of the word.  You took an argument that nobody has said, then attacked it.  That has a name too: Strawman fallacy


> Anyone that philosophically opposes Liberals will be labeled as misogynistic, racist, Islamophobic, homophobic, deplorable, or anything else they can think of. It's a new form of censorship, and it's pretty worrying.


This argument is the biggest bunch of crybaby horseshit to come out of this election.  It's more sad than safe spaces, trigger warnings, and micro-aggressions combined.  

Here's what the argument is:
P1: Build a wall
P2: That's racist and wrong
P1: No it's not

That's a very oversimplified example, but you get the idea.  Nowhere in the exchange was P1's ability to speak censored, curtailed, or otherwise hampered.  

Censorship looks like this:
P1: Build a wall
P2: That's racist.  Also, I'm going to ban you
P1: Fuck

This article does a pretty good job of reconciling the myriad definitions of racism.


----------



## Totentanz (Sep 17, 2016)

lindy said:


> Sen Reid accused CNN polling of being biased towards Trump?  Hilarious!




I think I've seen that video before...


----------



## Rapid (Sep 17, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I've said this seemingly a million times, but English is a living language and meanings do change.  Dictionaries  Your pedantic appeal to the dictionary actually has a logical fallacy named, appropriately, Appeal to Definition.  The problem with appealing to a narrow dictionary definition is that Dictionaries are static, reflect a certain definition at the time of writing, and have no pedagogical stake in the words contained within their pages.



Denied. Fortunately, I think most people still subscribe to the traditional definition of "racism"... despite the media's best attempts to twist things. So, no, it's not an appeal to definition, because the classic definition is still the one most people hold. That doesn't make it right though; what makes it right is that it's the original definition, and it STILL hasn't changed other than in Liberals' minds.

_Gretchen, stop trying to make fetch happen! It's not going to happen!_



Deathy McDeath said:


> See, nobody here was equating 'racism' with the critical race theory version of the word.  You took an argument that nobody has said, then attacked it.



It doesn't have to be equated -- it becomes associated with it simply because of the two competing definitions. That's why Liberals want to appropriate the term. They want to equate prejudice with the far worse case of racism.

Sorry, Libtards, not today.



Deathy McDeath said:


> This argument is the biggest bunch of crybaby horseshit to come out of this election.  It's more sad than safe spaces, trigger warnings, and micro-aggressions combined.
> 
> Here's what the argument is:
> P1: Build a wall
> ...



Bull-fucking-shit.

_1) "Nowhere in the exchange was P1's ability to speak censored, curtailed, or otherwise hampered."_

Yes, it was, because like I said, appropriating the word "racism" makes an implied link with the standard definition of racism (one race is superior to another). And no one wants to be associated with that, so some people keep quiet out of fear of some crazy bitch calling them a "racist", even if it's in terms of some kind of _nouveau_ definition. The point is, other people won't necessarily know that, so someone has every reason to worry about what other people will think of them if they get called a "racist".

_2) "Nowhere in the exchange was P1's ability to speak censored, curtailed, or otherwise hampered. "_

It was. Like I just said, people don't want to be associated with the term "racism"... because it will always be tied to the classic definition, which is far worse than 'any myriad' of new age definitions, or just plain prejudice.

This goes a lot further, too. A lot of people will keep their mouths shut just because they're afraid of losing their jobs or some shit like that, in the event that their employer gets tipped off that someone at their firm is holding "racist" beliefs, etc. There are a whole bunch of left wing trolls who have nothing better to do with their time than to "dox" people online (dig up their personal information) and report them to their employers... sometimes for good reasons, but OFTEN for petty and ridiculous shit.

Sorry, but it's safer for an employer to fire you for holding 'controversial opinions' than to stand up against a crowd of people with pitchforks. And that alone is one good reason why it's passive censorship.


----------



## Etype (Sep 17, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Your very narrow definition of "racism" smacks of pedantry.  Within the common-use definition, it's most definitely racism.


Sounds like micro-racism to me.

Wouldn't the pedantry fall upon the person who finds racism outside of the traditional definition of racism?

Micro-aggression and racism claims are now on shadow spear. There is no place safe on earth.


----------



## AWP (Sep 17, 2016)

I guess an orange man picking on a black man or a brown man is technically racism, but this white man finds it funny  all the same.


----------



## CQB (Sep 18, 2016)

One thing is consistent from looking far across the sea concerning the Donald. He is so far the only one who has provided an answer and listened to those who have been left out in the cold by globalism (jobs gone OS). I'm looking at something here today which backs up where the orange guy is coming from. A Princeton study, what the authors call an epidemic of despair, is affecting of men and women 45-54 in on a downward trend worldwide, except in the US where it is increasing and getting steeper. The cause of death is drugs and alcohol OD, suicide, alcohol related chronic liver disease. The fewer years in education, the steeper the rise, plus the external factor of violence. Now the point for me is, has Trump identified this as a voting bloc or is it a genuine concern? It's an unknown for me but I'd hope he is genuine.


----------



## Brill (Sep 18, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I guess an orange man picking on a black man or a brown man is technically racism, but this white man finds it funny  all the same.



Your comment is racist because you clearly believe, by omission, that the yellow man cannot even contribute.

If we subscribe to common-usage definition, how in hell are President Obama's comments not racist? They are extremely exclusive.

Obama: Would be 'personal insult' to legacy if black voters don't back Clinton - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 18, 2016)

I wonder if the latest terror attacks will bring more anti gun/knives/weapons rhetoric from Obama?  Should outlaw pipes, and place unarmed guards at our dumpsters..

ETA: I'm just a little more pissed today than usual.


----------



## Etype (Sep 19, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I wonder if the latest terror attacks will bring more anti gun/knives/weapons rhetoric from Obama?  Should outlaw pipes, and place unarmed guards at our dumpsters..
> 
> ETA: I'm just a little more pissed today than usual.


2028, I'm running on an anti-pressure cooker platform.

At a minimum- I'm putting serial numbers on them, doing background checks on all who buy them, and closing the home shopping network loophole.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 19, 2016)

This is interesting, former Haitian Prime Minister talking to Trump about the Clintons attempting to bribe him and donations to Clinton Foundation for Haiti after 2010 not going to Haiti.


----------



## Brill (Sep 19, 2016)

Etype said:


> 2028, I'm running on an anti-pressure cooker platform.
> 
> At a minimum- I'm putting serial numbers on them, doing background checks on all who buy them, and closing the home shopping network loophole.



That's prejudicial against crock pots!

This snippet inspires confidence and demonstrates command presence.


----------



## poison (Sep 20, 2016)

lindy said:


> That's prejudicial against crock pots!



Why haven't we banned high capacity crock pots?


----------



## Brill (Sep 20, 2016)

poison said:


> Why haven't we banned high capacity crock pots?



Gotta feed the children!


----------



## Queeg (Sep 21, 2016)

Etype said:


> 2028, I'm running on an anti-pressure cooker platform.
> 
> At a minimum- I'm putting serial numbers on them, doing background checks on all who buy them, and closing the home shopping network loophole.


 
Add an Authorization To Transport whereby crockpots shall only be transported by the most direct route between households or federally approved crockpot smiths.


----------



## Brill (Sep 21, 2016)

If you say it enough, people will accept it as truth...not really.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 23, 2016)

All polls are tightening...

Clinton’s Leading In Exactly The States She Needs To Win


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 23, 2016)

@Deathy McDeath @TLDR20 

You are the only two I am certain are "out of the closet liberals" on the board.  Serious questions for  you, (and anyone else really) but especially those who are inclined to support Clinton.  

- Do you believe that she is really as cunty to the Secret Service as alleged by the agent who wrote a book about it? 
- Do you believe that she really holds utter distain for our military as has been alleged? 

I ask these questions because it pains me that if she wins, we will have a president who openly hates the men and women who are sworn to protect her, and scoffs at the advice that her General's offer her.

This election season would be so much easier if I was not convinced Trump still does not grasp the seriousness of all this and somehow believes he is still filming a reality show.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 23, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> @Deathy McDeath @TLDR20
> 
> You are the only two I am certain are "out of the closet liberals" on the board.  Serious questions for  you, (and anyone else really) but especially those who are inclined to support Clinton.
> 
> ...



I don't know about the SS, but I do know a Navy doc attached to the WH staff during one of Clinton's terms.  He said that Bill was a great guy.  He has zero good to say about Hillary, said she would scream at her assistants that no military personnel should be in the same room as her.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 23, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> @Deathy McDeath @TLDR20
> 
> You are the only two I am certain are "out of the closet liberals" on the board.  Serious questions for  you, (and anyone else really) but especially those who are inclined to support Clinton.
> 
> ...



Totally honest: I don't care if she was a total bitch to the secret service. At all. Her being a botch to the secret service doesn't make her less knowledgeable of policy, nor does it make her less qualified to be president. I haven't seen the sources for her being disadainful of the military, or the high ranking officers she would interact with. One of the things that I have consistently read about Hillary, is that she is an amazing listener, and takes the advice given by her advisors seriously. I don't think Trump would do that. In fact I think he would think he knows better....

You have to remember Hillary has been in the public eye for going on 30 years. Name me a single person who has had that much scrutiny that would not have some form of gaffe...

However, like Dan Carlin said recently on a podcast, the Clintons KNOW everyone is watching and still don't give a fuck. That does concern me.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 23, 2016)

@TLDR20 - thank you for your honest candor.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 23, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I don't know about the SS, but I do know a Navy doc attached to the WH staff during one of Clinton's terms.  He said that Bill was a great guy.  He has zero good to say about Hillary, said she would scream at her assistants that no military personnel should be in the same room as her.



I'm always suspicious of single unspecified sources, about anything.

I'm no Hillary fan. I don't think she is the best candidate. The person I think should be running, didn't (honestly who wants that job that deserves it). Shit, my favorite politician is a state senator in NC, who also serves in the Nc NG. He is liberal, but he is nowhere near ready for the presidency.


----------



## AWP (Sep 23, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I haven't seen the sources for her being disadainful of the military, or the high ranking officers she would interact with. One of the things that I have consistently read about Hillary, is that she is an amazing listener, and takes the advice given by her advisors seriously.



We have a member who was formerly with HMX-1 and flew with the Clintons during Bill's tenure. He said on a social level she is an absolute horrible human being. Her interactions with the military were beyond disrespectful in his eyes. He's never been one to BS and I believe him. As for her listening, the book Game Change paints the exact opposite. Maybe she is a great listeners, but her actions may have cost her the Dem. nomination in 2008. She is very loyal to those around her, but it's a double-edged sword because when their performance declines she stands by them, no matter how bad they become. She won't cut slingload despite a mountain of information and all of her other advisors telling her to cut loose the dead wood.



TLDR20 said:


> You have to remember Hillary has been in the public eye for going on 30 years. Name me a single person who has had that much scrutiny that would not have some form of gaffe...
> 
> However, like Dan Carlin said recently on a podcast, the Clintons KNOW everyone is watching and still don't give a fuck. That does concern me.



Totally agree on all counts. She and Trump are in a pure GAF mode right now and that's beyond troubling to me.

This election is pure garbage.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 23, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> We have a member who was formerly with HMX-1 and flew with the Clintons during Bill's tenure. He said on a social level she is an absolute horrible human being. Her interactions with the military were beyond disrespectful in his eyes. He's never been one to BS and I believe him. As for her listening, the book Game Change paints the exact opposite. Maybe she is a great listeners, but her actions may have cost her the Dem. nomination in 2008. She is very loyal to those around her, but it's a double-edged sword because when their performance declines she stands by them, no matter how bad they become. She won't cut slingload despite a mountain of information and all of her other advisors telling her to cut loose the dead wood.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Again, I don't really care about her actions with the rank and file. I honestly wish we could have 2 presidents. 1 who is the numbers and policy person, and one who deals with "the people". It takes a different person to be great at both. We allow for that in other professions, but we expect our president to somehow be completely masterful of everything, while also being likeable. 

I wish we could have like a PM and a president. A PM that deals with congress, passes laws, does policy. Then a president that helps make strategic decisions. Is more of a figurehead, rallies the troops, shit like that.


----------



## Polar Bear (Sep 23, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Again, I don't really care about her actions with the rank and file. I honestly wish we could have 2 presidents. 1 who is the numbers and policy person, and one who deals with "the people". It takes a different person to be great at both. We allow for that in other professions, but we expect our president to somehow be completely masterful of everything, while also being likeable.
> 
> I wish we could have like a PM and a president. A PM that deals with congress, passes laws, does policy. Then a president that helps make strategic decisions. Is more of a figurehead, rallies the troops, shit like that.


A figurehead does not make stategic decisions. They make commercials. They are lead by others and told what to do and say....White House briefing etc.


----------



## DocIllinois (Sep 24, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Again, I don't really care about her actions with the rank and file. I honestly wish we could have 2 presidents. 1 who is the numbers and policy person, and one who deals with "the people". It takes a different person to be great at both. We allow for that in other professions, but we expect our president to somehow be completely masterful of everything, while also being likeable.



Agreed.  Most leaders have something about them they fall short on, or that puts a bad taste in their people's mouth. 

(Take it from someone who knows; being likeable to my own subordinates falls quite low on the list of things to be concerned about.  They complain, I have other strengths, business goes on.)

Besides, professional service members (military, SS, etc.) will be aware of and account for the lack of ease many on the civilian side can experience toward those in such occupations in this country.  Those individuals will still continue to serve and protect because its their calling and purpose, IMO.

Liberal #3, $.02.


----------



## Brill (Sep 24, 2016)

I think PACs should get out of the election business but I suppose this is protected speech.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 24, 2016)

Yet another reason I cannot stand this election...are we all supposed to believe that Trump woke up, drank his morning coffee, and happened to notice in the newspaper that Cruz had endorsed him?

Puh-leeeze.  I'd love to know what "they" threatened Cruz with if he did not change his tune.


----------



## Totentanz (Sep 24, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Yet another reason I cannot stand this election...are we all supposed to believe that Trump woke up, drank his morning coffee, and happened to notice in the newspaper that Cruz had endorsed him?
> 
> Puh-leeeze.  I'd love to know what "they" threatened Cruz with if he did not change his tune.
> 
> View attachment 16691



Or Cruz decided that if there's a chance of Trump becoming president, he might not want to be on the White House shitlist.  Wait until things cool down, but before the results come out, and throw out an olive branch.  He doesn't lose much, but could gain quite a bit.

I don't think Cruz's endorsement is worth so much to Trump that he'd put significant effort into coercing it.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 24, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I'm always suspicious of single unspecified sources, about anything.
> 
> I'm no Hillary fan. I don't think she is the best candidate. The person I think should be running, didn't (honestly who wants that job that deserves it). Shit, my favorite politician is a state senator in NC, who also serves in the Nc NG. He is liberal, but he is nowhere near ready for the presidency.



Gary Byrne, former SS, also speaks of her contempt for the military.  A single source is hearsay.  More than one is still hearsay but is corroboration.

I think how she treats the SS, the military, the cook or a queen, her behavior is very telling.  Honestly, I think it makes one less qualified (to be president).


----------



## Il Duce (Sep 24, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Gary Byrne, former SS, also speaks of her contempt for the military.  A single source is hearsay.  More than one is still hearsay but is corroboration.
> 
> I think how she treats the SS, the military, the cook or a queen, her behavior is very telling.  Honestly, I think it makes one less qualified (to be president).



So, you feel if a candidate is disrespectful to others, holds military members or other in contempt those are qualities that make them less able to be President.  And, for you two or more individuals who claim to have witnessed this behavior is a strong argument?

If that's your standard one of the candidates ought to be making your head explode - and it's not HRC.


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 24, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> So, you feel if a candidate is disrespectful to others, holds military members or other in contempt those are qualities that make them less able to be President.  And, for you two or more individuals who claim to have witnessed this behavior is a strong argument?
> 
> If that's your standard one of the candidates ought to be making your head explode - and it's not HRC.



Why not?


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 24, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> So, you feel if a candidate is disrespectful to others, holds military members or other in contempt those are qualities that make them less able to be President.  And, for you two or more individuals who claim to have witnessed this behavior is a strong argument?
> 
> If that's your standard one of the candidates ought to be making your head explode - and it's not HRC.



No, I don't buy the two-wrongs-make-a-right argument.  But I do tire of the left's dogged argument of what makes someone "qualified" (Palin, Trump, et al.) and what makes one "presidential."  But if you want to talk qualities that should be "presidential," not holding just about anyone in open contempt and having some basic fucking decency should be near the top of the list.

But since everyone seems to like the "but Trump does it" argument, fine.  I will still take him every day of the week and twice on Sunday based on everything else aside from that one aspect.

HRC's behavior....is well-documented.  So, yeah, two or more individuals who essentially say the same things do make a good argument.


----------



## AWP (Sep 24, 2016)

If we're going to make character and health records and whatever else a prt of the debate, how she treats subordinates is fair game. There's a quote, though the authorship is disputed, about one's conduct. "The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." SS and military on her staff treated like ass? I think it does matter. None of this is to say Trump's excluded, but people need to know how she conducts herself. It is okay to question Trump's public behavior, but HRC's private behavior is off limits? Nonsense.

@Devildoc I edited your post. I despise the woman and Trump, but we're not going down that path.


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 24, 2016)

Soooooooo, as smear campaigns go, at least this one has been entertaining. 

I'll just leave this one here.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 24, 2016)

Ho-ly shit.  That is a real ad...I thought it was was someone's idea of a satirical ad.  Well Donny...ball is in your court...what you got?


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 24, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> If we're going to make character and health records and whatever else a prt of the debate, how she treats subordinates is fair game. There's a quote, though the authorship is disputed, about one's conduct. "The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good." SS and military on her staff treated like ass? I think it does matter. None of this is to say Trump's excluded, but people need to know how she conducts herself. It is okay to question Trump's public behavior, but HRC's private behavior is off limits? Nonsense.
> 
> @Devildoc I edited your post. I despise the woman and Trump, but we're not going down that path.


I agree to a point- but you can be an absolute dickhead to the waiter and the worlds best trauma surgeon, ya dig?

I fall exactly in the middle of this argument. I understand that being an ass to the Secret Service and rank and file military won't win you any fans, but in the end you could be a social atomic bomb and still be great at your job. It just so happens this job is the presidency.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 25, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> @Devildoc I edited your post. I despise the woman and Trump, but we're not going down that path.



Yes, thanks.  Sorry about that.  I cooled off and was going to do it but you beat me to it.


----------



## Brill (Sep 25, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Ho-ly shit.  That is a real ad...I thought it was was someone's idea of a satirical ad.  Well Donny...ball is in your court...what you got?



I think that ad opens HRC up to questions how she (and her machine) treated (destroyed) Bill's playmates.

Also, I like how any Hillary attack is considered sexist but that add isn't???


----------



## AWP (Sep 25, 2016)

lindy said:


> Also, I like how any Hillary attack is considered sexist but that add isn't???



I've had people tell me it is okay to make fun of Trump's looks but not Hillary's. He's fair game, but an attack on her is sexist.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 25, 2016)

.


lindy said:


> I think that ad opens HRC up to questions how she (and her machine) treated (destroyed) Bill's playmates.
> 
> Also, I like how any Hillary attack is considered sexist but that add isn't???



How is that ad sexist? If you mean Trumps words are sexist, yeah I guess it is. I mean Trumps comments are his, they are certainly terrible. 

 Pointing them out over the images of young female Americans is a pretty spot on ad to me.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 25, 2016)

Trump could just run obama's anti Hilary rants when they were both running in '08.


----------



## Totentanz (Sep 25, 2016)

lindy said:


> I think that ad opens HRC up to questions how she (and her machine) treated (destroyed) Bill's playmates.
> 
> Also, I like how any Hillary attack is considered sexist but that add isn't???


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 25, 2016)

lindy said:


> I think that ad opens HRC up to questions how she (and her machine) treated (destroyed) Bill's playmates.
> 
> Also, I like how any Hillary attack is considered sexist but that add isn't???


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 26, 2016)

This guy has a following in the poli sci world, he is calling for a Trump win.

This Professor Has Predicted Every Prez Election Since 1984; Says THIS Candidate Will Win


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 26, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> @Deathy McDeath @TLDR20
> 
> You are the only two I am certain are "out of the closet liberals" on the board.  Serious questions for  you, (and anyone else really) but especially those who are inclined to support Clinton.
> 
> ...


I'm a little late to this question, but here's my take:

I think it's entirely possible that Hillary was a jerk to secret service agents.  It's also possible that she has shown disdain for individual servicemembers in the past, although I believe that she respects the military as an institution and as a foreign policy tool.  That last bit is very important: Yes, Hillary is an elitist*.  Elitists do not tend to hold the soldier, sailor, Marine or airman in the same high regard as middle America.  I mean, I think that America has a problem with unqualified reverence for the military in general, but that's another topic entirely.  And while she may treat them coldly, she has demonstrated a kind of hawkishness that's fairly unusual for modern liberal Democrats.  The Iraq war, and the Libya intervention are the two examples that immediately spring to mind.  Given that she probably looks down on your average lower enlisted guy or gal, but is willing to use military force when it's called for, it would stand to reason that she takes the word of military decision-makers quite seriously.  

I suppose I could use a somewhat-crude anecdote about investing to illustrate my point: I'm a liberal (duh) and invest my money in a variety of stocks and funds.  Personally I don't hold people who work in the financial sector in very high regard, which is a sentiment I think most of you can agree with.  I think they're necessary, but they're also snakes who would sell their own mother up the river for to bump up earnings by 3%.  Even armed with this knowledge, I still invest.  Hope that answers your question.

*This is a really strange thing to consider, because both she and Bill came from modest backgrounds.  Hillary grew up in the suburbs north of Chicago, and her dad owned a decent drapery business.  Bill was raised by a single mom, who later married a used car dealer.  I don't think I need to illustrate the massive difference between their upbringing and Donald Trump's, a man who not many of his supporters will think to call "elitist".



Devildoc said:


> This guy has a following in the poli sci world, he is calling for a Trump win.
> 
> This Professor Has Predicted Every Prez Election Since 1984; Says THIS Candidate Will Win


Did you watch the video?  Dude acknowledges a narrow victory for Trump.  That much is true.  However, he adds in the caveat that these keys only hold true in regular elections.  He  adroitly points out that Trump is such an unusual candidate that he could very well defy the model and prove him wrong.  At 3:40, he even says that not only is his model predicting a Trump victory extremely narrowly, but more to the point he's really predicting victory for a generic Republican.  I don't think it needs to be said that Trump is anything but that.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 26, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> And while she may treat them coldly, she has demonstrated a kind of hawkishness that's fairly unusual for modern liberal Democrats. The Iraq war, and the Libya intervention are the two examples that immediately spring to mind.



Completely agree with this, and while there is still a part of me that gravitates towards Trump, I don't believe for a minute that he is as "rah rah" about listening to the advice of his generals as he claims.

Thank you for the response...damn it, I wish Hillary was just a tad more likable.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 26, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Did you watch the video?  Dude acknowledges a narrow victory for Trump.  That much is true.  However, he adds in the caveat that these keys only hold true in regular elections.  He  adroitly points out that Trump is such an unusual candidate that he could very well defy the model and prove him wrong.  At 3:40, he even says that not only is his model predicting a Trump victory extremely narrowly, but more to the point he's really predicting victory for a generic Republican.  I don't think it needs to be said that Trump is anything but that.



I did see it, and I have followed this guy for a long time.  He is very conservative (don't mean politically) in his assessments and for him to even mention "Trump" and "2016" is a stunning revelation.

But I do agree that Trump could defy the model, as he has in everything so far.  I do believe that all conventional wisdom has gone out the window.



Deathy McDeath said:


> Did you watch the video?  Dude acknowledges a narrow victory for Trump.  That much is true.  However, he adds in the caveat that these keys only hold true in regular elections.  He  adroitly points out that Trump is such an unusual candidate that he could very well defy the model and prove him wrong.  At 3:40, he even says that not only is his model predicting a Trump victory extremely narrowly, but more to the point he's really predicting victory for a generic Republican.  I don't think it needs to be said that Trump is anything but that.



Then there is this:

Silver: Trump Would Win If Election Were Held Today

Not saying Trump is gonna win, at all, but I will say when people stop listening to the noise of Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc., the legit people have it very, _very_ close.


----------



## Brill (Sep 26, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Not saying Trump is gonna win, at all, but I will say when people stop listening to the noise of Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc., the legit people have it very, _very_ close.



I do hope Trump wins if only for the MSM investigative reporters to actually do their job of digging into what the USG is doing so the Congressional Oversight Committees can do other things.

Where are the modern day Woodwards and Bernsteins?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 26, 2016)

Right. . .Hillary Clinton’s ‘Between Two Ferns’ Appearance Was ’90% Improvised’


----------



## Rapid (Sep 26, 2016)




----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 26, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Right. . .Hillary Clinton’s ‘Between Two Ferns’ Appearance Was ’90% Improvised’



I don't believe that for a second.


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 26, 2016)

Can we add "Lies" to the Trump column too?


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 26, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Can we add "Lies" to the Trump column too?


Slow down, guy. We aren't trying to kill people.


----------



## Rapid (Sep 26, 2016)

Now I understand everyone's shit's _emotional_ right now, but I've got a 3 point plan that's going to fix EVERYTHING.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 26, 2016)

Bloomberg TV is going to run a real time fact checker...


----------



## BloodStripe (Sep 26, 2016)

New drinking game requirement, every time Donald sniffs his nose take a shot.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 26, 2016)

FYI -

I started a debate thread. 

Presidential Debate Thread


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 26, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> New drinking game requirement, every time Donald sniffs his nose take a shot.


#donaldshealth

Ahead of the Vice Presidential debate, I felt that this image was appropriate


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 28, 2016)

Florida blacks not enthused for Clinton....and they need to be....

Clinton campaign in ‘panic mode’ over Florida black voters


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 28, 2016)

Anyone else watch John Oliver this week?


----------



## Marine0311 (Sep 28, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Anyone else watch John Oliver this week?



Yeah. I like his stuff. Funny also.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 28, 2016)




----------



## benroliver (Sep 28, 2016)

TLDR20, can you be my internet BF, I love your posts.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 28, 2016)

Margaret Thatcher, and Golda Meir were both wore dresses. Why does Hilary wear pant suits all the time??


----------



## benroliver (Sep 28, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Margaret Thatcher, and Golda Meir were both wore dresses. Why does Hilary wear pant suits all the time??



Do you really want to see her in a dress


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 28, 2016)

It's been her attire for so long now, if she is wearing dresses, I missed it. The cut of her wardrobe reminds me, very much so, of Chairman Mao. What is different, is the color, and a collar.


----------



## SpitfireV (Sep 28, 2016)

Does it matter?


----------



## AWP (Sep 29, 2016)

I can't stand the woman and she has the fashion sense of a hobo, but none of that matters when it comes to running the country. Expending an ounce of breath on this nonsense is absurd. AAALLLLLLLLL of the other stuff to talk about with her, and her dress is important?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 29, 2016)

...and for the Gary Johnson fans in the house.

I'm not against a 3rd Party candidate, but Gary is a pot smoking goofball. There is an interview with him in rhe past year where he was obviously high - very uncomfortable to watch, I will try to find it later this morning. 

"_Any one of the continents, any country, just name one foreign leader that you respect and look up to, anybody.’

When Johnson continued to remain at a loss for an answer, Matthews said: ‘But I’m giving you the whole world!’_


----------



## Brill (Sep 29, 2016)

benroliver said:


> TLDR20, can you be my internet BF, I love your posts.



Don't encourage him! I'm wearing him down!!!


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 29, 2016)

lindy said:


> Don't encourage him! I'm wearing him down!!!



No your not.


Here is a new thing politifact is doing, annotating speeches. 

I am sure people will say it is biased. Either way it fact checks.

Donald Trump Speech in Miami, Sept. 16 • Transcripts . FactCheck.org


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 29, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> View attachment 16732



_ * This is not the real Hillary Clinton, it's a body double. 

_All of the earpiece jokes are funny, but that line made me laugh out loud!


----------



## Poccington (Sep 30, 2016)

The Donald got some work in on Twitter during the early hours of this morning, a few weeks out from the Presidential election and he's somehow decided that he should throw out a few more insults at Alicia Machado.

The man is an utter fucking idiot and the fact he's somehow ended up in the race to be President of the United States beggars belief.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 30, 2016)

Poccington said:


> The Donald got some work in on Twitter during the early hours of this morning, a few weeks out from the Presidential election and he's somehow decided that he should throw out a few more insults at Alicia Machado.
> 
> The man is an utter fucking idiot and the fact he's somehow ended up in the race to be President of the United States beggars belief.



For context:

Before 6 a.m., Donald Trump proved Hillary Clinton’s point about his temperament


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 30, 2016)

Dear rest of the world,

We're sorry that we allowed this to go on for this long.

Signed,
America


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 30, 2016)

Look at that, he's not crazy after all...

Debate commission: Donald Trump had audio 'issues' - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 30, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> Look at that, he's not crazy after all...



No, he's crazy.  He might be right about the mics, but have no doubt in your mind, Donald Trump is crazy.


----------



## Brill (Sep 30, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> No, he's crazy.  He might be right about the mics, but have no doubt in your mind, Donald Trump is crazy.



In Crazy vs corrupted, we all lose.


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 30, 2016)

To be quite honest, even if half of the accusations leveled against Hillary were true, I would still take her over the Donald at this point.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 30, 2016)

lindy said:


> In Crazy vs corrupted, we all lose.



I agreed...but...as far as I'm concerned they are all corrupt, Hillary and her Hubby just get called on it more because they have been under a focused microscope for many years.  Not to mention that this has been going on for so long that I genuinely believe that both of them believe that they are above the law so they do not even try as hard to hide their 'shit' anymore.


----------



## Brill (Sep 30, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> To be quite honest, even if half of the accusations leveled against Hillary were true, I would still take her over the Donald at this point.



Seriously, why? I mean that in all sincerity because I don't understand how Americans can look past the corruption; both moral and political.

Jesus. In Moscow of all places to have an incident.

Key Hillary Clinton Aide Repeatedly Misplaced Sensitive Info, According To Reports


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 30, 2016)

lindy said:


> Seriously, why? I mean that in all sincerity because I don't understand how Americans can look past the corruption; both moral and political.


For starters, I don't think that most of the allegations against her stand up to rigorous scrutiny.  Clinton has been involved in legitimate scandals, and probably gotten away with a few, but I think that more than a few of them lack substance.  Believe me, I'm not excusing her wrongdoing, but I acknowledge that there is literally a cottage industry dedicated to throwing mud at the Clintons.  This creates a kind of political environment where any notion of impropriety is prima facie seen as wrongdoing until the Clintons overwhelmingly exonerate themselves.  I think that this has primed a lot of voters to be suspicious of Hillary even when there's no proof of malfeasance.
Frontline recently released an excellent film called The Choice that illustrates a lot of what I'm talking about.

Secondly, her opponent is Donald Trump.  I'm done being fair to the guy.  He fucking sucks.  He's got such a tenuous grasp on the truth that he makes Richard Nixon look honest.  Like, Hillary lies.  We know that much.  But it takes effort and investigation to uncover her lies and half-truths, just like it does with any politician.  Donald Trump lies about things he said an hour prior in front of millions of people.  He lies about his twitter posts.  He lies about things that are so easily verifiable that I can't help but think that he lives in some sort of weird reality-distortion field where his lies become truths.  Tony Schwartz, Trump's ghostwriter for "The Art of the Deal", recently gave an excellent interview to the New Yorker about the nearly 18 months he spent with Donald while working on the book.  It's an incredible read and does a lot to confirm what many in the media are saying right now.  This particular quote perfectly illustrates Trump's relationship with the truth:



> After hearing Trump’s discussions about business on the phone, Schwartz asked him brief follow-up questions. He then tried to amplify the material he got from Trump by calling others involved in the deals. But their accounts often directly conflicted with Trump’s. “Lying is second nature to him,” Schwartz said. “More than anyone else I have ever met, *Trump has the ability to convince himself that whatever he is saying at any given moment is true, or sort of true, or at least ought to be true*.” Often, Schwartz said, the lies that Trump told him were about money—“how much he had paid for something, or what a building he owned was worth, or how much one of his casinos was earning when it was actually on its way to bankruptcy.” Trump bragged that he paid only eight million dollars for Mar-a-Lago, but omitted that he bought a nearby strip of beach for a record sum. After gossip columns reported, erroneously, that Prince Charles was considering buying several apartments in Trump Tower, Trump implied that he had no idea where the rumor had started. (“It certainly didn’t hurt us,” he says, in “The Art of the Deal.”) Wayne Barrett, a reporter for the_Village Voice_, later revealed that Trump himself had planted the story with journalists. Schwartz also suspected that Trump engaged in such media tricks, and asked him about a story making the rounds—that Trump often called up news outlets using a pseudonym. Trump didn’t deny it. As Schwartz recalls, he smirked and said, “You like that, do you?”
> 
> Schwartz says of Trump, “He lied strategically. He had a complete lack of conscience about it.” Since most people are “constrained by the truth,” Trump’s indifference to it “gave him a strange advantage.”
> 
> When challenged about the facts, Schwartz says, *Trump would often double down, repeat himself, and grow belligerent*. This quality was recently on display after Trump posted on Twitter a derogatory image of Hillary Clinton that contained a six-pointed star lifted from a white-supremacist Web site. Campaign staffers took the image down, but two days later Trump angrily defended it, insisting that there was no anti-Semitic implication. Whenever “the thin veneer of Trump’s vanity is challenged,” Schwartz says, he overreacts—not an ideal quality in a head of state.


You really should read the entire thing.  It's a doozy.

The guy has the temperament of a toddler and the intellectual capacity of one as well.  It's very clear that he doesn't listen to his advisers.  This article on his debate prep is one of many that gives anecdotes about his unwillingness to be receptive to suggestion.  I think that these quotes in particular are very telling:



> There were early efforts to run a more standard form of general election debate-prep camp, led by Roger Ailes, the ousted Fox News chief, at Mr. Trump’s golf course in Bedminster, N.J. But Mr. Trump found it hard to focus during those meetings, according to multiple people briefed on the process who requested anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. That left Mr. Ailes, who at the time was deeply distracted by his removal from Fox and the news media reports surrounding it, discussing his own problems as well as recounting political war stories, according to two people present for the sessions.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


This bit alone is troublesome if only for the fact that it pokes holes in the idea that Trump could be a decent president as long as he surrounds himself with good people.  It appears that, even when he surrounds himself with excellent campaign advisers, he still won't listen to what they have to say.  What, then, will he do when his Secretary of Defense tells him that nuking ISIS would be a really, really bad idea?  Pout?  Throw a twitter tantrum?  Leave it to Mike Pence?  Look, even through the veil of partisanship I can always see when a candidate has good ideas and executive qualities.  Donald Trump does not seem to have any.  He has, like, two good ideas and about three hundred really bad ones.  He has run an incompetent campaign that cycled through campaign managers like he cycled through wives.  His much-touted "business acumen" is complete bullshit, and honestly I feel really bad that the Republican party has to support him.  He's a combination of your drunk uncle at Thanksgiving, the really pathetic former football player at your 10 year reunion, and a human embodiment of a YouTube comment section rolled into one.  Look, after 2012 it seemed like the GOP was primed for a major overhaul of their platform - one that would be more inclusive of younger people, hispanics, and homosexuals.  They were ready for immigration reform, criminal justice reform, and a whole host of other progressive reforms.

Then Trump went and blew it all up with his bullshit.  He exposed a very ugly side of American conservatism that we thought we had put to bed a long time ago.  The GOP is going to suffer not just in presidential races, but downticket races for the next 5-10 years because of this crap.  I'm not sure if that's going to foster further rightward creep in their platform, or if Priebus is just going to dust off the 2012 election autopsy and continue on with that.  Hopefully they'll go with the latter.  Shit man, I suspect that many liberals would've gladly voted for a Rubio, or a Kasich, or even goddamn Jeb Bush instead of Hillary Clinton.  Instead, pissed off conservatives nominated a former reality TV star as their candidate.  Like, what the fuck were they thinking? 

Anyway, I've gotten way off topic here, but I hope I've answered your question.


----------



## Brill (Sep 30, 2016)

@Deathy McDeath good stuff man! Appreciate the post and will digest it.

(There's no way I could ever vote for her simply because of the harm she has inflicted on the IC.)


----------



## AWP (Sep 30, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Then Trump went and blew it all up with his bullshit.  He exposed a very ugly side of American conservatism that we thought we had put to bed a long time ago.  The GOP is going to suffer not just in presidential races, but downticket races for the next 5-10 years because of this crap.  I'm not sure if that's going to foster further rightward creep in their platform, or if Priebus is just going to dust off the 2012 election autopsy and continue on with that.  Hopefully they'll go with the latter.  Shit man, I suspect that many liberals would've gladly voted for a Rubio, or a Kasich, or even goddamn Jeb Bush instead of Hillary Clinton.  Instead, pissed off conservatives nominated a former reality TV star as their candidate.  Like, what the fuck were they thinking?



I agree with much of your post, except this. I've made no secret of my disdain for both candidates, but the notion that Trump exists because of the extreme right is a bit off. I think it is one factor, but perhaps secondary to everyone's dissatisfaction with our political state and HRC's nomination on the Dem. side. Couple that with the "We have to support one of them or our vote's a waste" mentality and you have the emergence of DT. He's horrible for the Repub. party, horrible for everything except himself and his cronies, but his rise is due to a lot of factors and I think a major percentage are with him because of their dissatisfaction with the process. Once he was the closest thing to a lock for the nomination Republicans flocked to him out of a grudging party loyalty. If your spouse is a (insert description here) you still by them in public because they are your spouse...that's where I think both parties are right now.


----------



## amlove21 (Sep 30, 2016)

lindy said:


> Seriously, why? I mean that in all sincerity because I don't understand how Americans can look past the corruption; both moral and political.


Well, I mean, Trump supporters seem to be absolutely fine with Trump having multiple affairs _and then, pretending to be someone else, gave an interview about said infidelity. 
_
So, I guess we all find corruptions to "look past" if we try hard enough, yea?


----------



## Brill (Oct 1, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Well, I mean, Trump supporters seem to be absolutely fine with Trump having multiple affairs _and then, pretending to be someone else, gave an interview about said infidelity.
> _
> So, I guess we all find corruptions to "look past" if we try hard enough, yea?



I honestly don't think the majority of voters give of shit of who he's banged.

I can only hope people will vote based on their "nearest threat" and by that I mean jobs, income stability, and personal security, which enables the others.

No economy has ever improved by raising taxes. National security does not increase by identifying individual groups and creating special categories for them (to include race, gender, or business class).

Even if we take HALF of Clinton's scandals, we're talking 15 years worth of shady shit and all the while unable to highlight how she's improved the lives of the groups she claims to champion.

The majority of Americans believe our Government serves their own self interests...so how in hell could anyone vote for an incumbent or a political insider?

Let's clean the slate and give a new person, with zero experience, and a completely different ideology than we've had before in the White House...just like we did in 2008.



Freefalling said:


> I agree with much of your post, except this. I've made no secret of my disdain for both candidates, but the notion that Trump exists because of the extreme right is a bit off. I think it is one factor, but perhaps secondary to everyone's dissatisfaction with our political state and HRC's nomination on the Dem. side. Couple that with the "We have to support one of them or our vote's a waste" mentality and you have the emergence of DT. He's horrible for the Repub. party, horrible for everything except himself and his cronies, but his rise is due to a lot of factors and I think a major percentage are with him because of their dissatisfaction with the process. Once he was the closest thing to a lock for the nomination Republicans flocked to him out of a grudging party loyalty. If your spouse is a (insert description here) you still by them in public because they are your spouse...that's where I think both parties are right now.



I find it fucking hilarious that the left highlights the fact the ultra-conservative (alt-right if you will) back and support a Republican candidate. Who in hell do they think the Occupy camp and other socialist causes will vote for?

Extremists on both sides are a fact.

I'm not a fan of Trump at all but I LOVE the fiscal policy and individual freedom ideology of the Republican Party while completely despising the "your earnings are mine to spend" and "just go with the flow" horseshit from the Democrats.

I can endure four years of an idiot at 1600 Penn Ave but I cannot a Liberal Court. The DOJ is corrupt enough for me.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 1, 2016)

Remember all those videos of stupid Bernie supporters selectively edited. 

Here is one for Trump supporters.





__ https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1247448632014855


----------



## Brill (Oct 1, 2016)

Obama not in the White House on 9/11!  Where was he????

I'm dying!!!!


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 1, 2016)

HRC's leaked--or deeply buried--speeches give insight into her animosity to Bernie, and others:

In Hacked Fundraiser Recording, Hillary Mocks Bernie Supporters "Living In Their Parents’ Basement" | Zero Hedge


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 1, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> HRC's leaked--or deeply buried--speeches give insight into her animosity to Bernie, and others:
> 
> In Hacked Fundraiser Recording, Hillary Mocks Bernie Supporters "Living In Their Parents’ Basement" | Zero Hedge



She said the same thing many here said. I think it holds true for some of them.


----------



## Brill (Oct 1, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> HRC's leaked--or deeply buried--speeches give insight into her animosity to Bernie, and others:
> 
> In Hacked Fundraiser Recording, Hillary Mocks Bernie Supporters "Living In Their Parents’ Basement" | Zero Hedge



Hacked?


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 1, 2016)

lindy said:


> Hacked?



That was verbatim, but that's what it said.  I think it's poor word usage.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 1, 2016)

lindy said:


> The majority of Americans believe our Government serves their own self interests...so how in hell could anyone vote for an incumbent or a political insider?
> 
> Let's clean the slate and give a new person, with zero experience, and a completely different ideology than we've had before in the White House...just like we did in 2008.


This is something I've been giving a lot of thought to lately, and think it warrants its own discussion.  That is, could a true outsider (which I don't count Obama as since he had a tenure in the Illinois State Senate, as well as the US Senate) be an effective president?  The office was originally envisioned as a purely executive (that is, to say, managerial) function in article II of the constitution, but suffice it to say the office has grown beyond the scope of that.  As it stands now, the Presidency is most definitely a political office, and we've had mostly career politicians in that office in the modern era, with Eisenhower being the notable exception.

That beggars a few questions: what does it take to be an effective politician?  It's hard to argue that you can be an effective politician at the national level with just a set of good ideas and some charm.  You need connections, both in and out of government, the ability to raise funds, an understanding of the political game, and a strong _political cachet_.  I would argue that a modern president really can't function strictly as an executive and still fulfill their campaign promises.  A modern president not only has to write law (to be introduced in congress), but influence bills and resolutions being considered by congress.  That requires either a lot of favors from existing congressional representatives, or the ability to promise/browbeat legislators into accepting your ideas (ala LBJ and the Civil Rights Act).  From this we can see that just having a bunch of good ideas for the country isn't the only factor in being an effective president.

Can an outsider affect upcoming legislation when they have no favors to call in and uncertain promises to make?  That's debatable.  I think that one of the reasons that Obama encountered so much congressional opposition in his first term is that while he was versed in political gamesmanship from his time in the Illinois senate and US senate, he didn't have those established relationships with legislators that would've allowed him to push through significant legislation (such as the ACA) without the level of opposition that we saw.  Had Hillary won (or any experienced Democrat for that matter), and introduced the ACA in the exact same form, I'm confident that it probably would've gone through much more smoothly.  Would it have avoided the government shutdown of 2013, which was largely predicated on opposition to the ACA?  That's also debatable.  After all, guys like Ted Cruz were almost total political neophytes at the time of the shutdown, so it's possible that presidential influence would not have been sufficient to sway them.  However, it makes for some interesting 'What if?' thinking.

It also begs the normative question: should the presidency return to a purely executive function?  Strict constructionists think so, as do the libertarians, and even some democrats.  To be honest, I'm not sure where I stand on this, and I've used up all of my posting words for the day.  @lindy I'm pretty sure we know where you stand on this.  Why don't you lay out your case for a true outsider president?


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 1, 2016)

@lindy has previously implied that the current "true outsider" is an idiot.

I, too, am therefore quite interested in such a case.


----------



## Brill (Oct 1, 2016)

I'm out but great post @Deathy McDeath and I'll respond soonest.

I really don't care who is on the train, I just want us to live here again.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 1, 2016)

lindy said:


> I honestly don't think the majority of voters give of shit of who he's banged.


Does the average voter care, then, about who Bill Clinton banged? Trump is spending a good amount of time "not talking about it" and "being very proud that he didn't talk about it". Good use of paralipsis, although the strict definition implies a brief mention, not 60 tweets and soundbites. 

Trump may have the world's freshest policy (he doesn't, but also thanks to @compforce for the policy link, it took me a while to get through it all, great resource) and the most intelligence (nope) and _may in fact be the best candidate. _I happily lay that out as a possibility because 1, I am not a political expert and 2, I can't see into the future. _ 
_
But if you look at his past week, it's pure Trump 101. Perform poorly. Complain. Change positions. Take to social media to attack those in his sights that day. Act childishly. Take the focus from his own policies, his own message, and make it easy for his opponents to frustrate and enrage him until he lashes out. 

You're over here talking about U.S Economy, jobs, security- on behalf of the guy that's been engaged in a Twitter war with a beauty pageant contestant and bringing up 20 year old marriage issues like that's the best way to get elected president. And what's worse is that there are (IMO) reasonably intelligent human beings, some close friends, that are actually serious about voting him into the presidency. 

It's like I am taking crazy pills.


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 1, 2016)

Hillary brought up Trump calling the pageant queen fat 20 years ago during the debate instead of discussing real policy. What's the difference?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 1, 2016)

Anyone read about this?

Clinton announces ‘National Service Reserve’ for millennials

My commentary is that Obama had outlined a national service agenda and it went nowhere.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 1, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> Hillary brought up Trump calling the pageant queen fat 20 years ago during the debate instead of discussing real policy. What's the difference?


Well, I suppose the Hillary supporter (not me for the record) would say that she deviated from the issues to highlight Trumps long misogynistic record, and ties that into the whole "Trump is unfit for office" schtick she's working. She's making that point one of the issues and focusing on the women vote. 

Bringing up Bill Clinton'a infidelity has zero political benefit other than mud slinging. I guess you could try what has been tried already and look at Hillary's treatment of the mistresss after the fact- but playing the "vengeful partner exacting revenge" card really doesn't hurt Hillary. It actually helps her in the eyes of women and jilted lovers everywhere. 

Bottom line- I guess the difference is that Hillary is actually tying Trumps treatment of women for decades into a cohesive narrative about his temperament. Which Trump himself is all too willing to perpetuate as more videos (the playboy video that recently surfaced) and more stories come out.  

Trump is talking about bringing up Bill Clinton's trysts simply for the sake of doing so, to be sensationalist. 

He's doing it for the ratings and in retaliation to the outing of his obvious shortfalls and missteps. He's done it literally the entire campaign.


----------



## Brill (Oct 1, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Does the average voter care, then, about who Bill Clinton banged? Trump is spending a good amount of time "not talking about it" and "being very proud that he didn't talk about it". Good use of paralipsis, although the strict definition implies a brief mention, not 60 tweets and soundbites.
> 
> Trump may have the world's freshest policy (he doesn't, but also thanks to @compforce for the policy link, it took me a while to get through it all, great resource) and the most intelligence (nope) and _may in fact be the best candidate. _I happily lay that out as a possibility because 1, I am not a political expert and 2, I can't see into the future. _
> _
> ...



The average voter most likely doesn't care what Bill did to whomever in the Oval Office but rather his direct involvement in the obstruction of justice, which even the House agreed occurred.  The Democrats want to make Trump's comments about Clinton's affairs about Bill but what he said, had you cared to listen/read, were about Hillary's attack on Bill's multiple girlfriends.  She has no leg to stand on promoting women's rights when she has REPEATEDLY blamed the victims of Bill's sexual advances.



Deathy McDeath said:


> This is something I've been giving a lot of thought to lately, and think it warrants its own discussion.  That is, could a true outsider (which I don't count Obama as since he had a tenure in the Illinois State Senate, as well as the US Senate) be an effective president?  The office was originally envisioned as a purely executive (that is, to say, managerial) function in article II of the constitution, but suffice it to say the office has grown beyond the scope of that.  As it stands now, the Presidency is most definitely a political office, and we've had mostly career politicians in that office in the modern era, with Eisenhower being the notable exception.
> 
> That beggars a few questions: what does it take to be an effective politician?  It's hard to argue that you can be an effective politician at the national level with just a set of good ideas and some charm.  You need connections, both in and out of government, the ability to raise funds, an understanding of the political game, and a strong _political cachet_.  I would argue that a modern president really can't function strictly as an executive and still fulfill their campaign promises.  A modern president not only has to write law (to be introduced in congress), but influence bills and resolutions being considered by congress.  That requires either a lot of favors from existing congressional representatives, or the ability to promise/browbeat legislators into accepting your ideas (ala LBJ and the Civil Rights Act).  From this we can see that just having a bunch of good ideas for the country isn't the only factor in being an effective president.
> 
> ...


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 1, 2016)

lindy said:


> The Democrats want to make Trump's comments about Clinton's affairs about Bill but what he said, *had you cared to listen/read*, were about Hillary's attack on Bill's multiple girlfriends.


In my previous comment I mentioned, specifically, using the tactic of "Hillary's treatment of former girlfriends/mistresses" and how it wasn't working. This NY Times piece lays it out pretty well. Your bolded comes across as condescending.    

This tactic isn't working. Trump can try to square this circle and paint Hillary as this terrifying bully, this attacker of the abused that actually _hates _women- it's not happening like that. It may be getting hits on web pages, but he looks like a street preacher screaming at passers by unimpressed by his fervor. Trump can insinuate all he wants about outing more information, saying he's "holding back" by not saying this or that or whatever- it's flat. All the while, Hillary lays out quip after quip. 

And if Trump brings this up at the next debate- jesus. All she has to say is, "You know, like many Americans, my life isn't perfect. My marriage isn't. We lived out every couple's worst nightmare on live television. I was hurt. I am truly sorry for my actions and everyone involved, but through that experience I learned, and grew smarter, and I am now better equipped to carry the standard forward for women everywhere." 

Trump spent 3 days talking about a former beauty pageant winner's alleged sex tape (?) and how Hillary treated her husbands mistresses. In reaction to Machada's claims that Trump is a misogynist and a mean person to women, 37 days out from the election, Trump responds to allegations of maltreatment of women by....treating women poorly? 

The simple fact of the matter is that Trump needs to stop with this inane bullshit. Hillary is winning this election by just letting Trump get in his own way.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 1, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> Hillary brought up Trump calling the pageant queen fat 20 years ago during the debate instead of discussing real policy. What's the difference?


Wasn't Bill shoving a cigar into an intern's vagina 20 years ago?


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 1, 2016)

The New York Times - Timeline | Facebook

Such a great business man.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 1, 2016)

Great points so far:


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 1, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Great points so far:
> 
> View attachment 16770



I just tried to create a similar sort of cartoon for Donnie.

Had to stop midstream because my hands were beginning to cramp up so badly, and so many pages were being used.    

Never trying that enormous task again.  Where is the Icy Hot...


----------



## Brill (Oct 2, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> The simple fact of the matter is that Trump needs to stop with this inane bullshit. Hillary is winning this election by just letting Trump get in his own way.



I think that's part of her strategy because if Trump takes the stage and the focus is on 3am tweets, she's not talking about her policies and plans.

This election has become a very long Jerry Springer show and neither side has the courage and deep routed patriotism to make this election about the American ideals of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

Instead, it's apparently about any/all the "isms", small hands, tax returns, fainting, and what the Keystone Cops can definitively prove.

I know this about the debate but SOMEONE locked that thread despite two more debates coming down the pike.

SNL nailed it!!!








TLDR20 said:


> The New York Times - Timeline | Facebook
> 
> Such a great business man.



To lose a "little"in order to save an ass ton in taxes...is a BAD thing???  Outstanding business model in my opinion.

(Little lost being relative to the overall long term gain.)

What did Senator Clinton and her colleagues do about that ridiculous part of the IRS code?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 2, 2016)

lindy said:


> I know this about the debate but SOMEONE locked that thread despite two more debates coming down the pike.



I had assumed my debate thread would be locked within a week or so after the debates had been broadcast.  My plan was to start a separate thread for the upcoming two debates as they happen.  Hopefully that will allow for good conversation specific to the debate talking points in one thread, and our railing on how much we hate both candidates in the regular _presidential race_ thread.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 2, 2016)

lindy said:


> To lose a "little"in order to save an ass ton in taxes...is a BAD thing???  Outstanding business model in my opinion.
> 
> (Little lost being relative to the overall long term gain.)
> 
> What did Senator Clinton and her colleagues do about that ridiculous part of the IRS code?



Lol almost a billion dollars.



TLDR20 said:


> Lol almost a billion dollars.



He was is worth maybe 4, so losing a quarter of his wealth to avoid paying 50 million in taxes. Seems like a shitty move to me.


----------



## Brill (Oct 2, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Lol almost a billion dollars.



Any capitalist would gladly lose (write off expenses) $916mil in order to not pay taxes for 18 years. Business write offs include many operating expenses such as rent, wages, insurance, supplies, etc.

Any business owner who pays less (insert noun here), either hordes the cash (stupid idea with such low rates but still enables banks to loan more money), invests in X, expands current business, or buys Y.  In ALL those cases, wealth is transferred thereby stimulating an economy, which is based on consumption.

Our economy is based on exchanging goods and services for money.  Giving away free shit (TARP, cash for clunkers, appliances, sub-prime loans, etc) creates an economic liability.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 2, 2016)

The $916 million loss certainly could have eliminated any federal income taxes Mr. Trump otherwise would have owed on the $50,000 to $100,000 he was paid for each episode of “The Apprentice,” or the roughly $45 million he was paid between 1995 and 2009 when he was chairman or chief executive of the publicly traded company he created to assume ownership of his troubled Atlantic City casinos. Ordinary investors in the new company, meanwhile, saw the value of their shares plunge to 17 cents from $35.50, while scores of contractors went unpaid for work on Mr. Trump’s casinos and casino bondholders received pennies on the dollar.

I think the above is more telling than how much he paid in taxes.


----------



## Brill (Oct 2, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> The $916 million loss certainly could have eliminated any federal income taxes Mr. Trump otherwise would have owed on the $50,000 to $100,000 he was paid for each episode of “The Apprentice,” or the roughly $45 million he was paid between 1995 and 2009 when he was chairman or chief executive of the publicly traded company he created to assume ownership of his troubled Atlantic City casinos. Ordinary investors in the new company, meanwhile, saw the value of their shares plunge to 17 cents from $35.50, while scores of contractors went unpaid for work on Mr. Trump’s casinos and casino bondholders received pennies on the dollar.
> 
> I think the above is more telling than how much he paid in taxes.



That's the great thing about the IRS laws, written by Congress! Trump's own salary from Trump Industries is actually a business expense where as his income from The Apprentice was akin to a second job, generating total profit.

Imagine if the USG could simply write off the majority of our liabilities (social entitlements, deficit, etc) and just collect income via taxes (or EPA fines).

I understand how Americans think that Trump is one of the 1%-ers who don't pay their fair share but he's just following the rules.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 2, 2016)

Look at how he ran those businesses into the ground man.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 2, 2016)

lindy said:


> To lose a "little"in order to save an ass ton in taxes...is a BAD thing???  Outstanding business model in my opinion.
> 
> (Little lost being relative to the overall long term gain.)
> 
> What did Senator Clinton and her colleagues do about that ridiculous part of the IRS code?


Here's the bigger problem- I am supposed to believe Trump is an "outsider"? That in the two candidates we have, Hillary is the "establishment" and Trump is this rogue figure that thumbs his nose at the man? 

GTFO. The dude is a billionaire that exploits the system to be excused from what the average American is legally required to do and then has the audacity to say "That makes me smart".


----------



## Brill (Oct 2, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Here's the bigger problem- I am supposed to believe Trump is an "outsider"? That in the two candidates we have, Hillary is the "establishment" and Trump is this rogue figure that thumbs his nose at the man?
> 
> GTFO. The dude is a *billionaire that exploits the system* to be excused from what the average American is legally required to do and then has the audacity to say "That makes me smart".



Politically, yes, he's very much an outsider and Clinton, via her 30 years directly associated with Democrat politics, is the establishment candidate.

What exploitation are you referring to?


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 2, 2016)

He posted a loss of $916 mil, allowing him to pay no taxes for nearly two decades. 

This was the impetus for the "Not paying federal tax makes me smart."


----------



## Brill (Oct 2, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Look at how he ran those businesses into the ground man.



According to Hoovers, Trump Entertainment Resorts had $578Mil in total assets and $386Mil in liabilities in 2011.

It is worth noting that one of his bankruptcies related to TER was his inability to secure low interest financing and his debt payments did the company in.  Sound familiar?  Too bad he, and other businesses, couldn't simply raise their debt ceilings and keep interest rates artificially low.



amlove21 said:


> He posted a loss of $916 mil, allowing him to pay no taxes for nearly two decades.
> 
> This was the impetus for the "Not paying federal tax makes me smart."



I thought that article stated that everything he did was legal.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 2, 2016)

lindy said:


> According to Hoovers, Trump Entertainment Resorts had $578Mil in total assets and $386Mil in liabilities in 2011.
> 
> It is worth noting that one of his bankruptcies related to TER was his inability to secure low interest financing and his debt payments did the company in.  Sound familiar?  Too bad he, and other businesses, couldn't simply raise their debt ceilings and keep interest rates artificially low.



he had a responsibility to his stock/shareholders to run his business well and while being paid millions of dollars he did a very poor job. "$45 million he was paid between 1995 and 2009 when he was chairman or chief executive of the publicly traded company he created to assume ownership of his troubled Atlantic City casinos. Ordinary investors in the new company, meanwhile, saw the value of their shares plunge to 17 cents from $35.50, while scores of contractors went unpaid for work on Mr. Trump’s casinos and casino bondholders received pennies on the dollar"


----------



## Brill (Oct 2, 2016)

For the record, I'm not saying Trump is the Oracle of Omaha but nothing more than a businessman who knows how the game is played.  He clearly lost money on the casinos but that's business.  I think the only person who showed profits consistently regardless of other factors is Bernie Madoff.  

Donald Trump was a stock market disaster

I'd rather have a candidate who filed bankruptcies and also made money rather than someone with experience in cattle futures ($1K investment turned into $100K) , failed real estate investments (Whitewater was referred to DOJ), and a corrupt "foundation" (allegedly being investigated by DOJ).


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 2, 2016)

lindy said:


> I thought that article stated that everything he did was legal.


Yeah, it's not my contention that it was illegal. It is legal. It's my contention that Trump is part of the "establishment" focus group he's railing on and on about.

Point being, a lot of Trump's message paints him as "not part of the establishment". That's just not true. He's elitist, he can exploit the system by declaring a huge loss (that wasn't really a 'loss' as far as anyone can tell), and to top it off, he made sure to pat himself on the back by saying he was "smart" not to pay his tax. This is the quintessential "1%" mantra. 

Trump IS big banks. Trump IS 'the man'. He gets to list just nearly a billion dollar loss and then gets a two decade break form paying taxes. 

It's become abundantly clear, now, why he won't release his current tax statements- because those statements are going to show a multi billionaire paid no federal income tax.


----------



## Brill (Oct 2, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Yeah, it's not my contention that it was illegal. It is legal. It's my contention that Trump is part of the "establishment" focus group he's railing on and on about.
> 
> Point being, a lot of Trump's message paints him as "not part of the establishment". That's just not true. He's elitist, he can exploit the system by declaring a huge loss (that wasn't really a 'loss' as far as anyone can tell), and to top it off, he made sure to pat himself on the back by saying he was "smart" not to pay his tax. This is the quintessential "1%" mantra.
> 
> ...



Interesting point.  I always understood "not part of the establishment" as being part of the political elite vice economic elite.  I really don't think anyone in the US thinks that Trump is or ever was an average Joe blue collar worker hence Sanders appeal to young voters tired of Wall Street deciding who wins and who loses.  It seems both candidates are struggling with attracting the Bern'ers.

I would think voters would consider Trump an idiot for paying extra income tax.  Hell, just imagine if Obama, Clinton, or Kerry (via the Hienz fortune) actually came out publicly they donated money to the Treasury!  Voters would go crazy in favor!!!

Personally, I want Trump's CPAs running our Fed or Treasury and absolutely do not want Clinton's IT staff running CYBERCOM or DISA.  At least if Clinton does win the White House, my Pfizer stock will surely skyrocket.


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 2, 2016)

So it's bad for Trump to not pay taxes but ok for the NY Times?   This shouldn't even be an issue, it's legal.

New York Times Hypocrisy On Corporate Taxes Reaches Record High


----------



## Brill (Oct 2, 2016)

Who was Hillary's favorite world leader?

Angela Merkel has bungled the Deutsche Bank crisis, like everything else



> For anyone who was in the markets during the summer of 2008, the situation at *Deutsche Bank* (DB) certainly feels ominously like the weeks leading up to Lehman Brothers' collapse. But while there are lots of parallels, the broader market's reaction will be very different, no matter how the eponymous German bank gets resolved. There were many reasons why Lehman caused so much market pain. But to me, two critical things stand out. One of these is not very relevant to DB, the other very much is. Here are some broad thoughts and how I'm positioned in bonds.



Deutsche Bank Isn't Like Lehman -- and It Is

So now enter our financial "rockstars".

Did Obama's team spark Deutsche Bank sell-off?

Banks are evil...but only half evil.

Deutsche Bank surges on $US5.4b settlement report

  I wonder how many DC insiders bought when the price bottomed?


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 2, 2016)

What Trump had to say about other people paying taxes:

7 tweets by Trump about taxes that are very awkward now


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 2, 2016)

Alright! Let's hear the explanaion on this one. Rudy Giuliani was surprising in this video. He tries to hold the party line of "Hillary attacks women", but Jake Tapper hits him pretty hard.

36 days out.

First 7 minutes is the tax conversation, the infidelity accusations at 7:25.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 2, 2016)

I thought this article did a great job summarizing my views on Trump's taxes: Is Donald Trump a “Genius” Tax Avoider? - The New Yorker

The most pertinent quote from the article (which I first saw posted on a professor friend's facebook page):

"Far from demonstrating that Trump is a 'genius' or a 'highly-skilled businessman,' the 1995 returns confirm what longtime observers have known for years: earlier in his career, at least, Trump was a terrible businessman. He borrowed billions of dollars to build casinos and buy overpriced trophy properties, such as the Plaza Hotel and the Eastern Air Lines Shuttle. His businesses lost almost all of this money, and some of the biggest ones, including the Plaza, were forced to ...seek bankruptcy protection.

Trump slowly rehabilitated himself. But his comeback was due less to any innate entrepreneurial talent than to a recovery in the property market and his ability to sell himself as a success story despite his financial problems. Indeed, Trump’s real skill has always been as a self-promoter and flimflam man rather than as a creator of successful companies."

If you believe Trump's ability to manipulate the system to his advantage puts him in the best position to change the system why does the same logic not apply to HRC?  Her scandals should make you more likely to support her - considering how well she's done in spite of them - she must then be a 'genius' by the logic applied to Trump.


----------



## Brill (Oct 3, 2016)

Well, lookie here. Very interesting. Why in VA, a state that goes blue, of all places.

He fought in World War II. He died in 2014. And he just registered to vote in Va.

There are your liberal and Democrat values: when pressed or, in this case, simply because you can, just cheat.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 3, 2016)

lindy said:


> Well, lookie here. Very interesting. Why in VA, a state that goes blue, of all places.
> 
> He fought in World War II. He died in 2014. And he just registered to vote in Va.
> 
> There are your liberal and Democrat values: when pressed or, in this case, simply because you can, just cheat.



How do you know it was liberals?


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 3, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> How do you know it was liberals?



According to Harrisonburg's local conspiracy rag, the Daily News Record (damn their right-wing paywall), it was a 19yo member of the Democrat-aligned organization, HarrisonburgVOTES.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 3, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> According to Harrisonburg's local conspiracy rag, the Daily News Record (damn their right-wing paywall), it was a 19yo member of the Democrat-aligned organization, HarrisonburgVOTES.



Yeah I can't read that article.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 3, 2016)

My mother is a pile of ashes and my father has been buried for almost 40 years, but I suppose they should register to vote.  Wait....my mom died in Texas, but her ashes were buried in NC.  Where can she register?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-30/


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 3, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> So it's bad for Trump to not pay taxes but ok for the NY Times?   This shouldn't even be an issue, it's legal.
> 
> New York Times Hypocrisy On Corporate Taxes Reaches Record High


The New York Times isn't running for president.

I mean, this argument is just a fancy way of saying "NO U"


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 3, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> So it's bad for Trump to not pay taxes but ok for the NY Times?   This shouldn't even be an issue, it's legal.
> 
> New York Times Hypocrisy On Corporate Taxes Reaches Record High



Ya, a_ Tu quoque_ argument there_. _

Whataboutism only works within Russia when used by the Putin administration.


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 3, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> The New York Times isn't running for president.
> 
> I mean, this argument is just a fancy way of saying "NO U"





DocIllinois said:


> Ya, a_ Tu quoque_ argument there_. _
> 
> Whataboutism only works within Russia when used by the Putin administration.



Clinton's used the same law.  The point is that Trump didn't do anything wrong, it's written tax law and many corporations and individuals use those laws best they can.

And YES there's major hypocrisy with the New York Times.  They broke the law to release Trumps 20 year old tax returns when they themselves used the same laws recently.

This is all complete Bullshit.  There's more important issues that the media should be focusing on.  And Hillary isn't so fucking squeaky clean.  It is, throw out journalistic integrity and an all out biased war against Trump.


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 3, 2016)

Hillary could have proposed legislation to change the tax code,  thereby eliminating the deduction that Trump took. She didn't, and in fact used the exact same loophole to shield just a couple hundred dollars shy of $700k, according to the Toronto Sun. Her utilizing the exact same deduction she lambasts Trump for is blatant hypocrisy; in other words, a typical Clinton Tuesday. 

How many of you privileged Clinton voters are willing to stop taking your deductions and pay more tax? It's your patriotic duty, after all.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 3, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> This is all complete Bullshit.  There's more important issues that the media should be focusing on.



Truth.  There's more important issues both candidates _and_ electorates should be focusing on, IMO.



RackMaster said:


> And Hillary isn't so fucking squeaky clean.  It is, throw out journalistic integrity and an all out biased war against Trump.



I invite anyone to review the course of the 1828 presidential election to witness genuine 'all out biased war.'   This year's campaigns will seem listless and vacuous.  

Which they have become.  :whatever:


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 3, 2016)

Finally a piece "critical" of Clinton and by the NY Times of all papers.

How Hillary Clinton Grappled With Bill Clinton’s Infidelity, and His Accusers


----------



## Gunz (Oct 3, 2016)

The October Surprise?

'Specific Info' Forces Wikileaks To Move Anticipated Announcement To Berlin



RackMaster said:


> Finally a piece "critical" of Clinton and by the NY Times of all papers.
> 
> How Hillary Clinton Grappled With Bill Clinton’s Infidelity, and His Accusers



He could've done anything and she would've supported him because he was just one more stepping stone on her way to power.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 3, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> The October Surprise?
> 
> 'Specific Info' Forces Wikileaks To Move Anticipated Announcement To Berlin



I would like to see the October surprise be like the ending to "Ace Ventura," where the female detective's pecker is all tucked into the crack, showing she is really a man.  It wouldn't change the outcome of the election but at least it would be entertaining.


----------



## Brill (Oct 3, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> Hillary could have proposed legislation to change the tax code,  thereby eliminating the deduction that Trump took. She didn't, and in fact used the exact same loophole to shield just a couple hundred dollars shy of $700k, according to the Toronto Sun. Her utilizing the exact same deduction she lambasts Trump for is blatant hypocrisy; in other words, a typical Clinton Tuesday.
> 
> How many of you privileged Clinton voters are willing to stop taking your deductions and pay more tax? It's your patriotic duty, after all.




LOVE!!!!!!



Devildoc said:


> I would like to see the October surprise be like the ending to "Ace Ventura," where the female detective's pecker is all tucked into the crack, showing she is really a man.]



Says the FMF corpsman...er, med tech.



TLDR20 said:


> How do you know it was liberals?



Why are you up so early?!?!


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 3, 2016)

New data is out, it seems it is a close fight:


----------



## Brill (Oct 4, 2016)

Am I missing something? Why were these comments offensive?

"When you talk about the mental health problems, when people come back from war and combat, and they see things that maybe a lot of the folks in this room have seen many times over – and you're strong and you can handle it – but a lot of people can't handle it,” Trump said Monday.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 4, 2016)

lindy said:


> Am I missing something? Why were these comments offensive?
> 
> "When you talk about the mental health problems, when people come back from war and combat, and they see things that maybe a lot of the folks in this room have seen many times over – and you're strong and you can handle it – but a lot of people can't handle it,” Trump said Monday.



Yeah I actually agree with you.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 4, 2016)

lindy said:


> Am I missing something? Why were these comments offensive?
> 
> "When you talk about the mental health problems, when people come back from war and combat, and they see things that maybe a lot of the folks in this room have seen many times over – and you're strong and you can handle it – but a lot of people can't handle it,” Trump said Monday.


When removed from the context of his speech, this blurb might sound like Don's insinuating that vets with PTSD are "not strong," but if you listen to the whole thing it's very clear that he's laying out a case for mental health care reform and not shitting on vets.  Donny's got a complicated relationship with the English language and can have trouble clearly communicating ideas sometimes, but in this case it's pretty apparent that he meant no offense.


----------



## Brill (Oct 4, 2016)

My thoughts exactly but I started to question it based on all that's out there.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 4, 2016)

lindy said:


> Am I missing something? Why were these comments offensive?
> 
> "When you talk about the mental health problems, when people come back from war and combat, and they see things that maybe a lot of the folks in this room have seen many times over – and you're strong and you can handle it – but a lot of people can't handle it,” Trump said Monday.





TLDR20 said:


> Yeah I actually agree with you.





Deathy McDeath said:


> When removed from the context of his speech, this blurb might sound like Don's insinuating that vets with PTSD are "not strong," but if you listen to the whole thing it's very clear that he's laying out a case for mental health care reform and not shitting on vets.  Donny's got a complicated relationship with the English language and can have trouble clearly communicating ideas sometimes, but in this case it's pretty apparent that he meant no offense.


110% agree. Totally out of context, I didn't have any issue with the statement once I heard the whole thing.

Let's not get too excited, but we all agree this was horseshit and shouldn't be a thing.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 4, 2016)

Watching the VP debate tonight for no other reason than between Trump's eventual impeachment and Hillary's medical collapse, one of these two are going to end up being President.

I don't like Kaine, not one bit.  He reminds me of a high school civics teacher.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 4, 2016)

Both Kaine and Pence sound far more presidential than either of their running mates.  About half and hour in and Mike Pence seems to be winning a bit.  Kaine needs to bring out some stronger rhetoric.

Then again, VP debates don't really matter.


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 4, 2016)

Can Kaine let Pence ever finish a thought?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 4, 2016)

Kaine amnesty'd us when I attended the clown college...but other than that he was a meh governor.  

The talk about what we need to do in Aleppo is a bit horrifying.


----------



## AWP (Oct 4, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Then again, VP debates don't really matter.



#VPLivesMatter


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 4, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Kaine amnesty'd us when I attended the clown college...but other than that he was a meh governor.
> 
> The talk about what we need to do in Aleppo is a bit horrifying.



What college was that?


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 4, 2016)

HBO had better get its shit together, this is the worst episode of Veep ever.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 4, 2016)

Just gonna call it now: Hillary Clinton will win both the popular vote and the EV.  I'm gonna call her EV total 322, ±7 votes.  I think that she will win the popular vote by 3.8%, with a ± of 0.5%


----------



## Brill (Oct 5, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Just gonna call it now: Hillary Clinton will win both the popular vote and the EV.  I'm gonna call her EV total 322, ±7 votes.  I think that she will win the popular vote by 3.8%, with a ± of 0.5%



I'm confident the ballots are already cast. After all, losing $1 Billion (from fundraising) is stupid:her backers have too much at stake to let silly things like laws or election rules stand in the way. She was cast for this role long ago.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 5, 2016)

lindy said:


> *I'm confident the ballots are already cast.* After all, losing $1 Billion (from fundraising) is stupid:her backers have too much at stake to let silly things like laws or election rules stand in the way. She was cast for this role long ago.



Yes, they are:

Illegal Voters Uncovered in Philly Are ‘Tip of the Iceberg’


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 5, 2016)

Chicago has the best system:

 

:blkeye:


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 5, 2016)

State Police raid Indy office in growing voter fraud case

45k people maybe affected by this. Can you guess which party the two organizations responsible for this swing? I'll give you a hint. It starts with d and rhymes with emocrat.


----------



## Rapid (Oct 5, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> State Police raid Indy office in growing voter fraud case
> 
> 45k people maybe affected by this. Can you guess which party the two organizations responsible for this swing? I'll give you a hint. It starts with d and rhymes with emocrat.



But when will Trump reveal his taxes? /s


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 5, 2016)

Rapid said:


> But when will Trump reveal his taxes? /s



Well, it would not have happened if Trump_ had_ released his taxes...it all keeps coming back to those blasted taxes....


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 5, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Well, it would not have happened if Trump_ had_ released his taxes...it all keeps coming back to those blasted taxes....



It's Bush's fault.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 5, 2016)

Y'all keep whipping out the taxes.  Just whipping them out.  Whippers.

But yes, I agree with @Devildoc; Donnie should release his tax information.


----------



## AWP (Oct 5, 2016)

I've preached that Hillary will win, long before Trump burst onto the scene, but looking back? A bowl of potato salad could beat Hillary, but instead we have Trump. Anyone cheering her ascension to 1600 PA Ave. is a damn fool, not because of whatever she does, but because it is like cheering you beat the local Deaf and Blind school at football.

Hillary's going to win this because the Republican party couldn't nominate a cinder block or stalk of celery.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 5, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Hillary's going to win this because the Republican party couldn't nominate a cinder block or stalk of celery.


----------



## Brill (Oct 5, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I've preached that Hillary will win, long before Trump burst onto the scene, but looking back? A bowl of potato salad could beat Hillary, but instead we have Trump. Anyone cheering her ascension to 1600 PA Ave. is a damn fool, not because of whatever she does, but because it is like cheering you beat the local Deaf and Blind school at football.
> 
> Hillary's going to win this because the Republican party couldn't nominate a cinder block or stalk of celery.



There you go again showing your salad prejudices.

If Clinton does get certified as President, anyone want to take bets that she'll be subpoenaed as a defense witness in the latest BAH contractor's trial?


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 5, 2016)

lindy said:


> There you go again showing your salad prejudices.



@Freefalling just doesn't carrot all......


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 5, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> @Freefalling just doesn't carrot all......


Get out.


----------



## Brill (Oct 5, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> @Freefalling just doesn't carrot all......



Lettuce not get carried away and Romaine on topic.


----------



## compforce (Oct 5, 2016)

So I'll give him a pass on the taxes question.  Here's why it's a no win situation for him.  Obviously, if he doesn't release them now, Hillary's campaign will continue to push on it.  On the other hand, if he releases them now and the audit requires adjustments to be made, which it always does, then Hillary will use it as "proof" that he lied when addressing the masses. 

It's a no win for Trump and of the two, he's better off going the route he's going.  Wait for the final return and then release it.  If it gets down another week or two and the audit is still in progress, then take the chance and release the pre-audit version. 

Hillary has been playing games with her statements.  Income has exactly NOTHING to do with personal wealth.  The financial statement he released already is the important one.  I'll bet ya that Hillary's return *might* have charitable contributions on it from last year, but the previous ones don't (IMO).  Also, she took the EXACT same deduction (carry forward) that she's been hammering Trump for...hell, even I've taken that one.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 5, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Get out.



Don't you dare Squash his freedom of speech.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 5, 2016)

compforce said:


> So I'll give him a pass on the taxes question.  Here's why it's a no win situation for him.  Obviously, if he doesn't release them now, Hillary's campaign will continue to push on it.  On the other hand, if he releases them now and the audit requires adjustments to be made, which it always does, then Hillary will use it as "proof" that he lied when addressing the masses.
> 
> It's a no win for Trump and of the two, he's better off going the route he's going.  Wait for the final return and then release it.  If it gets down another week or two and the audit is still in progress, then take the chance and release the pre-audit version.
> 
> Hillary has been playing games with her statements.  Income has exactly NOTHING to do with personal wealth.  The financial statement he released already is the important one.  I'll bet ya that Hillary's return *might* have charitable contributions on it from last year, but the previous ones don't (IMO).  Also, she took the EXACT same deduction (carry forward) that she's been hammering Trump for...hell, even I've taken that one.



I'd like to see his returns from the last 15 years. He isn't being audited on all those is he?


----------



## Brill (Oct 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I'd like to see his returns from the last 15 years. He isn't being audited on all those is he?



I'd like to see Hillary's Whitewater indictment, her Goldman Sax speech, her deleted emails that were classified, her staff's immunity agreement from criminal lability, the DOJ's docs on the arms supplier, etc.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 6, 2016)

lindy said:


> I'd like to see Hillary's Whitewater indictment, her Goldman Sax speech, her deleted emails that were classified, her staff's immunity agreement from criminal lability, the DOJ's docs on the arms supplier, etc.



Well we don't always get what we want.


----------



## compforce (Oct 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Well we don't always get what we want.



But if you try sometimes, you get what you need...


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 6, 2016)

compforce said:


> But if you try sometimes, you get what you need...



Well played.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 6, 2016)

compforce said:


> But if you try sometimes, you get what you need...



So true.  The Democratic party needed a Donnie Trump to supply them the win - done!

Outstanding.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 6, 2016)

I didn't see this posted anywhere here. For people who honestly believe Trump is a conservative, what conservative values does he truly represent?

Trump’s rise reflects American conservatism’s decay


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I didn't see this posted anywhere here. For people who honestly believe Trump is a conservative, what conservative values does he truly represent?
> 
> Trump’s rise reflects American conservatism’s decay



I consider him centre right or fiscal conservative.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 6, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> I consider him centre right or fiscal conservative.



You aren't an American.

Our definition of conservative is very different.

I also should have clarified to people voting for him.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 6, 2016)

More fraud issues.....

BREAKING: Mass Voter Fraud Discovered in Illinois


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 6, 2016)

Six Reasons Conservatives Should Not Vote for Donald Trump

Sums up my feelings on trump pretty well.



Devildoc said:


> More fraud issues.....
> 
> BREAKING: Mass Voter Fraud Discovered in Illinois



Mass voter fraud? 3 cases? Lol.

Is that the best source you could find? You know a source is legit when it mentions "union thugs and their democrat masters." Don't post shit like that as a source again.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 6, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> More fraud issues.....
> 
> BREAKING: Mass Voter Fraud Discovered in Illinois



Reports of any political fraud in Illinois are as surprising as reports of lawsuits in Texas.


----------



## Rapid (Oct 6, 2016)

Deplorable VP on Twitter

lol


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Mass voter fraud? 3 cases? Lol.
> 
> Is that the best source you could find? You know a source is legit when it mentions "union thugs and their democrat masters." Don't post shit like that as a source again.



No, not the best source.  And no, I wouldn't call it "mass," either, but I am not going to change the headline.  But irrespective of the editorializing, if the facts are true, the facts are true.

Maybe this is better.  It is sourced better.

Feds, state officials look into Kankakee voter fraud allegations


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 6, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> No, not the best source.  And no, I wouldn't call it "mass," either, but I am not going to change the headline.  But irrespective of the editorializing, if the facts are true, the facts are true.
> 
> Maybe this is better.  It is sourced better.
> 
> Feds, state officials look into Kankakee voter fraud allegations



In the words of our Spartan forefathers, "if".


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> In the words of our Spartan forefathers, "if".



Yes, the Chicago paper is more balanced.  Lot of shit-slinging between the parties there, "he said-she said".  Not am I naïve enough to know Republicans don't engage in fraud as well.  But Chicago does seem to take it to an art form.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 6, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Yes, the Chicago paper is more balanced.  Lot of shit-slinging between the parties there, "he said-she said".  Not am I naïve enough to know Republicans don't engage in fraud as well.  But Chicago does seem to take it to an art form.



_Seem_ to??  

Should you ever make a trek to the Windy City, we'll visit a couple of smoke filled rooms.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 6, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> _Seem_ to??
> 
> Should you ever make a trek to the Windy City, we'll visit a couple of smoke filled rooms.



As my wife points out, very often, I am often unaware of my own prejudices and my strong opinions.  I was trying to give the benefit of the doubt and consider all sides.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Mass voter fraud? 3 cases? Lol.
> 
> Is that the best source you could find? You know a source is legit when it mentions "union thugs and their democrat masters." Don't post shit like that as a source again.



It's just my opinion, but 3 is probably just a scratch on the surface. 

The number should be ZERO, in every voting precinct; nation wide.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 6, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> It's just my opinion, but 3 is probably just a scratch on the surface.
> 
> The number should be ZERO, in every voting precinct; nation wide.



Yeah that would be great. We don't live in a fantasy world though. I would also think there should be zero murders, zero theft, high quality water in every American city to go with great public education. Voter fraud is so small scale in America it is amazing.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Well we don't always get what we want.


You don't need his tax returns.  Because the IRS always gets their piece.


----------



## Brill (Oct 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Voter fraud is so small scale in America it is amazing.



Are we actively looking for it though? Serious question and not mocking your 4 am postings.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah that would be great. We don't live in a fantasy world though. I would also think there should be zero murders, zero theft, high quality water in every American city to go with great public education. Voter fraud is so small scale in America it is amazing.



Don't you find it ironic, though, that the democrats are all for gun laws, water regulatory laws, more teachers....but don't want laws that could curb voter fraud?

Conversely, the republicans want all those other things to be deregulated to a point but want tighter voter laws to reduce fraud.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 6, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Don't you find it ironic, though, that the democrats are all for gun laws, water regulatory laws, more teachers....but don't want laws that could curb voter fraud?
> 
> Conversely, the republicans want all those other things to be deregulated to a point but want tighter voter laws to reduce fraud.



Laws that curb voter fraud also curb voter access. You did community nursing, you know how many people would be disenfranchised by voter ID laws.



lindy said:


> Are we actively looking for it though? Serious question and not mocking your 4 am postings.



Yeah we do. Do you think that it is so large scale that it affects national elections? If it is so wide scale (and seemingly from posts here only perpetuated by liberal union loving democrats) how do we ha e such balance? Is it easier to believe that the vote is rigged rather than the demographics of our nation are leading to a more liberal society?


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Laws that curb voter fraud also curb voter access. You did community nursing, you know how many people would be disenfranchised by voter ID laws.



I respectfully disagree, an ID is not disenfranchising anyone.  You need an ID to access Medicaid/medicare services (as well as a plethora of other services).  I don't know anyone is in any lower-income or ethnically-concentrated neighborhood who is getting government services and does not have some sort of ID.  But the easy fix is, when you register to vote, you get a state ID issued.


----------



## Brill (Oct 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah we do. Do you think that it is so large scale that it affects national elections? If it is so wide scale (and seemingly from posts here only perpetuated by liberal union loving democrats) how do we ha e such balance? Is it easier to believe that the vote is rigged rather than the demographics of our nation are leading to a more liberal society?



Man, I really hope not. We HAVE to believe our system is free and fair otherwise we're F'd in the A.

Seems Americans overwhelmingly believe in the integrity of their local polling station but less so nationally.

A Rigged Election? What Voters Are Saying

Oh, and screw those Socialist union bastards! Who are they to limit the working rights of 7 year olds?!?



TLDR20 said:


> Laws that curb voter fraud also curb voter access. You did community nursing, you know how many people would be disenfranchised by voter ID laws.



You know most states require ID for alcohol and tobacco products? How is voter registration a bridge too far?


----------



## Single Malt (Oct 6, 2016)

@Devildoc @lindy 
John Oliver took a entertaining look at the voter ID issue:


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 6, 2016)

Respectfully disagree all you want - the public policy research is clear on disenfranchisement.  In fact, it was one of the driving factors in why Republicans have pursued voter restriction laws - it's well documented in the recent court decisions rejecting those measures.


----------



## Brill (Oct 6, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> Respectfully disagree all you want - the public policy research is clear on disenfranchisement.  In fact, it was one of the driving factors in why Republicans have pursued voter restriction laws - it's well documented in the recent court decisions rejecting those measures.



I just feel badly for those diligent voters who cannot buy Sudafed or anything with ephedrine.

#clean_shirtsleeves_matter

Isn't VA a blue state now?  Maine was the Governor of...

Photo ID Required | Virginia Department of Elections

Apparently there are SEVERAL states that require photo ID when voting. Indiana's law was upheld as being Constitutional too.  It must be silly shit like they tried in NC that crosses the line.

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/07-21.pdf


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 6, 2016)

lindy said:


> You know most states require ID for alcohol and tobacco products? How is voter registration a bridge too far?


Come on man.  Alcohol and tobacco both fall under the category of "nice to have, but unnecessary."  Voting is in the category of "guaranteed right."  Just as well, it's vital to the continued function of our republic, and we should be encouraging as many people as possibly to vote.  Switch around a few words and you have the *exact same argument* that liberals use vis a vis guns and driving.

31 is the magic number.  31 confirmed cases of voter fraud out of one billion votes cast.
Look, nobody is contesting the fact that voter fraud happens.  It does, and it's a small problem.  But when you begin to enact laws that would remove the ability to vote from the poor, the elderly, or the infirm, the numbers start to far eclipse the paltry 31 cases of fraud.

There are a lot of reasons to account for "voter fraud," which is an unfortunately too-expansive title that encompasses everything from actual intentional fraud, to simple registration and clerical errors. This report from the Brennan Center outlines the myriad reasons why erroneous registration might happen.  I mean, in Florida there were over 12 million registrants and re-registrants just in this last year.  There's bound to be a few fat fingered excel errors with that many registrants.  Now, there's too much variance in state election laws to address all the cases that have been brought up in this thread, but if you look in the report I'm sure that you can find more than a few reasonable explanations.

Take the popular "dead people voting" canard:


> Voting from the grave offers salacious headlines, and investigators often attempt to match death records to voter rolls in an attempt to produce purported evidence of fraud. Yet in addition to the problems with inaccurate matching identified above, a simple match of death records to voter rolls may conceal citizens who voted before dying, in quite ordinary fashion. In Maryland in 1995, for example, an exhaustive investigation revealed that of 89 alleged deceased voters, none were actually dead at the time the ballot was cast. The federal agent in charge of the investigation said that the nearest they came was when they “found one person who had voted then died a week after the election.”36 Similarly, in New Hampshire, postcards were sent to the addresses of citizens who voted in the 2004 general election; one card was returned as undeliverable because the voter died after Election Day, but before the postcard arrived at her home.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 6, 2016)

lindy said:


> You know most states require ID for alcohol and tobacco products? How is voter registration a bridge too far?



Two are not constitutional rights. They are not the same at all.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Laws that curb voter fraud also curb voter access. You did community nursing, you know how many people would be disenfranchised by voter ID laws.


Raising the BS flag.


----------



## Brill (Oct 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Two are not constitutional rights. They are not the same at all.



No shit?

I never argued right or not but merely it's required for many things so why would requiring an ID, like many states already do, be too much of a burden for a voter? I, and apparently many others, don't think it is.

Seems like it's an easy button.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 6, 2016)

lindy said:


> I just feel badly for those diligent voters who cannot buy Sudafed or anything with ephedrine.
> 
> #clean_shirtsleeves_matter



Yeah, poor people are the worst!  Especially minority poor people.  And what's up with people wanting to vote and shit?  Everybody knows when Jesus was writing the constitution he clearly stated 'guns are what make America great, everybody needs them, anybody who wants checks on that shit is a Nazi who hates America - voting, education, healthcare, science, or any of that bullshit is nowhere in this holy constitution I am crafting.  P.S. the earth is 5,000 years old, if you read something you don't like it's because the MSM is terrible, and when I say rights in here I'm not talking about immigrants or Muslims so don't get that shit twisted.'

Even after all these years the words still inspire.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 6, 2016)

In order to have rights garanteed to citizens of the United States, you have to prove you are a citizen. That doesn't have to be a driver's license or state issued identification card, but a birth certificate or some form of proof, should obviously be required. 

I mean really, you want millions of non citizens voting and swaying elections, laws and policies at all levels of government?  Prove your age to vote and prove your citizenship and there shouldn't be a problem...even with the left.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 6, 2016)

Requiring a voter ID in order to vote is tantamount to a poll tax, which has been abolished at the state and federal level by the Supreme Court under the Equal Protection Clause.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 6, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Raising the BS flag.



Not giving a fuck what you raise.

Post an actual response or piss off out of here.


----------



## Brill (Oct 6, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Requiring a voter ID in order to vote is tantamount to a poll tax, which has been abolished at the state and federal level by the Supreme Court under the Equal Protection Clause.



Uh, SCOTUS upheld that it is very much Constitutional for a state to require an ID to vote.  Crawford vs Marion County! I even posted the link!

Seriously, getting a picture ID is harder than registering to vote?  Many states require it, so clearly it's not impossible.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 6, 2016)

lindy said:


> Uh, SCOTUS upheld that it is very much Constitutional for a state to require an ID to vote.  Crawford vs Marion County! I even posted the link!
> 
> Seriously, getting a picture ID is harder than registering to vote?  Many states require it, so clearly it's not impossible.


The most recent case was in Nc where it was not ok.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 6, 2016)

lindy said:


> Uh, SCOTUS upheld that it is very much Constitutional for a state to require an ID to vote.  Crawford vs Marion County! I even posted the link!
> 
> Seriously, getting a picture ID is harder than registering to vote?  Many states require it, so clearly it's not impossible.



24th Amendment, Harper vs. Virginia State Board of Elections.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 6, 2016)

It's very likely voter ID and voter restriction constitutionality is something the supreme court will be dealing with the next term - another reason the makeup of the court will be critical.  It's crazy to me that 5-4 decisions you like are settled constitutional questions and decisions you don't are activist judges run wild.  The constitution was written with intense conflict over it's aims and meanings - and that conflict has continued over the life of the republic with a myriad of changes to the bill of rights and governance.  The idea there's some sort of perfect constitutional understanding enshrined in a historical epoch (usually elucidated on some dipshit's blog) is nonsense. 

I think it's more than fair to say if HRC is the president Republican efforts to suppress minority voters through these laws will be ruled unconstitutional - if Trump is president the court will rule the opposite way.  As much as I abhor the later decision, and believe the arc of history will ultimately prevail the other way, that's the way our government works.  It's nuts to me when people raise hell about how much they love America, the constitution, and the flag - yet seem to have disdain for the confrontational and incremental processes therein.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 6, 2016)

How is it voter suppression when it is so easy to get a photo ID from a DMV or the like, corroboration of your citizen status complete?


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> The most recent case was in Nc where it was not ok.



It wasn't because of voter ID; it was because of the restrictions placed around it.  The 4th Appellate Court said it had "racially discriminatory intent."



DocIllinois said:


> 24th Amendment, Harper vs. Virginia State Board of Elections.



That's actually an easy fix: assign an ID at time of registration.  Not my idea...some constitutional lawyer came up with that.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 6, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Requiring a voter ID in order to vote is tantamount to a poll tax, which has been abolished at the state and federal level by the Supreme Court under the Equal Protection Clause.


How is requiring someone to have an ID the equivalent of a poll tax.  IDs are a required part of life if you haven't noticed.  Verifying you are who you say you are is freakin' important when it comes to pretty much everything.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah that would be great. We don't live in a fantasy world though. I would also think there should be zero murders, zero theft, high quality water in every American city to go with great public education. Voter fraud is so small scale in America it is amazing.



Yeah, we are not living in an ideal world, and shit does happen. My hope is that the voter fraud is small, and not wide spread. I just have trouble believing the numbers that the media "reports" . Both sides of the media frenze spin and shape so that it is hard to know to believe any more.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 6, 2016)

So how does it work over there? Over here you're on the electoral roll and your address determines your electorate (area). You then turn up to a polling booth and give your name and address and they cross you off. Later the lists are cross-checked to make sure there hasn't been multiple voting. 

Is that roughly how it works there?


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 6, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Reports of any political fraud in Illinois are as surprising as reports of lawsuits in Texas.



Tort reform killed the lawsuit industry, especially med malpractice.
You need a new analogy.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 6, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> So how does it work over there? Over here you're on the electoral roll and your address determines your electorate (area). You then turn up to a polling booth and give your name and address and they cross you off. Later the lists are cross-checked to make sure there hasn't been multiple voting.
> 
> Is that roughly how it works there?


Pretty much, but in some states you're required voter ID.

So here's a question for the folks who think I shouldn't need an ID to vote, I need an ID to purchase a firearm and ammunition for that firearm.  Last I checked, voting is not in the Bill of Rights.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 6, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> So how does it work over there? Over here you're on the electoral roll and your address determines your electorate (area). You then turn up to a polling booth and give your name and address and they cross you off. Later the lists are cross-checked to make sure there hasn't been multiple voting.
> 
> Is that roughly how it works there?



Yep. Unless you live in a state that deems it a risk to let blacks vote.



ThunderHorse said:


> Pretty much, but in some states you're required voter ID.
> 
> So here's a question for the folks who think I shouldn't need an ID to vote, I need an ID to purchase a firearm and ammunition for that firearm.  Last I checked, voting is not in the Bill of Rights.



Are you being obtuse? We should just go back to white landowners voting eh?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Yep. Unless you live in a state that deems it a risk to let blacks vote.


I just think this post is very shortsighted.

I would say you're the one being obtuse.

But...voting would truly fall under the 9th Amendment, as would Trump keeping his tax returns his own business.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 6, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Tort reform killed the lawsuit industry, especially med malpractice.
> You need a new analogy.



Which States in the U.S. Sue the Most?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 6, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Which States in the U.S. Sue the Most?



So I guess it's lawsuits in Maryland...


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 6, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> How is it voter suppression when it is so easy to get a photo ID from a DMV or the like, corroboration of your citizen status complete?



It is easy for you to do it. It is not easy for a disabled poor black woman who is blind to do.

Being totally honest. I think it is more important that everyone allowed to vote be allowed to, than it is that we keep a few cases of voter fraud at bay. Just like in criminal justice, I'd rather a bunch of guilty meant go free than one innocent man hang.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Yep. Unless you live in a state that deems it a risk to let blacks vote.



Thanks mate.


----------



## Centermass (Oct 7, 2016)

It boils down to this - most conservatives in this country (Especially after the crap ACORN pulled) are in favor of voter ID

Most who are not, feel it's "Discriminatory and unfair"

Bottom line is this - if you don't have a system in place to ensure it doesn't happen more than once (Voting) BY ANYONE, say what you want, all you want, but it's open to exploitation.


----------



## Brill (Oct 7, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> 24th Amendment, Harper vs. Virginia State Board of Elections.



Why are you bringing up a poll tax? Nobody is asserting that it was legal; the argument here was whether voter IDs are Constitutional and if they overly burden the electorate. 

SCOTUS has ruled voter IDs are ok (like Indiana) but the state must not overly burden voters (TX, NC, AZ, etc).

I'm not sure how WA and OR handle their election process since they vote by mail.

Crap like this fuels the Trump camp's "kick the bastards" out mantra.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/u...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 7, 2016)

UCSD political scientist Lindsay Nielson researched it, found that in states with voter IDs, the overall numbers of voters of all races went down, but there was very little difference between white/non-white.  In 2012 Pew Research Center found almost "24 million active voter registrations in the U.S. either invalid or inaccurate," and over 2 million dead voters still had active voter registrations.

And it isn't a partisan or racial thing to have voter ID, either:

2012 Washington Post poll found 65% of blacks were in favor; in 2014 a Fox News poll found 55% of democrats and 51% of blacks were in favor of voter ID; 2016 a Rasmussen poll found that 58% of democrats were in favor.

Between Al Franken in Minnesota and the Florida debacle with Bush/Gore, and LBJ in 1948, there is more than ample evidence that fraud exists.  And if you are OK with the argument that "some" fraud is OK, what if that "some" fraud was enough to push a swing/battleground state enough to tip a presidential election where SCOTUS seats are up for grabs?  The downhill consequences are significant.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 7, 2016)

Samantha Bee Goofs On Trump Supporters Who Say Election Is Rigged | Huffington Post


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 7, 2016)

I am just fine with Donnie supporters claiming  that the election is rigged.

My sugestion for action on this nonsense hypothesis: just stay the hell away from the voting booths in November. 

Easy peazy.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 7, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> I am just fine with Donnie supporters claiming  that the election is rigged.



I don't know if it is or if it isn't.  But seeing what HRC's camp did to ol' Bern in the primaries, I would not be surprised.  After the past 10 months very little in this election season surprises me anymore.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 7, 2016)

Seriously? That would be the biggest conspiracy since 911. Bigger, even.


----------



## Single Malt (Oct 7, 2016)

A couple countries, ones that are not as freedom bleeding as ours I should say, do use finger prints to verify the accuracy of their votes, it is an old way of doing it when the inky finger was a sign that you had already voted, but now with electronic scanners, you can check to make sure the person isn't dead, nor has that person voting anywhere else in the same election. But I think if USG tries that technique, the same politicians who are for voter ID will shoot it down in the fear that their finger print my get identified and they have to stand trial for that time when a snowy night ended with a dead hooker and a bloody nose. 

If some states want to have voter IDs then the burden of issuing those IDs should fall on the state and their voting authority. They should have to go around door to door and issue the IDs, and no, they can't just say fuck the homeless, they don't own land.....

It is not smart to spend $25mm on an audit that finds $1mm of waste. US voting fraud is just as big of a problem as having slow wifi on a flight from NYC to DC, not a problem. We just have to remember that an important part of living in a democracy (or democratic republic, or any regime that allows actual voting, i.e. not the Iran kind), is to not be a bitch when you are on the losing side of the election.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 7, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> Seriously? That would be the biggest conspiracy since 911. Bigger, even.



Wait what?


----------



## Dienekes (Oct 7, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> So how does it work over there? Over here you're on the electoral roll and your address determines your electorate (area). You then turn up to a polling booth and give your name and address and they cross you off. Later the lists are cross-checked to make sure there hasn't been multiple voting.
> 
> Is that roughly how it works there?



Not in Louisiana, I have one specific voting location (a school near my house), and I can't vote anywhere else. I have also always had to show ID.



Single Malt said:


> US voting fraud is just as big of a problem as having slow wifi on a flight from NYC to DC, not a problem



I disagree with this. We can't spend all this time always moving forward, attacking controversial governance problems  like individual rights and all sorts of other incremental things whose collective accumulation over the years completely changes society generation to generation and then say voter fraud is not a big deal. To get people to believe in the process and the government itself (which should be a goal of any governing body) is paramount. People are already disenfranchised with the concept of "my vote is important". Add voter fraud in the mix and a lot of people just say fuck it. Get enough people to say fuck it, and then, the government goes beyond its legitimate control, but nothing changes because the voters don't believe that they possesses the power to change it anyway. Eventually, you end up with the piss poor excuse of an election that we have now or in more advanced cases, Ukraine pre-Crimea etc.

BLUF: We can't champion all these "advances" in liberty, social problems, and other things affecting the very fabric of our society, our culture if you will, and then blow off voter fraud as if it is simply a minor nuisance upon the road to glory. With all the technology and money we have, making certain that whoever is voting is doing so legally should not even be a conversation. It should be a given.


----------



## JAG2 (Oct 7, 2016)

If voter fraud was an issue that could be solved *without* depriving innocent people of their vote, then I agree, there would be zero reason to let it slide.  Heck, even if voter fraud was an issue that involved more than a handful of cases, I'd designate it as much more urgent.  But right now, neither of these are true.  The solutions proposed would deny thousands of innocents their ability to vote, in an effort to stop far fewer people from committing voter fraud.  That's unacceptable.  Many credible sources, both on the right and the left, acknowledge that voter fraud is not currently in a position to influence elections by any significant amount.  The people who are pushing for these laws are doing it more for the 'principle' of preventing the crime.  Even if by doing so, they are hurting far, *far* more innocents.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 7, 2016)

JAG2 said:


> If voter fraud was an issue that could be solved *without* depriving innocent people of their vote, then I agree, there would be zero reason to let it slide.  Heck, even if voter fraud was an issue that involved more than a handful of cases, I'd designate it as much more urgent.  But right now, neither of these are true.  The solutions proposed would deny thousands of innocents their ability to vote, in an effort to stop far fewer people from committing voter fraud.  That's unacceptable.  Many credible sources, both on the right and the left, acknowledge that voter fraud is not currently in a position to influence elections by any significant amount.  The people who are pushing for these laws are doing it more for the 'principle' of preventing the crime.  Even if by doing so, they are hurting far, *far* more innocents.



While it is hard to prove a negative about what may or may not happen, it does influence elections:

Al Franken May Have Won His Senate Seat Through Voter Fraud

If people applied the same well-it's-not-enough-for-it-to-be-a-problem logic to any other aspect of law, the logic breaks down:  30 murders are OK; after all it's not 100.  But wait, you say...that's not a Constitutional issue.  OK...the police searches a house without a warrant just a couple times, it's OK, right?  I mean, it's not like it's 30 times.

Photo ID will not deprive people of their vote, and the cost of it would be negligible.  While booze, smokes, and hotel rooms (all things that require an ID) are not Constitutional mandates and poor examples, one does need a photo ID to apply for welfare, medicare, and medical benefits under Obamacare.  In my hospital, when you check into any clinic, registration, or the ED, you must show a photo ID.  I think we're past the point of proven it is not burdensome.


----------



## JAG2 (Oct 7, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> While it is hard to prove a negative about what may or may not happen, it does influence elections:
> 
> Al Franken May Have Won His Senate Seat Through Voter Fraud
> 
> ...



The Al Franken thing is still contested.  Calling out voter-fraud is a very common response to elections such as these.  Granted, there is indeed a possibility that voter fraud did influence this election, but until that possibility is confirmed, this is not proof that it 'does' influence elections.

"[Franken's] lead recount attorney, Marc Elias, said that Coleman's attorneys had acknowledged in their 2009 Minnesota Supreme Court recount challenge that they had found no evidence of voter fraud.  "If they thought that there was evidence of widespread voter fraud that could have benefited Franken, I have no doubt that they would have brought it forward," Elias said.  In fact, the only allegation of felonious voting in the election was raised by Franken's legal team, which cited the case of a man in Warroad, Minn., with a felony conviction who voted for Coleman."
Pawlenty: Investigate felon votes in Senate race

Second, your analogy doesn't work.  If the US passed a law that would crack down on murderers and arrest them, but it had the side effect of arresting many innocents too, that would be more accurate.  My point is not that the fraud is too small to care about.  My point is that innocents would suffer more than the culprits would.

Third, yes, and ID is burdensome to many people.  Doesn't seem that way to us because we already have IDs, but many people are in situations we can't imagine who can not get accepted forms of ID.  
Someone posted a clip on Jon Oliver explaining this very nicely earlier.  If you scroll back and take a look, he goes in depth in describing how difficult or even impossible it could be to get an ID for many people.


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 7, 2016)

For everyone that screams "Ooooooh, obtaining ID disadvantages the poor," why don't you go make a difference locally and help someone procure one. Donate your precious time, and cherished portraits of Lincoln, Jackson, and Washington, instead of bitching about it online or in your respective echo chambers.


----------



## JAG2 (Oct 7, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> For everyone that screams "Ooooooh, obtaining ID disadvantages the poor," why don't you go make a difference locally and help someone procure one. Donate your precious time, and cherished portraits of Lincoln, Jackson, and Washington, instead of bitching about it online or in your respective echo chambers.



I mean...I feel like dialogue like this is kind of healthy to have.  It's how ideas are shaped and policy ideas are formed.  Plus I love debating with people who have different opinions, it keeps my sharp and sometimes even changes my mind and evolved my views.  I wouldn't call it "bitching" in an "echo chamber".


----------



## racing_kitty (Oct 7, 2016)

JAG2 said:


> I mean...I feel like dialogue like this is kind of healthy to have.  It's how ideas are shaped and policy ideas are formed.  Plus I love debating with people who have different opinions, it keeps my sharp and sometimes even changes my mind and evolved my views.  I wouldn't call it "bitching" in an "echo chamber".



Talk is good for evolving ideas. But ideas have to become actions at some point.


----------



## Single Malt (Oct 7, 2016)

Dienekes said:


> I disagree with this. We can't spend all this time always moving forward, attacking controversial governance problems  like individual rights and all sorts of other incremental things whose collective accumulation over the years completely changes society generation to generation and then say voter fraud is not a big deal. To get people to believe in the process and the government itself (which should be a goal of any governing body) is paramount. People are already disenfranchised with the concept of "my vote is important". Add voter fraud in the mix and a lot of people just say fuck it. Get enough people to say fuck it, and then, the government goes beyond its legitimate control, but nothing changes because the voters don't believe that they possesses the power to change it anyway. Eventually, you end up with the piss poor excuse of an election that we have now or in more advanced cases, Ukraine pre-Crimea etc.


The point isn't that voter fraud is not important, it is that at the capacity that may be happening at the moment in US in federal elections (most importantly the presidential one), it is not significant enough to show any change whatsoever. So far what has been recorded has been mostly systematic errors (see the video I posted and look into the studies Oliver cites), and even those have been insignificant to change the outcome of any elections. There are much more important issues that could be resolved (how about easier access to VA hospitals) than this non-issue of voter IDs. Voter IDs are not a clever solution at all, IDs can be faked (see any college campus in the country) so if there was this systematic fraud that the Democrats are running, I am sure they would be printing fake ones in no time and handing them out to any illegal immigrant they could pick up at Home Depot. How does that sound?


----------



## Brill (Oct 7, 2016)

Interesting stats from the FEC.

Federal Election Commission


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 7, 2016)

I appreciate others' perspectives, and to me it isn't necessarily a democrat-republican thing, although that's how it seems to turn out.  If some states are requiring ID and it satisfies the courts, I am having trouble understanding how it cannot go nationwide.  And to this end, I doubt anyone here will change my mind so I am open to declaring a _modus vivendi_.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 7, 2016)

Guys.  GUYS.

Do you realize that in just about a month the election will be over?  This horseshit election in the Year of Our Lord 2016, our long national nightmare, the Revenge of the 90's, will finally be over.  One candidate will become president, one will (hopefully) bow out gracefully, and (hopefully) fade away into obscurity forever.

That being settled, we will finally be able to turn our national outrage machine away from the election and on to more important matters, like whether a dress is blue or gold, or Brad and Angelina, or why @Freefalling doesn't do his Monday motivation posts!  I, for one, am glad to be rid of this thing once and for all.  Or, at least until 2020.

'Like' this post if you agree!


----------



## Single Malt (Oct 7, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Guys.  GUYS.
> 
> Do you realize that in just about a month the election will be over?  This horseshit election in the Year of Our Lord 2016, our long national nightmare, the Revenge of the 90's, will finally be over.  One candidate will become president, one will (hopefully) bow out gracefully, and (hopefully) fade away into obscurity forever.
> 
> ...


I was going to like your post, but then you went YouTube on us with the last sentence so:


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 7, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Guys.  GUYS.
> 
> Do you realize that in just about a month the election will be over?  This horseshit election in the Year of Our Lord 2016, our long national nightmare, the Revenge of the 90's, will finally be over.  One candidate will become president, one will (hopefully) bow out gracefully, and (hopefully) fade away into obscurity forever.
> 
> ...



I think everyone is getting testy the closer to my birthday, I mean, _election day_ gets (shameless plug for my birthday ).  I am at the head of that line.  I am therefore tossing out a blanket "I agree to disagree" and moving on.  I DO have more important quandaries to solve....like why the Carolina Panthers are SUCKING ass, and looking forward to seeing Duke basketball KICK ass.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 7, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> For everyone that screams "Ooooooh, obtaining ID disadvantages the poor," why don't you go make a difference locally and help someone procure one. Donate your precious time, and cherished portraits of Lincoln, Jackson, and Washington, instead of bitching about it online or in your respective echo chambers.



Yeah I do this. 

If you think this is an echo chamber for liberal ideas you are high.


----------



## Kraut783 (Oct 7, 2016)

I wish Texas would just provide a no cost TX ID card...that would be a quick solution and would provide the critics no room to complain about an law requiring an ID to vote.

No real excuse then, if you really have the want to vote, you can make a trip to the drivers license office.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 7, 2016)

Fight me @amlove21


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 7, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Guys.  GUYS.
> 
> Do you realize that in just about a month the election will be over?  This horseshit election in the Year of Our Lord 2016, our long national nightmare, the Revenge of the 90's, will finally be over.  One candidate will become president, one will (hopefully) bow out gracefully, and (hopefully) fade away into obscurity forever.
> 
> ...



You are making the election out to be , on a par with what loaf of bread to buy.  or what can of soup to buy. That is massively short sighted IMHO. There is a lot on the line here, perhaps more than some people think.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 7, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I wonder how long "they've" been holding on to this:
> 
> Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005
> 
> NSFW - (audio)



I'd be very surprised if both "Theys" don't still have dirt at the ready to mete out as needed, or according to a strategic timeline.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 7, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> It is easy for you to do it. It is not easy for a disabled poor black woman who is blind to do.



That's a load of crap, blind=on SSI disability, which means she can get free transport from any local ASA bus service, which means all she has to do is show up and spend a few hours at the DMV like the rest of us. I've got a blind friend (lost his sight in Iraq) who has been travelling the United States via plane and bus for the last couple of years. Can't see a fucking thing, but still visits all over. First he wanted to say he went to every state, now he wants to do the top 10 cities of every state. 

It's not hard, they just got to get off their ass ans get it done.



Ooh-Rah said:


> I wonder how long "they've" been holding on to this:
> 
> Trump recorded having extremely lewd conversation about women in 2005
> 
> NSFW - (audio)



Not making excuses for Trump, but thats normal guy talk. Anyone of us would be doing any number of things, saying the same shit. Than again, none of us are running for POTUS.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 7, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> That's a load of crap, blind=on SSI disability, which means she can get free transport from any local ASA bus service, which means all she has to do is show up and spend a few hours at the DMV like the rest of us. I've got a blind friend (lost his sight in Iraq) who has been travelling the United States via plane and bus for the last couple of years. Can't see a fucking thing, but still visits all over. First he wanted to say he went to every state, now he wants to do the top 10 cities of every state.
> 
> It's not hard, they just got to get off their ass ans get it done.



Your friend is an 85 year old diabetic woman with osteoporosis?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 7, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Your friend is an 85 year old diabetic woman with osteoporosis?



How is she getting her prescription without ID? 

My 90 year old grandfather gets his DL at the DMV, can't even fucking walk, and lives in a retirement home.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 7, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> How is she getting her prescription without ID?
> 
> My 90 year old grandfather gets his DL at the DMV, can't even fucking walk, and lives in a retirement home.



He can't walk and is eligible for, and earns, a driving license?  Not being a dick, just wondering how that might be pulled off. 

At any rate, the history of our nation has included a gradual expansion of voting rights.  Elected officials should be finding ways to _encourage _voting to best serve their electorate, not passing legislation to add unnecessary steps or make it potentially more difficult for anyone, IMHO.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 7, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> He can't walk and is eligible for, and earns, a driving license?  Not being a dick, just wondering how that might be pulled off.
> 
> At any rate, the history of our nation has included a gradual expansion of voting rights.  Elected officials should be finding ways to _encourage _voting to best serve their electorate, not passing legislation to add unnecessary steps or make it potentially more difficult for anyone, IMHO.



He still drives, just can't walk. I guess you never seen a electric wheelchair on the back of a disabled persons vehicle?


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 7, 2016)

Right, so. Last night I made a post that made very little sense in the context of, you know, reality. I'm going to blame posting at 0200 and to make it relevant to this thread, now Trump and I have late night posting in common. 

Apologies guys!


----------



## Brill (Oct 7, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Not making excuses for Trump, but thats normal guy talk. Anyone of us would be doing any number of things, saying the same shit. Than again, none of us are running for POTUS.



I'm positive Bill was very respectful when discussing potential targets of his affection.  Trump is evil unlike the White House has ever seen.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 7, 2016)

lindy said:


> I'm positive Bill was very respectful when discussing potential targets of his affection.  Trump is evil unlike the White House has ever seen.


Daily reminder that Bill Clinton is not running for President of the United States of America.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 7, 2016)

Single Malt said:


> The point isn't that voter fraud is not important, it is that at the capacity that may be happening at the moment in US in federal elections (most importantly the presidential one), it is not significant enough to show any change whatsoever. So far what has been recorded has been mostly systematic errors (see the video I posted and look into the studies Oliver cites), and even those have been insignificant to change the outcome of any elections. There are much more important issues that could be resolved (how about easier access to VA hospitals) than this non-issue of voter IDs. Voter IDs are not a clever solution at all, IDs can be faked (see any college campus in the country) so if there was this systematic fraud that the Democrats are running, I am sure they would be printing fake ones in no time and handing them out to any illegal immigrant they could pick up at Home Depot. How does that sound?



It sounds like you lack the data to support the position you've taken.  While voter fraud has been looked at, I wouldn't say it's been investigated to the degree that we can confidently say to what extent it has played a part in influencing election results.

Perhaps more to the point, voter fraud on any level can diminish voter confidence in the system and in the power of their vote.  It seems logical this could have an effect on voter turnout and therefore


TLDR20 said:


> Yeah I do this.
> 
> If you think this is an echo chamber for liberal ideas you are high.



I didn't get that all from @racing_kitty 's post.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 7, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Your friend is an 85 year old diabetic woman with osteoporosis?



None of those things have any bearing on the ability to get to a place offering ID. Why not make your hypothetical black too just so you get all the things that could be "against" them.

My grandma who was a cancer patient among other things, had photo id till the day she died.....


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 7, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> None of those things have any bearing on the ability to get to a place offering ID. Why not make your hypothetical black too just so you get all the things that could be "against" them.
> 
> My grandma who was a cancer patient among other things, had photo id till the day she died.....



I'm saying man, there are people who have a very hard time getting an ID. Just like you have great anectdotal evidence of an old person with an ID, that woman who is blind with osteoporosis is also an anecdotal example. I work with people like this 2 days a week every week. People say why don't they take the bus? Well Rockingham county NC doesn't have one unless you live inside the city. Being black is for the most part irrelevant. Being poor is the main factor. Most of my anecdotes relate to impoverished blacks because that is who I work with most often.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 7, 2016)

JAG2 said:


> If voter fraud was an issue that could be solved *without* depriving innocent people of their vote, then I agree, there would be zero reason to let it slide.  Heck, even if voter fraud was an issue that involved more than a handful of cases, I'd designate it as much more urgent.  But right now, neither of these are true.  The solutions proposed would deny thousands of innocents their ability to vote, in an effort to stop far fewer people from committing voter fraud.  That's unacceptable.  Many credible sources, both on the right and the left, acknowledge that voter fraud is not currently in a position to influence elections by any significant amount.  The people who are pushing for these laws are doing it more for the 'principle' of preventing the crime.  Even if by doing so, they are hurting far, *far* more innocents.


LOL, Chicago (R.J. Daley Sr) routinely threw elections in Illinois via vote fraud.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 7, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> None of those things have any bearing on the ability to get to a place offering ID. Why not make your hypothetical black too just so you get all the things that could be "against" them.
> 
> My grandma who was a cancer patient among other things, had photo id till the day she died.....


Like these people? Getting a photo ID so you can vote is easy. Unless you’re poor, black, Latino or elderly.

The stinger:


> A federal court in Texas found that 608,470 registered voters don’t have the forms of identification that the state now requires for voting. For example, residents can vote with their concealed-carry handgun licenses but not their state-issued student university IDs.


Over 600,000 registered voters in one state alone. Six. Hundred. Thousand. Even if 99% of those voters went out and got an acceptable ID (which won't happen), that's still 6,000 voters *in Texas alone* that are being discouraged from voting. All to combat 31 confirmed cases of voter fraud.

Do you see why it's such a problem?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 7, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I'm saying man, there are people who have a very hard time getting an ID. Just like you have great anectdotal evidence of an old person with an ID, that woman who is blind with osteoporosis is also an anecdotal example. I work with people like this 2 days a week every week. People say why don't they take the bus? Well Rockingham county NC doesn't have one unless you live inside the city. Being black is for the most part irrelevant. Being poor is the main factor. Most of my anecdotes relate to impoverished blacks because that is who I work with most often.



No you are making excuses for people based on irrelevant issues. If they can get their ass out tonvote, they can get their ass out and get identification.  It really is that simple. 

Now I will say, as I have before, I think showing a state ID is bullshit, along with the laws requiring state ID. A passport, birth certificate, SS card, etc, should be more than sufficient in providing proof that a person with that name, birth date, and SS number voted. If that person is not who they identify as, it really wouldn't matter as long as the vote is accounted for by a citizen.  That said Identity theft is a crime, so yeah.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 7, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> No you are making excuses for people based on irrelevant issues. If they can get their ass out tonvote, they can get their ass out and get identification.  It really is that simple.
> 
> Now I will say, as I have before, I think showing a state ID is bullshit, along with the laws requiring state ID. A passport, birth certificate, SS card, etc, should be more than sufficient in providing proof that a person with that name, birth date, and SS number voted. If that person is not who they identify as, it really wouldn't matter as long as the vote is accounted for by a citizen.  That said Identity theft is a crime, so yeah.



So you think it is bullshit, but are arguing with me?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 7, 2016)

Been Poor, still hispanic, got my license.

My dad had to get his name changed legally because he'd been using an alias for his first name his whole life.  He was never called by his first name, all of his credit was under his alias.  

Looked up state of Texas ID Fees...they're not expensive and I'm sure they're subsidized.   Cheaper than California's though.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 7, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Like these people? Getting a photo ID so you can vote is easy. Unless you’re poor, black, Latino or elderly.
> 
> The stinger:
> 
> ...



That math is based on the assumption that those registered voters are legally entitled to vote.

This is anecdotal but I've spent my entire career dealing with the poor, the downtrodden, and the disadvantaged.  My experience has been that if one doesn't have an ID, one simply doesn't want one.  It simply isn't that hard.

I do understand the argument that acquiring a legal ID to vote should not be difficult or expensive.  I agree with this position.  What I don't understand is why anyone believes people should be able to vote--to use what is perhaps the most important power a citizen has--without proving eligibility.  

Of course, voting isn't the only right that is restricted based on having an ID.  Try buying a gun from an FFL without one.  Likewise, access to medication is denied without an ID.

#sudafedmatters


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 8, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I'm saying man, there are people who have a very hard time getting an ID. Just like you have great anectdotal evidence of an old person with an ID, that woman who is blind with osteoporosis is also an anecdotal example. I work with people like this 2 days a week every week. People say why don't they take the bus? Well Rockingham county NC doesn't have one unless you live inside the city. Being black is for the most part irrelevant. Being poor is the main factor. Most of my anecdotes relate to impoverished blacks because that is who I work with most often.



Then
Fucking
walk

Roll with a fucking cane for a goddamn oar on the gondola walmart cart for all i fucking care. The shit ie finding a means to get from point a to b, aint hard, quit coddling shitbirds and defending those who shitbird by fucking choice.

We have multinub veterans that would low crawl to the fucking dmv to get their shit if they needed it and nobody would hook them up with a ride.  Fuck, call 911 and a cop would show up and at least source a ride, if not hook ol tldr's granny hunchback the fuck up with a ride.

Come the fuck on. A photo ID is ten, maybe fifteen bucks at the dmv last I checked.  You can make that in an hour or less panhandling if theyre so fucked up as your example.

Theres no discouragement involved, its go get the shit you need. They could even make the ID free for all I care, and yall would still throw a hissy about ol granny nofriends that cant call up the senior center for a hookup... bet a gummer to freddy the local parchesi champ would get her front row seats in his packard he keeps in the garage.

Tertiary: why are we caring about the inability to get to somewhere for id, when that same inability SHOULD APPLY TO THE ABILITY TO GET TO A POLLING PLACE?

whala, ignored elephant.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 8, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> Come the fuck on. A photo ID is ten, maybe fifteen bucks at the dmv last I checked.  You can make that in an hour or less panhandling if theyre so fucked up as your example.


Something something poll tax something something unconstitutional


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 8, 2016)

Something something make a CAC SS card something didnt read my whole post something circular liberal logic something something more dead bodies to vote something something real problem head in sand something could be offering solutions something the problem supports the cause therefore fight it something hillary sop something


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 8, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> So you think it is bullshit, but are arguing with me?



I'm not arguing, just telling you that your wrong that old blind black ladies with health problems can't get ID. I posted a few pages back that a state ID mandate is bullshit. But yet again, in order to vote you still have to prove citizenship, so yeah, you still need ID in some format, as I pointed out.


----------



## Brill (Oct 8, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Daily reminder that Bill Clinton is not running for President of the United States of America.



You think he was the only one to talk about women like that? My point is who cares? The press is full of Republicans pulling their support for Trump so maybe this was a blessing???



Deathy McDeath said:


> Something something poll tax something something unconstitutional



Voter IDs are Constitutional and are REQUIRED in 30 states, per ACLU's website.  30 out of 50 is a majority.

{{meta.pageTitle}}


----------



## policemedic (Oct 8, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Something something poll tax something something unconstitutional



Ummmm....no.   Requiring an ID to vote isn't unconstitutional.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 8, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> Tertiary: why are we caring about the inability to get to somewhere for id, when that same inability SHOULD APPLY TO THE ABILITY TO GET TO A POLLING PLACE?
> 
> whala, ignored elephant.



I am spending November 8th driving people to the polls.


----------



## Brill (Oct 8, 2016)




----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 8, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I am spending November 8th driving people to the polls.



I have to admit, I can't understand how you got your liberal logic. Honestly, I've always figured you hit your head really hard and suffered from some kind of self inflicted mental retardation. 

But reading that you are actually going to get out and put your time and money where your mouth is. Helping people who need help and getting involved in the most basic and most important of our constitutional rights. Well it puts a smile on my face. Good on you dude!


----------



## Brill (Oct 8, 2016)

Ben Stein has come out against Trump and makes some very good points for his VP pick to take the helm.  Pence 2016!!!!

Trump Must Go | The American Spectator



> And I’m not fickle. I have only a few good qualities, and loyalty is at the top of the list. I have never backed down on my support of and love for Richard M. Nixon. To me, he was the ultimate peacemaker, and created two generations of peace. I will never turn my back on him. I have been with my wife for 50 years and would not turn on her no matter what she did. Loyalty is sacred to me.
> 
> But I am a Republican and we are supposed to stand for some kind of moral standard. We are the party of Dwight Eisenhower, who never had the slightest moral stain on his character. We’re the party of Reagan, whose charisma was based on his basic dignity. We’re the party of *George W. Bush, who made terrible mistakes, but whose fundamental morality was never in doubt.* He is a handsome man and was much sought after by women, but never even returned the gaze of flirting women. He was no prude, but he was dignified.
> 
> ...


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 8, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I have to admit, I can't understand how you got your liberal logic. Honestly, I've always figured you hit your head really hard and suffered from some kind of self inflicted mental retardation.
> 
> But reading that you are actually going to get out and put your time and money where your mouth is. Helping people who need help and getting involved in the most basic and most important of our constitutional rights. Well it puts a smile on my face. Good on you dude!



I'm a liberal for many reasons. If you go back a long  long way on here and read my posts, I was very much a conservative until about 2011. Becoming a nurse has made me even more so. I currently volunteer at a section 8 housing unit, do home health visits, and volunteer and the refugee access clinic. The people I see make it hard for me to say "it is easy to get an ID." I was for voter ID as recently as 2014. It was easy to be, as I thought like many of you do that getting an ID is as easy as a quick trip to the DMV.  The only thing that changed my mind was seeing how hard it is. Realizing that people live a life that is invisible unless you look for it. I use black peoples as an example as that is the main population I work with. In our clinic, the main population is widowed 80+ year old black women, they aren't there because they are shitty people, they are there because after they got to old and infirm to work, they did not have enough money left to afford housing. They live there because otherwise they would be on the street. I had no idea that the old and infirm made up such a huge portion of the public housing. I had always thought it was all thugs and gang types.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 8, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I'm a liberal for many reasons. If you go back a long  long way on here and read my posts, I was very much a conservative until about 2011. Becoming a nurse has made me even more so. I currently volunteer at a section 8 housing unit, do home health visits, and volunteer and the refugee access clinic. The people I see make it hard for me to say "it is easy to get an ID." I was for voter ID as recently as 2014. It was easy to be, as I thought like many of you do that getting an ID is as easy as a quick trip to the DMV.  The only thing that changed my mind was seeing how hard it is. Realizing that people live a life that is invisible unless you look for it. I use black peoples as an example as that is the main population I work with. In our clinic, the main population is widowed 80+ year old black women, they aren't there because they are shitty people, they are there because after they got to old and infirm to work, they did not have enough money left to afford housing. They live there because otherwise they would be on the street. I had no idea that the old and infirm made up such a huge portion of the public housing. I had always thought it was all thugs and gang types.



Most people who live in public housing are good people. The criminals in their midst have a disproportionate effect on the community.

That said, public housing has gone from a temporary measure to a generational entitlement. I've known people who loved their high rise apartment so much they refused offers of paid hotel and room service until a fucking private home was built for them when the high rise was being torn down. In many cases there is simply no desire to leave.  The reasons why are the subject of another, long discussion.

Here's the thing though. If your public housing is like mine, you will see a huge effort mounted to get the vote out. I mean people being bussed to the polls.  I'd like to see some of that effort--expended by the two-party system, but more so the Dems--redirected to helping people get to where they need to be to get IDs.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 8, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I am spending November 8th driving people to the polls.



Nov 8 is also by birthday.  I am taking the 8th and 9th off.  You are welcome to come to Durham and drive ME to the polls because I will be drunk.  Then join me in my drunkeness.



TLDR20 said:


> . I had no idea that the old and infirm made up such a huge portion of the public housing. I had always thought it was all thugs and gang types.



I have done EMS in urban areas and rural.  This has been my experience as well.  My wife, a former social worker, said that 10% of your clients take up 90% of your time and resources, and the same precept holds true in the projects: the thugs and gangs are the minority but account for the majority of time and resources.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 8, 2016)

lindy said:


> Voter IDs are Constitutional and are REQUIRED in 30 states, per ACLU's website.  30 out of 50 is a majority.
> 
> {{meta.pageTitle}}



Damn, you're right on this one.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 8, 2016)

If the state issues a FREE photo  ID, I don't care nearly as much about voter ID requirements.  Charging upwards of 40-50 dollars is absurd.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 8, 2016)

"Grab her by the pussy". 

30 days out. I will never be able to fully explain the year of 2016 to anyone. It truly is one of the weirdest years I have ever been alive.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 8, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> If the state issues a FREE ID, I don't care nearly as much about voter ID requirements.  Charging upwards of 40-50 dollars is absurd.



That does seem excessive.  Where is it that much?



TLDR20 said:


> If the state issues a FREE ID, I don't care nearly as much about voter ID requirements.  Charging upwards of 40-50 dollars is absurd.



The argument here is different than it is for a driver's license.  Driving is a privilege; voting is a right.  If the state requires an ID to exercise a right, then it seems logical non-driver ID cards should be free in order to facilitate the discharge of a citizen's civic duty.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 8, 2016)

I was told by someone in a PM they had to help someone fork over $40 to the state for an ID.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 8, 2016)

In Texas, ID is $16 for 59 years old and younger, $6 for 60 and over. Free for disabled veterans. 

I think anything over $20 is excessive.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 8, 2016)

IDs are pennies on the dollar to make.  All that money gets labelled "administrative costs" and such BS.  I think when you register, you get an ID.  As it would be an official state ID it would be good to access all of the other services for which you need an "official" ID.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 8, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> IDs are pennies on the dollar to make.  All that money gets labelled "administrative costs" and such BS.  I think when you register, you get an ID.  As it would be an official state ID it would be good to access all of the other services for which you need an "official" ID.



So this is the issue, That isn't what happens now. If it were people would care less about the voter ID thing. As it is in many places now it costs money, which many say is an unfair burden.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 8, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> So this is the issue, That isn't what happens now. If it were people would care less about the voter ID thing. As it is in many places now it costs money, which many say is an unfair burden.



I agree, totally.  I think the cost _is _an unfair burden.  Who would want to get an ID if it was $20, $30, or $40??  That's nuts.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 8, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I was told by someone in a PM they had to help someone fork over $40 to the state for an ID.



Sounds like someone is a great humanitarian.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 8, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Nov 8 is also by birthday.  I am taking the 8th and 9th off.  You are welcome to come to Durham and drive ME to the polls because I will be drunk.  Then join me in my drunkeness.



Happy Drunken Day.


----------



## Brill (Oct 8, 2016)

Waving the bullshit flag that IDs necessary to vote actually cost MONEY.  Sure, DLs, state IDs, etc cost but is that the ONLY ID acceptable?



> As the Rokita court noted, voters who lack Photo ID undoubtedly exist somewhere, but the fact that Plaintiffs, in spite of their efforts, have failed to uncover anyone "who can attest to the fact that he/she will be prevented from voting" provides significant support for a conclusion that the Photo ID requirement does not unduly burden the right to vote.



Does it cost $25 to obtain a "free" Voter ID in any state?

But GA charges!  Does it really?

Voter identification laws by state - Ballotpedia

Holy shit, the rats are jumping the sinking ship. Trump is surely done.

I wonder how Hillary will fare against Pence, assuming he gets the nod after his debate performance.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 8, 2016)

lindy said:


> Waving the bullshit flag that IDs necessary to vote actually cost MONEY.  Sure, DLs, state IDs, etc cost but is that the ONLY ID acceptable?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A voter ID and a photo ID are different things friend. Voter ID cards are free and often can be gotten by showing a bill or something else that proves you are you. Not a lot of free photo ID's being given out.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 8, 2016)

I just cannot wrap my arms around the concept that requiring proof of citizenship is disenfranchising voters:

_"This action has illegally kept voters from the polls, caused confusion, and threatened the lawful voter registration efforts of the League and other groups," the League said in a statement. Its president, Chris Carson, said the requirement had amounted to "thinly veiled discrimination." Carson praised the ruling blocking it and said that "we should be making voting easier, not harder. All eligible Americans deserve the opportunity to register and vote without obstacles."_

Court Blocks Proof-Of-Citizenship Requirement For Voters In 3 States


Forgive me for being jaded, but the idea of someone only needing to sign a statement saying "YES I AM A CITIZEN" and that's it?  Sorry, I guess I'm just not that trusting that anyone is actually looking into these sworn statements and holding anyone accountable, regardless of the law.

*Why Shouldn’t A State Ask Individuals to Prove Their Citizenship When They Attempt to Register to Vote?*
_States already ask for evidence of citizenship. Since states began requiring voters to register prior to voting, every state has required individuals wishing to register to sign a statement under penalty of perjury affirming that they are citizens and that they meet all of the state’s other voter eligibility requirements. The federal form also requires such a statement and additionally states that non-citizens who register may be criminally prosecuted and deported. 

How Do Proof-of-Citizenship Laws Block Legitimate Voters? | Demos

_
So where is the balance?  Genuine Citizen wants to vote, but has no physical proof of his/her citizen so they gets to sign a form, declaring them-self a citizen, and now they gets to vote!  Perfect, I love it!!!

But...

Use my friendly state of MN as an example.  We currently have the largest population of Somali's in the United States, many if not most are refugees; not citizens.   But...they kinda like it here, it would benefit their status in the U.S. if a more liberal government, friendly to their plights remained in power....so they go sign a form declaring themselves a citizen, and now they get to vote.  That I do not approve of.

Good Question: Why Did Somalis Locate Here?


Maybe if my Republican brethren get their shit together and come to the conclusion that having some social programs does not a Socialist make, they will win the votes of those on the bubble who need a little help, but also want to see business thrive and ensure that their gun rights are not altered.  At the end of the day I want every U.S. citizen to have the ability to vote, but not at the expense of allowing the flood of illegal immigrants to this country to game the system in the hopes of keeping those people in power who best represent their best chance of staying here.

As a lifelong registered Republican, I am really trying to see the more liberal points of views that have been presented on this forum from time to time, but it becomes very easy to feel cornered and want to dig in my heels when it seems as if I am the anti-poor, anti-black, anti-name it, until I concede that the liberal definition of _fair_ is the only definition that matters.


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 8, 2016)




----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 8, 2016)

Quite different things.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 8, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> View attachment 16822



Comparing a BSDM fantasy fiction to our candidate for POTUS? If that doesn't give you pause...


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 8, 2016)

lindy said:


> Holy shit, the rats are jumping the sinking ship. Trump is surely done.
> 
> I wonder how Hillary will fare against Pence, assuming he gets the nod after his debate performance.



I'm not surprised that it took this long for the Republican party to turn their backs on a bigoted, racist idiot, given how fractured they are at the moment.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 8, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> View attachment 16822



I think more than a few women (and men) see a significant difference between reading/watching porn and someone bragging about sexual assault.  I know a large number of women who have expressed their own encounters with harassment and groping - this is not sitting well with them.  If the Republicans aren't careful Trump is going to give them permanent problems with women - as the party already has with minorities.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 8, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> A voter ID and a photo ID are different things friend. Voter ID cards are free and often can be gotten by showing a bill or something else that proves you are you. Not a lot of free photo ID's being given out.



See ,that's the problem right there. A bill proves nothing related to identity.

I still maintain that a properly vetted state non-driver's ID should be free. It is in the best interests of the state to do so.

You folks have no idea how often I  encounter someone who has no ID, doesn't know their SSN, but does know their Philadelphia photo number, state police number, FBI number... or all three.   I am constantly having to look up mugshots to verify who the fuck I'm talking to.


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 8, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> I think more than a few women (and men) see a significant difference between reading/watching porn and someone bragging about sexual assault.  I know a large number of women who have expressed their own encounters with harassment and groping - this is not sitting well with them.  If the Republicans aren't careful Trump is going to give them permanent problems with women - as the party already has with minorities.



Do you honestly think he's sexually assaulted anyone or do you think he thought he was having a private conversation, and like a lot of guys, was bragging on something that isn't true?


----------



## policemedic (Oct 8, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> I think more than a few women (and men) see a significant difference between reading/watching porn and someone bragging about sexual assault.  I know a large number of women who have expressed their own encounters with harassment and groping - this is not sitting well with them.  If the Republicans aren't careful Trump is going to give them permanent problems with women - as the party already has with minorities.



What he said was déclassé to be sure. But it's typical of guys talking shit. Most guys have probably said something to another guy  along the same lines and that was not an admission to indecent assault.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 8, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> Do you honestly think he's sexually assaulted anyone or do you think he thought he was having a private conversation, and like a lot of guys, was bragging on something that isn't true?



Why would him saying it privately make it less likely to be true?  Yes, I think Trump has likely groped and harassed women - it seems consistent with his actions and the reports of this type of behavior from him have been pretty common.  Grabbing someone's 'pussy' without consent is assault.  If he brags about doing it - whether he's actually done it or not - he's probably going to make a lot of women not want to vote for him.  I've found, crazy as it may seem, that regardless of political affiliation women don't like to be assaulted - nor have people brag about how they can do it and get away with it.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 8, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> Do you honestly think he's sexually assaulted anyone or do you think he thought he was having a private conversation, and like a lot of guys, was bragging on something that isn't true?



For him, at this stage, it doesn't really make a lot of difference.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 8, 2016)

I think the critical thing - from a political strategy, not moral basis - about these comments are their timing.

Trump started slipping in the polls prior to the first debate, then the two debates (especially the first) went badly for team Trump.  In the first HRC brought over a percentage point or two of fence-sitters and Trump similarly failed to move his - or sent them the other way.  In the VP debate Gov Pence beat his opponent but Gov Kaine managed to get Gov Pence on record repeatedly with lies or half-truths about Trump's statements - which then dominated the news cycle and continued to chip away at the undecided in favor of HRC - especially the pro-SEN Sanders folks looking at 3rd party candidates.

The end result was Trump was coming into the second debate 5 or so points behind nationally and 1-3 points behind in his 3 must-win swing states (OH, NC, FL) where he had previously been ahead.  I think most of the Republican establishment felt the race was going to go HRC's way but as long as it was tight there wouldn't be a significant down-ballot cost - they'd retain both houses of congress.  The fear they had as the polls went south was the damage Trump could do down-ballot if the polls got worse.  Still, I think they all made the calculation it was better to stay with Trump and hope for split tickets than run from him - the race was still close enough that running from him cost them more than sticking with him.  The speculation I read was that if he had a good 2nd debate they'd stick with him - if not some of the tighter races might panic and run away.

What we've seen with these comments is the close-race herd on the Republican side panicked early and bolted without waiting for the 2nd debate or to see if the polls stabilized back towards Trump.  The result is Trump doesn't have a chance in the general - this is going to dominate the news cycle for two weeks - first with the comments, then with all the infighting and sniping on the Republican side.  We'll see if folks were smart to run from him.  My suspicion is they were not.  I think there's still way more of the Republican party - or those planning to vote Republican this election - who will not come out to support those that disavowed Trump than there are that will.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 8, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Not that easy of a task:
> 
> Republican Party rules don’t provide for removal just because it wants to.
> 
> ...



I never said anything about them dumping him as a candidate, just turning their backs on a massive mistake.

Please, Republican leaders, keep his dumb ass on the ticket.  Pretty please with sugar on top.

If they're smart, those same leaders will hereafter push remaining money to Republican down-ticket candidate's campaigns.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 8, 2016)

I'm honestly surprised they nominated him without, it seems, even cursory vetting of his media. He's been well known as a loudmouth who says outrageous things so I'd have thought they'd have checked on that first.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 8, 2016)

This election has been like a pregnancy. Nine months of seeing what we'll get and nausious all the way.  - Johnny Carson


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 8, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> I'm honestly surprised they nominated him without, it seems, even cursory vetting of his media. He's been well known as a loudmouth who says outrageous things so I'd have thought they'd have checked on that first.


GOP sources have said that the party essentially did zero opposition research on the guy, which is why they seemingly have nothing prepared when these big scandals break. With a month to go in the race, there's probably still a few big things floating out there and the GOP has no idea how to react.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 8, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> GOP sources have said that the party essentially did zero opposition research on the guy, which is why they seemingly have nothing prepared when these big scandals break. With a month to go in the race, there's probably still a few big things floating out there and the GOP has no idea how to react.



If it's as you say I'd tend to agree. 

Welcome back to family dynasties, America?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 8, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I am spending November 8th driving people to the polls.



So your no transportation to get identification argument was just invalidated...


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 8, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> So your no transportation to get identification argument was just invalidated...



Not really. There are thousands of people. I am one person with one day.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 8, 2016)

There are organized busses to polls. There is no valid reason that same effort could not be extended to gaining valid citizenship proving identification, if identification were made necessary.

I support required proper ID, to vote, for free. Honestly, social security cards should be more useful than a piece of paper that you need another ID to corroborate.

The GOP has never liked Trump, so there is inaction on their part to do what they normally have done for every single other candidate. At this point, I wouldn't be significantly surprised if the party as a whole would rather see Hillary in the white house. At least they have an inkling of what they will be getting, vs the wild card.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 8, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> There are organized busses to polls. There is no valid reason that same effort could not be extended to gaining valid citizenship proving identification, if identification were made necessary.
> 
> I support required proper ID, to vote, for free. Honestly, social security cards should be more useful than a piece of paper that you need another ID to corroborate.
> 
> The GOP has never liked Trump, so there is inaction on their part to do what they normally have done for every single other candidate. At this point, I wouldn't be significantly surprised if the party as a whole would rather see Hillary in the white house. At least they have an inkling of what they will be getting, vs the wild card.



I can say I agree that with free ID's. if everyone has one, like a social security card, I have no issue. Requiring a photo ID that costs money is too much in my opinion. Shit photo ID's are a maybe 50 years old? People have been voting just fine for way longer than that.


----------



## policemedic (Oct 8, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I can say I agree that with free ID's. if everyone has one, like a social security card, I have no issue. Requiring a photo ID that costs money is too much in my opinion. Shit photo ID's are a maybe 50 years old? People have been voting just fine for way longer than that.



Fair enough, but when did global travel and (essentially) uncontrolled immigration become a thing?


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 8, 2016)

30 days before an election and even the VP candidate can't defend this one. 


i' mean- this hasnt happened before has it?!


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 8, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> 30 days before an election and even the VP candidate can't defend this one.
> 
> 
> i' mean- this hasnt happened before has it?!




Decisions have consequences; it just so happens that the consequences are heavy and unfortunate when you voluntarily throw your lot in with Donnie.   

Sucks to be you, Mike.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 8, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Decisions have consequences; it just so happens that the consequences are heavy and unfortunate when you voluntarily throw your lot in with Donnie.
> 
> Sucks to be you, Mike.


Know what will really cook your noodle?

I respect Mike Pence more now for having called Donald on this stupid shit and calling it what it is. 

I could see myself voting for Mike Pence.


----------



## AWP (Oct 9, 2016)

In all seriousness, how can the Republicans win the election? Hillary outright dies and Pence replaces Trump?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 9, 2016)

I saw political sign on a lawn yesterday. "2016, Both Suck". 

FWIW, here in my little spot in The Valley, strongly Dem, the only signs I have seen that support a party are Trump signs. I've yet to see a Hillary sign, but that will change.


----------



## Brill (Oct 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> A voter ID and a photo ID are different things friend. Voter ID cards are free and often can be gotten by showing a bill or something else that proves you are you. Not a lot of free photo ID's being given out.



The link in my post refutes that statement completely.



Red Flag 1 said:


> I saw political sign on a lawn yesterday. "2016, Both Suck".
> 
> FWIW, here in my little spot in The Valley, strongly Dem, the only signs I have seen that support a party are Trump signs. I've yet to see a Hillary sign, but that will change.



Indeed THAT is very strange here in MD too. My street is full of Trump signs but the only mention of support for Clinton is "Clinton for prison 2016".



TLDR20 said:


> Comparing a BSDM fantasy fiction to our candidate for POTUS? If that doesn't give you pause...



Are you sayin' he's being naughty and needs to be punished?



amlove21 said:


> Know what will really cook your noodle?
> 
> I respect Mike Pence more now for having called Donald on this stupid shit and calling it what it is.
> 
> I could see myself voting for Mike Pence.



Which begs the question: is Trump in the race for the GOP or for the US?


----------



## Poccington (Oct 9, 2016)

Donald's gonna Donald.

The man is a moron and the GOP are morons for ever letting things get to the stage where a sizeable amount of Republican voters view Donald as a valid choice for President.

Seriously, this election was very winnable for Republicans, they were up against a candidate which they had plenty of ammunition to pummel her with, along with her own shortcomings in terms of connecting with voters etc... And they ended up with Trump.

All the rats jumping off the ship now after his latest bout of nonsense are nothing but cowards trying to save their own skin. The time to make a stand against having Donald represent the Republican Party has long since passed and the Mike Pence's of the world should be hammered just as much as Donald is.

They're all idiots.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 9, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> In all seriousness, how can the Republicans win the election? Hillary outright dies and Pence replaces Trump?



SNL was brilliant last night.  If nothing else, forward to the 6 minute mark -


----------



## Poccington (Oct 9, 2016)

As an aside, while I'm very much aware that I'm not American, the US Presidential Race is a massive event in the Western world.

People watch the race closely as the decision to elect the leader of the most powerful country in the world is kind of a big deal.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 9, 2016)

lindy said:


> The link in my post refutes that statement completely.



No it doesn't. It talks about voter ID's, only 16 states have a photo ID requirement.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 9, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I've yet to see a Hillary sign, but that will change.



Have you checked the cemeteries......?!???!?!:-"


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 9, 2016)

Poccington said:


> As an aside, while I'm very much aware that I'm not American, the US Presidential Race is a massive event in the Western world.
> 
> People watch the race closely as the decision to elect the leader of the most powerful country in the world is kind of a big deal.



And that, coincidentally, was Donnie's ace in the hole - manipulation of coverage .  Knowing full well that if he took advantage of the fact that news and entertainment are bedfellows in the U.S., he couldn't lose the nomination.  And he didn't, even with no government or policy expertise and deplorable personal values.

I would be very surprised if our rationale for choosing high office political candidates weren't that much more  baffling to the rest of the world now.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 9, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> In all seriousness, how can the Republicans win the election? Hillary outright dies and Pence replaces Trump?


At this point, yeah. 

Or maybe NOW is the time for Paul Ryan to step up and take Pence. All joking aside, that's a ticket I would seriously consider voting for.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 9, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> At this point, yeah.
> 
> *Or maybe NOW is the time for Paul Ryan to step up and take Pence.* All joking aside, that's a ticket I would seriously consider voting for.



Early voting has already begun (which now makes up about 35% of total votes) so the Republican party is stuck with Donnie the Albatross.

That is, unless Trump voluntarily steps down, of course.   :-/:wall:

Or, unless the GOP wants to step into a mind bendingly awful legal minefield.  I'd kind of like to see that, actually.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 9, 2016)

Ballots are printed...but I don't think early voting is going down.  I haven't received my ballot from California yet, or maybe their SecState sucks, which I have no doubt.  I still can't believe we could have had Webb Vs Rubio/Cruz.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 9, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Ballots are printed...but I don't think early voting is going down.  I haven't received my ballot from California yet, or maybe their SecState sucks, which I have no doubt.  I still can't believe we could have had Webb Vs Rubio/Cruz.



Early voting already happening:

9/23/16  Idaho, Minnesota, South Dakota, Vermont
9/24/16  Maine, Maryland, New Jersey
9/29/16  Illinois, Iowa, North Dakota, Wyoming

What to Know About Early Voting for the 2016 Election


----------



## Brill (Oct 9, 2016)




----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 9, 2016)

lindy said:


>



That ^^^^^^^ is a prize winning vid!!


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 9, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> That ^^^^^^^ is a prize winning vid!!


Trump was quoted as saying, "Every male in America has picked up Hillary behind a podium, I never did, but people did, sure, I mean, they HAD to right? They had to. And I think it's deplorable! But yeah, I guess it had to have happened at some point!"


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 9, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Trump was quoted as saying, "Every male in America has picked up Hillary behind a podium, I never did, but people did, sure, I mean, they HAD to right? They had to. And I think it's deplorable! But yeah, I guess it had to have happened at some point!"



With more to come.

Just for grins. How many really think Kaine will be the real VP? You have to know that Bill will be her advisor, and go to for answers. I can't imagine life as an elected VP to Hilary, with Bill living in the house with his "boss". They're going to have to work really hard to find something for elected the VP to do; even harder than ole Joe.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 10, 2016)

So I didn't get a chance to see the whole debate (I got home with about 20 minutes left) and I have been trying to play catch up this morning. 

What I am seeing was basically more of the same- lots of attacks, not a lot of substance. It was pretty interesting to hear Trump threaten Hillary with jail if he wins- which as far as I can tell isn't how the Justice department works, or what political analysts are calling "a good move". 

Coming out of this debate, is there ANY way Trump can pull this off realistically?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 10, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> So I didn't get a chance to see the whole debate (I got home with about 20 minutes left) and I have been trying to play catch up this morning.
> 
> What I am seeing was basically more of the same- lots of attacks, not a lot of substance. It was pretty interesting to hear Trump threaten Hillary with jail if he wins- which as far as I can tell isn't how the Justice department works, or what political analysts are calling "a good move".
> 
> Coming out of this debate, is there ANY way Trump can pull this off realistically?



Yeah, The Donald should have stopped before his personal threat. His prep team needs to hide all the shovels before Trump walks onto the platform. Maybe some remotely triggered electrodes on his scrotum that can be triggered when begins any, "I'll get you" rant.


----------



## compforce (Oct 10, 2016)

That wasn't what I heard...  In context



> Last time at the first debate, we had millions of people fact checking, so I expect we’ll have millions more fact checking, because, you know, it is — it’s just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country.





> You'd be in jail



That doesn't look like a threat that "If I win she'll be in jail"  That is "If I was in office when it happened you would be in jail".  There's a difference there.  My interpretation is that he is saying that the FBI/DoJ wouldn't have dodged the prosecution for political reasons.


----------



## Dame (Oct 10, 2016)

compforce said:


> That wasn't what I heard...  In context
> That doesn't look like a threat that "If I win she'll be in jail"  That is "If I was in office when it happened you would be in jail".  There's a difference there.  My interpretation is that he is saying that the FBI/DoJ wouldn't have dodged the prosecution for political reasons.


Completely agree. It wasn't a threat. I heard, "A justice dept in a Trump administration would not be giving a Clinton a pass on anything."


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 10, 2016)

compforce said:


> That wasn't what I heard...  In context
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That quite conveniently leaves out a huge part of that exchange:

TRUMP: I'll tell you what. I didn't think I'd say this, and I'm going to say it, and hate to say it: If I win, I'm going to instruct the attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation because there's never been so many lies, so much deception … A very expensive process, so we're going to get a special prosecutor because people have been, their lives have been destroyed for doing one-fifth of what you've done. And it's a disgrace, and honestly, you ought to be ashamed.
CLINTON: Let me just talk about emails, because everything he just said is absolutely false. But I'm not surprised … It's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law of our country.
DT: Because you'd be in jail.


----------



## Brill (Oct 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> That quite conveniently leaves out a huge part of that exchange:
> 
> TRUMP: I'll tell you what. I didn't think I'd say this, and I'm going to say it, and hate to say it: If I win, I'm going to instruct the attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation because there's never been so many lies, so much deception … A very expensive process, so we're going to get a special prosecutor because people have been, their lives have been destroyed for doing one-fifth of what you've done. And it's a disgrace, and honestly, you ought to be ashamed.
> CLINTON: Let me just talk about emails, because everything he just said is absolutely false. But I'm not surprised … It's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law of our country.
> DT: Because you'd be in jail.



Are there any former Federal prosecutors saying that Lynch (and Comey) were right? There are a host of them saying there was enough evidence to at least convene a grand jury.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 10, 2016)

Dame said:


> Completely agree. It wasn't a threat. I heard, "A justice dept in a Trump administration would not be giving a Clinton a pass on anything."



I stand corrected.  This is a long link: but down the page, Trump did say it would be through his "Attorney General, and Special Prosecutor, to look into  Clinton's "situation".

Donald Trump's Disastrous Debate

ETA: It still sounds like a threat to me. That said, I'll still back Trump.


----------



## Brill (Oct 10, 2016)

Interesting that this story was dated 3 Oct but there hasn't been a reaction by the Clinton campaign, DOJ, or Obama administraton.

Bill Clinton’s airport run-in with Loretta Lynch was no accident | New York Post


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 10, 2016)

If we learned nothing else about Mrs. Clinton, Benghazi does paint a picture for embassies around the world.

With a Clinton administration, there will be uniformed men at the front door of every embassy.

Under a Trump administration, you will see armed Marines at the front door of every embassy.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 10, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I stand corrected.  This is a long link: but down the page, Trump did say it would be through his "Attorney General, and Special Procecuter, to look into " Clinton's "situation".
> 
> Donald Trump's Disastrous Debate
> 
> ETA: It still sounds like a threat to me. That said, I'll still back Trump.




I don't care WTF he says or does I'll vote for him. Because I'd vote for my freakin dog before I'd _ever_ vote for that hideous hag (and her husband). And she's gonna win, but I don't care. Maybe Paul Ryan will decide to run in four years.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 10, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I stand corrected.  This is a long link: but down the page, Trump did say it would be through his "Attorney General, and Special Procecuter, to look into " Clinton's "situation".
> 
> Donald Trump's Disastrous Debate
> 
> ETA: It still sounds like a threat to me. That said, I'll still back Trump.



Donnie is not a serious or politically professional person, IMO.  



Kellyanne Conway says Trump’s threat to put Clinton in jail was just a ‘quip’


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 10, 2016)

lindy said:


> Are there any former Federal prosecutors saying that Lynch (and Comey) were right? There are a host of them saying there was enough evidence to at least convene a grand jury.



I didn't speculate. I only pointed out that what was posted was selective.


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 10, 2016)

Reporter stating that Secret Service pulled everyone's phones because they didn't trust them to disable their flashes and didn't want to trigger Hillary's "seizure disorder".  If she has one, she just needs to admit it.

Reporter admits Hillary's "seizure disorder" reason why flashes banned by Secret Service.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 10, 2016)

lindy said:


> Interesting that this story was dated 3 Oct but there hasn't been a reaction by the Clinton campaign, DOJ, or Obama administraton.
> 
> Bill Clinton’s airport run-in with Loretta Lynch was no accident | New York Post


That's because it's from a book by Ed  Klein, who pays the bills by printing bull about the Clintons.  This is like his fourth or fifth book about Hillary.

Here's a short list of why Ein's reporting is bad
More Than 30 Reporters From Across The Spectrum Explain Why You Shouldn't Trust Anti-Clinton Author Ed Klein


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 10, 2016)

Meanwhile in Gary Johnson's camp


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 10, 2016)

lindy said:


> Are there any former Federal prosecutors saying that Lynch (and Comey) were right? There are a host of them saying there was enough evidence to at least convene a grand jury.



One of Clinton’s biggest critics in email case says he’d tell Trump not to jail her


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 10, 2016)

Decision time:

 

:-"


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 10, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Decision time:
> 
> View attachment 16840
> 
> :-"



I'm missing the part about "Boasting about sexual predation and assault (for instance)" in the first box of that ballot.

Perhaps I skipped my statin today and am having a mild stroke.  :-/


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 10, 2016)

Thought this editorial at WSJ was spot on.  The link is subscription only, so I am posting the whole post:

Donald Trump’s Last Stand

Beyond its vulgar details, Americans didn’t learn much new about Donald Trump in the video of his sexual boasting with Billy Bush. Anybody paying attention already knew Mr. Trump is crude and loutish and given to crassly judging women by their looks. His exchange with Megyn Kelly of Fox News in the first GOP debate made that clear. Republican voters nominated him despite these risks, and the release of an especially lewd and nasty 11-year-old tape put Mr. Trump’s candidacy in crisis as he faced the second presidential debate Sunday night.

Our email inbox is filled with Republicans saying this is a double standard because while Mr. Trump may talk like a lout, Bill Clinton acts like one and Hillary Clinton enables him. Oh, and Democrats still revere JFK, who was a sexual predator _in the White House_.

This is all true, and it is a bit much to see the same liberals who said Mr. Clinton’s actual exploitation of an intern was merely about sex, or who called Paula Jones trailer trash, now wax indignant about Mr. Trump’s bragging. The same moralists who celebrate misogyny in pop music and a sex-crazed culture are also conveniently outraged by a man who was marinated in that culture before he entered politics.

Yet as a matter of cold political reality these objections don’t matter. Mr. Trump’s behavior is offensive to traditional standards of decent male behavior, and conservatives rightly made the case that “character counts” against Mr. Clinton in the White House.

Even before the tape and his half-apologies, Mr. Trump was underperforming with college-educated Republicans, especially women. The tape may disqualify him with these voters, and more such tapes may surface. Democrats know how to do opposition research, and Mr. Trump’s past is an opponent’s field of dreams.

This is the political reality that Mr. Trump confronted Sunday night, and the question was whether he did enough to repair the damage to his candidacy by asking voters to look past his comments to the larger stakes of the election. On that score he did better on the issues than he did in apologizing.

Mr. Trump was less effective in the first half hour because his apology for the tape seemed too grudging. He also couldn’t resist going after Bill Clinton’s sexual abuses, which didn’t make Mr. Trump look any more presidential. Americans already know about the Clinton deceptions about sex, which is one reason polls show that most Americans don’t want to vote for Hillary. That’s the main—the only—reason Mr. Trump is still within striking distance after his many blunders.

Mr. Trump’s problem is that voters aren’t sure they trust _him_ to sit in the Oval Office. His lack of impulse control, his inability to take criticism, his 3 a.m. Twitter rants and his seeming failure to prepare for debates all reinforce the doubts the Clinton campaign is raising about his immaturity and temperament.

On the issues Mr. Trump was much better prepared on Sunday, and he kept Mrs. Clinton on the defensive on taxes, ObamaCare and her own ethical problems with her private email server. She isn’t any better than Mr. Trump at apologizing, and we’ll bet Mrs. Clinton doesn’t try citing Abraham Lincoln again as a defense of her private versus public persona. Mr. Trump’s riposte about “Honest Abe” exposed the falsity of that answer.

On the other hand Mr. Trump offered up a convoluted mess on Syria, criticizing the Obama Administration for its failures but without any clear idea of what to do about it. He should listen to his running mate, Mike Pence, on the subject instead of disagreeing with him.

The question that will take some time to answer is whether his performance was strong enough to stop the defection of Republicans who have been saying publicly since Friday that he should drop off the ticket in favor of Mr. Pence. We’d prefer Mr. Pence as President too, but this election isn’t about us. It’s about the American public, and millions of voters put Mr. Trump on the ballot. Republicans would find it very difficult to replace Mr. Trump at this late stage of the race unless Mr. Trump agrees to voluntarily recede, and on Saturday he told the Journal there is “zero chance I’ll quit.”

His performance was probably strong enough to reinforce that conviction, but he was falling in the polls even before the tape emerged and he has much ground to make up. If the polls continue to slide, his fellow Republicans will have some difficult choices. They can’t be blamed for breaking from Mr. Trump if that is what their consciences demand or if that is the best path to political survival this year. But they also need Mr. Trump to avoid a free fall if they want their Senate incumbents to win in swing states.

At some point Republicans running for the House and Senate may have to mobilize voters with an argument that they need them as a check on Hillary Clinton. Her domestic agenda is to the left of President Obama’s, and a Nancy Pelosi House would implement it. The next week will decide whether they need to pull that emergency lever.


----------



## compforce (Oct 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I didn't speculate. I only pointed out that what was posted was selective.



I stand corrected.  I missed the first part of that in the cross talk.  I should have gone and found the transcript.  Mea Culpa.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 10, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Thought this editorial at WSJ was spot on.  The link is subscription only, so I am posting the whole post:
> 
> Donald Trump’s Last Stand
> 
> ...




How in the hell are they going to beat Clinton if they pull all backing from Trump, (which is what they always do with their candidates) and stand up a new candidate at this point in the game. They either back Trump, or roll up the carpet, pick up their toys and congratulate Clinton on her win at the start of debate III.


----------



## Brill (Oct 10, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> That's because it's from a book by Ed  Klein, who pays the bills by printing bull about the Clintons.  This is like his fourth or fifth book about Hillary.
> 
> Here's a short list of why Ein's reporting is bad
> More Than 30 Reporters From Across The Spectrum Explain Why You Shouldn't Trust Anti-Clinton Author Ed Klein



So everyone is just blowing it off? No lawsuits for liable?


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 10, 2016)

lindy said:


> So everyone is just blowing it off? No lawsuits for liable?


It's more difficult for a politician to prove libel than, say, an ordinary citizen.  The threshold is much higher.  I would also say that taking someone to court for libel would be very distracting to their campaign, and probably not worth it.


----------



## AWP (Oct 10, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Our email inbox is filled with Republicans saying this is a double standard because while Mr. Trump may talk like a lout, Bill Clinton acts like one and Hillary Clinton enables him. Oh, and Democrats still revere JFK, who was a sexual predator _in the White House_.
> 
> This is all true, and it is a bit much to see the same liberals who said Mr. Clinton’s actual exploitation of an intern was merely about sex, or who called Paula Jones trailer trash, now wax indignant about Mr. Trump’s bragging. The same moralists who celebrate misogyny in pop music and a sex-crazed culture are also conveniently outraged by a man who was marinated in that culture before he entered politics.
> 
> Yet as a matter of cold political reality these objections don’t matter. Mr. Trump’s behavior is offensive to traditional standards of decent male behavior, and conservatives rightly made the case that “character counts” against Mr. Clinton in the White House.



I can't stand Trump, but this hypocritical behavior in sickening. "Oh yeah, other presidents did it, but Trump..." Neither side has the moral character to let any issue stand on its own. They drag out comparisons to justify/ attack the other side instead of owning up to their bad behavior. This tactic wouldn't fly in a high school debate, but on a national stage adults not only practice it, but revel in its execution.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 10, 2016)

^^^ And one of those sides or the other* will be politically leading the country in a short amount of time.  Disturbing.


*Really, just one side at this point.  But, like Mr. Rogers said, sometimes its fun for boys and girls to pretend.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 10, 2016)

I thought when Trump threatened HRC with jail it was disturbing on an intellectual level - but I think if that kind of decorum/tradition/civic engagement shit gets to you this election cycle has already driven you insane.

What stuck with me was thinking about a Fresh Air interview I listened to the other day (transcript: Journalist Says Trump Foundation May Have Engaged In 'Self-Dealing') in which a reporter who's done a lot of work on Trump's charitable giving (or rather lack thereof) summarized a lot of the findings and questions.  It left me with the distinct impression Trump could be facing the specter of jail time if he's not the President as scrutiny of his finances has started to pull back the curtain on some exceptionally shady, and likely illegal activities.

Will be ironic if Trump's red meat lines to the base about HRC belonging in jail - and political scientists hand-wringing about jailing your opponents - turns out to actually apply to him.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 11, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> I thought when Trump threatened HRC with jail it was _*disturbing on an intellectual level... *_



Both candidates, most presidential campaigns, 97% of the media talking heads and much of the American population are disturbing to me on an intellectual level. The only way I can cope is to hit the _DIVE_ button on my humor submarine and run deep through the gutter with the rest of them.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 11, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> How in the hell are they going to beat Clinton if they pull all backing from Trump, (which is what they always do with their candidates) and stand up a new candidate at this point in the game. They either back Trump, or roll up the carpet, pick up their toys and congratulate Clinton on her win at the start of debate III.



I think they need to back Trump 100% until the last precinct in the last state closes on Nov 8.  At that time, knowing it is _likely_ that HRC will win, I would be as utterly obstructionist as I could be.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 11, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I think they need to back Trump 100% until the last precinct in the last state closes on Nov 8.  At that time, knowing it is _likely_ that HRC will win, I would be as utterly obstructionist as I could be.



Today's voters are media driven. The bulk of the media has been obama/Clinton supportive. That said, Clinton will likely prevail; and I hate the reason behind it all.



Il Duce said:


> I thought when Trump threatened HRC with jail it was disturbing on an intellectual level - but I think if that kind of decorum/tradition/civic engagement shit gets to you this election cycle has already driven you insane.
> 
> What stuck with me was thinking about a Fresh Air interview I listened to the other day (transcript: Journalist Says Trump Foundation May Have Engaged In 'Self-Dealing') in which a reporter who's done a lot of work on Trump's charitable giving (or rather lack thereof) summarized a lot of the findings and questions.  It left me with the distinct impression Trump could be facing the specter of jail time if he's not the President as scrutiny of his finances has started to pull back the curtain on some exceptionally shady, and likely illegal activities.
> 
> Will be ironic if Trump's red meat lines to the base about HRC belonging in jail - and political scientists hand-wringing about jailing your opponents - turns out to actually apply to him.



No Clinton enemy has every gotten off without severe personal damage. She will do to Trump, what Trump said he will do to her. 

We are living in a dangerous world, at a dangerous time. That should be the focus of whoever is POTUS. I just don't believe Clinton has a handle on the world threats.


----------



## Single Malt (Oct 11, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> Reporter stating that Secret Service pulled everyone's phones because they didn't trust them to disable their flashes and didn't want to trigger Hillary's "seizure disorder".  If she has one, she just needs to admit it.
> 
> Reporter admits Hillary's "seizure disorder" reason why flashes banned by Secret Service.


Seems like they missed Ken Bone's disposable camera, it didn't trigger any seizure but rest assured, we can go to sleep well tonight that tin foil wearing men will keep spreading this bullshit forever. 

http://jalopnik.com/what-does-ken-bone-drive-1787617800



Red Flag 1 said:


> No Clinton enemy has every gotten off without severe personal damage. She will do to Trump, what Trump said he will do to her.


Are you referring to the whole throwing her jail comment? Correct me if I am wrong but the president can't use the justice department to eliminate political adversaries. Then again, in Trump's head, our laws ought to be closer to those of the CCCP then our beloved constitution.


----------



## compforce (Oct 11, 2016)

Single Malt said:


> Correct me if I am wrong but the president can't use the justice department to eliminate political adversaries.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



for some reason the site insists on that being a subquote....sorry


----------



## Single Malt (Oct 11, 2016)

compforce said:


> for some reason the site insists on that being a subquote....sorry


So because Obama abuses his powers, it's OK for Trump to threaten to do the same?


----------



## compforce (Oct 11, 2016)

Single Malt said:


> So because Obama abuses his powers, it's OK for Trump to threaten to do the same?



That's not what I said.  You made an incorrect statement and I called it out.  I never said it was good for either side to do it.


----------



## Single Malt (Oct 11, 2016)

compforce said:


> That's not what I said.  You made an incorrect statement and I called it out.  I never said it was good for either side to do it.


Got it, thanks for the links, I was aware of the IRS stuff but didn't know DoJ's involvement. 

At the end of the day, Clinton win or lose will live the rest of her life free and in the public sphere, even if it isn't holding an office (as most don't serve the office), through their foundation. Too bad Hitchens isn't around to write another book similar to his _Trial of Henry Kissinger_ on Hillary.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 11, 2016)

Many presidents and other elected officials have used the justice department to do their bidding with regard to political enemies.  It wasn't OK for them, and it wouldn't be OK for Trump.  But whether is _has_ been done or _can_ be done is separate from the argument of _should _it be done (which of course is 'no').


----------



## Totentanz (Oct 11, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Many presidents and other elected officials have used the justice department to do their bidding with regard to political enemies.  It wasn't OK for them, and it wouldn't be OK for Trump.  But whether is _has_ been done or _can_ be done is separate from the argument of _should _it be done (which of course is 'no').



That's more or less how the Game of Thrones is played in this world.  Even in this "civilized" society, the act of using the instruments of power to retain personal grasp on that power is alive and well.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 11, 2016)

@Single Malt you might want to take those articles and their sourcing with a grain of salt.


----------



## Single Malt (Oct 11, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> @Single Malt you might want to take those articles and their sourcing with a grain of salt.


Yes. A lot of articles these days that sum up to "even though there is no proof for the any of our claims, let's speculate as if there were". I appreciate your note.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 11, 2016)

Single Malt said:


> Are you referring to the whole throwing her jail comment? Correct me if I am wrong but the president can't use the justice department to eliminate political adversaries. Then again, in Trump's head, our laws ought to be closer to those of the CCCP then our beloved constitution.



First the CCCP: I'm not sure where you are coming from with that observation.

POTUS-V-Personal vendetta. Neither Clinton or Trump can initiate actions on a personal basis. Both will develop a criminal investigation regarding alleged criminal actions. I thought just about everyone would have that level of basic understanding, and insight.


----------



## Single Malt (Oct 11, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> First the CCCP: I'm not sure where you are coming from with that observation.
> 
> POTUS-V-Personal vendata. Neither Clinton or Trump can initiate actions on a personal basis. Both wiill develope a criminal investigation regarding alleged criminal actions. I thought just about everone would have that level of basic understanding, and insight.


So the president will address an agency, say the FBI, and based on the said agency's recommendation, the alleged criminal would be charged in court, or not. Is that the kind of basic understanding you are talking about? My insight says that this was done already and Clinton isn't in jail.


----------



## compforce (Oct 11, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> @Single Malt you might want to take those articles and their sourcing with a grain of salt.



I was careful to go with either reputable media or middle of the road media that used links/citations to reputable media in their reporting.  There was a huge infowars article on it, but Alex Jones is not very credible in my eyes even though his article fully supported my position.

I'm pretty sure Forbes and the Wall Street Journal are still credible sources.


----------



## Single Malt (Oct 11, 2016)

compforce said:


> I was careful to go with either reputable media or middle of the road media that used links/citations to reputable media in their reporting.  There was a huge infowars article on it, but Alex Jones is not very credible in my eyes even though his article fully supported my position.
> 
> I'm pretty sure Forbes and the Wall Street Journal are still credible sources.


I appreciate you not citing Alex Jones, but I personally wouldn't cite a FoxNews Opinion piece either. Regardless, providing those articles let me know my need to read up on the topic a bit more.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 11, 2016)

Single Malt said:


> So the president will address an agency, say the FBI, and based on the said agency's recommendation, the alleged criminal would be charged in court, or not. Is that the kind of basic understanding you are talking about? My insight says that this was done already and Clinton isn't in jail.



The FBI is not the only agency that can initiate, and conduct an investigation. In the case of President Richard Nixion, it was a Special Prosecuter, with big bushy eyebrows,  that looked into the Watergate breakin and cover up. That said, the FBI does what it does, but is not the only tool that an administration has to work with. The tools that Mr. Trump mentioned in the last debate are correct and proper choices to conduct a criminal investigation.


----------



## Brill (Oct 11, 2016)

Single Malt said:


> So because Obama abuses his powers, it's OK for Trump to threaten to do the same?



"When the President does it, it's not illegal."


----------



## Single Malt (Oct 11, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> The FBI is not the only agency that can initiate, and conduct an investigation. In the case of President Richard Nixion, it was a Special Prosecuter, with big bushy eyebrows,  that looked into the Watergate breakin and cover up. That said, the FBI does what it does, but is not the only tool that an administration has to work with. The tools that Mr. Trump mentioned in the last debate are correct and proper choices to conduct a criminal investigation.


Well, good job to him for getting one thing right, regardless, I am glad he won't be president, but not happy that HRC will be. 

The CCCP reference was about Stalin and how he used erase his opponents or friends who got too popular for his taste.



lindy said:


> "When the President does it, it's not illegal."


Frost got under his skin pretty well, not sure if Nixon ever regretted saying that line.


----------



## Brill (Oct 11, 2016)

The GOP is in a civil war and the consequences could never be higher. This infighting will cost us all three branches of government.

I'm going to fix a drink and buy more SWHC while I can.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 11, 2016)

Yeah, the bottom line for me on this one is that (I think) we would all agree the president using DOJ or any other LE entity illegally to settle a personal score is wrong and unethical, regardless of what mental gymnastics/rationalization you go through to justify it. Sitting presidents shouldn't have done it, and if that can be proven they should pay whatever penalty is appropriate.

But Donald Trump is not a sitting president. It's not a joke, it wasn't sarcastic, so stop playing the "Trump was joking! He didn't mean it for real." bullshit. That card was already played with the Russian hacker invite, and the crying baby at his rally nonsense, and with the Clinton/2nd Amendment people" doing something" about her, or when he made fun of a disabled reporter (and later said he wasn't, even though he has one of the "all time great memories). 

A candidate for presidency openly threatened the person he was running against with jail time if he was elected because he personally (again, the FBI brought no charges) believes she is guilty of a crime. I have to believe that Trump has no "insider information" that the FBI does/did, and probably has little more than the average American, honestly. 

I feel like there are no more excuses that can be made for this guy. I also feel that people trying to rationalize his behavior at this point are on the wrong side of history.


----------



## Single Malt (Oct 11, 2016)

SWHC has been going down for the last three months, around $5 per less now than it was in July. So good time to by but going further back shows the possibility that it may keep slipping. 

 

The Republican politicians (and Trump) are making it hard to be a Republican.


----------



## Brill (Oct 11, 2016)

@amlove21 , do you think the Russians hacked these emails AFTER Trump asked someone to find the Clinton email?

After all the subpoenas, people in the Clinton camp STILL have email archived?

Finally, I understood Trump to say he would appoint a prosecutor to look into her handling of her private server, emails, obstruction, etc. Did he say he would put her in jail or that she would be in jail?



Single Malt said:


> SWHC has been going down for the last three months, around $5 per less now than it was in July. So good time to by but going further back shows the possibility that it may keep slipping.
> 
> View attachment 16846
> 
> The Republican politicians (and Trump) are making it hard to be a Republican.



I was in at $9 and will be getting more in anticipation of the surge coming 9 Nov.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 11, 2016)

Bottom line is, don't lose sleep over any of this horseshit. _All you can do is vote._ Once you do that it's outta your hands. Then you go back to paying your bills and dealing with everyday personal shit in your life and hope the motherfucker in the White House doesn't cost you too much money or hit the nuke button. Cheers.


----------



## Brill (Oct 11, 2016)

I'd rather have a POTUS talk about women than intelligence sources and methods.


----------



## compforce (Oct 11, 2016)

lindy said:


> I was in at $9 and will be getting more in anticipation of the surge coming 9 Nov.



You've got it backwards...  The surge in retail won't affect the stock price nearly as much as the already declared regulations.  I expect a selloff of SWHC if Hillary is elected.  Maybe on a day trade basis for a day or two, but as a buy and hold I think it's a wrong move.  And yes, I put my money where my mouth is...  I bought a put for kicks yesterday that I will hold until after the election:


----------



## Brill (Oct 11, 2016)

compforce said:


> You've got it backwards...  The surge in retail won't affect the stock price nearly as much as the already declared regulations.  I expect a selloff of SWHC if Hillary is elected.  Maybe on a day trade basis for a day or two, but as a buy and hold I think it's a wrong move.  And yes, I put my money where my mouth is...  I bought a put for kicks yesterday that I will hold until after the election:
> 
> View attachment 16851



SWHC was around $3 when Obama was elected  and when there was talk recently of a potential EO on gun restrictions, it popped again because retailers couldn't keep guns on the shelves.  I expect it to climb when Hillary occupies the WH and right before any legislation to restrict firearms.  Once the regulation hits gun manufactures, it'll crash.

Totally agree on the buy & hold though and for that, I'm slowly maneuvering for the Dec rate increase and the impeding fire sale.  My plan is to stock up (pun intended) on BP, any telecom, and more Cisco.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 11, 2016)

lindy said:


> I'd rather have a POTUS talk about women than intelligence sources and methods.



I like the video^^^^^^, and I understand it is Fox spin; I get that. It is worth a few minutes to take in some of the other videos  speaking to Trump's response to the second question of the debate. Take note too, that the "moderators " kept the pressure on Trump. The first question was a softball lob to Clinton. I think Trump did rather well in the second debate.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 11, 2016)

lindy said:


> @amlove21 , do you think the Russians hacked these emails AFTER Trump asked someone to find the Clinton email?
> 
> After all the subpoenas, people in the Clinton camp STILL have email archived?
> 
> Finally, I understood Trump to say he would appoint a prosecutor to look into her handling of her private server, emails, obstruction, etc. Did he say he would put her in jail or that she would be in jail?


Alright, be honest with us. Are you _that _die hard of a republican, is Trump a mentor of yours, what? Is there some running bet on whom can be more of a poe regarding Trump that you're winning, hands down?

RE: Russia- there is no way of knowing anything other than any American trying to be the POTUS should not invite Russia to hack the former SECSTATE's email because he's getting beat in an election. Is there any reality where that's ok? Is your contention that "there isn't anything left to hack" and "they were probably doing it already" are good enough excuses? That's just fucking ridiculous. 

RE: Jailing Clinton- dude. Come on. Please tell me that because Trump didn't say the words "I will put you in jail, Hillary Rodham Clinton, illegally, when I am elected president" that you're going to rationalize that exchange in that manner. 

How about this- 

_*"Trump*: Yeah, that’s her, with the gold. I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. I just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

*Unidentified voice*: Whatever you want.

*Trump*: Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."_

I wasn't thinking of you specifically when I made my "wrong side of history" comment earlier, but you've demonstrated that allusion perfectly.


----------



## AWP (Oct 11, 2016)

I just renamed my fantasy football team to "Grab Them by the..."


----------



## compforce (Oct 11, 2016)

lindy said:


> SWHC was around $3 when Obama was elected  and when there was talk recently of a potential EO on gun restrictions, it popped again because retailers couldn't keep guns on the shelves.  I expect it to climb when Hillary occupies the WH and right before any legislation to restrict firearms.  Once the regulation hits gun manufactures, it'll crash.
> 
> Totally agree on the buy & hold though and for that, I'm slowly maneuvering for the Dec rate increase and the impeding fire sale.  My plan is to stock up (pun intended) on BP, any telecom, and more Cisco.



To take advantage of the rate increase, which will definitely happen in Dec, I'm moving into all short positions except for some very short term winners.  BTW, if you REALLY want to make some cash, take a look at the Jan 17 put options on SPY.  They're still a reasonable price, you can buy a contract controlling 100 shares for about $480 at 2050 (S&P 500).  That should be easy money for the first of next year.  If you have the cash, you could also buy the SPX 2100 put option for JUL 17 for about $10,400 a contract and if the market does what we expect you should be able to cash out at a nice profit if it gets in the money.  The blue line is the value at expiration, the purple is the estimated value if you sell before expiration (based on today).  The red hash on the purple line is roughly today's price. (it's actually the breakeven price, today's price is the little orange hash next to the breakeven).  If you haven't traded options before, talk to me before you place that trade.


----------



## Brill (Oct 12, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Alright, be honest with us. Are you _that _die hard of a republican, is Trump a mentor of yours, what? Is there some running bet on whom can be more of a poe regarding Trump that you're winning, hands down?
> 
> RE: Russia- there is no way of knowing anything other than any American trying to be the POTUS should not invite Russia to hack the former SECSTATE's email because he's getting beat in an election. Is there any reality where that's ok? Is your contention that "there isn't anything left to hack" and "they were probably doing it already" are good enough excuses? That's just fucking ridiculous.
> 
> ...



I think we should be as objective as possible.

Re hack: my point that it (Podesta, et al) was most likely done BEFORE Trump was even a candidate. There was even testimony from Clinton's inner circle to avoid gmail because words were compromised before 2010. I'm willing to bet it was simply a brut force password attack specific email accounts. Additionally, according to press, the only thing that has been attributed to Russia is attempted hacks of voter registrations in some states. If the Russians REALLY hacked her shit, do you think they would just post the silly crap that's out there or go for the death blow?

Re jail: I'm simply asserting that he plans on asking his AG for a special prosecutor. He doesn't have the authority or power to jail anyone yet the media spins BS and apparently many people are buying it. Very much akin to his wall building tales and Mexico paying for it (very doubtful either will really happen). Sure Obama has used the DOJ for allies and against political opponents but we should assume (and assume) it was an isolated incident(s).

I'm not understanding your last part. I assume you're not a Trump backer because he's a potty mouth or that he's an idiot?

Why are you not advocating for/against a candidate's stance on X?

I simply cannot vote for Clinton because of her handling of classified material, her "pay-for-play", and more importantly, her liberal politics, which I believe she would sell out in a heartbeat (Tpp, Keystone, etc).

I like Trump for what he stands for (free market, economic growth, and individual freedoms) vice who he IS. Personally, I think if elected, he would be devastated at the reality of his decision of sending men into combat only to return in a flag draped coffin. I think he would be haunted by the responsibility like Bush is now. Conversely, I think Clinton would not fully appreciate the gravity and doubt she would ever show emotion. I guess we will see.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 12, 2016)

lindy said:


> I think we should be as objective as possible.
> 
> 
> I like Trump for what he stands for (free market, economic growth, and individual freedoms) vice who he IS. *Personally, I think if elected, he would be devastated at the reality of his decision of sending men into combat only to return in a flag draped coffin. I think he would be haunted by the responsibility like Bush is now. Conversely, I think Clinton would not fully appreciate the gravity and doubt she would ever show emotion. I guess we will see. *



You literally guessed at _how Trump and Clinton would feel making foreign policy decisions in the future and favored Trump because you think he might feel bad_? That's not objective, and it's not based on policy. It's based on who you think Trump IS, and who you think Hillary IS. You're taking the public persona the "biased news media" you so dislike displays and you're making an assumption on two people you've never met, reacting to a hypothetical situation you have no experience with (other than being the guy who gets sent by the President).   

You can like whoever you want for whatever reason, I honestly don't care about your personal choices as far as the election is concerned, it doesn't actually impact my life in any way until you voice those opinions in public.

The issue with Trump (and Clinton) supporters at this point is that they're all doing the adult equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and screaming "BUTBUTBUT THEY DID THIS" no matter what their candidate does. It's not a clear examination and comparison of policy and work record. More and more emails come out detailing the breadth of Hillary's email issue? All good. Just scream that Trump is a misogynist. Trump says whatever thinly-veiled (there are too many examples here) thing he's going to say this week or another video comes out? No problem. Just shout how Hillary is a criminal at the top of your lungs. Let's race to the bottom.  

We all bemoan "the system" for our political trouble, I am beginning to think that it might be the people, not the system. We complain about bi-partisan mudslinging one day and revel in the filth the next.

In the end, it's all good if you truly believe your candidate is gonna make America great again. Just don't piss on me and tell me it's raining, and be careful to whom you're hitching your wagon. It says something about you.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 12, 2016)

There's an Onion headline I remember reading that was something like "shallow, uninformed, narcissistic electorate gets congress that represents them perfectly."


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 12, 2016)

This is my favorite. Basically sums a hundred stupid threads we had on here. Fits well in this thread moving forward as well. 

Obama frantically working to confiscate guns, institute Sharia, and turn military against its own citizens


----------



## Single Malt (Oct 12, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> This is my favorite. Basically sums a hundred stupid threads we had on here. Fits well in this thread moving forward as well.
> 
> Obama frantically working to confiscate guns, institute Sharia, and turn military against its own citizens


I hope no one posts that article on social media or Trump will take it as factual news!


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 12, 2016)

To sum up everything it seems we need an advocate for The Rock, everyone, vote Dwayne Johnson.


----------



## Snake (Oct 12, 2016)

This isn't a good sign...
Putin ally tells Americans: vote Trump or face nuclear war


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 12, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> This is my favorite. Basically sums a hundred stupid threads we had on here. Fits well in this thread moving forward as well.
> 
> Obama frantically working to confiscate guns, institute Sharia, and turn military against its own citizens



And here I thought the caption would rear,"Damit! I think the prune juice is about to kick in. How much time do I have right now?".


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 12, 2016)

Snake said:


> This isn't a good sign...
> Putin ally tells Americans: vote Trump or face nuclear war



Clinton described as "an evil mother-in-law."  Well, he got that right.

The rest...I don't know, man......


----------



## Brill (Oct 12, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> You literally guessed at _how Trump and Clinton would feel making foreign policy decisions in the future and favored Trump because you think he might feel bad_? That's not objective, and it's not based on policy. It's based on who you think Trump IS, and who you think Hillary IS. You're taking the public persona the "biased news media" you so dislike displays and you're making an assumption on two people you've never met, reacting to a hypothetical situation you have no experience with (other than being the guy who gets sent by the President).
> 
> You can like whoever you want for whatever reason, I honestly don't care about your personal choices as far as the election is concerned, it doesn't actually impact my life in any way until you voice those opinions in public.
> 
> ...



Yes, you accurately read and fully understood my post perfectly and articulated your points in favor of your candidate so succinctly that I can now clearly see the error of my judgment.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 12, 2016)

We interrupt this presidential thread for a brief musical interlude:


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 13, 2016)

From JR Webb (James Webb's Son:

" How many reading this have been around a fraternity, have brothers, or have been in the military? How many women own _50 Shades of Grey_? It wasn’t as if he was joking around with Churchill at the Yalta Conference and this slipped into the media via a hot-mic and embarrassed the nation.  Nor, was he impeached for lying about extra-marital affairs inside the oval office, which actually is a national embarrassment."


Don’t Vote On Private Comments. Vote On The Issues.

Pretty good read, I just wish most folks would pull their heads from the sand.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 13, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> From JR Webb (James Webb's Son:
> 
> " How many reading this have been around a fraternity, have brothers, or have been in the military? How many women own _50 Shades of Grey_? It wasn’t as if he was joking around with Churchill at the Yalta Conference and this slipped into the media via a hot-mic and embarrassed the nation.  Nor, was he impeached for lying about extra-marital affairs inside the oval office, which actually is a national embarrassment."
> 
> ...



Despite being in the military, I never walked up and grabbed a chick by her pussy, you know because that is sexual assault? I also wouldn't brag about it, if I did it or didn't do it, because, you know, I'm not a fucking shitbag. 

His comments speak to his demeanor. He is a fucking shitbag.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 13, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Despite being in the military, I never walked up and grabbed a chick by her pussy, you know because that is sexual assault? I also wouldn't brag about it, if I did it or didn't do it, because, you know, I'm not a fucking shitbag.
> 
> His comments speak to his demeanor. He is a fucking shitbag.


Yet we've all met plenty of shitbags in our career.  But that's not the point JR Webb is making.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 13, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Despite being in the military, I never walked up and grabbed a chick by her pussy, you know because that is sexual assault? I also wouldn't brag about it, if I did it or didn't do it, because, you know, I'm not a fucking shitbag.
> 
> His comments speak to his demeanor. He is a fucking shitbag.



You keep it up and the Donald is going to grab you by the pussy...:wall:

I totally agree though, not very presidential, regardless of how long ago it was or the context of the discussion.  This is by far the worst election I have witnessed yet, and I really thought it was bad when Kerry told everyone if you can't read you will end up in Iraq...:wall:


----------



## Brill (Oct 13, 2016)

This latest "junk" (pun intended) about Trump, if true, is terrible. If it's not true, it's terrible.

Our presidential campaign process has become a Jerry Springer show.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 13, 2016)

The Democrats and a large majority of the media would've tried to nail _any_ GOP candidate...but, my God, Trump has made it so easy for them. I'll still vote for him if only to delude myself that I've sent a message to President-elect Clinton that her landslide wasn't entirely uncontested.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 13, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Yet we've all met plenty of shitbags in our career.  But that's not the point JR Webb is making.



His demeanor affects my view of any policy he may or may not enact. He is a dirtbag.

How Donald Trump’s and his campaign’s own words are coming back to bite them

Literally lol


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 13, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> His demeanor affects my view of any policy he may or may not enact. He is a dirtbag.



I agree, and I say the same regarding HRC.  Hence my conundrum.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 13, 2016)

Trump is a big-mouthed, uncouth, sexist billionaire. Hillary (and Bill, who lied to a Federal Grand Jury), are liars, manipulators, quite possibly crooks, and Bill is also a confirmed sexist. Dirtbag Trump may be, but the pot calling the kettle black is as black as the kettle. Either way you look at it, it's a national disgrace.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 13, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Trump is a big-mouthed, uncouth, sexist billionaire. Hillary (and Bill, who lied to a Federal Grand Jury), are liars, manipulators, quite possibly crooks, and Bill is also a confirmed sexist. Dirtbag Trump may be, but the pot calling the kettle black is as black as the kettle.



Seriously here, is Bill running for president? Trump would be president if he won, Bill wouldn't be.


----------



## Brill (Oct 13, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Seriously here, is Bill running for president?



Sure he won't be on the ballot but he will apparently influence domestic policy (at least).

Hillary Clinton says she'll put Bill 'in charge' of fixing economy

EDIT: a  little fun fact I just read - during President Clinton's reign, he has repeatedly been credited with balancing the budget and creating a "surplus".  When one actually gets into the details, the "surplus" was public debt and not borrowing against social security by Federal Agencies within the government.

In other words, as a Nation, we had $100 bucks in our savings account but we were still using our credit cards to "pay" our car payment and then record the loan from the CC's as "income".

Huh?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 13, 2016)

Wait a minute


TLDR20 said:


> His demeanor affects my view of any policy he may or may not enact. He is a dirtbag.



Which one is he...there are distinct differences between shitbag and dirtbag


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 13, 2016)

lindy said:


> Sure he won't be on the ballot but he will apparently influence domestic policy (at least).
> 
> Hillary Clinton says she'll put Bill 'in charge' of fixing economy



So we have one guy, who bragged about assaulting women, versus a woman who stayed with her philandering husband.

Or we have one person accused of rape and another accused of sexual assault. One is actually running for president.


----------



## Brill (Oct 14, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> So we have one guy, who bragged about assaulting women, versus a woman who stayed with her philandering husband.
> 
> Or we have one person accused of rape and another accused of sexual assault. One is actually running for president.



I think each candidate's choice of inner circle confidants shows a little about themselves. I think the "talking heads" have indicated Christie could be tapped for AG and Gen Flynn for something in Intel (DNI, DCI, DIRNSA, etc).

Regarding the allegations against Trump, I, and many other voters, do wonder why at least 5 women have come forward within 24 hrs but either remained silent for years or their lawsuits never gained traction. During the GOP's vetting process, this was either buried, ignored, etc or the investigators just missed it? The other GOP candidates' own investigators missed it too?

In Bill Clinton's case, it was widely known in Arkansas that he had a wondering eye and many editors hit him hard on it (especially small town papers in conservative areas...Arkansas isn't a liberal state by any means). I raise this point merely to opine that, if Trump is in fact a sexual predator as claimed by FLOTUS, there will certainly be more. Even if the allegations are true, some voters will probably move to Clinton or a third party candidate but I think many will see it as just a smear. After all, the NYT has a history of making stuff up (RE: Mcain 2008).

Both candidates are going after the independents since their base appears to be diehard fans.

True or not, the damage is done. If the allegations turn out to be false but it sinks his candidacy anyway, Clinton would be elected in part due to a falsehood?  What would that say about our campaign process?

C'mon 9 Nov 2016!!!!!!!


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 14, 2016)

At this point, I don't give a shit what he said.  He is a dirtbag.  I am going to vote for him.  I don't give a shit what HRC said or did.  She is a dirtbag.  In any case, we have Iran wanting to play footsies with the US Navy, Russia thinking we're on the verge of a nuclear exchange, and one of these two clowns is going to have to deal with it.


----------



## Brill (Oct 14, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> At this point, I don't give a shit what he said.  He is a dirtbag.  I am going to vote for him.  I don't give a shit what HRC said or did.  She is a dirtbag.  In any case, we have Iran wanting to play footsies with the US Navy, Russia thinking we're on the verge of a nuclear exchange, and one of these two clowns is going to have to deal with it.



Do you know anyone who's undecided or on the fence? (I haven't yet.) It seems this campaign has really polarized and divided the Nation.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 14, 2016)

lindy said:


> I think each candidate's choice of inner circle confidants shows a little about themselves. I think the "talking heads" have indicated Christie could be tapped for AG and Gen Flynn for something in Intel (DNI, DCI, DIRNSA, etc).
> 
> Regarding the allegations against Trump, I, and many other voters, do wonder why at least 5 women have come forward within 24 hrs but either remained silent for years or their lawsuits never gained traction. During the GOP's vetting process, this was either buried, ignored, etc or the investigators just missed it? The other GOP candidates' own investigators missed it too?
> 
> ...




Breakdown of events: 

Trump flip-flops on whether women’s sexual allegations should be believed


----------



## Brill (Oct 14, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Breakdown of events:
> 
> Trump flip-flops on whether women’s sexual allegations should be believed



Damn, I can't read it and can't find the story elsewhere. I did see a case where Trump is being sued in a case (already thrown out twice before) and will be deposed under oath in Dec.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 14, 2016)

lindy said:


> Do you know anyone who's undecided or on the fence? (I haven't yet.) It seems this campaign has really polarized and divided the Nation.



No.  I have talked to a lot of people from neo-con to whacky leftists.  I asked if any of this (or Wikileaks) will affect their vote, to a person, the answer was "no."


----------



## Brill (Oct 14, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> No.  I have talked to a lot of people from neo-con to whacky leftists.  I asked if any of this (or Wikileaks) will affect their vote, to a person, the answer was "no."



Same exact experience. If things like this, which are not allegations at all but factual content, are discounted then we may very likely be in for an interesting ride.






intersting Google trends.

Google Trends

US wide

https://googletrends.github.io/search-election-realtime/


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 14, 2016)

For me there seems to be a lot of supporters of Hillary that find Trump's language worse than Hillary's action.  That Hillary has been tied to scandals and crimes for almost the entire time she has been in Public life.


----------



## Ohge (Oct 14, 2016)

I'm bringing him back, 20 years in hiding.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 14, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Seriously here, is Bill running for president? Trump would be president if he won, Bill wouldn't be.



True.

But Bill is a former two-term President back in the White House again and I'd be naive to think he wouldn't be involved in day-to-day decisions. And since she's already said he'll be handling the economy (an unheard of assignment for a First Spouse), one can assume they will continue the partnership they've adhered to since his days as governor. They are together a package. A vote for her is also a vote for Bill's involvement in major issues, even if he hangs in the background...which I think is impossible for him to do given his personality.

The airport in Little Rock isn't named for Bill or Hillary Clinton. It's named for Bill _*and *_Hillary Clinton.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 14, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> For me there seems to be a lot of supporters of Hillary that find Trump's language worse than Hillary's action.  That Hillary has been tied to scandals and crimes for almost the entire time she has been in Public life.



Why does it have to be Zero Sum?


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 15, 2016)

After crawling out of my self-imposed election news quarantine, I've finally gotten around to everything that's happened in the last week.  And after reading the new state polling data, I'm gonna revise my prediction from earlier.

Previously (10/4): Clinton 322 EV ±5, popular +3.8%  ±0.5%
Now (10/15): Clinton 331 EV ± 6, popular +5.5% ±0.7%
I'll even put it in my sig for accountability.

Any gains that Trump may have made from the debate seem to be have been completely overshadowed by his hot mic comments, as well as the accusations that have been leveled against him by women who worked with him.  Suffice it to say, he's having a very bad week.


----------



## Brill (Oct 15, 2016)

@Deathy McDeath , if Clinton gets 331 electoral votes, I think we will see our own Maidan Square.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 15, 2016)

Yepp....:wall:


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 15, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Yepp....:wall:
> 
> View attachment 16867



Everyday America isn't running for POTUS.

  It's a bizarre election and I have also ignored recent coverage, though, so it's possible that I may be wrong about that.  

Is Donnie still trying to make arguments from authority?  Alienating heads of his own party and major player donors?   Spending far less on his campaign than his opponent?


----------



## Gunz (Oct 15, 2016)

You have to give credit to the muckrakers who've dug up all these women and convinced them (or paid them) to come clean just weeks before the election. One wonders why they didn't file sexual harassment lawsuits against Trump years ago if they were so upset at his behavior.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 15, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> You have to give credit to the muckrakers who've dug up all these women and convinced them (or paid them) to come clean just weeks before the election. One wonders why they didn't file sexual harassment lawsuits against Trump years ago if they were so upset at his behavior.



Yeah let's blame victims.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 15, 2016)

Who's blaming, it's a valid statement. It's the same as wondering why someone brought a malpractice suit against you, 20 years from now, with nothing to show other than "he touched me inappropriately" on their word. Use some realistic perspective instead of your rose colored sunglasses bud.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 15, 2016)

Fewer than 4 in 10 sexual assault victims report it.  

There is a stigma around sexual violence and assault in this country.  Our society very often reacts with skepticism and suspicion; Donnie's hideous reaction to the allegations is really nothing unusual.  

Women who were assaulted by him continued to come forward because there is strength in numbers, especially where a perpetrator with power and influence is concerned.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 15, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> Who's blaming, it's a valid statement. It's the same as wondering why someone brought a malpractice suit against you, 20 years from now, with nothing to show other than "he touched me inappropriately" on their word. Use some realistic perspective instead of your rose colored sunglasses bud.



One of the problems with that, is who do you choose to believe?


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 15, 2016)

lindy said:


> @Deathy McDeath , if Clinton gets 331 electoral votes, I think we will see our own Maidan Square.


I suspect that should Clinton get the requisite number of electoral votes, we will have a peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next.  Just as we have had for over 240 years now.

What reason do we have to suspect anything else?


----------



## AWP (Oct 15, 2016)

lindy said:


> @Deathy McDeath , if Clinton gets 331 electoral votes, I think we will see our own Maidan Square.



Collectively, the American people are weak and won't pursue any physical confrontation. Anyone who does will be branded a terrorist and handled accordingly. Taking up arms against a gov't makes you a traitor; winning the war makes you a patriot. Winners write the history books and have since the dawn of time.

I'm sure you'll disagree with me, and that's fine, but I'm looking at history as whole for a roadmap. We would need nearly unimaginable conditions before the American people will do anything. Hell, we won't even vote and dismantle the status quo through legal means. We accept the garbage shoved down our throats and then complain when our elected officials rape us. We did that to ourselves, these are self-inflicted wounds.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 15, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> One of the problems with that, is who do you choose to believe?



Allegations versus facts. We have facts that are popping up every day. The other side has allegations with no charges. Coming forward is fine and dandy, but we have courts of law for a reason.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 16, 2016)

Trump was a Studio 54 playboy BITD--and of course a billionaire with an eye for the ladies all his life so no one is doubting that he's had encounters with scores of women, not to mention a few wives, over the years. In fact his history with beautiful and exotic women is probably one that stirs the secret envy of Bill Clinton who's had to satisfy his lusts with those of lesser quality.

I at least have no doubt, based on the Clinton's MO, that this October Surprise was carefully prepared and orchestrated by the Clinton Machine as the final nail in Trump's presidential bid. It's their style. And Trump, who probably thinks he's a pretty tough wheeler-dealer, is waking up to the sad reality that he's a novice in the hands of ruthless political intimidators like the Clintons.

These alleged "victims" may have been women who at one time or another made a play for Mr Trump and were rebuffed. Or one night stands he never called back. It's not unheard of for some women to be attracted to billionaires, nor is it unheard of for some women to hold a grudge. Given the timing and the circumstances, I'm extremely leery of, but not surprised by, any of this dirty business.


----------



## SpitfireV (Oct 16, 2016)

Your last paragraph is extreme reaching.


----------



## Brill (Oct 16, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I suspect that should Clinton get the requisite number of electoral votes, we will have a peaceful transfer of power from one administration to the next.  Just as we have had for over 240 years now.
> 
> What reason do we have to suspect anything else?



I agree 100% but will caveat that she really should "win" by a small margin in order to give the appearance of a free and fair election. If she takes +300, Trump supporters are likely to assert some kind of corruption element and claim it was rigged.

Are We really expected to believe that backers would "invest" a billion dollars into a candidate only to "allow" Joe Sixpack to determine the return on investment? Folks at the top rarely speculate (e.g. gamble) with their own money: speculation and futures are for investors (e.g. suckers') money.

With this crazy campaign, I wouldn't put it past anyone involved to do some (more) shady shit.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 16, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Trump was a Studio 54 playboy BITD--and of course a billionaire with an eye for the ladies all his life so no one is doubting that he's had encounters with scores of women, not to mention a few wives, over the years. In fact his history with beautiful and exotic women is probably one that stirs the secret envy of Bill Clinton who's had to satisfy his lusts with those of lesser quality.
> 
> I at least have no doubt, based on the Clinton's MO, that this October Surprise was carefully prepared and orchestrated by the Clinton Machine as the final nail in Trump's presidential bid. It's their style. And Trump, who probably thinks he's a pretty tough wheeler-dealer, is waking up to the sad reality that he's a novice in the hands of ruthless political intimidators like the Clintons.
> 
> These alleged "victims" may have been women who at one time or another made a play for Mr Trump and were rebuffed. Or one night stands he never called back. It's not unheard of for some women to be attracted to billionaires, nor is it unheard of for some women to hold a grudge. Given the timing and the circumstances, I'm extremely leery of, but not surprised by, any of this dirty business.



Both sides in this election cycle aren't angels, so it was easy for both to slide into campaigns of smear toward the other.   And they did.

The Clinton campaign may have had something to do with these women coming forward, but it would be hardly surprising in this election environment.

The American people have the power to tell them to cut that shit out and stick to talking about things that matter, but that didn't happen.


----------



## Brill (Oct 16, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Collectively, the American people are weak and won't pursue any physical confrontation. Anyone who does will be branded a terrorist and handled accordingly. Taking up arms against a gov't makes you a traitor; winning the war makes you a patriot. Winners write the history books and have since the dawn of time.
> 
> I'm sure you'll disagree with me, and that's fine, but I'm looking at history as whole for a roadmap. We would need nearly unimaginable conditions before the American people will do anything. Hell, we won't even vote and dismantle the status quo through legal means. We accept the garbage shoved down our throats and then complain when our elected officials rape us. We did that to ourselves, these are self-inflicted wounds.



Uh...I was talking about mass protests but you made my point (ergo, I'm agreeing with you). Protesters were calling bullshit on the Yukie gov raping and Yukanovich labeled them terrorists, only to crush the protests.



Ranger Psych said:


> Allegations versus facts. We have facts that are popping up every day. The other side has allegations with no charges. Coming forward is fine and dandy, but we have courts of law for a reason.



Amen! I think a judge would believe sworn testimony from a FBI agent regarding a State Dept official offering more FBI positions at USEMBs if they would change classification of some Clinton emails.

More allegations:

Clinton’s team unleashes Watergate attack against Trump



> “Donald Trump needs to condemn these illegal hacks and denounce Russian efforts to intervene in our election,” Caplin writes. “Why is Trump protecting Putin by lying about Russia’s role in these hacks? What did his campaign know and when did they know it? Why won’t he condemn this? With less than a month until Election Day, these are the questions we need answered — and soon.”



Wednesday is just around the corner but I wonder if the debate will go NC-17 or focus on







America's Top Fears 2016 - Chapman University Survey of American Fears


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 16, 2016)

SURPRISE.......:wall:


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 16, 2016)

lindy said:


> Wednesday is just around the corner but I wonder if the debate will go NC-17 or focus on
> 
> 
> 
> ...




My greatest fear, is Eli Manning in the pocket, looking down field to throw the football.


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 16, 2016)

I still don't know who to vote for and that bothers me. Both sides are really going at it now.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 16, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> I still don't know who to vote for and that bothers me. Both sides are really going at it now.



I'm reading through "The Killing Of Jesus" It is s study of the Roman Empire, as much as anything else. In fact the first half of the book was about Roman rulers. Rulers included the "Head of State" in Rome, and the rulers if far out corners of the Empire as well. The rulers lives were decadent and sexual excess was the common behavior. More talk was regarding the moral decline of it's rulers, than anything else. We seem to have arrived at that same point in the 2016 election cycle. It has always been there, little hidden whispers about  FDR, Ike, Kennedy, and Johnson. Today the whispers are gone. The doors have been flung open, and the election just swirls around sexual issues dating back decades; with media support.

This is not a very good thing at all. Our 2016 election has lowered the bar too far.  It is seems the only thing that matters to both candidates is who can sling the most sexual mud into their run for the White House. Much of the push is from the media. Perhaps the media is behind most of what is dug up. Trump's dirty talk was a media taped private conversation. The media will be the only winner here. Making the proper decisions about a candidate's plan for our nation has long ago been tossed aside. Media driven sexual words and behavior now rules the election. We are in a great deal of trouble, and it is getting worse by the day.

My $.02 as I head back to my wee cave here in The Valley; Prolly escape The Farm, soon.


----------



## Rapid (Oct 16, 2016)




----------



## Brill (Oct 16, 2016)

Republicans are spewing hate speech and inciting violence!

Oh wait...a county GOP HQs firebombed? Who would do that???

Republican headquarters in Orange County firebombed


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 16, 2016)

lindy said:


> Republicans are spewing hate speech and inciting violence!
> 
> Oh wait...a county GOP HQs firebombed? Who would do that???
> 
> Republican headquarters in Orange County firebombed


That's incredibly fucked


----------



## Brill (Oct 16, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> That's incredibly fucked



I think this is worse.

Leaked Email: Clinton Campaign Plotted To Threaten Supreme Court Over ObamaCare Ruling


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 16, 2016)

lindy said:


> Republicans are spewing hate speech and inciting violence!
> 
> Oh wait...a county GOP HQs firebombed? Who would do that???
> 
> Republican headquarters in Orange County firebombed



That's in the town in which I grew up, about 10 miles west of where I live now.  Once upon a time it was a conservative town; now, not so much.  Still it surprises and saddens me.



DocIllinois said:


> Women who were assaulted by him continued to come forward because there is strength in numbers, especially where a perpetrator with power and influence is concerned.



And because there's a payday and book deals to be had.  And of course victims tied to the Clinton Foundation are just a tad curious to behold as well.


----------



## Brill (Oct 17, 2016)

An open question to ponder: what implications, if any, would there be IF the USG was behind the purported cyber attack on Wikileaks's servers?

Biden has alluded that the IC would soon retaliate against Russia for their cyber affects against our election.

https://www.ft.com/content/2d9c73fa-935b-11e6-a80e-bcd69f323a8b

NBC claims CIA ready to embarrass Putin via offensive cyber ops.

The CIA is prepping a possible cyber strike against Russia

Personally, I expect the party's leader to support their nominee but using other government entities (DOJ, IC, etc) to support a candidate seems very strange. By support, I mean IF the USG, or a surrogate, is trying to stop release of Wikileaks's data that is damaging to Clinton's campaign.

It's definitely a sticky wicket in that foreign intervention in elections is definitely interference but at the same time, the information, which has NOT be refuted at all (Trump flatly denies allegations of sexual assault), is concerning especially the emails related to corruption.

Federal employees and uniformed members cannot advocate for/against a candidate while in their work capacity.

https://osc.gov/Resources/HA Pamphlet Sept 2014.pdf

http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/resource_library/elections_guidance_2016.pdf


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 17, 2016)

lindy said:


> Republicans are spewing hate speech and inciting violence!
> 
> Oh wait...a county GOP HQs firebombed? Who would do that???
> 
> Republican headquarters in Orange County firebombed


Apropos of this: Click here to support Dems help reopen a NC Repub office by David Weinberger


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 17, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Apropos of this: Click here to support Dems help reopen a NC Repub office by David Weinberger



That's a stand-up thing to do.  There is enough general fuckery in this election; nice to see someone helping a brother out.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 17, 2016)

At some point in my life, I forget when the media stopped being the honest broker.  So much so that we have this: Journalists shower Hillary Clinton with campaign cash


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 17, 2016)

I didn't want to make a new thread for this,  but a former SEAL is running for Congress in Virginia Beach. Scott Taylor - U.S. Congress

Anyone on this board know him or can offer a word or two about him?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 17, 2016)

Currently a member of the Virginia House of Delegates:
Scott Taylor | LinkedIn


----------



## Brill (Oct 17, 2016)

Two FBI agents claim that a DOS official asked for a SECRET email on Clinton's server to be marked UNCLASSIFIED in exchange for more FBI positions at a OCONUS post.

DOS spokesman said that's not the case and the FBI agents mischaracterized the interview.

So DOS said the FBI is incompetent?..or lying?

Hillary Clinton’s email problems just came roaring back


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 18, 2016)

Here's a nice little view of what Clinton supporters have been up to here in The Valley: Trump supporters targeted in alleged vandalism. Imagine seeing this first thing in the morning.

I will say, that Trump signs are all over the county. Clinton signs are pretty rare.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 18, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Here's a nice little view of what Clinton supporters have been up to here in The Valley: Trump supporters targeted in alleged vandalism. Imagine seeing this first thing in the morning.
> 
> I will say, that Trump signs are all over the county. Clinton signs are pretty rare.



You know, people slam Drudge as being anti-dem, but really he's a clearinghouse, posting links.  Very little of what's there is "his."  Anywho, over the last few days he has really glommed onto the pro-Hillary/anti-Trump vandalism and violence, a lot of it coming from Wikileaks or other sites.  I don't go onto pro-HRC sites, but I have not seen a whole lot of this activity from the other side.

And I agree re: signage.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 18, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I will say, that Trump signs are all over the county. Clinton signs are pretty rare.



There is hope, we just drove thru alot of back country Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky, and only saw 1 Hillary sign.  I didn't count Trump signs, because I was driving and I couldn't take off my shoes but there was at least 11 teen.....


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 18, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Here's a nice little view of what Clinton supporters have been up to here in The Valley: Trump supporters targeted in alleged vandalism. Imagine seeing this first thing in the morning.
> 
> I will say, that Trump signs are all over the county. Clinton signs are pretty rare.



The Eastern Shore is nothing but Hillary signs.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 18, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> The Eastern Shore is nothing but Hillary signs.





SpongeBob*24 said:


> There is hope, we just drove thru alot of back country Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky, and only saw 1 Hillary sign.  I didn't count Trump signs, because I was driving and I couldn't take off my shoes but there was at least 11 teen.....



It really is a tale of two countries right now. I spend a. It is time in rural areas, and there are Trump signs everywhere. In the urban areas it is mostly Hillary or no signs at all, with just a few Trump signs.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 18, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> It really is a tale of two countries right now. I spend a. It is time in rural areas, and there are Trump signs everywhere. In the urban areas it is mostly Hillary or no signs at all, with just a few Trump signs.



I have not done a lot of travelling out of NC his fall, but it reflects what I have seen, too.  A lot of HRC signs in the Triangle, but the further out you go, the fewer they become and the more Trump signs I see.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 18, 2016)

I have seen more trump signs than hillary in the last 3 weeks. Area sampled, NV, AZ, NM, TX, AR NC, GA, FL, IL, WI, MN, KS, IN.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 18, 2016)

If there is one good thing that is coming out of this election, it's this, according to my local news this morning, voter registration is the highest it has ever been in its recorded history for our area.

People are doing something rather than nothing for this election. That's impressive.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 18, 2016)

But the system's rigged - conspiracy rigged.  Everybody knows that.

Donnie voters should eschew going to the polls altogether, therefore, and not soil themselves in our con-game democratic electoral system.

Hillary.  New World Order...  Chemtrails......  Elvis...    :-/


----------



## Rapid (Oct 18, 2016)

Anyone care to watch this? Haven't had a chance yet but apparently it's a big deal.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 18, 2016)

I watched it a few minutes ago. It's interesting to say the least. For what it's worth -- their planning and scheming -- if it was done as explained, would not be terribly hard to do. 

Much like anything else on the Internet, those watching it will have to form their own opinions, but I feel the DNC people will push that it was all "set up by the tin foil wearers" while the RNC people will push it as being the gospel.

In the end, it concerns things that I have always known to occur, just not sure as to the extent of its occurrence.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 18, 2016)

Agoge said:


> If there is one good thing that is coming out of this election, it's this, according to my local news this morning, voter registration is the highest it has ever been in its recorded history for our area.
> 
> People are doing something rather than nothing for this election. That's impressive.


 
The media has so much power, and right now is when they crank the volume to max. That voter registration is a good thing. If the voting numbers follow the registration numbers, that too is a good thing. The trouble is what ideas are being taken to the polls.

This is the dirtiest, most garbage filled election I have ever seen. There is so little being covered about real issues for the direction of our nation. This election cycle is a pure hatred filled, personal behavior cut down to bare bone. This is all personal attack, after personal attack, and it will be spun by the media well beyond the election returns. This is pure gold for the media, and it will carry on into electon aftermath. 

I am sick to death of the behavior of the media, and the candidates. The public is hanging on every word, and there will be continue to be hostility on both sides. Nothing seems to matter as much as the headline of the day. When will people wake up, and see all the media hype for what it is. We are in the process of loosing our country to the empty headed, reaction driven media. 

My $.02, and I'm too far from my cave in The Valley.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 18, 2016)

Rapid said:


> Anyone care to watch this? Haven't had a chance yet but apparently it's a big deal.




Unfuckingbelievable. But believable.


----------



## Brill (Oct 18, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> The Eastern Shore is nothing but Hillary signs.



Same thing over on MD's Eastern Shore. Tons of Trump signs but I've seen two Clinton ones.



Ranger Psych said:


> I have seen more trump signs than hillary in the last 3 weeks. Area sampled, NV, AZ, NM, TX, AR NC, GA, FL, IL, WI, MN, KS, IN.



Is AK mostly Trump or Clinton?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 18, 2016)

lindy said:


> Is AK mostly Trump or Clinton?



It depends on how much you trust on what is coming out of Ark. Most places you have to pay for a sign, some places they get stuck in the ground without permission.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 18, 2016)

lindy said:


> Is AK mostly Trump or Clinton?



AK is Alaska.  I am not up there, but its a heavily republican state, even the democrats there that I know, hard liners, cannot stand hillary.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 18, 2016)

My wife was profoundly affected by Mr.Trumps words, and his reactions to his own words. Her response above all else has shaped my view of this election. My wife is the most important person in my life. How can I look myself in the eye if I vote for someone who is proud of the assault of such women. I cannot do it.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 18, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> My wife was profoundly affected by Mr.Trumps words, and his reactions to his own words. Her response above all else has shaped my view of this election. My wife is the most important person in my life. How can I look myself in the eye if I vote for someone who is proud of the assault of such women. I cannot do it.



It's personal stories like that that many people simply don't understand. He has said a lot of things that if people said to each other during the course of an average day, would earn him a throat punch. His words alienate him from a lot of voters. I don't like him as a person and I don't like him as a candidate for POTUS. I wouldn't even like him as a neighbor because I think he is a spoiled bully who thinks he can do and say whatever he wants with impunity because he has for the entirety of his life.

People are truly having to think about who they want for this election. Personally, I think we have two of the worst candidates we have had in a long time. I hate the fact that we as a nation have concluded that these are the two best candidates we have out of over 300 million people.


----------



## Brill (Oct 19, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> AK is Alaska.  I am not up there, but its a heavily republican state, even the democrats there that I know, hard liners, cannot stand hillary.



:-/

I just assumed you were traveling for work while you were away from AK. Shit, you're trying to ARDF my comms aren't you???


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 19, 2016)

Early in this thread, I (and many others here) stated that if after getting the nomination, Trump could win this if he'd shut the fuck up and at least somewhat act presidential. He was not capable of that - and he is going to lose this election....even though some of what he had been alleging is coming to light.

I submit that ANY other candidate would be destroying Hilary and it would be the Dems eating their own young right now, not the Republicans.

*Democratic strategist Robert Creamer steps down from post after video surfaced | Daily Mail Online*

_In the tape, Creamer's organization takes credit for a March 11 melee in Chicago during a Trump rally.

We have mentally-ill people that we pay to do s***, make no mistake. Over the last twenty years. I've paid off a few homeless guys to do crazy stuff Scott Foval, Democratic operative_

_Over the last twenty years. I've paid off a few homeless guys to do crazy stuff.'

'A lot of our union guys ... they'll do whatever you want,' he added.

'When I need to get something done in Arkansas, the first guy I call is the head of the AFL-CIO down there, because he will say, "What do you need?" And I will say I need a guy who will do this, this and this. And they find that guy. And that guy will be like, "Hell yeah, let's do it."'_


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 19, 2016)

lindy said:


> :-/
> 
> I just assumed you were traveling for work while you were away from AK. Shit, you're trying to ARDF my comms aren't you???



I tried to read between the lines, and guess that you were asking about the Clinton's roots state. It seems I got that wrong. 

My apologies for the miss read.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 19, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> But the system's rigged - conspiracy rigged.



I generally don't believe in conspiracies.  The administration--_any_ administration--is essentially the Keystone Cops with regard to keeping a straight face or keeping secrets, and adding an organization to the layer like the DNC, GOP, whomever, just makes it harder.

But with things like this, do you not believe there is just enough out there that might give the appearance of impropriety?

Dem Operative Who Oversaw Trump Rally Agitators Visited White House 342 Times

WATCH: New BOMBSHELL video just released by James O'Keefe on MASS VOTER FRAUD - The Right Scoop

Soros-Connected Company Provides Voting Machines In 16 States

It doesn't matter if all of it is true, some of it is true, or none of it is true, it just matters that there is _just_ enough to make a persuasive argument.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 19, 2016)

Sources such as therightscoop and The Daily Caller are not ones I would put faith into on this subject, IMO.

Targeting weaknesses in an accepted model isn't a good technique for proposing that illegal manipulation of that model is happening.

I would await an announcement from the Department of Justice and FBI on this sort of circumstance.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 19, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Sources such as therightscoop and The Daily Caller are not ones I would put faith into on this subject, IMO.
> 
> Targeting weaknesses in an accepted model isn't a good technique for proposing that illegal manipulation of that model is happening.
> 
> I would await an announcement from the Department of Justice and FBI on this sort of circumstance.



I neither said it was or was not a conspiracy; I just pointed out that there is enough in the media that people will conclude that there is something hinky going on, and Trump, or anyone else, will cherry-pick these sites to paint their narrative of "rigging the system." 

And I don't know that an announcement from any .gov agency will put any faith in it, either.  It's not like the DoJ/FBI haven't had their own shit sandwich lately.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 19, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> And I don't know that an announcement from any .gov agency will put any faith in it, either.  It's not like the DoJ/FBI haven't had their own shit sandwich lately.



You are aware that general suspicion of government/ mainstream institutions is one of the hallmarks of conspiracy theories, right?


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 19, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> You are aware that general suspicion of government/ mainstream institutions is one of the hallmarks of conspiracy theories, right?



I am aware.  I am also aware that true or not true there has been a whole lotta crap that went down regarding the integrity of Comey, the FBI, and DOJ on the past two or three months.  I am simply saying that if an announcement comes from those institutions that says "we did a multi-million dollar investigation and we conclude there is no 'rigging' of the election," it will be met with suspicion.

Are you inferring that I believe in such a conspiracy/rigged system?  Or are you putting trust that the citizenry-at-large is smart enough to conclude for themselves that it's not happening?

I am putting this here because it is regarding Trump.  CNN's Brooke Baldwin gets...ah, _goofy_...talking about Trump's plan to push for Congressional term limits.  This isn't meant to be a post pro/anti Trump or HRC, just a funny moment in an imbecile "journalist." 

WATCH: Don't ask CNN's Brooke Baldwin about term limits (unless you wanna laugh)


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 19, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Are you inferring that I believe in such a conspiracy/rigged system?  Or are you putting trust that the citizenry-at-large is smart enough to conclude for themselves that it's not happening?



What other conclusion may be drawn about post #2189 when its read from beginning to end?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 19, 2016)

Easy gents. There is enough stuff out there to make people on both sides more than a little crazy.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 19, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> What other conclusion may be drawn about post #2189 when its read from beginning to end?



RE: post 2189, first and last paragraph.  I am not given to conspiracies, but understand how Trump, et al., could come to those conclusions.  I am not endorsing any of those stories or links.

The National Enquirer (yes, THAT National Enquirer) has put out a story about HRC and all sorts of sex trysts.  I don't believe that, either, but I bet some people will, and will use it as 'evidence' to underscore their positions.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 19, 2016)

RE: Election rigging

If I were given three wishes by a genie/monkey paw/whatever, I would wish for:

-A pony
-One night with Lisa Ann
-For everyone in America to read this piece: The Election Is Not Rigged.

BLUF: Rigging an election is nearly impossible


@Devildoc This is not directed at you, but when talking about conspiracy theories or other bombastic points, it's important to point out when you're making a _normative_ claim and a _positive_ claim.  It can be very easy to misconstrue one for the other (something which I've been guilty of numerous times).


----------



## Grunt (Oct 19, 2016)

One thing is certain -- the MSM -- is a "surrogate gospel" for many that are simply either unwilling or too lazy to do their own independent study concerning their candidates. 

There will always be "true" or "base" believers in a candidate that will never be swayed by any type of information provided about their candidate -- even if that information is extremely negative. They will simply see it as being false propaganda perpetuated by their opponent.

Some people simply won't be discouraged from believing in their candidate -- no matter what.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 19, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> RE: Election rigging
> 
> If I were given three wishes by a genie/monkey paw/whatever, I would wish for:
> 
> ...



Agree, completely.  I haven't been as good about stating my positions with the arguments.  I don't think it is rigged; but I do understand why people do.

A pony?  Really??


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 19, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> A pony?  Really??


Look dude, deep down inside, every heterosexual man wants to be a pretty princess.  Some are just more willing to admit it.


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 19, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Look dude, deep down inside, every heterosexual man wants to be a pretty princess.  Some are just more willing to admit it.



I am taking one of your MAN cards away.


----------



## Totentanz (Oct 19, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Look dude, deep down inside, every heterosexual man wants to be a pretty princess.  *Some are just more willing to admit it.*



And they, my friends, are called Marines...
(BTW, disagree 100% with the unbolded part of that post)


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 19, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> RE: Election rigging
> 
> If I were given three wishes by a genie/monkey paw/whatever, I would wish for:
> 
> ...



Three things jump out that prove Democrats only play the short game, and don't see the long term possibilities:

1-If you ask for 2 horses, male and female, you have horses/ponies for a life time.  You can ride a pony, sell a pony and use that money to help people to people get voter ID cards....
2-If you ask for a large penis, You have girls like Lisa Ann stopping by every night.  You only like Lisa cause of her Sara Palin skit.....:-"
3-You said "nearly" impossible.  AT one point in time, putting a man on the moon was "nearly" impossible....

All joking aside, with enough money you can do anything!
Enjoy that pony ride....


----------



## AWP (Oct 19, 2016)

With all of the fuckery going on during an election, especially this one, and I'm supposed to believe in the "system" or mankind or whatever?


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 19, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> And they, my friends, are called Marines...
> (BTW, disagree 100% with the unbolded part of that post)



Blasphemy.


----------



## Brill (Oct 19, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Look dude, deep down inside, every heterosexual man wants to be a pretty princess.  Some are just more willing to admit it.










Deathy McDeath said:


> RE: Election rigging
> 
> If I were given three wishes by a genie/monkey paw/whatever, I would wish for:
> 
> ...



Next you'll tell us the DOJ is blind and just goes where the investigation leads.



DocIllinois said:


> You are aware that general suspicion of government/ mainstream institutions is one of the hallmarks of conspiracy theories, right?



People who have never worked for the government say that. USG employees readily admit some of us do really shady shit...otherwise the IG would be like the Maytag repairman instead of increasing size.

Well, this is interesting.

342 visits to 1600 Penn Ave since 2009.  I wonder with whom he met? Huh...47 times with POTUS.

What was said about whining?

Dem Operative Who Oversaw Trump Rally Agitators Visited White House 342 Times


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 19, 2016)

lindy said:


> Well, this is interesting.
> 
> 342 visits to 1600 Penn Ave since 2009.  I wonder with whom he met? Huh...47 times with POTUS.
> 
> ...


It's James O'Keefe.  I would withhold judgement until he releases the unedited videos.


----------



## Brill (Oct 19, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> It's James O'Keefe.  I would withhold judgement until he releases the unedited videos.



Very much agree with you on that. I would hope that the AG would look into this in order to strengthen the idea our free elections and shore up confidence. The LAST thing we need this year is an election like 1960 when Kennedy appeared to steal the election (re:Illinois and Texas voter fraud).



Deathy McDeath said:


> It's James O'Keefe.  I would withhold judgement until he releases the unedited videos.



I thought those numbers were from White House info. Josh (like I know the guy) was apparently cagey about the visits during today's presser.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 19, 2016)

lindy said:


> I thought those numbers were from White House info. Josh (like I know the guy) was apparently cagey about the visits during today's presser.


Sorry, should've clarified.  I don't doubt that the guy visited the White House that many times.  It's just that the video is an O'Keefe video, which instantly raises suspicion about the guy's purported activities.


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 19, 2016)

lindy said:


> People have have never worked for the government say that. USG employees readily admit some of us do really shady shit...otherwise the IG would be like the Maytag repairman instead of increasing size.



What?


----------



## Brill (Oct 19, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> What?



Missed the "who".

My point is Feds know that we're not perfect and some employees do some really dumb shit, especially the higher you get and the longer you stay. Not everyone of course but the higher up, the more devastating the effects of employees who are morally corrupt.

I've seen supervisors engage in VERY questionable ethical behavior, fraud, nepotism, abuse of power/authority, etc and, even though it's not widespread, the bad apples destroy the confidence of subordinates.

The IGs are busy.  I think the USG is suffering the effects of post 9/11 hiring blitz (just the the military did) and some folks sold through the cracks.

I don't think the VA crap, GSA parties at tax payer expense, the Lois Lerners, the State Dept BS, etc are isolated incidents...not widespread but not isolated either.

Stuff like this.

EXCLUSIVE: Special Treatment Gave John Kerry’s Daughter $9 Million In Gov’t Contracts |

Sure Kerry is a political appointee but the career State and Peace Corps employees who carried this out or enacted it KNEW this made some spidy senses tingle. Employees silenced? Complaints ignored? Called "non-team player? Fear of reprisal?


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 19, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Look dude, deep down inside, every heterosexual man wants to be a pretty princess.  Some are just more willing to admit it.


Ladies and gentlemen, the first cogent comment in this thread in about 20 pages.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 19, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Look dude, deep down inside, every heterosexual man wants to be a pretty princess.  Some are just more willing to admit it.


I'm just trying to be a beast.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 20, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> I'm just trying to be a beast.


Well, here is the issue with that. 

I want to be a princess. My ceiling is nearly unlimited. On my day to day, if I do anything north of being a pretty princess, I win. 

You can aspire to be a beast, but that puts the bar WAY too high for you. Lift an average amount of weight, but not a beastly amount? You fail. Do an 'ok' job today, but not a job a beast would be proud of? Another "F". ME though? Today I didn't cry about mean people at work or drink a pumpkin spice latte. My men, who know I want to be a princess, are impressed by this. 

I want to be a princess- and I smash that, daily. 

If you want to be a beast, fine, but you have poor expectation management, sir.


----------



## Brill (Oct 20, 2016)

Rubio is excatly what's wrong with government. Instead of not writing dumb shit or God forbid taking cyber security SERIOUSLY, his recommendation is just ignore it.  Where are the investigative journalists?

Vote out the damn incumbents!

Rubio warns GOP to stay silent on WikiLeaks hack


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 20, 2016)

lindy said:


> Rubio is excatly what's wrong with government. Instead of not writing dumb shit or God forbid taking cyber security SERIOUSLY, his recommendation is just ignore it. Where are the investigative journalists?
> 
> Vote out the damn incumbents!



"Disagree" because this is illegally obtained information (Wiki) and quite honestly I have avoided it as much as possible.  Advocating for the discussion of, or even punishment of some type from information released in these leaks is essentially advocating the concept of illegal search and seizure.  Of course Rubio is staying away, although his reasons are not quote so altruistic - he knows what is likely out there on "his side".

Imagine if you <meaning anyone  here> were looking to get married or attempting to adopt a child.  Maybe even trying to secure a certain type of job.  Another party who does not see your happiness in their best interest, hacks your assorted online accounts and picks-and-chooses the most obscene and over the top comments you have made and Memes you have posted.  Then they strategically feed it to parties who have decision making ability about your goals and aspirations.  Maybe they also hack your text messages between buddies where you have jokingly said things that you of course meant to be sarcastic, in the context of the moment, and between only you and the person you were communicating with.

That is the direction we are heading now, and if we give WikiLeaks our approval (because hell, it's the "other side" that is getting fucked over!), then we are walking closer down the fine line of anything goes.  That's a pretty scary place to go in today's age where many of us communicate just as much (or more) electronically, than we do verbally.   It's all fun and games until they come for you.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 20, 2016)

So like locker room Talk then....


----------



## AWP (Oct 20, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> I want to be a princess.



You are a PJ. You've already hit "Peak Princess."


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 20, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> So like locker room Talk then....



To preface - I lean far more "right" than I do "left".  That said, while Trump had no idea he'd be running for president someday, most (the recent Billy Bush related tapes excluded) of what he's said has been available for anyone to find online if they looked hard enough, or was originally intended for airing of some type.  But you bringing up the "locker room" stuff only supports my point.  This stuff was recorded in secret, Trump and Bush had no expectation their conversation would even become public, and Bush has lost his gig with NBC because of it.  THE MAN GOT FIRED for saying to another dude what many dudes say to each other all the time.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 20, 2016)

Personally, I will be glad when the election is behind us so that I can deal with the hand that has been dealt us and drive on...like Warriors normally do!


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 20, 2016)

Agoge said:


> Personally, I will be glad when the election is behind us so that I can deal with the hand that has been dealt us and drive on...like Warriors normally do!



Great post. I have been saying a similar thing for months. No matter who gets elected we will still be here in 4 years. Some of the negative Nancy's would have you believe we are on a path to destruction. Ugh whatever. Drive the fuck on, be an American.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 20, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Great post. I have been saying a similar thing for months. No matter who gets elected we will still be here in 4 years. Some of the negative Nancy's would have you believe we are on a path to destruction. Ugh whatever. Drive the fuck on, be an American.



To piggyback, should Donnie be elected I am confident that he will be spectacularly impeached within a year or less.

If the country goes mad, teapots are found on the rings of Saturn, and that moron is elected, I'm willing start an Under a Year Impeachment pool for anyone interested.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 20, 2016)

Those teapots are the satellites that make the hurricanes that Gee Dubya controlled to cause flooding to poor neighborhoods.

Im glad we haven't had any of those in the last 8 years!

:-":wall:


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 20, 2016)

If the Supreme Court is to continue as being a political stage,  then it's time to put term limits and let the American people vote for the members of the Court.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 20, 2016)

So based on the debate thread here...all I have to say about this article is...sure:
The Daily 202: Trump’s lack of self-control allows Clinton to sweep the debates


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 20, 2016)

Voted.


----------



## Brill (Oct 20, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> "Disagree" because this is illegally obtained information (Wiki) and quite honestly I have avoided it as much as possible.  Advocating for the discussion of, or even punishment of some type from information released in these leaks is essentially advocating the concept of illegal search and seizure.  Of course Rubio is staying away, although his reasons are not quote so altruistic - he knows what is likely out there on "his side".
> 
> Imagine if you <meaning anyone  here> were looking to get married or attempting to adopt a child.  Maybe even trying to secure a certain type of job.  Another party who does not see your happiness in their best interest, hacks your assorted online accounts and picks-and-chooses the most obscene and over the top comments you have made and Memes you have posted.  Then they strategically feed it to parties who have decision making ability about your goals and aspirations.  Maybe they also hack your text messages between buddies where you have jokingly said things that you of course meant to be sarcastic, in the context of the moment, and between only you and the person you were communicating with.
> 
> That is the direction we are heading now, and if we give WikiLeaks our approval (because hell, it's the "other side" that is getting fucked over!), then we are walking closer down the fine line of anything goes.  That's a pretty scary place to go in today's age where many of us communicate just as much (or more) electronically, than we do verbally.   It's all fun and games until they come for you.



Illegal, yes but so is parking in the wrong spot. Not condoning but just adding perspective.

Hack into the DNC...or have a staffer download content only to get robbed (but nothing stolen) and murdered...and the USG raises holy hell with threats of cyberwar but hack OPM's database that contained so much PII that could DESTROY the way we adjudicate security clearances and...crickets.

I don't think it's on par with 4th Amendment stuff but more akin to larceny vs robbery.

I say people should lock down their shit or hire a contractor to do it (plug for @Freefalling ).


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 20, 2016)

lindy said:


> Illegal, yes but so is parking in the wrong spot. Not condoning but just adding perspective.



I think that may be where we disagree.

Are you saying that you believe that illegal parking is in the same universe as hacking into private and government computers, and then using the information for person gain and ultimately destroy lives?  Live of people  whose only crime was having a general expectation of privacy.


----------



## Brill (Oct 20, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I think that may be where we disagree.
> 
> Are you saying that you believe that illegal parking is in the same universe as hacking into private and government computers, and then using the information for person gain and ultimately destroy lives?  Live of people  whose only crime was having a general expectation of privacy.



Point of order: none of Wikileaks's info was "hacked" (penetrated by an unauthorized IP, user, system, etc) while residing on a .gov server.  While on a personal or corporate server, that's a different case but still the same as larceny vs robbery.

Regarding Podesta's gmail, he's a retard for using his dog's name as a password, which is like leaving your keys in the ignition but flabbergasted that your car was stolen.  Locks, like passwords, only keep honest people honest.  If government officials or those hoping to become one have compromising stuff on servers that MAY be hacked by a hostile intelligence service, we should either remove the official so to avoid blackmail or secure the cyber world.

I do wish we as a Nation took cyber security seriously.

I guess I'm kind of a dork in that I don't have anything online or on my drives at home that I don't have to share with someone twice a decade but I can see where others do.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 20, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Great post. I have been saying a similar thing for months. No matter who gets elected we will still be here in 4 years. Some of the negative Nancy's would have you believe we are on a path to destruction. Ugh whatever. Drive the fuck on, be an American.


Rush Limbaugh actually had some good stuff to say on this point, as well as the future of conservatism after this election.



> RUSH: Well, first place, let me repeat something that I have always said. There's always going to be an America. There are people now trying to transform America -- Obama, the Democrats -- into a country that it wasn't founded to be, but there's always gonna be an America, and there are always gonna be conservatives. You know, if this ends up being a Hillary landslide, I am not going to believe that the landslide means that the nation has officially decided it wants no more of capitalism and wants to adopt socialism and communism, 'cause I don't think that's what this election is about.
> 
> For whatever reason conservatism isn't on the ballot here. Conservatism is not being rejected. Conservatism, on the other hand, can't find a way to unify, either. Conservatism couldn't find a way to win the primaries. But, on the other hand, conservatism, if there's a Hillary landslide or even a Hillary win -- I know you asked specifically about a landslide. Conservatism is not going to be what's been defeated here, in my mind. I'm not going to stop doing what I do if that happens.
> 
> The effort to educate the American people will never end. The effort to persuade the American people will never end. The techniques, the procedures, the strategies will have to change, and I think we'll have to do a better job of informing people -- or not informing them -- a better job of having people understand that the things they think in their lives are going wrong are for specific reasons that they have voted for.



It's weird to think of Rush Limbaugh, patriarch of conservative talk radio, as the bastion of sanity in this election.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 20, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Rush Limbaugh actually had some good stuff to say on this point, as well as the future of conservatism after this election.
> 
> 
> 
> It's weird to think of Rush Limbaugh, patriarch of conservative talk radio, as the bastion of sanity in this election.



I wouldn't go that far.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 20, 2016)

I think Limbaugh is saying 'whatever happens in the election I don't need to change what I think or what I'm going to say the country wants.'  I think you can put just about every ideological person down as thinking some version of that.  It's one of the reasons I think our values system where we say a politician is 'crooked' when their views shift - or they're willing to compromise to get legislation passed - is fucked up.  Politics in a democracy is all about compromise, moving your core positions forward within the zeitgeist of the public's opinion, and responding to the electorate.  We've instead sainted political figures who essentially say 'if you vote for me you get what you want - if you don't vote for me you're scum who should not be in this country.'  Political leaders have to rule over people who don't vote for them along with the ones who do - another reason why DT's comments on not supporting the results of the election are so significant.


----------



## Brill (Oct 20, 2016)

Please note the date of this article.

The First Families Square Off


----------



## Brill (Oct 20, 2016)

@Ooh-Rah , I'm not trying to beat a dead horse but I think this is a great discussion topic but are accounts "hacked" when login credentials are actually GIVEN away to a cyber criminal?  Apparently Podesta was a little too happy with his mouse clicks.

Threat Group 4127 Targets Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign

Good thing this GRoUp never spearfished her private SerVeR.

(This is humour and I have no knowledge of any state actors doing anything to anyone.)


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 20, 2016)

lindy said:


> @Ooh-Rah , I'm not trying to beat a dead horse but I think this is a great discussion topic but are accounts "hacked" when login credentials are actually GIVEN away to a cyber criminal?  Apparently Podesta was a little too happy with his mouse clicks.
> 
> Threat Group 4127 Targets Hillary Clinton Presidential Campaign
> 
> ...



I think we are in very uncharted territory, and I will be the first to admit ignorance on the true legal aspects of these cases.  What I will ask is this...are we as a society prepared to say that a person should be prepared to give up all expectations of online privacy?  I guess I fall back on intent - if the intention was for a communication to be between a specific group of people, with no expectation that it would ever go any further, then it should not be open game.

And as I get ready to go feed the kids dinner, I ask myself well what if you find illegal happenings in those communications?  I don't know.  Same rules as a search warrant apply?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 20, 2016)

Mark Twain said all congress critters were criminals...Trump has not been a member of congress.


----------



## Brill (Oct 20, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> I think we are in very uncharted territory, and I will be the first to admit ignorance on the true legal aspects of these cases.  What I will ask is this...are we as a society prepared to say that a person should be prepared to give up all expectations of online privacy?  I guess I fall back on intent - if the intention was for a communication to be between a specific group of people, with no expectation that it would ever go any further, then it should not be open game.



I completely agree.  I think we've outpaced our laws on communications when information was sent via wire and switches to data being stored on servers awaiting retrieval.

Even the word "wiretapping" is outdated.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 20, 2016)




----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 20, 2016)

It all shows up blank...but I get what you are saying.

However I offer you this:

The manager of Wendy's use to be a surgeon but refused to conduct an Abortion and now runs his restaurant trying to pay for years of medical school. He's being questioned on his taxes and his friendship with the owner of Burger King, but it has nothing to do with the doctor he could be if given a chance.

And the doctor who has the Malpractice suit is known for using dirty tools and more of her patients die that she operates on then lives.  No one seems to care though cause she will work on anyone for free.  Her husband was once a doctor but he touched too many female patients the wrong way and also has many Malpractice suits against him but everyone is so focused on the above Wendy's manager sanitation rating of 99%.  

:blkeye:


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 20, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> It all shows up blank...but I get what you are saying.
> 
> However I offer you this:
> 
> ...



Sigh. Jokes don't work here eh?


----------



## AWP (Oct 20, 2016)

lindy said:


> I say people should lock down their shit or hire a contractor to do it (plug for @Freefalling ).



Just don't hire one from Booz Allen Hamilton...


----------



## Brill (Oct 21, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Just don't hire one from Booz Allen Hamilton...





I just shuffle around repeatedly muttering "20 terabytes".


----------



## Brill (Oct 21, 2016)

MSNBC arguing over Trump.  My day is complete.






Kristol Calls Out ‘Morning Joe’ for Enabling Trump, Shouting Match Ensues


----------



## Brill (Oct 21, 2016)

Why using a simple password for multiple accounts is not a good idea.

How Podesta became a cybersecurity poster child


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 21, 2016)

Is there a mechanism for the Congress to tell the political parties to re-convene their convention to select a new nominee?  And has that ever been done?


----------



## Totentanz (Oct 21, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Is there a mechanism for the Congress to tell the political parties to re-convene their convention to select a new nominee?  And has that ever been done?


After votes have already been cast???


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 21, 2016)

I'll just leave this here...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 21, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> After votes have already been cast???


No, before the election should there be issues such as Hillary being the subject of multiple congressional investigations that could (most likely will not) lead to criminal proceedings.


----------



## CTM65C (Oct 21, 2016)

Time for a viable third or fourth party...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 21, 2016)

Who wastes peanut butter like this: Peanut butter vandal mistakes gathering for Trump rally


----------



## Brill (Oct 22, 2016)

I thought CGI was saving the world? Apparently that's not really the case per IRS filings.

Clinton Foundation Spent Barely 6 Percent On Charitable Grants In 2014


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 22, 2016)

lindy said:


> I thought CGI was saving the world? Apparently that's not really the case per IRS filings.
> 
> Clinton Foundation Spent Barely 6 Percent On Charitable Grants In 2014



When was the last time she ran the foundation?


----------



## Brill (Oct 22, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> When was the last time she ran the foundation?



Ah geez, you're right. She never had any input on or benefited by CGI decisions. (I'm being sarcastic.)


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 22, 2016)

lindy said:


> I thought CGI was saving the world? Apparently that's not really the case per IRS filings.
> 
> Clinton Foundation Spent Barely 6 Percent On Charitable Grants In 2014



That money is going somewhere.....:wall:


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 22, 2016)

lindy said:


> Ah geez, you're right. She never had any input on or benefited by CGI decisions. (I'm being sarcastic.)



I'm just saying. She isn't technically in charge. I don't see you whining about the Trump foundation and all the shady shit it is doing. Except there he and his family are the only ones in charge.


----------



## Brill (Oct 22, 2016)

4 experts make the case that the Clinton Foundation’s fundraising was troubling



> But the circumstantial evidence is pretty strong. Here are some of the highlights:
> 
> 
> Douglas Band, the Clinton Foundation’s top executive, asked the state department if Clinton could meet with "our good friend" Bahraini Crown Prince Sheikh Salman. Salman, who had given the foundation $32 million, met with Clinton. Clinton later approved a $630 million arms sale to Bahrain, according to the International Business Times.
> ...


----------



## Brill (Oct 22, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I'm just saying. She isn't technically in charge. I don't see you whining about the Trump foundation and all the shady shit it is doing. Except there he and his family are the only ones in charge.



He wasn't in an official capacity of the USG while his wife received MILLIONS in donations only to have USG decisions made that directly benefited some donors.

Was Nixion technically in charge of the plumbers?


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 22, 2016)

lindy said:


> He wasn't in an official capacity of the USG while his wife received MILLIONS in donations only to have USG decisions made that directly benefited some donors.



Okay. I am done with this thread. I already voted. Have fun with your rigged election.


----------



## Brill (Oct 22, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Okay. I am done with this thread. I already voted. Have fun with your rigged election.



Remember, it won't be rigged if he wins.


----------



## nobodythank you (Oct 22, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Okay. I am done with this thread. I already voted. Have fun with your rigged election.









What's really funny is that you and a few others here have fallen into the exact thing you hated the most (during this election cycle): a circle jerk of like minded ideology. Sorry, you can't keep justifying corruption when there is damning evidence of said corruption from the guilty party (read Democratic party and Hillary). But! But! Trump was a Meanie Schmeanie!!!!! Sounds like my 7 year old. 

I will grant you that the Repubs are guilty of their own brand of corruption. As is evidenced by many long time staunch R's endorsing Hillary. It is also likely that they are scared shitless of their own data security and are scrubbing everything they can. Sometimes, conspiracy theories turn out to be real :-"


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 22, 2016)

Interesting observation for the week:

We went to the NC state fair on Thursday.  The DNC/HRC table had a few visitors; the RNC/Trump table was absolutely mobbed.  The Trump stickers outnumbered the Clinton stickers 50:1.

We vote in a very heavily dem area, my wife said that when she went to vote, half the people in line had Trump stickers.  That is unheard of in our town.

Not saying Trump wins NC, just an observation.

In other news I just found out our neighbor died this week.  Maybe I will vote twice.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 22, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Okay. I am done with this thread. I already voted. Have fun with your rigged election.



What took so long?  I was taking the piss three pages ago.

I stand by the suggestion that Donnie voters should just not vote, though.  Don't lower yourselves, it's all a sham!

They should confine activities to standing outside polling places, whining about the media and former presidents, IMO.  I'll give a polite wave.


----------



## Brill (Oct 22, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Interesting observation for the week:
> 
> We went to the NC state fair on Thursday.  The DNC/HRC table had a few visitors; the RNC/Trump table was absolutely mobbed.  The Trump stickers outnumbered the Clinton stickers 50:1.
> 
> ...



They were simply Democrats acting like Trump supporters so the real supporters would stay home on 28 November.  I'll be out in force on that day!!!:-"


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 22, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> What's really funny is that you and a few others here have fallen into the exact thing you hated the most (during this election cycle): a circle jerk of like minded ideology. Sorry, you can't keep justifying corruption when there is damning evidence of said corruption from the guilty party (read Democratic party and Hillary). *But! But! Trump was a Meanie Schmeanie!!!!! Sounds like my 7 year old. *
> 
> I will grant you that the Repubs are guilty of their own brand of corruption. As is evidenced by many long time staunch R's endorsing Hillary. It is also likely that they are scared shitless of their own data security and are scrubbing everything they can. Sometimes, conspiracy theories turn out to be real :-"


I dont know, bro- if your 7 year old knows Trump is a shitty candidate, maybe think about giving them more responsibility around the house. They sound like they have a good head on their shoulders. 

I do like the moral relativism you sort of alluded to that's happened this entire cycle.

Team A- Commits act which is considered a crime by opposing team. 
Team A- "We did nothing illegal (because we said so and they are liars and there are no charges)- more importantly, LOOK AT WHAT TEAM B DID THAT IS ALSO ILLEGAL THEREFORE WE ARE INNOCENT BECAUSE THEY CAN'T ACCUSE US OF A CRIME BECAUSE THAT MAKES THEM A HYPOCRITE BUT IT ALSO MAKES THEM GUILTY OF THE CRIME THEY COMMITTED AND MAKES US INNOCENT OF OURS!"
Team B- "YEAH WHAT THEY SAID!"

Yeah, sometimes conspiracy theories turn out to be true- like the Boston Bombing False Flag, the massive underground base under Denver's airport, or any number of other conspiracy theories. Wait, sorry- those are just a load of horseshit. Voter rigging and a thoroughly corrupt political system organizing tens of thousands of people in order to affect your personal belief system and presidential candidate though?! Yeah, the fix is definitely in. 

Maybe get a tin foil hat fitting.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 22, 2016)

In other wacky news, Trump said he's going to sue all 10 of his accusers after the election.

He also said he is going to win the election.

The presumed next President outright said he will be pursuing legal action against alleged sexual assault victims after the election.


----------



## nobodythank you (Oct 22, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> I dont know, bro- if your 7 year old knows Trump is a shitty candidate, maybe think about giving them more responsibility around the house. They sound like they have a good head on their shoulders.
> 
> I do like the moral relativism you sort of alluded to that's happened this entire cycle.
> 
> ...


Not at all what I said, but yeah let's just twist words. The 7 year old comment was meant to highlight the ridiculousness of the majority of comments I've read for this election. The only shitty candidate is the one who has been proven a failure in government for 30 years. The one who stole the nomination from another candidate through legally questionable methods. The one who is a criminal and escaped justice through improper and ethically dubious means with the assistance of a corrupt administration. 

If you want to jump on the "victim" bandwagon,  then how quickly we forget the candidate that attacked, coerced, and demeaned those women who proved they had affairs with her husband. But hey, false accusations are no big deal if they haven't happened to you or your loved ones. 

Additionally, I never alluded to anything. I merely pointed out that both sides have their dirty parts. The big difference, at present there is only suspicion that the Rs are dirty. The Ds are proven dirty with the recent wiki leaks dump. How quickly we want to ignore the massive corruption and asshatery afoot with HRC, but want to get tied up in knots over a candidate that is too brash. 

You can allude to all the wacky conspiracies out there. However, sometimes they are true. Most times not. But sure, assume all you like. As for voter fixing, lol. Yeah, I wish there was a treasure trove of recorded conversations that showed the intent of a political organization. You know, somewhere that correspondence was written down that could show collusion behind the scenes with the expressed intent of influencing an election. Oh wait! There Is! I guess I can return my 7 1/4 hat to the shop.


----------



## compforce (Oct 22, 2016)

I actually don't like either of them.  My backing of Trump is more of the "I'd vote for a dirty sock before I'd vote for Hillary" kind of thing.  That said, from a policy perspective, I don't see any of these that I don't agree with:

https://assets.donaldjtrump.com/CONTRACT_FOR_THE_VOTER.pdf

There are a couple that I question whether he can actually do, but from a policy perspective I like all of them.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 22, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> ...snip...


Whoooooooa! Easy, guy. No one is bashing your "political outsider billionaire" any more than they're bashing "crooked Hillary". I don't much care to defend either, and didn't vote for either. I wasn't twisting words or alluding to anything- I said exactly what I meant. I didn't "allude" to any wacky conspiracies- I am openly saying that most conspiracy theories are bullshit and this voter rigging conspiracy is just another.  I included 11 examples of bullshit conspiracy theories that are more "founded" and "have more proof" than widespread voter fraud. Now, if you inferred some deeper meaning, well, that's on you. Maybe "alluded" wasn't the best word- displayed, maybe? Provided an example of? Those are closer to what my intent was. I should have said "You displayed a central theme of what this entire election has been about". 

This whole election has been about "the lesser of two evils". Even some folks that are actually focused on policy (shout to @compforce for being the only one to do this consistently, kudos and thank you and that's not sarcastic in any way) still resort to "his policy is solid AND he's the lesser of two evils". Guess what? The moral dilemma of "lesser of two evils" means _you're still arguing for an evil._ 

Also, try and use words like "alleged" and "possible" when you're referencing things that you don't know about for sure. It preserves your intellectual integrity. For instance, if even one of those women didn't make a false allegation you'll end up looking like a dickhead that bashes sexual assault victims. Isn't that what your hated celebrity anti-crush Hillary does? Goes after women claiming sexual assault? Why would you want to be akin to her if you despise her so? Well, unless of course you're saying you know for a fact that the all those allegations are false- is that what you're saying?

Keep the hat. I am sure you'll need it come Nov 9th if your horse gets beat. If he DOES win- well then, he's the only evil left. No more comparisons, it's only his actions as they stand on their own and not in comparison to someone worse. You think that "national biased media" was rough on Obama and Bush? Get ready for a field day that lasts however long his term ends up being- mainly because of the sheer amount of material. 

And everyone that supported Trump so vehemently will have their own words ringing in their heads with every political misstep, every 5 am tweet, every new accuser. Or if Hillary wins, there are tons of people that did the same thing the other way- new emails, old charges, blah blah blah. You have her term to square the circle of being OK with voting for someone with her record. 

How about this for the lesser of two evils- I might be a stupid, condescending, ill informed, cocky dude that has a mediocre career in SOF and an even more mediocre career as a general human- but at least I didn't sign my name to either one of these degenerates with a straight face.


----------



## nobodythank you (Oct 22, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> yada...


Actually, yeah there is a lot more bashing one way than the other, but that is to be expected and I could care less. Yes allude was a poor choice. Now that you have expanded on what you meant vs what you said, I can see where you are coming from. I still think your idea that widespread voter fraud is akin to "Bush sent Katrina" is short sighted, and more importantly, wrong. However, you're free to believe as you wish. Just because one of the many "reputable" news outlets have failed to pay attention to fraud does not mean it does not exist. It also does not mean that someone who thinks there is a measure of truth to the issue is a conspiracy nutjob either. Is it so hard to make the logical connection that if the Democrats cheated their own party, that they would not cheat the American citizens? That the plethora of information coming to light shows a clear attempt to influence the election? Regardless, if it is or is not there no none is going to do much about it anyway. 

As to the lesser of two evils idea, yeah possibly. I can acknowledge how people see Trump, and I frankly don't care. I equate it to the prudes that look at you funny if they hear you say fuck, or cock, or any other word that doesn't conform to their idea of societal bliss. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe for a second that Trump is the messiah, or that he can make good on the majority or his ideas. However, as I have said from the start, he is an outsider that stands the highest chances of effecting real change to the political system. Not the false hope and change promised 8 years ago that has many people regretting their choices. He has already, thankfully, caused the Republican party to slowly implode and forced irrevocable change. The same is likely to happen to the rest of the system if he keeps to only half of what he promises. As I said before, short of bloody conflict (which none of us here want), this is the only chance at real change for our political system in many of our lifetimes. Sure I agree with most of his positions, but some I could do without (religion & abortion). 

Respectfully, I don't need to be lectured (forgive me if I read that wrong) on intellectual honesty, or about things I don't know for sure. I never said that all of the accusations on either side were real or fake. However, as someone who has taken more than a few sexual assault/rape reports, the majority of times (admittedly that I have encountered) they are reported, they are false and primarily used to secure free social services or to get revenge on someone. Would it surprise you to know that in this state, domestic violence and sexual violence (unofficially when it is male on female) are the only two crimes where you will NOT be prosecuted for filing a false report? The reason? Because they do not want to discourage reporting. Yeah, happened to me, my brother, and more. It is not fun to be the subject of an accusation of that nature or to be interrogated as a criminal. Which pisses me off more than you can imagine because it distracts from those who truly need help, and places a stigma against those whose only crime was to trust someone. 

In the end, I can look myself in the mirror if I vote for him because he represents the best likelihood of fixing the fucked system we find ourselves in. In the same vain, I maybe a dumb ex cop/paratrooper/student/deviant that was fooled by the promise of change, but I cannot in good conscience vote for someone who has left Americans to die, violated national security, flaunted their corruption, and generally holds the American people and system in disdain as a candidate for the highest office in the land. As fucked as out country is, I still truly believe it is the best place on the face of this earth. Hope that helps to clear up any miscommunication.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 22, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> As fucked as out country is, I still truly believe it is the best place on the face of this earth. Hope that helps to clear up any miscommunication.


That's fair, and there's no drama on this end. I would be somewhat of a hypocrite if I didn't accept the same as I give. I appreciate open, honest, and sometimes aggressive discourse more than anything else. I am not lecturing, nor do I care to. I feel as if you're wrong in saying things with authority which you can't possibly verify, regardless of previous experience. I suppose it sucks (if I am to believe you at face value) that you and many close to you have been accused of false sexual assault.  

All I am saying is this- don't imply or say outright that you know something you don't. If you feel like that's me telling you what to do, well, I am not sure what to say. If your issue is with getting called on that in public- again, not sure what to say. 


When you say that you think Trump is the best alternative to a "bloody conflict" what exactly do you mean? I don't want to make any leaps but I feel as if that is either hyperbole or truly worrying.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 23, 2016)

There is no alleged when it comes to Hillary, only un-prosecuted.  But, the media, who is supposed to be some type of honest broker in this doesn't care.  I have decision to make tomorrow, whether I vote for Harambe, The Rock, or Trump.  Once I make it, stuff that ballot in the mail and hopefully California turns something other than blue.

I have no issue with Trump suing his accusers for libel provided he didn't do it, which based on circumstance I find them all coming out as suspicious.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 23, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> There is no alleged when it comes to Hillary, only un-prosecuted.  But, the media, who is supposed to be some type of honest broker in this doesn't care.  I have decision to make tomorrow, whether I vote for Harambe, The Rock, or Trump.  Once I make it, stuff that ballot in the mail and hopefully California turns something other than blue.
> 
> I have no issue with Trump suing his accusers for libel provided he didn't do it, which based on circumstance I find them all coming out as suspicious.


FIRST of all, don't you DARE bring Harambe into this. That gorilla was the best of us. THE BEST OF US.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 23, 2016)

The past 8 years had no small input from HRC directly, and look where we are nationally, and internationally. Continue this path? No thanks. Last thing I need to say, as votes are already being cast

As to watering trees, etc...This isn't the only forum or medium I have heard allusions to this.  

A large portion of the US, believe that the only reason HRC wasn't even charged for all the shit she has pulled is because of the current administration combined with their family being past administration as well, and the political ammunition and inertia the two combined bring.

There is a further segment within the whole, which believes the system as it stands now, especially having seen the DNC actually fully undermining one of their other candidates at the behest of HRC, is broken beyond the ability to repair with the ballot. 

Fair and honest elections are seemingly becoming something of the past, especially with the pushback for voter verification, transparency as to where and who is funding campaigns, etc.....and that due to the combined issues as a whole, voting via other methods may very well be necessary.


----------



## nobodythank you (Oct 23, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> That's fair, and there's no drama on this end. I would be somewhat of a hypocrite if I didn't accept the same as I give. I appreciate open, honest, and sometimes aggressive discourse more than anything else. I am not lecturing, nor do I care to. I feel as if you're wrong in saying things with authority which you can't possibly verify, regardless of previous experience. I suppose it sucks (if I am to believe you at face value) that you and many close to you have been accused of false sexual assault.
> 
> All I am saying is this- don't imply or say outright that you know something you don't. If you feel like that's me telling you what to do, well, I am not sure what to say. If your issue is with getting called on that in public- again, not sure what to say.
> 
> ...


Same here, I will admit to being passionate. 

Understand that I did not say that all allegations are false. Merely that a large number of them turn out to be such. Do I have an academic study to prove it? No, nor do I require one unless I am within the context of a courtroom. Otherwise, like you I am human and form my own opinions based on the available data. 

I am going to presume that the context of your statement is in relation to the sexual assault issue. The issue I had was with the appearance that I am making wild guesses. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I don't mind being called out for being wrong. Nor will I sit idly by if I believe I am right. However, given the information at hand, BC has been proven to have had multiple affairs (which in and of itself is meaningless), and accusations of sexual misconduct. To the point that trial was averted because victims were paid settlements. Worse yet HRC attacked the victims far worse than Trump has his. It is one thing to stand by your spouse. It is another to use fear, intimidation, and threats to subdue victims. That in and of itself is akin to witness tampering. Where as DJT has admitted to having affairs, but not had to pay off accusers (admittedly yet). Again, I am not saying that Trump's accusers are lying, however, we also don't need to jump the gun and fawn over a group of people that make a convenient claim one month out from an election. Most importantly because there are virtually no criminal penalties for falsehoods concerning the accusers. It is a win win for them and that is where the system is broken. Nothing can be verified within the time frame provided. 

As for the bloody conflict comment, I did not mean to imply that a revolution is imminent. On the other hand I don't believe it is simple hyperbole either. Think of it this way, both parties maintain a strong hold on our society. An outside candidate that is uncontrollable is capable of upsetting the balance and those who stand to lose the most are those in power. It has already been demonstrated that both parties maintain an undeniable influence in the release and reporting of information to the public. Therefore it is logical to conclude that it is extremely unlikely that either party will work towards changing the dynamic they hold with each other and the public. Could there be change from within? Sure, given a couple of centuries. Hence the statement about within our lifetimes. In short, it will take an outsider who cannot be controlled to change or wreck the system for something better. Personally, if we are dreaming about changes, I would want to see something along the lines of how things played out in Starship Troopers (book, not movie). Then again let us all wish for pretty princesses and beasts for all.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 23, 2016)

A general question for the anti-Hillary/pro-Trump/pro-Meteor crowd: what does a "rigged election" mean to you?

Do you mean that some element within the election system is conspiring to change the outcome (via voter fraud, tampered ballots, etc)?  Do you mean it as something more abstract, as in the media won't allow a Trump figure to win?  Perhaps something else entirely?


----------



## Brill (Oct 23, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> A general question for the anti-Hillary/pro-Trump/pro-Meteor crowd: what does a "rigged election" mean to you?
> 
> Do you mean that some element within the election system is conspiring to change the outcome (via voter fraud, tampered ballots, etc)?  Do you mean it as something more abstract, as in the media won't allow a Trump figure to win?  Perhaps something else entirely?



Bernie is probably most qualified to answer that one.


----------



## Brill (Oct 23, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> A large portion of the US, believe that the only reason HRC wasn't even charged for all the shit she has pulled is because of the current administration combined with their family being past administration as well, and the political ammunition and inertia the two combined bring.



Podesta would agree with you.

White House, Clinton coordinated on Obama’s immigration amnesty order


----------



## Ranger Psych (Oct 23, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> A general question for the anti-Hillary/pro-Trump/pro-Meteor crowd: what does a "rigged election" mean to you?
> 
> Do you mean that some element within the election system is conspiring to change the outcome (via voter fraud, tampered ballots, etc)?  Do you mean it as something more abstract, as in the media won't allow a Trump figure to win?  Perhaps something else entirely?



Umm, Bernie, DNC, etc?  Your own party DID IT and you're asking this question..... really?


----------



## Brill (Oct 23, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> Umm, Bernie, DNC, etc?  Your own party DID IT and you're asking this question..... really?



How many people have chaired the DNC this campaign cycle? I think we'll see a fourth go down soon.


----------



## AWP (Oct 23, 2016)

lindy said:


> Bernie is probably most qualified to answer that one.



I guess you could call that...

(dons Oakley Chainlinks)

a sick Bern.


----------



## Brill (Oct 23, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I guess you could call that...
> 
> (dons Oakley Chainlinks)
> 
> a sick Bern.


----------



## Brill (Oct 23, 2016)




----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 23, 2016)

Chris Wallace going HAM this morning.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 23, 2016)

Voted


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 23, 2016)

So Podesta actively sought to rig--er, "modify"--polling data?

New Podesta Email Exposes Dem Playbook For Rigging Polls Through "Oversamples" | Zero Hedge


----------



## Dame (Oct 23, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> A general question for the anti-Hillary/pro-Trump/pro-Meteor crowd: what does a "rigged election" mean to you?
> 
> Do you mean that some element within the election system is conspiring to change the outcome (via voter fraud, tampered ballots, etc)?  Do you mean it as something more abstract, as in the media won't allow a Trump figure to win?  Perhaps something else entirely?


I'm not a Trump supporter, just FYI, so I don't know if I'm qualified to answer this. But I'd say this stuff is what looks rigged.
No, voter fraud isn’t a myth: 10 cases where it’s all too real


----------



## Brill (Oct 24, 2016)

I used to work for a guy who said there was no such thing as coincidences. I'm in that camp as well.  Follow the money!

Clinton Ally Aided Campaign of FBI Official’s Wife


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 24, 2016)

Yeaaahhhhhhhhh


Freefalling said:


> I guess you could call that...
> 
> (dons Oakley Chainlinks)
> 
> a sick Bern.


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 24, 2016)

Cash Flowed to Clinton Foundation Amid Russian Uranium Deal

That time the Clinton's loved the Russians...


----------



## Bypass (Oct 24, 2016)

I like my firearms so I will be voting for Trump. And a yuge wall. We will win bigly. Later dudes.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 24, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Interesting observation for the week:
> 
> We went to the NC state fair on Thursday.  The DNC/HRC table had a few visitors; the RNC/Trump table was absolutely mobbed.  The Trump stickers outnumbered the Clinton stickers 50:1.
> 
> ...


LOL


----------



## Brill (Oct 24, 2016)

What an idiot.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 24, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> A general question for the anti-Hillary/pro-Trump/pro-Meteor crowd: what does a "rigged election" mean to you?
> 
> Do you mean that some element within the election system is conspiring to change the outcome (via voter fraud, tampered ballots, etc)?  Do you mean it as something more abstract, as in the media won't allow a Trump figure to win?  Perhaps something else entirely?


Both voter fraud and tampered ballots. Why I am waiting until last minute to vote so they have less time to change my 1 to a 0.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 24, 2016)

lindy said:


> I used to work for a guy who said there was no such thing as coincidences. I'm in that camp as well.  Follow the money!
> 
> Clinton Ally Aided Campaign of FBI Official’s Wife


Being that 'ol Terry is the former party leader, fishy stuff ain't exactly unusual.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 24, 2016)

lindy said:


> What an idiot.


Yeah I saw that man it is ridiculous how the media is trying to protect their darling.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 24, 2016)

Saw this posted on another website. May be worth watching Hannity tonight just for shits and giggles.

A Hillary insider known as "mr fix it" will be on Hannity tonight ( if he is still alive) to reveal his true identity.
He is supposed to expose her for murder,drugs,affairs ,ya ya ya.This should be good!


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 24, 2016)

Bypass said:


> Saw this posted on another website. May be worth watching Hannity tonight just for shits and giggles.
> 
> A Hillary insider known as "mr fix it" will be on Hannity tonight ( if he is still alive) to reveal his true identity.
> He is supposed to expose her for murder,drugs,affairs ,ya ya ya.This should be good!


This is going to be such a bombshell!

"Mr. Fix It", real name Doug Stamper, is going to come forward and tell the world how he set up sex parties, was on a $4000 a month cash retainer, and did some of the most underhanded dealings ever. Mr. Stamper has access to the Clinton's like no other!!!!


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 24, 2016)

Perhaps now we'll finally be able to get to the bottom of the mysterious death of Zoe Barnes!


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 24, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Perhaps now we'll finally be able to get to the bottom of the mysterious death of Zoe Barnes!


I have no doubt in my mind the Clinton's are behind Zoe's death.

I mean- I have never seen the level of corruption and collusion out of the office of the President, with a husband and wife team no less! I am very interested to hear what Mr. Stamper has to say, especially after his long absence...


----------



## Brill (Oct 24, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> This is going to be such a bombshell!
> 
> "Mr. Fix It", real name Doug Stamper, is going to come forward and tell the world how he set up sex parties, was on a $4000 a month cash retainer, and did some of the most underhanded dealings ever. Mr. Stamper has access to the Clinton's like no other!!!!



I hope Heraldo does the reveal! I'm still pissed at that Al Capone's Vault show.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 24, 2016)

Bypass said:


> Saw this posted on another website. May be worth watching Hannity tonight just for shits and giggles.
> 
> A Hillary insider known as "mr fix it" will be on Hannity tonight ( if he is still alive) to reveal his true identity.
> He is supposed to expose her for murder,drugs,affairs ,ya ya ya.This should be good!



The highest credibility, accuracy, accountability, and journalistic rigour source I could find that was covering this subject:

Hillary’s Mr. Fix It Unmasked! Clinton Operative Gives TV Tell-All

The truth is out there, you just have to look until someone... anyone confirms it!


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 24, 2016)

How was Monica and her infamous blue dress exposed?  Drudge?  Then the National Enquirer?  Sometimes even a blind squirrel gets a nut every now and then.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 24, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> This is going to be such a bombshell!
> 
> "Mr. Fix It", real name Doug Stamper, is going to come forward and tell the world how he set up sex parties, was on a $4000 a month cash retainer, and did some of the most underhanded dealings ever. Mr. Stamper has access to the Clinton's like no other!!!!


So it is true then? I wasn't sure about it but was going to watch Hannity tonight just to see.


----------



## Brill (Oct 24, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> How was Monica and her infamous blue dress exposed?  Sometimes even a blind squirrel gets a nut every now and then.



No, he wasn't blind but trying to "rock the vote" by showing how hip he was.


----------



## AWP (Oct 24, 2016)

Both parties should be mortified by this election. Both offered candidates who could be beaten by a Fat Head decal on some 12 YO's wall. Instead, the Dems tossed out Hillary and all of her baggage (who probably could have lost a month ago), but the Reps doubled-down on their failure thanks to Trump and the 100-200 bags o' shyte who shuffled ot destruction in the primaries. Trump will take a double digit beating all around here in a few weeks, but if he'd 1) kept his damn mouth shut overall and 2) when he opened it addressed policy and a better handling of the "Grab 'em" video The Clinton camp could start writing her concession speech instead of her victory speech.

Trump had a pair of King's and asked for another card while Clinton had 12 and stayed. She should have lost this election, but the Reps have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Right now rank-and-file Reps should hate their party almost as much as the Clintons. They should consider there's a fair chance 18-20 YO voters in 2024 will remember nothing but Dem presidents. This election has larger consequences than the next 4 years and that never should have happened.


----------



## nobodythank you (Oct 24, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Both parties should be mortified by this election. Both offered candidates who could be beaten by a Fat Head decal on some 12 YO's wall. Instead, the Dems tossed out Hillary and all of her baggage (who probably could have lost a month ago), but the Reps doubled-down on their failure thanks to Trump and the 100-200 bags o' shyte who shuffled ot destruction in the primaries. Trump will take a double digit beating all around here in a few weeks, but if he'd 1) kept his damn mouth shut overall and 2) when he opened it addressed policy and a better handling of the "Grab 'em" video The Clinton camp could start writing her concession speech instead of her victory speech.
> 
> Trump had a pair of King's and asked for another card while Clinton had 12 and stayed. She should have lost this election, but the Reps have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Right now rank-and-file Reps should hate their party almost as much as the Clintons. They should consider there's a fair chance 18-20 YO voters in 2024 will remember nothing but Dem presidents. This election has larger consequences than the next 4 years and that never should have happened.


Win or lose, Trump is exactly what the Republican party needed and deserved. The party will either change or die.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 25, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Win or lose, Trump is exactly what the Republican party needed and deserved. The party will either change or die.



So does it change to appease an aging base, or attempt to garner the support of the people who will be voting for the next 60 years.... Serious question. Changing to appeal to those that are the main demographic in Trump's base will not yield long term ROI.


----------



## nobodythank you (Oct 25, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> So does it change to appease an aging base, or attempt to garner the support of the people who will be voting for the next 60 years.... Serious question. Changing to appeal to those that are the main demographic in Trump's base will not yield long term ROI.


Good question. It must force the religious zealots to rethink what is important to them. I have a sneaking suspicion that Trump`s base is going to be larger and more diverse than you think. Most importantly, the party is going to have to move out of the dark ages (socially) and learn to accept people and learn to compromise. I truly believe the silent majority is much larger than the hardliners on each side of the spectrum. Unfortunately, it is not likely to happen until that middle group stops letting others do the work for them and start taking an active role in the governing process. The mentality of "I don't have time for political bullshit" must come at an end. Hope that helps to clarify.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 25, 2016)

I honestly think this is gonna be close.  High voter turnout means a push, low voter turnout might be Hillary.  But as someone said on the book today, where are the Hillary signs?


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2016)

That guy on Hannity was a joke. About as shifty as you can get.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 25, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> ...High voter turnout means a push...



This morning was opening day for early voting in my AO. The line was around the building 30 minutes prior to the doors opening. That was impressive because I haven't seen it that way in a long time. If nothing else, there is certainly an interest in this election.


----------



## nobodythank you (Oct 25, 2016)

Voted. As noted before, early voter turn out looks good. Our early voting started yesterday, but I wasn't able to get there until today. Very strong turn out in my area with a steady flow of people. Although it wasn't packed, it was certainly busy. Additionally, things were very calm and quiet at the polling place. Gives one hope...


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 25, 2016)

Irrespective of the candidates, I'm hearing from a lot of people that turnout for early voting is big.  It's really heartening to hear that so many people are participating in the process this year, even if the candidates aren't the greatest.  More people voting, and participating in the democratic process, is always a positive.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 25, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Good question. It must force the religious zealots to rethink what is important to them. I have a sneaking suspicion that Trump`s base is going to be larger and more diverse than you think. Most importantly, the party is going to have to move out of the dark ages (socially) and learn to accept people and learn to compromise. I truly believe the silent majority is much larger than the hardliners on each side of the spectrum. Unfortunately, it is not likely to happen until that middle group stops letting others do the work for them and start taking an active role in the governing process. The mentality of "I don't have time for political bullshit" must come at an end. Hope that helps to clarify.



One thing I feel like I've really learned/confirmed with the past several election cycle is committed ideological folks do not change their opinions - their influence in party politics waxes and wanes.  I don't think you're going to get massive conversions of thought inside the ideological camps of the Republican (or Democratic) parties.  I think what you'll see on the Republican side is a shift in how influential those voting blocks are in candidate selection, positions, and party platform.

I think the Republican party has been dominated by two powerful blocks - the religious right and the chamber of commerce/business elite.  However, there are major voting blocks that have moved Republican who are blue-collar white working-class and essentially white/male identity blocks.  All have significant overlaps in their opinions - but also divergences.  For example the religious right is vehemently opposed to abortion, is socially conservative, but has significant swathes that do not identify with much of the low-tax, low-regulation, trickle-down economics of the business elite.  The white working-class can be socially conservative on a majority of issues (LGBT rights, diversity, BLM) but does not care about abortion and tends to hold almost opposite economic views of the business elite.  The business elite gives zero shits about abortion, social conservatism, is pretty liberal on a lot of social issues on actual policy, but is extremely committed to the general Goldwater/Reagan economic policies - with a hefty dose of corporate welfare thrown in.

Interestingly most of the conservative intellectuals are straight out of the business elite - but talk radio and right-wing media is religious right and/or white working-class.  It has set up some interesting conflicts in right-wing media covered very well by the NYTs, the Atlantic, and the New Yorker.  There is an argument out there Trump and his campaign have set him up to launch a media empire much less beholden to the conservative intellectual and religious conservative class (like Fox News and talk radio) and much more aligned with the white working class and white identity elements of the electorate.

To me what will be interesting is how the Republican party splits (if at all) to cater to these overlapping but increasingly disparate groups.  Religious conservatives and white identity voters are not going to vote Democrat, though white identity is vulnerable to third party and no party.  Significant chunks of the business elite and white working class are vulnerable to defection though if the Democratic party pursues policy or a communications strategy that's different.  However, I think that's incredibly difficult given the strength of what's called the 'progressive' wing of the party but is really the strongly populist economically liberal wing led by SEN Sanders and SEN Warren.  I think those make peeling off a portion of the business elite very difficult.

I think too, the business elite is increasingly finding their money is better spent focusing at the state-level and pushing really hard on libertarian issues - i.e. the Koch brothers and their organizations.  However, those moves have ended up ushering in politicians who, though sympathetic to the business elite, are ideologically drawn from the religious right.

All-in-all though I wonder how much the political parties can really re-shape a national message/strategy and how much they're just along for the ride.  I think citizens united, legislative reforms on pork, and a more diverse media environment have really hamstrung the tools the party has to bring members in line and pursue a unified strategy.

Just my opinion on all.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 25, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> I honestly think this is gonna be close.  High voter turnout means a push, low voter turnout might be Hillary.  But as someone said on the book today, where are the Hillary signs?



If Trump wins or this thing is close it will be the greatest polling failure of the modern era.  I think the question is does HRC win with similar margins to President Obama or is it a landslide.  The fate of the Senate and the margin in Congress will be the results of the answer - the Presidential election is done.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 25, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> One thing I feel like I've really learned/confirmed with the past several election cycle is committed ideological folks do not change their opinions - their influence in party politics waxes and wanes.  I don't think you're going to get massive conversions of thought inside the ideological camps of the Republican (or Democratic) parties.  I think what you'll see on the Republican side is a shift in how influential those voting blocks are in candidate selection, positions, and party platform.
> 
> I think the Republican party has been dominated by two powerful blocks - the religious right and the chamber of commerce/business elite.  However, there are major voting blocks that have moved Republican who are blue-collar white working-class and essentially white/male identity blocks.  All have significant overlaps in their opinions - but also divergences.  For example the religious right is vehemently opposed to abortion, is socially conservative, but has significant swathes that do not identify with much of the low-tax, low-regulation, trickle-down economics of the business elite.  The white working-class can be socially conservative on a majority of issues (LGBT rights, diversity, BLM) but does not care about abortion and tends to hold almost opposite economic views of the business elite.  The business elite gives zero shits about abortion, social conservatism, is pretty liberal on a lot of social issues on actual policy, but is extremely committed to the general Goldwater/Reagan economic policies - with a hefty dose of corporate welfare thrown in.
> 
> ...



Great post.  My first degree was poli sci.  I recall something, I think it was called the "90% rule":  90% of people have 90% of their socio-political values set by the time they are 22.  Some people can have radical rebirths, switch political genders so to speak, but it's quite rare.  Most people can have some views and positions swayed with good argument and facts, but given that most political positions are born from values convictions most positions get locked in.

I think you DO get massive shifts within parties, but they happen over decades, not election cycles.  What if you told me your candidate was big defense, moderate taxation with tax reform, pro-CIA, supported federal money for parochial schools?  Well, that was JFK.  In some definitions he would have been called a Republican.

Most of the political parties' foundational truths, though, remain (in theory if not fact):  The GOP will always be big business, small government, big defense, yadda yadda yadda.  The DNC has their pet platforms, too.  But each party has fringe elements within the party and each fringe element will duke it out for power a la 2016 primary process with 16 candidates ranging from libertarian-bent to kooky-soft liberal.  Of course, there will be offshoot parties...the Tea Party, the Green Party, but we all see how well they do in the big elections.

I agree that it has gone from the GOP as the master and the man the servant to the other way around; it seems that the more powerful politicians shape the party's message.  The GOP seems to be the sponsor, the moneybags for the candidate.  Now at the local and state level I don't think it's quite so extreme.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 25, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> If Trump wins or this thing is close it will be the greatest polling failure of the modern era.  I think the question is does HRC win with similar margins to President Obama or is it a landslide.  The fate of the Senate and the margin in Congress will be the results of the answer - the Presidential election is done.


Agreed.  They were talking about this on the FiveThirtyEight podcast last night.  The general idea is that the electoral college greatly amplifies polling gaps in traditional races.  At this point in the 2012 campaign, Obama had something like a 2-3 point polling advantage, and ended up with +126 EVs over Romney.  In 2008, he was at 3-4 points ahead of McCain, and came out with +192 advantage.  2000 was probably the closest squeaker we've had in recent times, with bush polling with less than a 1 point advantage (it was something like 0.7pts if I recall), and won with a mere +5 EVs.  If you remember the 1984 landslide, Reagan was polling 9 points ahead of Walter Mondale, and won by over 500 EVs.  

At present, Clinton enjoys about a 6.1 point average advantage according to FiveThirtyEight, and 5 point advantage according to RealClearPolitics.  Additionally, Trump is not currently have an advantage in any of the polls that both sites use to calculate their averages, including the LA Times and Rasmussen polls that have had Trump in a consistent lead since the start of the year.

I'm not posting this to gloat or anything, but as @Il Duce pointed out, all this data points to an inevitable Clinton victory, and the only question is how big of a victory it will be.  As well, it remains to be seen how this will affect senate races.
If Trump manages to win somehow, the entire polling industry will need to take a very hard look at their models, and Nate Silver will probably jump off of a bridge.


----------



## Single Malt (Oct 25, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> I honestly think this is gonna be close.  High voter turnout means a push, low voter turnout might be Hillary.  But as someone said on the book today, where are the Hillary signs?


All the polling suggests otherwise, in fact the below article explains that even with all the adjustments done to polling data to count for the untapped voter base that Trump may bring out to vote, it won't be close and even less likely for him to win. It was rather surprising to me, I thought the predictions weren't doing little correction for the "Trump factor" but it turns out that they did in fact turned it up to 11 to count for that and Trump not even close.


----------



## Single Malt (Oct 25, 2016)

Here is the article: 
Election Update: Why Our Model Is More Bullish Than Others On Trump

P.S. These guys have quickly become the standard and the front runners in the statistics and predictions game. Their record from the previous elections and primaries is outstanding.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 25, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Agreed.  They were talking about this on the FiveThirtyEight podcast last night.  The general idea is that the electoral college greatly amplifies polling gaps in traditional races.  At this point in the 2012 campaign, Obama had something like a 2-3 point polling advantage, and ended up with +126 EVs over Romney.  In 2008, he was at 3-4 points ahead of McCain, and came out with +192 advantage.  2000 was probably the closest squeaker we've had in recent times, with bush polling with less than a 1 point advantage (it was something like 0.7pts if I recall), and won with a mere +5 EVs.  If you remember the 1984 landslide, Reagan was polling 9 points ahead of Walter Mondale, and won by over 500 EVs.
> 
> At present, Clinton enjoys about a 6.1 point average advantage according to FiveThirtyEight, and 5 point advantage according to RealClearPolitics.  Additionally, Trump is not currently have an advantage in any of the polls that both sites use to calculate their averages, including the LA Times and Rasmussen polls that have had Trump in a consistent lead since the start of the year.
> 
> ...



FiveThirtyEight (which I like very much), RCP, Gallup....none of those polls matter.  The LA Times poll?  Doesn't matter.  Rasmussen?  Doesn't matter.  The only polls that matter are Florida, NC, Pennsylvania, and a couple others. 

I do _think_ HRC is going to win.  But this election _feels_ so different from the last couple.  Obama-Romney, there was NONE of this last minute swell that Trump is getting.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 25, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> FiveThirtyEight (which I like very much), RCP, Gallup....none of those polls matter.  The LA Times poll?  Doesn't matter.  Rasmussen?  Doesn't matter.  The only polls that matter are Florida, NC, Pennsylvania, and a couple others.
> 
> I do _think_ HRC is going to win.  But this election _feels_ so different from the last couple.  Obama-Romney, there was NONE of this last minute swell that Trump is getting.


Right, the state polling is the only one that matters.  I was just referencing those polls because 538 was talking about them as a metric for EV performance in the general.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 25, 2016)

So...you know how we talked about voter fraud, well here in Texas: Early Voters From Amarillo Are Saying Their Votes Were Changed On the Ballot


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 25, 2016)

So I just wanna throw this out there:  What are you going to do if your choice doesn't win?  Just shrug, say "what's done is done," and move on?  Become politically active?  Stock up on guns and ammo? 

My kids have been asking me this question this week.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 25, 2016)

One of the things I wonder too is if the Republican party splits into multiple parties on the lines of what I discussed earlier is what vulnerabilities does that generate in traditional Democratic voting blocks?  Democratic voting blocks tend to be less ideological and more identity-based (talking about models, not thought-process).

So, significant groups of African-American and Latino voters have a great deal in common with religious conservative groups on the right.  Their opinions like up on a number of social issues and general economic policies - but their voting patterns are polar opposites.  If the religious conservatives split off, are unencumbered by the white-identity politics of the rest of the Republican party, and are more amenable to the social welfare programs abhorred by the business elite I wonder what chunks of those demographics would be willing to move over.

Further, I wonder how deep the commitment to economic policy really is on the left when looking at a demographic of upwardly mobile, college-educated, white, Asian, and LGBT demographics if there is an aspect of the Republican party wholly committed to the business elite principles but unencumbered by the social and religious conservatism that translates as racist, homophobic, and anti-science to those groups.

I've been working through Rick Perlstein's trilogy on the rise of the modern Republican party starting with the Goldwater election, going through Nixon's election, and culminating with Reagan's election.  Very interesting - he weaves a narrative that explains a great deal about how voting demographics shifted to where they are today.  A lot of really interesting parallels with today's election.  It's kind of taken me aback as I had been very committed to the idea of how this election was totally revolutionary and we hadn't seen anything like it.  That's true in a number of ways but also some significant points of convergence.  I highly recommend the books if it's a topic that interests you.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 25, 2016)

I just look at how states vote, for the most part urban areas vote democratic and rural areas vote Republican.  If you look at California or NY for example, you win the state by winning NYC, you don't have to worry about any other place for the most part.  In California, win LA and the Bay.

In regards to what I'm going to do...move forward.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 25, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> In regards to what I'm going to do...move forward.



What does that look like?  I said that after Obama and yet I talk smack about him, email my congress critter, etc.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 25, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> One of the things I wonder too is if the Republican party splits into multiple parties on the lines of what I discussed earlier is what vulnerabilities does that generate in traditional Democratic voting blocks?  Democratic voting blocks tend to be less ideological and more identity-based (talking about models, not thought-process).
> 
> So, significant groups of African-American and Latino voters have a great deal in common with religious conservative groups on the right.  Their opinions like up on a number of social issues and general economic policies - but their voting patterns are polar opposites.  If the religious conservatives split off, are unencumbered by the white-identity politics of the rest of the Republican party, and are more amenable to the social welfare programs abhorred by the business elite I wonder what chunks of those demographics would be willing to move over.
> 
> ...



Good points there. If conservatism was limited to helping the business elite, and paying if social/religious issues, I may be right there with them.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 25, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> What does that look like?  I said that after Obama and yet I talk smack about him, email my congress critter, etc.


If whomever does a shit job, talking smack will probably be a part of moving forward.  I've already voted, but at that point I will probably still need to find a job, so I'll keep doing that.  I still can't believe this is where we are, though.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2016)

Report: Votes Switched From Trump to Hillary in Texas


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 25, 2016)

This happens in every single election.  Touch screen machines fall out of calibration sometimes and need to be re-adjusted.


----------



## nobodythank you (Oct 25, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> Just my opinion on all.


I can agree with much of what you have said. Minus the constant reference to white voting blocks. With respect, this kind of discussion only serves to further the divide in existence. It almost paints a picture that it is a crime to be white (admittedly that view might be personal bias coloring my thoughts). I believe it goes much deeper than a simple binary trait as color. While I agree that most staunch religious (read usually non-educated) blocks won't/can't change, those that refuse to change will be lost in time. Look at how the issue of civil/gay rights has slowly eroded over time. Most people are moderates even within their own religions and can reconcile the religious and social aspects of their lives.

All in all I think we are both saying similar things. The difference being that I am looking at it in the germs will make you sick (macro) viewpoint, and you are looking at it from the "this specific protein marker is what makes you sick with gonasyphaherpalaids type 4 (micro) viewpoint. Well done in any event.


----------



## Bypass (Oct 25, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> This happens in every single election.  Touch screen machines fall out of calibration sometimes and need to be re-adjusted.


Yeah right.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 25, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> I can agree with much of what you have said. Minus the constant reference to white voting blocks. With respect, this kind of discussion only serves to further the divide in existence. It almost paints a picture that it is a crime to be white (admittedly that view might be personal bias coloring my thoughts). I believe it goes much deeper than a simple binary trait as color. While I agree that most staunch religious (read usually non-educated) blocks won't/can't change, those that refuse to change will be lost in time. Look at how the issue of civil/gay rights has slowly eroded over time. Most people are moderates even within their own religions and can reconcile the religious and social aspects of their lives.
> 
> All in all I think we are both saying similar things. The difference being that I am looking at it in the germs will make you sick (macro) viewpoint, and you are looking at it from the "this specific protein marker is what makes you sick with gonasyphaherpalaids type 4 (micro) viewpoint. Well done in any event.



I hear what you're saying.  I think characterizing voting groups is an effective modeling tool to predict large group behaviors but, like any modeling tool, is very problematic the tighter you take the group.  It also implies causation and lumps people together that might have extremely diverse views - they just happen to fit inside certain voting patterns.  Also, some of the blocks are controversial.  I don't think there's any way to talk about 'white identity' parties and politics without the specter of atrocious racism hanging in the background.

I definitely don't ascribe my opinions and beliefs to my being a part of any demographic or group - and wouldn't put the same label on individuals on this site or anywhere else.  However, I still think the modeling tools and political science/polling lexicon are useful and predictive instruments in describing electoral politics.  I guess it's like saying someone is generation whatever.  It's a good tool for policy because it's a predictor of large group behavior i.e. more people will/will not own homes, carry debt, etc. but the minute you try to say 'you were born in year X so you believe Y and live like Z' you're totally full of shit.


----------



## nobodythank you (Oct 25, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> I hear what you're saying.  I think characterizing voting groups is an effective modeling tool to predict large group behaviors but, like any modeling tool, is very problematic the tighter you take the group.  It also implies causation and lumps people together that might have extremely diverse views - they just happen to fit inside certain voting patterns.  Also, some of the blocks are controversial.  I don't think there's any way to talk about 'white identity' parties and politics without the specter of atrocious racism hanging in the background.
> 
> I definitely don't ascribe my opinions and beliefs to my being a part of any demographic or group - and wouldn't put the same label on individuals on this site or anywhere else.  However, I still think the modeling tools and political science/polling lexicon are useful and predictive instruments in describing electoral politics.  I guess it's like saying someone is generation whatever.  It's a good tool for policy because it's a predictor of large group behavior i.e. more people will/will not own homes, carry debt, etc. but the minute you try to say 'you were born in year X so you believe Y and live like Z' you're totally full of shit.


I see your point. From a scientific/academic standpoint it makes sense. Thank you for laying it out that way.


----------



## Brill (Oct 25, 2016)

I think we'll see a resurgence of a Tea Party like element where blue collar workers, who are religious but tolerant to a point (do what you do inside your house of worship but don't push it on me), are sick of the DC bullshit at the workers expense and are tired of the PC crap.

Rich and poor Republicans are tired of politicians in power telling them X is for their own well being when hardly any of X applies to themselves.

I cannot believe this country would allow husband and wife POTUSes.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 25, 2016)

I think regardless of the political future, party systems and or agendas, we as a nation are heading for a very nasty reform, for one side or the other. When that happens, on issues of rights, states rights and national debt, I think we will face a second civil war and at that point it won't fucking matter what party is clamoring for power.

Fuck Hillary, she is a lying bitch.
Fuck Trump he is a fucking asshole.
Fuck all the political groups, packs, parties, etc. Your fucking country and countrymen should always come first. And I can't wait to see the day when the corrupt motherfuckers are publicly executed for their crimes...
$.02


----------



## Brill (Oct 25, 2016)

Soviet Russia would be proud of the "news" machine.



> In the twelve weeks since the party conventions concluded in late July, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has received significantly more broadcast network news coverage than his Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, but nearly all of that coverage (91%) has been hostile, according to a new study by the Media Research Center (MRC).









MRC Study: Documenting TV’s Twelve Weeks of Trump Bashing


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 25, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> This happens in every single election.  Touch screen machines fall out of calibration sometimes and need to be re-adjusted.


When you input 1 but that's really a zero. . .


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 26, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> This happens in every single election.  Touch screen machines fall out of calibration sometimes and need to be re-adjusted.



Which should have been done when first setup and before voters used them.  Especially if it's a known fault and if it happens even once, they should be removed until recalibrated.  And if it was just a calibration problem, there would be instances of it switching to other parties as well, not just democrat.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 26, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> Which should have been done when first setup and before voters used them.


Election stations do this before voters show up.



RackMaster said:


> Especially if it's a known fault and if it happens even once, they should be removed until recalibrated.


According to the Facebook posts that sparked this controversy, that's exactly what happened.



RackMaster said:


> And if it was just a calibration problem, there would be instances of it switching to other parties as well, not just democrat.


From the last election: 



I imagine that there aren't more recordings like this because there isn't a prominent narrative of vote-switching on the Democrat side, so instead of throwing up a video and screaming "RIGGED!!!" to the heavens, they just get a poll worker to fix the problem, and vote as normal.  You'll note that in those Facebook posts, the voters involved were able to cast their votes correctly after poll workers took them offline, which tells me that that this is just an inconvenience rather than evidence of malfeasance.

Look, if you get touch-sensitive LCD screens, especially older ones, and have hundreds or thousands of grubby fingers jabbing them in a single day, some of them might fall out of calibration.  I don't know how old those specific machines are, but I would wager that some of them were probably used in the midterms as well as the 2012 election.  I had a Blackberry that used to do this (back when Blackberries were still a thing) and had to recalibrate it close to once a week, which was super annoying and I'm glad that I ditched that piece of shit.  The Chase bank location near me has a nearly brand-new ATM with an LCD screen, and the cursor drifts ever-so slightly so that you kinda have to put your finger slightly up and to the left of the number you actually want to hit.

If the voting machines really were "rigged", wouldn't your vote appear as normal and just be miscounted on the digital register?  If this is evidence of rigging conspiracy in the most visible election on the entire planet, then the conspirators are some of the most incompetent amateurs in history.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 26, 2016)

I knew 'some' MSM reporters were in the bag for HRC, but if true, this is...a lot, with a lot of influence going both ways....

THE WIKILEAKS LIST: At Least 65 MSM Reporters Were Meeting with and/or Coordinating Offline with Top Hillary Advisors


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 26, 2016)

We've been using electronic machines for how long now?  There have been touch screens for how long?


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 26, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Election stations do this before voters show up.
> 
> 
> According to the Facebook posts that sparked this controversy, that's exactly what happened.
> ...



No need in explaining the tech to me.  I don't think there's a widespread "rigging" but I have no doubt at the local level there's a little bit of negligence in the setup and operating of the machines.  Voting just started, if they are "grubby"; then there is absolutely negligence or "rigging" in the system.  The same technology is used in ABM's and they don't need as much calibration...


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 26, 2016)

Now there's double voting...

CBS4 Investigation Finds People Voting Twice


----------



## Blizzard (Oct 26, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> We've been using electronic machines for how long now?  There have been touch screens for how long?


We still use the "fill in the circle"/Scantron ballots.


----------



## Dame (Oct 26, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> This happens in every single election.  Touch screen machines fall out of calibration sometimes and need to be re-adjusted.


Guess why. 


> One of the world’s largest ATM manufacturers and, formerly, one of the largest manufacturers of electronic voting systems, has been indicted by federal prosecutors for bribery and falsification of documents.
> The charges represent only the latest in a long series of criminal and/or unethical misconduct by Diebold, Inc. and their executives over the past decade.
> A U.S. Attorney says the latest charges are in response to “a worldwide pattern of criminal conduct” by the company…bribing government officials and falsifying documents in China, Indonesia and Russia to obtain and retain contracts to provide ATMs to banks in those countries.


Voting Machine Manufacturer Diebold Charged Over Bribery, Fraud, And "Worldwide Pattern Of Criminal Conduct" - disinformation


----------



## Totentanz (Oct 26, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> Now there's double voting...
> 
> CBS4 Investigation Finds People Voting Twice


Shush, voter fraud's not real...


----------



## Brill (Oct 26, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> Shush, voter fraud's not real...



It's not! This is election fraud!!!


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 26, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> Shush, voter fraud's not real...





lindy said:


> It's not! This is election fraud!!!



Worse - its outright conspiracy, dontchya' know.

Lack of substantial evidence for it only proves that the cover up part is working, obviously. 

:-/


----------



## Dame (Oct 26, 2016)

Voted.


----------



## Brill (Oct 26, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Worse - its outright conspiracy, dontchya' know.
> 
> Lack of substantial evidence for it only proves that the cover up part is working, obviously.
> 
> :-/



Yeah, touch screens weren't pulled in MD because of anomlies of changing Rs to D's in state and the Baltimore mayoral election.:whatever:


----------



## Gunz (Oct 26, 2016)

Hey Hillary go fuck yourself. 

It's all I've got.


----------



## Brill (Oct 26, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Hey Hillary go fuck yourself.



In socialist Amerika, Hillary fuck you!


----------



## AWP (Oct 26, 2016)

The only way to keep an electronic device 100% secure is to disconnect it from everything, turn it off, and lock it in a Faraday cage.

Simple question for everyone: what electronic input devices have never failed you? 100% availability and 100% successful input rate?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 26, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> The only way to keep an electronic device 100% secure is to disconnect it from everything, turn it off, and lock it in a Faraday cage.
> 
> Simple question for everyone: what electronic input devices have never failed you? 100% availability and 100% successful input rate?



If HP has any part in making them, no matter how small; the device fails from day one forward.


----------



## Brill (Oct 27, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> The only way to keep an electronic device 100% secure is to disconnect it from everything, turn it off, and lock it in a Faraday cage.



Does anyone know how votes are tabulated? How the data (vote count) is counted locally and then how that data is moved to the state level?

"But surely the data is encrypted during storage and transmission!"...yes, I'm sure it is.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 27, 2016)

lindy said:


> Does anyone know how votes are tabulated? How the data (vote count) is counted locally and then how that data is moved to the state level?
> 
> "But surely the data is encrypted during storage and transmission!"...yes, I'm sure it is.




How did we ever vote in the old days? Without a serious media, the internet to tell us things were rigged, polarized left and right? Must have just counted on the honesty of the citizenry.


----------



## AWP (Oct 27, 2016)

lindy said:


> Does anyone know how votes are tabulated? How the data (vote count) is counted locally and then how that data is moved to the state level?





TLDR20 said:


> How did we ever vote in the old days? Without a serious media, the internet to tell us things were rigged, polarized left and right? Must have just counted on the honesty of the citizenry.



Stepping past security concerns for a moment, how did we arrive at electronic voting? Who/ what studied the old paper ballots and determined their margin of error, time/cost to process, and susceptibility to fraud? Then, how were those methods and results compared to electronic voting? At what point did someone or some organization say "we'll accept x amount of loss/ fraud if it saves us y and z amounts of time and money"?

That's all before data-at-rest and data-in-transit, key management, encryption methods between the polling stations and central servers pops up. What metrics are acceptable to go from old paper methods to a computerized process? Time, money, fraud, loss, risk mitigation...

Fraud will always be there, ALWAYS, so what's the best method to combat fraud and what are our acceptable losses?


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 27, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> How did we ever vote in the old days? Without a serious media, the internet to tell us things were rigged, polarized left and right? Must have just counted on the honesty of the citizenry.



I am sure William Tweed and Tammany Hall counted on honest citizens to do their part, too.  Corruption has been part and parcel of the political process since, well, definitely Biblical times.


----------



## DocIllinois (Oct 27, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Corruption has been part and parcel of the political process since, well, definitely Biblical times.



Then I expect that no one here will continue feigning surprise or disappointment, or an incredulity toward one side or the other, about it from here after.

That's a relief.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 27, 2016)

Since recorded history, when one person has competed with another for "a" position, there has been bargaining, trading, buying, of votes. It will always be that way. The only thing we can hope for is to minimize its level.

You will never be able to eliminate it as long as there is any "human" element involved. Even today in 2016, it's based on the "honor system" and unfortunately, the number of politicians with true honor are beginning to dwindle, IMO.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 27, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Then I expect that no one here will continue feigning surprise or disappointment, or an incredulity toward one side or the other, about it from here after.
> 
> That's a relief.



Do I think it happens?  Yup.  Do I think_ all_ parties do what they can to get a leg up?  Yup.  Do I think they should get called out when it happens?  Yup.


----------



## Totentanz (Oct 27, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Then I expect that no one here will continue feigning surprise or disappointment, or an incredulity toward one side or the other, about it from here after.
> 
> That's a relief.



Surprise?  No. Disappontment?  Constantly...


----------



## Brill (Oct 27, 2016)

Pat speaks the truff!


----------



## Brill (Oct 27, 2016)

Love history.



> Beginning on October 27, 1787 the Federalist Papers were first published in the New York press under the signature of "Publius". These papers are generally considered to be one of the most important contributions to political thought made in America. The essays appeared in bookform in 1788, with an introduction by Hamilton. Subsequently they were printed in manyeditions and translated to several languages. The pseudonym "Publius" was used by three man: Jay, Madison and Hamilton. Jay was responsible for only a few of the 85 articles. The papers were meant to be influential in the campaign for the adoption of the Constitution by New York State. But the authors not only discussed the issues of the constitution, but also many general problems of politics.




The Complete Federalist Papers < 1786-1800 < Documents < American History From Revolution To Reconstruction and beyond


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 27, 2016)

lindy said:


> Pat speaks the truff!


I lol'd

The only thing I'll say about the "liberal news media" being unfair and its right in line with the anchor:

There *should* be equal coverage and objective reporting- but if one candidate consistently does new and progressively bat shit crazy-er things or makes a point to be a national headline with some seriously idiotic behavior, and the other one doesn't, then what do you expect? Is your expectation that the media says, "Well, we don't have anything new on Clinton- I mean sure, she's a criminal and the emails and Benghazi and she's an evil lizard driving a meat skeleton and she's married to Bill Clinton)- but we need to be fair in our coverage; so let's ignore that Trump made fun of a disabled reporter and is threatening to sue people that are potentially sexual assault victims and referenced the size of his hands (implication being the size of his penis was adequate) on national TV and said John McCain wasn't a war hero cause he got caught and said that he can do whatever he wants to beautiful women up to and including grabbing them by the pussy and said he would create a deportation force and got into a twitter war with a Gold Star family and then said 'If I was in the office your son would be alive' and also wants to ban/register muslims and build a wall on our southern border that Mexico has to pay for."


It seems like Pat Buchanon's saying "Why aren't you guys as rough on HRC? UNFAIR! RIGGED! THE LIBERAL IS BEING MEAN TO MY FRIEND YOU SHOULD ONLY REPORT GOOD THINGS AND IGNORE BAD THINGS UNLESS THEY'RE ABOUT HRC!!!" and seems to miss the fact that the reason she doesn't get the same media coverage because she doesn't produce the same volume of material. Know how many Presbyterian churches there are in Topeka, Kansas? 5 at least. Know which one gets the attention and the other four get none? Because the Westboro Baptist Church is in Topeka. The media isn't unfair or biased because no one reports bad shit on the other 4, but that's probably because those other churches aren't protesting funerals or putting out hate propaganda. The WBC puts out more outrageous material.  

In the end, Pat's little tirade is the death rattle of a campaign that will most likely lose. Their legacy will be making excuses and a dearth of quips that will be pure comedy and a how-NOT-to manual on running for president in 10 years.


----------



## AWP (Oct 28, 2016)

Regarding online voting, these articles go into a bit more detail and you non-geek types should be able to follow along.

More than 30 states offer online voting, but experts warn it isn’t secure



> Experts say that states will not be able to protect themselves from experienced hackers, including foreign countries who could meddle with a U.S. election. That is one of the reasons that Ron Rivest, an Internet security expert and professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, gives online voting security “a big fat F.”
> 
> “The Chinese are very good at getting into everybody’s systems,” Rivest said. “They’ve attacked most of the Fortune 500 companies successfully.”



Ron Rivest is the man when it comes to security. Every single one of you, anyone who has ever used the Net, has benefitted from his work in cryptography. Ron even developed the ThreeBallot Voting System in 2006. If he says online voting isn't secure, then it isn't secure.

NIST Activities on UOCAVA Voting

Even NIST recommends against online voting.



> The study concluded that Internet voting systems cannot currently be audited with a comparable level of confidence in the audit results as those for polling place systems.  Malware on voters' personal computers poses a serious threat that could compromise the secrecy or integrity of voters' ballots.  And, the United States currently lacks a public infrastructure for secure electronic voter authentication. Therefore, NIST's research results indicate that additional research and development is needed to overcome these challenges before secure Internet voting will be feasible. NIST plans to continue to work with our partners in the public and private sectors on these issues.



NIST and IEEE (the guys who standardize computing technologies) are still working on developing a standard for electronic voting and they've been in committee since 2014.

Project 1622

The bottom line is if your electronic systems are susceptible to manipulation there's no way in the world something online will be secure.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 28, 2016)

So this is apparently the real one floating around...I'll place the fake ones in the humor thread: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cvz0SVQWEAAidQP.jpg


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 28, 2016)

Interesting piece from CNBC:

AI system finds Trump will win the White House and is more popular than Obama in 2008

Now, I don't know how accurate this guy is, but he is bold.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 28, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Interesting piece from CNBC:
> 
> AI system finds Trump will win the White House and is more popular than Obama in 2008
> 
> Now, I don't know how accurate this guy is, but he is bold.




I hope and pray that things turn out with Trump in the White House.


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 28, 2016)

And BOOM!

FBI Reviewing Newly Discovered Emails in Clinton Server Probe


----------



## Brill (Oct 28, 2016)

@Freefalling , how dare you question the Government, which has asserted electronic voting is tamper proof! The comrades have reserved a place for you in the education camp with a report date of 21 January 2016, or day 01 according to the new Clinton Calendar.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 28, 2016)

lindy said:


> Rubio is excatly what's wrong with government. Instead of not writing dumb shit or God forbid taking cyber security SERIOUSLY, his recommendation is just ignore it.  Where are the investigative journalists?
> 
> Vote out the damn incumbents!
> 
> Rubio warns GOP to stay silent on WikiLeaks hack


Disagree,
The Republicans as a whole need to be quiet and let the Dems attempt damage control.


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 28, 2016)




----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 28, 2016)

Apparently she wanted to fix an election in another country: 2006 Audio Emerges of Hillary Clinton Proposing Rigging Palestine Election


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 28, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> A general question for the anti-Hillary/pro-Trump/pro-Meteor crowd: what does a "rigged election" mean to you?
> 
> Do you mean that some element within the election system is conspiring to change the outcome (via voter fraud, tampered ballots, etc)?  Do you mean it as something more abstract, as in the media won't allow a Trump figure to win?  Perhaps something else entirely?


Chicago machine adding ballots until they have enough to win.
Stealing a primary (ask Bernie) by rigging adjudications.
Super Delegates who vote for their favorite, primaries be damned (watch the Republicans emulate this tactic).


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 29, 2016)

The first voter fraud arrest in the 2016 election was just made in Des Moines.  You'll never guess what happened next!
Voter fraud suspect arrested in Des Moines

The irony is delicious



> A Des Moines woman has been charged with Election Misconduct, a Class D felony, after allegedly voting twice for GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump. Terri Rote says she was afraid her first ballot for Trump would be changed to a vote for Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton.
> 
> *"I wasn't planning on doing it twice, it was spur of the moment," says Rote. "The polls are rigged."*


----------



## Brill (Oct 29, 2016)

@x SF med , another reason to drink PA's finest!

Twitter


----------



## Brill (Oct 29, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> The first voter fraud arrest in the 2016 election was just made in Des Moines.  You'll never guess what happened next!
> Voter fraud suspect arrested in Des Moines



Yawn.  

Former Va. man arrested for voter registration fraud


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 29, 2016)

Geee...no media bias in this headline. 

The MyPillow guy is a Trump supporter


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 29, 2016)

I usually hold off voting until I see which way Mickey Mouse swings...


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 29, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> And BOOM!
> 
> FBI Reviewing Newly Discovered Emails in Clinton Server Probe


Yeah I am SUPER excited to see what sort of bombshell forced an acting director to go against his own bureau's policy of not releasing information within thirty days of a political election.

It's got to be massive! I mean, there's probably no way that this turns out to be a headline with no substance that gets slow rolled a week out right?! 

Charges have to be imminent!!!!

I am so "over" this bullshit a 20 year old white chick at an expensive liberal college that identifies as mayonnaise and would prefer you use non-genderfluid dyamic ghostkin pronouns told me I had to "just chill and sit with your feelings."


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 29, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Yeah I am SUPER excited to see what sort of bombshell forced an acting director to go against his own bureau's policy of not releasing information within thirty days of a political election.
> 
> It's got to be massive! I mean, there's probably no way that this turns out to be a headline with no substance that gets slow rolled a week out right?!
> 
> ...



I hope you're kidding but that is funny, sad and tragic.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 29, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Yeah I am SUPER excited to see what sort of bombshell forced an acting director to go against his own bureau's policy of not releasing information within thirty days of a political election.
> 
> It's got to be massive! I mean, there's probably no way that this turns out to be a headline with no substance that gets slow rolled a week out right?!
> 
> ...


What a cuck.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 29, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Yeah I am SUPER excited to see what sort of bombshell forced an acting director to go against his own bureau's policy of not releasing information within thirty days of a political election.
> 
> It's got to be massive! I mean, there's probably no way that this turns out to be a headline with no substance that gets slow rolled a week out right?!
> 
> ...




I'm not sure if it was preplanned or chance, but today some of the premium channels, HBO & SHO, are broadcasting, "Weiner". It covers the period of time after his second "Carlos Danger" discovery, and right thru the Mayoral race for NYC. It includes his wife, and some of their brief interactions. She acts like she is not wanting any part of him or what he is doing. I really find that watching in now is quite amazing, on HBO no less.


----------



## Brill (Oct 29, 2016)

Interesting that the same folks (infotainment) that previously praised Director Comey for his professionalism now are calling for his head!


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 29, 2016)

lindy said:


> Interesting that the same folks (infotainment) that previously praised Director Comey for his professionalism now are calling for his head!



Or the people that previously called for his head are praising him now...


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 29, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Or the people that previously called for his head are praising him now...


Yeah, wasn't I supposed to hate this crooked FBI who colluded with the DOJ and did a shitty job in the investigation?


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 29, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Yeah, wasn't I supposed to hate this crooked FBI who colluded with the DOJ and did a shitty job in the investigation?



That is what I thought


----------



## CDG (Oct 29, 2016)




----------



## Brill (Oct 29, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Yeah, wasn't I supposed to hate this crooked FBI who colluded with the DOJ and did a shitty job in the investigation?



Only in 2016 would TSA look better than the FBI!


----------



## Dame (Oct 29, 2016)

lindy said:


> Only in 2016 would TSA look better than the FBI!


Go wash your mouth out with soap. No one looks worse than those glorified mall cops shaking down granny in her knickers.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 30, 2016)

lindy said:


> Only in 2016 would TSA look better than the FBI!


hahahah, not only liked it but you deserve extra credit. Well done.


----------



## Brill (Oct 30, 2016)

Dame said:


> No one looks worse than those glorified mall cops shaking down granny in her knickers.



I really can't tell if this scenario would take place at an airport or at Clinton's home in NY.


----------



## Brill (Oct 30, 2016)

I'm scared for Huma!


----------



## Brill (Oct 30, 2016)

A pro-Clinton PAC filed a complaint with DOJ against the Director...for violating the Hatch Act?

Democratic Coalition Against Trump


----------



## Brill (Oct 30, 2016)

Here's one for ya @SpongeBob*24


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 30, 2016)

When you look at all of the people whom Clinton kept around after each scandal...she's not the sort you want as a President, she doesn't know how to get rid of people who affect her bottom line.


----------



## Brill (Oct 30, 2016)

I cannot wait to read the FBI's warrant: will the cite Hillary's case or cite potential Abedin's false official statements?

Do these emails fall under Congressional purview due to the Oversight Committee's preservation order?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 30, 2016)

Scenario 1: Trump wins landslide victory and Hillary files suit due to government influence, citing her polling numbers before and after FBI release. Everyone agrees to a special election, Obama stays in power until special election, mean while Hillary is indicated on mishandling classified materials and corruption. Democrats cut tis with the Clinton's to save face, Joe Biden steps into special election, destroys Trump, Joe become 45th POTUS.

Scenario 2: Trump wins and Hillary is immediately chraged, and put on trial, the whole trial becomes the news of the day, thousands of crazy things come out. It's a puppet show, while the economy and national debt spin out of control. Trump blames HRC and Obama for mess, says we're all screwed, never ac acomplishes anything he campaigned on.

Scinario 3: Hillary is elected, FBI director Comey is murdered, we go to war with Russia. Gun control executive orders and constant overreach of power by executive branch causes states to start forming alliances outside of party politics, several states decide to leave the union, American Civil War 2.0


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 30, 2016)

Disagree cause - while I am assuming sarcasm, there is just enough Alex Jones in your post to make me wonder!


----------



## Brill (Oct 30, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Disagree cause - while I am assuming sarcasm, there is just enough Alex Jones in your post to make me wonder!



The NYTs is preparing the headline "Superdelegates to Electoral College Elect Obama Over Trump!" :-"


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Oct 30, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Disagree cause - while I am assuming sarcasm, there is just enough Alex Jones in your post to make me wonder!





I don't follow Alex Jones, but all three of those scenarios are very possible. I've been talking to the Joe Biden becomes POTUS scenario sence his son died. I think a special election will be called for and I think Comey gave them the reason to articulate that.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 30, 2016)

I wonder if Obama could somehow be inaugurated for a two year term should Hillary be indicted following the election.  Resign at his year limit of ten years and Joe because POTUS for two years.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 30, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> I wonder if Obama could somehow be inaugurated for a two year term should Hillary be indicted following the election.  Resign at his year limit of ten years and Joe because POTUS for two years.


What?

Why don't we just wait and see. There is a long way to go before she is indicted.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 30, 2016)

Most of the polling (going by and large by 538.com but I think they've got a solid track record) shows the race was tightening before this latest news-cycle fixation.  But, the polls were tightening as Republicans came back to Trump - not because Democrats or independents were abandoning HRC.  The same held true with when the email scandal was getting more prominent coverage earlier in the campaign - it tended to energize the other party and depress HRC supporters, with only slight movement in 'independents.'  I put independents in quotes as I've seen some convincing research (I think vox was where I saw the article so if you're convinced of their 'bias' then maybe you don't want to believe this) that most 'independents' self-identify that way but their voting history shows they're pretty tied to one party's view.  They are more vulnerable to staying home - but not to crossing over.  Further, the undecided portion of the electorate has been getting smaller as the race is ending with most of the swing states having the smallest percentage of undecided votes.

Bottom line, this news could help tighten the size of the HRC victory but is very unlikely to change it.  Who it helps are down-ballot Republicans who benefit from less Trump blowout coattails.  Predictably you seem them jumping on this latest report with both feet - and why it looks like to Democratic operatives, whether he intended it this way or not, that the FBI director is actively working to help the Republican party.  The timing of this puts maximum damage on the Democratic chances of taking the Senate and closing the gap in the house.

Similarly the Trump taped comments release timing was perfect for causing down-ballot Republicans to abandon him (then come crawling back a week later) before the 3rd debate.  That doesn't mean it was intentionally released for that effect but if you're a Republican political operative you've got to believe it was.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 30, 2016)

There is this piece of paper that has been amended to include term limits for POTUS. I can see the current one trying to get around that, hell; maybe all this media circus is about that very thing.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 30, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> There is this piece of paper that has been amended to include term limits for POTUS. I can see the current one trying to get around that, hell; maybe all this media circus is about that very thing.


Dude, don't take this the wrong way, but I think you need to step out of the right wing media bubble for a bit.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 30, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Dude, don't take this the wrong way, but I think you need to step out of the right wing media bubble for a bit.



You're probably right, and I didn't watch Fox news any until the FBI jumped back in.


----------



## Il Duce (Oct 30, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> You're probably right, and I didn't watch Fox news any until the FBI jumped back in.



Don't worry, non-President Trump is going to launch a major media effort that will be to the right of Fox news once the election is over.  The far right will be way more main stream.  It's going to be really interesting to see them inveigh on Fox news' left-wing bias.


----------



## amlove21 (Oct 30, 2016)

Can someone tell me why THIS chick .






Reminds me of THIS dude...


----------



## AWP (Oct 30, 2016)

No one in their right mind will indict a presidential candidate with a week left in the race. They would have to stand over a dead body, covered in blood and holding a weapon, to take a charge. Once she wins, no one will indict a president-elect unless...."dead body." The only way she takes a hit is after what will probably be a contested election and she's finally out of the picture. Maybe.

To recap: without some egregious, can't escape evidence of a crime, she will not be charged. I'd love to see her booking photo, but it won't happen.


----------



## Single Malt (Oct 30, 2016)

lindy said:


> @Freefalling , how dare you question the Government, which has asserted electronic voting is tamper proof! The comrades have reserved a place for you in the education camp with a report date of 21 January 2016, or day 01 according to the new Clinton Calendar.


Shouldn't day 01 in the new Clinton Calendar be 21 January 201*7?*


----------



## compforce (Oct 31, 2016)

Doesn't matter what she does, she won't be indicted unless she loses and Trump pushes the issue (which he probably will).   My scenarios are a bit different from what I've seen.

Scenario 1 - Hillary wins and immediately starts issuing globalist/gun control/socialist leaning executive orders.  I think you can look forward to...TPP (she says she aopposes it, but it fits her agenda to a T), "common sense" gun laws and the setup for amnesty within the first 10 days of a Clinton presidency.  The right pushes back, but loses while trying to stay PC and make everyone happy.  We continue our march down a road that was well documented by Orwell.  The conservative side of the population realizes what's happening, but by the time they come together to try to stop it, it's too late.

Scenario 2 - Trump wins and we have urban riots.  They get so bad due to the media's never ending crusade to fan the flames of conflict that it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.  The stock market comes crashing down for the first 90 days or so before coming back up slowly, wiping out an incredible amount of wealth.  Violence ramps up, law enforcement ramps up and pretty soon everyone's either carrying or hiding. 

Neither one of those two scenarios looks good to me.


----------



## compforce (Oct 31, 2016)

Single Malt said:


> Shouldn't day 01 in the new Clinton Calendar be 21 January 201*7?*



No, that's 1 January 1 A.C.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 31, 2016)

compforce said:


> Doesn't matter what she does, she won't be indicted unless she loses and Trump pushes the issue (which he probably will).   My scenarios are a bit different from what I've seen.
> 
> Scenario 1 - Hillary wins and immediately starts issuing globalist/gun control/socialist leaning executive orders.  I think you can look forward to...TPP (she says she aopposes it, but it fits her agenda to a T), "common sense" gun laws and the setup for amnesty within the first 10 days of a Clinton presidency.  The right pushes back, but loses while trying to stay PC and make everyone happy.  We continue our march down a road that was well documented by Orwell.  The conservative side of the population realizes what's happening, but by the time they come together to try to stop it, it's too late.
> 
> ...



Wasn't scenario 1 basically the same for President Obama? He did t do any of the shit  people thought he would do. We are still here. More guns than ever.


----------



## Dame (Oct 31, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Wasn't scenario 1 basically the same for President Obama? He did t do any of the shit  people thought he would do. We are still here. More guns than ever.


Yup. He is the world's best gun salesman. The industry will miss him.


----------



## AWP (Oct 31, 2016)

A tidbit of history for everyone:

Flashback: Bill Clinton cheered 11th hour indictment that doomed Bush re-election

Clinton's email, and the history of October surprises

Dropping Weinberger's indictment just days before the election was a move even Clinton attorney Lanny Davis called "bizarre." I'm not a fan of the "Person A did it so Person B can do it" argument/ defense, but I do think calling out someone for their hypocrisy is fair game.


----------



## Brill (Oct 31, 2016)

Can I use your laptop? My battery died.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 31, 2016)

Of the many scenerios I've seen thrown around, this one has been swimming around my brain for some time.


compforce said:


> cenario 2 - Trump wins and we have urban riots. They get so bad due to the media's never ending crusade to fan the flames of conflict that it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. The stock market comes crashing down for the first 90 days or so before coming back up slowly, wiping out an incredible amount of wealth. Violence ramps up, law enforcement ramps up and pretty soon everyone's either carrying or hiding.



It's funny really. Clinton wins and the average Republican drops an F-Bomb or two, kicks the dog, has a drink, and carries on.

Trump wins?  Look the fuck out. There will be riots and they will be violent. And not just the BLM folks either - the illegals who are here will be right there with em.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 31, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> No one in their right mind will indict a presidential candidate with a week left in the race. They would have to stand over a dead body, covered in blood and holding a weapon, to take a charge. Once she wins, no one will indict a president-elect unless...."dead body." The only way she takes a hit is after what will probably be a contested election and she's finally out of the picture. Maybe.
> 
> To recap: without some egregious, can't escape evidence of a crime, she will not be charged. I'd love to see her booking photo, but it won't happen.



Agreed, totally.  I don't think the primary goal is indictment, at least for 8 days.  I think their primary goal is to Keep HRC off-message and playing defense, letting the GOP pound her on these things.  Sure, they keep yelling "indictment", all to rouse everyone up, but I think they know that an indictment is very unlikely.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 31, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Of the many scenerios I've seen thrown around, this one has been swimming around my brain for some time.
> 
> 
> It's funny really. Clinton wins and the average Republican drops an F-Bomb or two, kicks the dog, has a drink, and carries on.
> ...



I can't agree here. People are saying the election is rigged. One candidate is saying he may not accept defeat. That is a recipe for more than saying "fuck" having a few beers and dealing with it.

I think that no matter who wins, it will be ok. As long as people aren't so concerned with stupid stuff I have seen posted the passed few days that they themselves do something dumb.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 31, 2016)

People are emotional creatures. When those emotions are charged, they say and do things they normally wouldn't. We -- the USA -- find ourselves in interesting times. But, we have gone through them before. We will drive on and continue being "who" and "what" we are. Will there be a percentage that pushes the envelope and "riot" or whatever they choose to call it -- sure, but, at the end of the day, life will go on and we will continue to be the USA. 

Warriors drive on! Warriors aren't changed by their environment...Warriors CHANGE their environment.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 31, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I think that no matter who wins, it will be ok.



I really hope you are right - based on what I have seen over the past year in regards to protests and violence over black men being shot by cops, I get concerned that you might not be.  Add to that the protests and violence over not the shooting of black men, but instead over the decision not to charge officers, I get doubly concerned that you may have more faith in people than I do.

Personally I think that if Trump somehow pulls this off, the "something for nothing" crowd are going to be very concerned that the ride is over.  The illegals who are here are going to be terrified that come inauguration day, the "jack booted thugs" will be knocking down their doors, and the ability to shame and influence change via Twitter/Facebook is over.

There will be violence.  It's just how I see things right now...but if ever there was a time I hoped my beliefs to be disproven, it is now.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 31, 2016)

Agoge said:


> People are emotional creatures. When those emotions are charged, they say and do things they normally wouldn't. We -- the USA -- find ourselves in interesting times. But, we have gone through them before. We will drive on and continue being "who" and "what" we are. Will there be a percentage that pushes the envelope and "riot" or whatever they choose to call it -- sure, but, at the end of the day, life will go on and we will continue to be the USA.
> 
> Warriors drive on! Warriors aren't changed by their environment...Warriors CHANGE their environment.



I want to believe you are right.  But I am really struggling right now...(see my post above to TLDR).  It is becoming "in" again to be anti-USA.  To be against the establishment, and the country.   Patriots are being seen as unenlightened and suffering from white privilege.   Last week my sister-in-law the overzealous liberal and social justice warrior said to me, "If you'd take the time to understand their side, you'd applaud their taking a stand against the National Anthem.  It's not their song, it's YOUR song."  She says shit like this because she is a cunt and knows that it pisses me off, but she also really believes it.

So @Agoge , while I agree that "Warriors change their environment", I am very concerned that it will be Warriors like you and me who simply adapt, improvise, and overcome, and warriors of my SIL's ilk who will make the most noise and actually influence change.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 31, 2016)

@Ooh-Rah, Brother, I know exactly what you are saying. We all have our realm of influence. I have members of my family who are exactly like your SIL. When I speak with them, I let them know that I won't converse with them as long as they identify with any group, I.E., Dem, Rep, Liberal, Conservative, Race, Creed, etc. I will only speak on terms of an individual and specific issues.

Many people out there don't possess their "own" opinions,  but simply regurgitate other's opinions that they see on the news, Facebook, etc, and claim it as their own. They ignorantly follow others. I don't let their opinions affect my world, because I choose not to allow it to.

I will press the fight, stand my ground, and then take some...more often than not!

Keep up the good fight my brother...I will improvise and overcome...I choose not to adapt all the time.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 31, 2016)

I like how some of you are predicting riots if Trump wins, like why?  If anything there should be riots if Hillary wins.  

But I just see a lot of facebook bitching about to go down.


----------



## Rapid (Oct 31, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Of the many scenerios I've seen thrown around, this one has been swimming around my brain for some time.
> 
> 
> It's funny really. Clinton wins and the average Republican drops an F-Bomb or two, kicks the dog, has a drink, and carries on.
> ...



Maybe you need the riots if Trump gets elected, no matter how violent. Maybe some people need to learn how they can and can't act.

Too many people on the left thinking they can get away with anything these days, because they're on the "right" side.

It's not a real peace if there's only peace when they get their way. I'll take violence over a false peace any day...


----------



## Dame (Oct 31, 2016)

Speaking of rigging things...


> Donna Brazile has resigned from CNN following the latest WikiLeaks dump that reveals she leaked debate questions to the Hillary Clinton campaign in advance of a CNN primary debate while she was a contributor for the network.
> ...
> The acting DNC head recently got into a heated conversation with Megyn Kelly when confronted by Fox News host over a different email scandal, when Brazile was caught leaking town hall questions to the Clinton Campaign.


Donna Brazile Out at CNN, Network ‘Completely Uncomfortable’ With Clinton Campaign Interactions


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 31, 2016)

Dame said:


> Speaking of rigging things...
> 
> Donna Brazile Out at CNN, Network ‘Completely Uncomfortable’ With Clinton Campaign Interactions




Media:wall:.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 31, 2016)

Trump urges voters to vote more than once:

Trump tells supporters to counteract voter fraud by committing voter fraud


----------



## Dame (Oct 31, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Trump urges voters to vote more than once:
> 
> Trump tells supporters to counteract voter fraud by committing voter fraud


Vice news in XML?


> <title>VICE News</title>
> <atom:link href="https://news.vice.com/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
> <link>https://news.vice.com</link>
> <description></description>
> ...


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 31, 2016)

Dame said:


> Vice news in XML?



It opens fine for me.


----------



## Brill (Oct 31, 2016)

Dame said:


> Vice news in XML?



The UTM source is vice news facebook.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 31, 2016)

That's not what he said, but cool headline.


----------



## Rapid (Oct 31, 2016)

The Dems and mainstream media prefer to go with bullshit headlines rather than actual things that happened.

Judicial Watch today released 323 pages of new Department of State documents, including previously unreleased email exchanges in which Clinton and top aide Huma Abedin sent classified information over Clinton’s clintonemail.com unsecure email system.



Trump didn’t encourage voter fraud in Colorado. He "just" questioned the integrity of the election.



> Did Donald Trump really encourage his supporters to vote twice? That’s how several media outlets, including CNN and the Huffington Post, framed some of Trump’s latest remarks in Colorado.
> 
> “Trump, skeptical of mail-in balloting, encourages voting more than once if necessary,” CNN’s headline originally stated. (CNN later ran a correction to its story, changing the headline to “Trump stokes skepticism of Colorado voting system.”) “Donald Trump encourages his supporters to vote twice,” the Huffington Post’s headline read.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brill (Oct 31, 2016)

Looks like DOS "enablers" are having a BREXIT movement, apparently tired of the stuff.

Clinton aide left classified info behind on 2010 China trip

I remember an earlier report of same crap by another Clinton aid in Moscow.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 31, 2016)

Pretty interesting read. Lots of technical stuff in it for a guy like me:

A Group of Computer Scientists Believes a Trump Server Was Communicating With a Russian Bank


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 31, 2016)

Rapid said:


> The Dems and mainstream media prefer to go with bullshit headlines rather than actual things that happened.
> 
> Judicial Watch today released 323 pages of new Department of State documents, including previously unreleased email exchanges in which Clinton and top aide Huma Abedin sent classified information over Clinton’s clintonemail.com unsecure email system.
> 
> ...



There is some reading comprehension problems going on in the second article you posted. While he does say go vote "4 or 5 times" because "we don't do that" he did also say to go vote in person after sending in a absentee ballot. Which here in America is not ok.


----------



## Rapid (Oct 31, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> There is some reading comprehension problems going on in the second article you posted. While he does say go vote "4 or 5 times" because "we don't do that" he did also say to go vote in person after sending in a absentee ballot. Which here in America is not ok.



Uh, when exactly does he say that? And why do you think a left wing news site (Vox) wouldn't have pointed that out?






He says you can go get a new ballot_ and have the old one voided_. He just chided the "other side" with the idea that they vote multiple times, so who the hell actually thinks he's going to turn around the next second and recommend his voters do the same? He literally mentions the voiding of old ballots. And lol @ the shitty "here in 'Murica" jab... like it's different anywhere else in the world.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 31, 2016)

Interesting...but calling BS

A Group of Computer Scientists Believes a Trump Server Was Communicating With a Russian Bank

But dat evil gubmint say da opposites
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/u...n-donald-trump.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur


----------



## compforce (Oct 31, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> There is some reading comprehension problems going on in the second article you posted. While he does say go vote "4 or 5 times" because "we don't do that" he did also say to go vote in person after sending in a absentee ballot. Which here in America is not ok.



Actually, it IS ok in several states...


> Among the states that do allow voters to change their early ballot after it's been cast are: Wisconsin; Minnesota; Michigan; Pennsylvania; New York; Connecticut; and Mississippi.



Want to change your vote? Some states say no problem

Colorado, where he was speaking, allows for:


> Colorado uses a vote-by-mail system exclusively, so there is no need for explicit absentee or early voting procedures, except for those who cannot or do not wish to vote by mail. County clerks and recorders automatically send mail ballots to every elector in active status, starting 18 to 22 days before the election. The last day on which a county clerk can mail a ballot to a voter is eight days before the election. However, since electors can register to vote until the polls close at 7 p.m. on Election Day, there are always some voters that cannot vote by mail ballot. Therefore, Colorado law requires county clerks to open and operate polling locations called Voter Service and Polling Centers (VSPCs) starting 15 days before the election through Election Day, excluding Sundays. Eligible voters can visit any VSPC in their county of residence to do any of the following:
> 
> 
> void their mail ballot to vote in person,
> ...


Voting in Colorado - Ballotpedia
So he was actually right about them being able to do it legally in the state where he was speaking


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 31, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Interesting...but calling BS
> 
> A Group of Computer Scientists Believes a Trump Server Was Communicating With a Russian Bank



I posted that two or three posts back


compforce said:


> Actually, it IS ok in several states...
> 
> 
> Want to change your vote? Some states say no problem
> ...



I was wrong. What I had read said it was illegal.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 1, 2016)

Finally it's over....:-"


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 1, 2016)

Some pre-emptory shots across the bow.  Democrats suing Trump for voter intimidation:

Democrats sue Trump for alleged voter intimidation in four states

I am glad these guys weren't seen as intimidating to non-Democrats in 2012:


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 1, 2016)

I sit in my chair, chanting to myself, "One more week, just one more week..."


----------



## DocIllinois (Nov 1, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I sit in my chair, chanting to myself, "One more week, just one more week..."



Just wait until after Donnie loses.

I predict that the definition of sore loser will be taken to new, preposterous heights.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 1, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I sit in my chair, chanting to myself, "One more week, just one more week..."



I hope and pray, that it will bring this last 2 years of insanity to an end.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 1, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Just wait until after Donnie loses.
> 
> I predict that the definition of sore loser will be taken to new, preposterous heights.


Unfortunately, this won't be the last time we hear of Trump. 
Why the Trump Machine Is Built to Last Beyond the Election

Essentially Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has amassed a massive digital enterprise based around donor lists from both the Trump campaign and the RNC.  The thinking is that Trump (along with Stephen Bannon) is going to launch some kind of Trump media network after the election, and will directly market to people who donated to Republicans during the campaign.  There's a few million names in the database, and Reince Priebus has said that the RNC values each email address at around 3-8$ per person in donations, so essentially Trump is sitting on an asset potentially worth tens of millions of dollars, if not more.  That is, of course, assuming that people don't immediately dump him right after November 8th, which is entirely possible.  His other brands such as Trump wine, Trump hotels, and his golf courses have all taken major hits as a result of the campaign.  While he may not remain a relevant political force, it looks like this shrewd business move might make him a relevant media force.

I've got to hand it to the guy - this seems like a smart business move.  Even if you don't like Trump, I encourage you to read the whole thing.  It's fascinating.


----------



## Brill (Nov 1, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I sit in my chair, chanting to myself, "One more week, just one more week..."



Oh no my friend...this Clinton storm cannot be stopped.

http://hillaryforpresident.com/wp-content/uploads/Huma-Abedin-Separation-Statement-page-001.jpg


----------



## Brill (Nov 1, 2016)

Pay to play?  Voters decide.

FBI surprises again, shares files on Bill Clinton pardon of Marc Rich

But Bill isn't running for POTUS! I bet Huma would also like to not be associated with Carlos Danger but it is what it is.

Spouses are linked.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 1, 2016)

I still think Trump has a chance, and will LMAO if he wins (and will stock up on ammo if he loses).


----------



## compforce (Nov 1, 2016)

And...  The stock market predicts a Trump win.  It's been right an amazing amount.

The U.S. Stock Market Isn’t Going Clinton’s Way

  BTW, I put my cash where my mouth is.  I've been betting against the S&P for a few months now and stand to make about a 600% return on my investment if the market drops below 2100 and stays there for a week or two. (which it actually did today on the news of Hillary's investigation reopening) .  If Trump wins, the market goes down in the short term (see my earlier prediction).


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 1, 2016)

The market got the Brexit vote wrong.  Just saying.

It's also worth remembering that even with the recent negative news, Trump's path to 270 EV's is really steep.  The NYTimes has a convenient interactive map that helps visualize the race paths.  Here's one I just generated using pretty safe states










Both Ohio and Indiana are probably safely Republican, while Virginia, Wisconsin and New Hampshire are safely Democrat.  From the latest polling, Colorado is also decently safe, but not a guarantee.  What you can see is that Trump needs to run the table on the remaining swing states if he wants to eke out a win.  If he so much as loses Florida, or wins Florida but loses North Carolina, it's over.  Early voting in both of those states is showing a pretty sizable Democratic advantage, so far, but the prevailing wisdom is that early voting tends to favor Democrats anyway.  Interestingly, I've heard that because of the Democratic GOTV operation in NC, early voting results for them are above what they were in 2012.  It's entirely possible that we could see NC go blue this year.

Like you, I've put my money where my mouth is, except I made direct bets on PredictIt.  I am long on a D win in NC and Florida, though I'm not so sure about Florida these days.  I'm also long on a Clinton win.


----------



## compforce (Nov 1, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> The market got the Brexit vote wrong.  Just saying.


But I got it exactly right and made a good bit of cash on them being wrong.



> Like you, I've put my money where my mouth is, except I made direct bets on PredictIt.  I am long on a D win in NC and Florida, though I'm not so sure about Florida these days.  I'm also long on a Clinton win.



I like win-win solutions where I'm on both winning sides.  The S&P always drops the week after the election regardless of winner. If Hillary wins, I win a little.  If Trump wins I win a lot.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 1, 2016)

The Cubs and Hillary cannot win.  Then I'm very sure there's an illuminati.


----------



## Brill (Nov 2, 2016)

compforce said:


> If Trump wins I win a lot.



We the People win a lot!


----------



## Brill (Nov 2, 2016)

Enjoy!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/magazine/when-hillary-and-donald-were-friends.html


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 2, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> The market got the Brexit vote wrong.  Just saying.
> 
> It's also worth remembering that even with the recent negative news, Trump's path to 270 EV's is really steep.  The NYTimes has a convenient interactive map that helps visualize the race paths.  Here's one I just generated using pretty safe states
> 
> ...



A local poll has Trump up 6 in NC.  Of course, this shit changes daily so we'll see.  Florida's numbers are strong on Trump.  Even Wisconsin is starting to get interesting, and some polls have Trump within the MOE.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 2, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> A local poll has Trump up 6 in NC.  Of course, this shit changes daily so we'll see.  Florida's numbers are strong on Trump.  Even Wisconsin is starting to get interesting, and some polls have Trump within the MOE.



And he's on the move, stumping all the swing states daily and I'm sure the all out ad War will go until the end.  Add in the daily release of potential "evidence" against the Clinton Crime Syndicate. :-"


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 2, 2016)

I just want the election to end.... Tuesday can't come soon enough.

I will say what I have said from the beginning one more time.

No matter who wins this election, we the people will persevere. We are what makes America great, not politicians or shitty, poorly thought out slogans. While I certainly do not like Trump, if he wins I will give him the same respect I have always given the office of the presidency,no matter who was in it. I think we as a nation are more than the president. I am proud of our nation and I think that a peaceful transition to the winner is the most important thing going forward. I fear that idiots on both sides will make that difficult in the coming weeks.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 2, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I just want the election to end.... Tuesday can't come soon enough.
> 
> I will say what I have said from the beginning one more time.
> 
> No matter who wins this election, we the people will persevere. We are what makes America great, not politicians or shitty, poorly thought out slogans. While I certainly do not like Trump, if he wins I will give him the same respect I have always given the office of the presidency,no matter who was in it. I think we as a nation are more than the president. I am proud of our nation and I think that a peaceful transition to the winner is the most important thing going forward. I fear that idiots on both sides will make that difficult in the coming weeks.



Well said.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 2, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I just want the election to end.... Tuesday can't come soon enough.
> 
> I will say what I have said from the beginning one more time.
> 
> No matter who wins this election, we the people will persevere. We are what makes America great, not politicians or shitty, poorly thought out slogans. While I certainly do not like Trump, if he wins I will give him the same respect I have always given the office of the presidency,no matter who was in it. I think we as a nation are more than the president. I am proud of our nation and I think that a peaceful transition to the winner is the most important thing going forward. I fear that idiots on both sides will make that difficult in the coming weeks.



Well said.  I know when it is all said and done, I will really need to have a come-to-Jesus with myself about moving forward.  But honestly, if I could do it with that clown in in Oval, I can do it with either Trump or HRC.


----------



## DocIllinois (Nov 2, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I just want the election to end.... Tuesday can't come soon enough.
> 
> I will say what I have said from the beginning one more time.
> 
> No matter who wins this election, we the people will persevere. We are what makes America great, not politicians or shitty, poorly thought out slogans. While I certainly do not like Trump, if he wins I will give him the same respect I have always given the office of the presidency,no matter who was in it. I think we as a nation are more than the president. I am proud of our nation and I think that a peaceful transition to the winner is the most important thing going forward. I fear that idiots on both sides will make that difficult in the coming weeks.



Agreed.  I bag on Donnie because he's an orange-colored, racist, misogynist moron with no experience for the job he wants, but if the stars violently misalign he'll still be POTUS and I respect the position.

And, just like I expect my own men to say some version of, "That's fucking stupid, sir" when I present a questionable idea or plan, I will do the very same with Donnie.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 2, 2016)

Donald Trump is going to win, he is going to make everything more better than ever before, and he is going to grab all you sniveling bitches by the pussy...


As the great philosopher Forest Gump once said "I just felt like running" and "life is like a box of chocolate, you never know what you're going to get". 

When you vote for and elect retarded people into the most powerful position of the world, retarded shit happens...alot of it!

We should all be getting ready for our Sunday drive down to Stupidvill, where everyone is saying "have you seen my baseball" and you don't touch the earmuffs no matter how dumb they look.

The most corrupt women in the history of American politics vs the rich arrogant asshole. don-da-dah!!! I wonder what Captain Hindsight will have to say about all of this...:wall:


----------



## Gunz (Nov 2, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Donald Trump is going to win, he is going to make everything more better than ever before, and he is going to grab all you sniveling bitches by the pussy...


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 2, 2016)

Well, at least we know how some dems feel about blacks who vote Republican:

Top Democratic Donor at Ross Fundraiser: Blacks Are “Seriously F***ed in The Head” | Project Veritas Action

BTW, the man making the comments was campaigning/raising money for one of North Carolina's senate candidates.


----------



## AWP (Nov 2, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Bill Cosby



Jesus...that is fucking savage. I love it!


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 2, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Jesus...that is fucking savage. I love it!



There is just so much stuff out there right now. I can't keep up with  all of it. Things have changed in the last 72 hrs.


----------



## DC (Nov 2, 2016)

The election crap has been constipated with crap. The Cosby meme has made it seem regular


----------



## Rapid (Nov 2, 2016)

Hampton University's CPP Latest Poll Shows VA Voter Shift from Clinton to Trump Post Email Investigation

http://news.hamptonu.edu/release/Ha...Clinton-to-Trump-Post-Email-Investigation?a=1

I'm going to need a bigger bag of popcorn to watch all the butthurt around the world if Trump wins.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 2, 2016)

Rapid said:


> Hampton University's CPP Latest Poll Shows VA Voter Shift from Clinton to Trump Post Email Investigation
> 
> http://news.hamptonu.edu/release/Hampton-University's-CPP-Latest-Poll-Shows-VA-Voter-Shift-from-Clinton-to-Trump-Post-Email-Investigation?a=1
> 
> I'm going to need a bigger bag of popcorn to watch all the butthurt around the world if Trump wins.


That's cool.  Every other poll has Clinton up by a safe margin in Virginia.  http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/virginia/


----------



## Brill (Nov 2, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> That's cool.  Every other poll has Clinton up by a safe margin in Virginia.  http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/virginia/



Of course! 

The VA gov is the subject of an FBI corruption case, the former chair of Bill's reelection camapaign, chair of Hillary's 2008 campaign, and was a board member of Clinton Foundation.

Also doesn't hurt to allow 200,000 felons to vote.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 2, 2016)

I fail to see how a state governor being under investigation magically turns into a significant polling advantage which, after all, is simply a measure of people's opinion.  That's a pretty spurious association to make.

Also, there's only about 13,000 felons who have had voting rights restored in Virginia - a move that I completely agree with.  I don't see why felons who have served their time should lose voting rights in the first place.


----------



## Marine0311 (Nov 2, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Also, there's only about 13,000 felons who have had voting rights restored in Virginia - a move that I completely agree with.  I don't see why felons who have served their time should lose voting rights in the first place.



I do not agree. You should have thought of that before breaking the law. Voting is a right and by committinga felony you abandoned your social contract to follow the rules and laws of society and thus gave up your right to vote.


----------



## DC (Nov 2, 2016)

Voting is a placebo to make you think your "involved". Money makes all the decisions.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 2, 2016)

Something to think about....:blkeye:


----------



## DC (Nov 2, 2016)

More like


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 2, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> I do not agree. You should have thought of that before breaking the law. Voting is a right and by committinga felony you abandoned your social contract to follow the rules and laws of society and thus gave up your right to vote.



So break the law once and forever be punished? Why even have prisons if punishment is lifelong?


----------



## Marine0311 (Nov 2, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> So break the law once and forever be punished? Why even have prisons if punishment is lifelong?



In my example yes. Prisons serve many purposes and there are consequences after that. I generally don't trust felons. A felony is a serious crime and not to be taken lightly. Don't break the law (felony) it seems simple to me. 

I can come back and respond with something more but that'smy short answer.


----------



## 104TN (Nov 3, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> So break the law once and forever be punished? Why even have prisons if punishment is lifelong?


This could be a thread on its own me-thinks.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 3, 2016)

rick said:


> This could be a thread on its own me-thinks.



Yeah we should stay on whatever track this thread is on...


----------



## Brill (Nov 3, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I fail to see how a state governor being under investigation magically turns into a significant polling advantage which, after all, is simply a measure of people's opinion.  That's a pretty spurious association to make.
> 
> Also, there's only about 13,000 felons who have had voting rights restored in Virginia - a move that I completely agree with.  I don't see why felons who have served their time should lose voting rights in the first place.



He's very connected to the machine and can organize and fundraise like nobody's business...which is his business really.

Terry McAuliffe's other job


----------



## Bypass (Nov 3, 2016)

The 8th can't get here fast enough for me. I am so ready for this mess to be over it is not even funny. You guys be safe out there if Trump wins which I hope he does because I am voting for him there will probably rioting by the dindunuffins.


----------



## compforce (Nov 3, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> So break the law once and forever be punished? Why even have prisons if punishment is lifelong?



So they should also get their 2A rights back?


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 3, 2016)

compforce said:


> So they should also get their 2A rights back?





TLDR20 said:


> Yeah we should stay on whatever track this thread is on...



But since you brought it up....We have had that conversation and the answer is yes.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 3, 2016)

These fucking guys are just as bad as the BLM dudes....

Pro-Trump Militia members in Georgia in hand-to-hand combat training | Daily Mail Online
_
Down a Georgia country road, camouflaged members of the Three Percent Security Force have mobilized for rifle practice, hand-to-hand combat training -- and an impromptu campaign rally for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump.

'How many people are voting for Trump? Ooh-rah!' asks Chris Hill, a paralegal who goes by the code name '*Bloodagent*.'

'Ooh-rah!' shout a dozen militia members in response, as morning sunlight sifted through the trees last weekend.





_


----------



## CDG (Nov 3, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Those fucking guys are just as bad as the BLM dudes....
> 
> Pro-Trump Militia members in Georgia in hand-to-hand combat training | Daily Mail Online
> 
> ...




What a bunch of fucking clowns.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 3, 2016)

Of course, there are hundreds of people who work for Clinton, Inc., so an indictment could go to any number of people....

FBI Sources Tell Fox News An "Indictment Is Likely" In Clinton Foundation Case


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 3, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Of course, there are hundreds of people who work for Clinton, Inc., so an indictment could go to any number of people....
> 
> FBI Sources Tell Fox News An "Indictment Is Likely" In Clinton Foundation Case



LoisLernersayswhat...


----------



## DocIllinois (Nov 3, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> These fucking guys are just as bad as the BLM dudes....
> 
> Pro-Trump Militia members in Georgia in hand-to-hand combat training | Daily Mail Online
> _
> ...



These gentlemen are missing shemaghs and reflective belts.  There's no way I can take them seriously.

Donnie needs to control his enforcer elements.

:-":wall::whatever:


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 3, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> These gentlemen are missing shemaghs and reflective belts.  There's no way I can take them seriously.
> 
> Donnie needs to control his enforcer elements.
> 
> :-":wall::whatever:



NO one takes them seriously, but the MSM will portray them as "normal" Trump supporters.  No one will take them seriously as no one took the Black Panthers seriously in 2012.

This is a great read.  Probable pro-HRC group throws Bern under the bus.

Donald Trump Protester Speaks Out: "I Was Paid $3,500 To Protest Trump's Rally" - ABC News


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 3, 2016)

Speaking of conspiracy theories.....:blkeye:


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 3, 2016)

I suppose we don't need to vote now??


----------



## Grunt (Nov 3, 2016)

There are tools and clowns on both sides of the aisle. Unfortunately, regardless of who gets elected, there will be that "percentage" of them that will cause problems. 

@Ooh-Rah, I couldn't agree with you more that those three clowns do way more damage than any good -- to any cause -- for that matter. Unfortunately, guys like that think they are representing the 2nd Amendment when I, personally, think they are doing more harm than good.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 3, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> This is a great read.  Probable pro-HRC group throws Bern under the bus.
> 
> Donald Trump Protester Speaks Out: "I Was Paid $3,500 To Protest Trump's Rally" - ABC News


That's a fake news site.  The .co at the end should tip you off.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 3, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> So break the law once and forever be punished? Why even have prisons if punishment is lifelong?





compforce said:


> So they should also get their 2A rights back?



I agree (some caveats, but I agree in principle)


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 3, 2016)

compforce said:


> So they should also get their 2A rights back?


I could get behind this, with some exceptions.  For example, people convicted of violent felonies should probably not be eligible, but others should.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 3, 2016)

For all of you Hillary Supporters: A Few Questions For You Hillary Clinton Supporters


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 3, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> That's a fake news site.  The .co at the end should tip you off.



Thanks.  I did not catch this.  Odd that below that was this:

Undercover video shows Democrats saying they hire agitators to disrupt Donald Trump events


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 3, 2016)

It's VOX, but: Nate Silver's model gives Trump an unusually high chance of winning. Could he be right?


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 3, 2016)

Paul Horner is the author and he does this stuff for a living: Paul Horner: Internet News Satirist And Writer - News Examiner - Examine Your World


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 3, 2016)




----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 3, 2016)

http://www.economist.com/sites/default/files/elec16brief.pdf

Election brief, minus any scandals...


----------



## benroliver (Nov 4, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> For all of you Hillary Supporters: A Few Questions For You Hillary Clinton Supporters



Every single one of those is easy to answer. My question is how can anyone possibly think Donald Trump is a viable candidate for President.  He is worse than Clinton in every conceivable way.


----------



## Brill (Nov 4, 2016)

benroliver said:


> My question is how can anyone possibly think Donald Trump is a viable candidate for President.  He is worse than Clinton in every conceivable way.



It's not a popularity contest. Why are Clinton's policies better than The other candidates and how will her policies improve the lives of Americans and our country overall?


----------



## benroliver (Nov 4, 2016)

Well for one, the extent of Trump's foreign policy that I am aware of consists of "killing the family members of terrorists".  Trump has no experience in government at all.  He is thin skinned, divisive, and completely unpredictable.  He is clueless on immigration policy as evidenced by his grand idea of building a wall.  

He is a climate change denier.  

His claim to fame is being a businessman.  Has anyone actually bothered to take a look at that stellar business record? I see quite a bit of talk about the Clinton foundation and the APPEARANCE of impropriety yet no mention of the fact that the Trump foundation has actually been suspended. I mean the Clintons do bring heat on themselves by skirting the line, but even partisan fueled witch hunts still can't pin anything on her. Trump on the other hand has been convicted over and over yet gets a complete pass from his voting base.

I mean do I need to go on? This has nothing to do with partisan politics.  This is qualified vs not qualified. I disagree with Clinton on many issues, but it is logically impossible to conclude that Donald Trump is qualified to be president.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 4, 2016)

benroliver said:


> Well for one, the extent of Trump's foreign policy that I am aware of consists of "killing the family members of terrorists".  Trump has no experience in government at all.  He is thin skinned, divisive, and completely unpredictable.  He is clueless on immigration policy as evidenced by his grand idea of building a wall.
> 
> He is a climate change denier.
> 
> ...



If you are judging qualified vs not qualified and calling one candidate one, but not the other, then your metric is, well, _wrong_.  According to the Constitution (and the primary process), Trump is qualified.

RE: the Clinton Foundation and the "appearance" of impropriety...have you seen the news in the past four days??  And as one who has had access to classified material, I find it logically impossible to conclude that Clinton is qualified to be president.


----------



## DocIllinois (Nov 4, 2016)

Much of this thread has been dedicated to "proving" how big of a dumpster fire each major party candidate would be as POTUS, @benroliver.

At this point, to say that this sort of debate is a waste of time is a profound understatement.  Either candidate could post videos of themselves drowning puppies in buckets of water on their campaign website and the rationalizations and _ad hominem_ fallacies would begin almost immediately.

A photo of three jagoffs in camo was posted on the last page, though, so folks here do still seem to have a sense of humor about things.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 4, 2016)

Damn it.....who packed these.............:wall:


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 4, 2016)

benroliver said:


> Every single one of those is easy to answer. My question is how can anyone possibly think Donald Trump is a viable candidate for President.  He is worse than Clinton in every conceivable way.



You didn't answer the questions.  As far as being qualified to be president...none of the qualifications have to do with work experience.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 4, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> You didn't answer the questions.  As far as being qualified to be president...none of the qualifications have to do with work experience.



Especially when said work experience is being a defunct corrupt lawyer.


----------



## benroliver (Nov 4, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> You didn't answer the questions.  As far as being qualified to be president...none of the qualifications have to do with work experience.



If a reality TV show host with an extensive criminal record came in to my pharmacy looking for a job with no experience I wouldn't have even looked at him for a basic hourly job.  So please tell me how that makes him qualified to be president. I mean I have not seen anyone raise a legitimate argument here in support of him other than I hate Clinton or have access to classified material.  

I mean everyone loves to talk about Clinton's dishonesty yet its a fact that Trump gets on that stage and lies more than 75% of the time.  These candidates are held to completely different standards.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 4, 2016)

benroliver said:


> If a reality TV show host with an extensive criminal record came in to my pharmacy looking for a job with no experience I wouldn't have even looked at him for a basic hourly job.  So please tell me how that makes him qualified to be president. I mean I have not seen anyone raise a legitimate argument here in support of him other than I hate Clinton or have access to classified material.
> 
> I mean everyone loves to talk about Clinton's dishonesty yet its a fact that Trump gets on that stage and lies more than 75% of the time.  These candidates are held to completely different standards.



Are you serious?  Or are you trolling?  I can't tell.....

Assuming you are serious.  Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution spells out who is qualified.  Or, maybe you are thinking "qualified" should be different from the "standard."  Because Trump has met the standard, and constitutionally is qualified.

That's the beauty about politics.  Unlike being a brain surgeon or nuclear engineer, there are no pre-qualifying standards aside from those in Art II/Sec 1.

I do agree that the candidates are held to different standards.  If Clinton had been under as much scrutiny as Trump, she probably would not have made it this far.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 4, 2016)

benroliver said:


> If a reality TV show host with an extensive criminal record came in to my pharmacy looking for a job with no experience I wouldn't have even looked at him for a basic hourly job.  So please tell me how that makes him qualified to be president. I mean I have not seen anyone raise a legitimate argument here in support of him other than I hate Clinton or have access to classified material.
> 
> I mean everyone loves to talk about Clinton's dishonesty yet its a fact that Trump gets on that stage and lies more than 75% of the time.  These candidates are held to completely different standards.



You cannot be serious? I think everyone will freely admit that Trump is an arrogant rich asshole. The same way that we can all agree that the Clinton's are the most corrupt, lawless,  full of shit people to ever make it into national politics. 

I mean really "dishonesty" she has gone a bit beyond being dishonest. She is being investigated by the FBI for corruption and mishandling of classified material. That we know of anyway, I'm sure there is a shit load more to follow. 

"dishonesty" lol come on clown shoe, you're smarter than that.


----------



## Etype (Nov 4, 2016)

benroliver said:


> If a reality TV show host with an extensive criminal record came in to my pharmacy looking for a job with no experience I wouldn't have even looked at him for a basic hourly job.  So please tell me how that makes him qualified to be president. I mean I have not seen anyone raise a legitimate argument here in support of him other than I hate Clinton or have access to classified material.
> 
> I mean everyone loves to talk about Clinton's dishonesty yet its a fact that Trump gets on that stage and lies more than 75% of the time.  These candidates are held to completely different standards.


What is his, "extensive criminal record,"?

Additionally- running a business, balancing a budget, completing projects, these seem like legitimate qualifications for an executive.

Speaking on Hilary, past employment is a very small part of a resume. How well you did, and what you did at those places of employment is what is important.


----------



## benroliver (Nov 4, 2016)

" exclusive USA TODAY analysis of legal filings across the United States finds that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and his businesses have been involved in at least 3,500 legal actions in federal and state courts during the past three decades."- * Source linked at bottom of comment.

Well if Clinton is going to be judged by allegations then we can include those as well:

1. Trump is facing a civil lawsuit from a Jane Doe who alleges that Trump raped her in 1994, when she was 13 years old, at parties hosted by the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who Trump called a friend.  This goes to trial in December.

2. Sued successfully by Jill Hearth for sexual assault. This case was settled for an unannounced sum.

3. The Department of Justice sued Trump and his father Fred in 1973 for housing discrimination at 39 sites around New York. Trump and his father tried to counter sue but eventually payed a settlement.

4.  Trump University

5 Tenant intimidation 1981. Trump settled with the Tenants

6 1991 Trump found guilty of  conspiring to avoid union pension and benifits for workers. Trump again settled privately.

7 Ivana Trump accused him of Rape in a deposition but didn't want him to be charged

8 He addmited to sexual assault on tape.

9 Pam Bondi pay to play. Found guilty

I mean I can keep going: 

*  Exclusive: Trump's 3,500 lawsuits unprecedented for a presidential nominee
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/06/us/politics/donald-trump-soho-settlement.html
The Many Scandals of Donald Trump: A Cheat Sheet
Trump's Criminal History Should Be Front and Center | Huffington Post
The Top 3 Trump Scandals a Democratic Senate Will Investigate


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 4, 2016)

benroliver said:


> Your post



OK, so you leveled a playing field.  But even based on that, you have not met reasonable doubt that he is not qualified; or, certainly no _less_ qualified than Clinton.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 4, 2016)

Silver has been hinting that HRC's firewall is not very robust....

Election Update: Why Clinton’s Position Is Worse Than Obama’s


----------



## benroliver (Nov 4, 2016)

Former Republican campaign manager Steve Schmidt sums it up well here.


----------



## benroliver (Nov 4, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> OK, so you leveled a playing field.  But even based on that, you have not met reasonable doubt that he is not qualified; or, certainly no _less_ qualified than Clinton.



Look I will be the first to admit that I dont like Clinton.  I think she represents everything that I hate about the state of special interest big money politics in this country. I think the evidence is clear that the DNC railroaded Bernie the moment they felt his momentum.  Yet still, I cannot ignore the facts.


----------



## Grunt (Nov 4, 2016)

IMO, this is the most embarrassing election I have had to endure since my voting age years! I still find it horrendous that these were the "best" two candidates the US could put forth for the highest office in the land out of over 300 million people.

That says a lot about us as a nation and where we are in our political world.

Embarrassing....


----------



## benroliver (Nov 4, 2016)

Honestly if the Republicans had nominated someone like Rand Paul to face Hillary I wouldn't be voting for her. The Republican party is divided though, the far right of the spectrum is dictating everything at the moment


----------



## benroliver (Nov 4, 2016)

Agoge said:


> IMO, this is the most embarrassing election I have had to endure since my voting age years! I still find it horrendous that these were the "best" two candidates the US could put forth for the highest office in the land out of over 300 million people.
> 
> That says a lot about us as a nation and where we are in our political world.
> 
> Embarrassing....




I agree. When the majority of the country is voting against the other candidate instead of a candidate they have faith in, you know something is wrong.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 4, 2016)

benroliver said:


> Look I will be the first to admit that I dont like Clinton.  I think she represents everything that I hate about the state of special interest big money politics in this country. *I think the evidence is clear that the DNC railroaded Bernie the moment they felt his momentum*.  Yet still, I cannot ignore the facts.



To this, I very much agree.

While Trump has his most ardent fans, I would wager most people who voted for him (or will vote) are holding their nose doing so.  He certainly wasn't my first choice.  Hell, he wasn't my 15th choice.  But had it been, say, Jim Webb or about a half dozen other decent Democrats, I could have voted for any number of them.  But Clinton?  I will gladly read her obituary when the time comes.


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 4, 2016)

benroliver said:


> Yet still, I cannot ignore the facts.


Yet that is exactly what you are doing.



> 1. Trump is facing a civil lawsuit from a Jane Doe who alleges that Trump raped her in 1994, when she was 13 years old, at parties hosted by the convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who Trump called a friend.  This goes to trial in December.
> 
> 2. Sued successfully by Jill Hearth for sexual assault. This case was settled for an unannounced sum.
> 
> ...



Civil trials, meaning anyone can file anything in civil court. Additionally, a settlement is not an admission of guilt under the law.



> 8 He addmited to sexual assault on tape.


He did no such thing, and furthermore, what he said did not meet statutory criteria for sexual assault. Try again.



> 9 Pam Bondi pay to play. Found guilty


Ok, 25K versus several million by the Clinton Foundation. Yeah big criminal there. 




> I mean I can keep going:


No you can't, and frankly at this point your whole argument is embarrassing by any metric. Furthermore, the recent deluge of documents being released show the entire Clinton machine to be corrupt beyond any sense of reason. Is Trump under several FBI investigations (read plural)? No, wait, that is Hillary and her machine.


----------



## Marine0311 (Nov 4, 2016)

I have no idea who to vote for. I won't and can't vote for Clinton and even Trump disgustes me.


----------



## Brill (Nov 4, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> I have no idea who to vote for. I won't and can't vote for Clinton and even Trump disgustes me.



Disregard them and vote for a party.


----------



## Rapid (Nov 4, 2016)

'Member when Martha Stewart went to jail for lying to the FBI _once_?


----------



## Marine0311 (Nov 4, 2016)

lindy said:


> Disregard them and vote for a party.



I suppose I could do that also.


----------



## Brill (Nov 4, 2016)

benroliver said:


> If a reality TV show host with an extensive criminal record came in to my pharmacy looking for a job with no experience I wouldn't have even looked at him for a basic hourly job.  So please tell me how that makes him qualified to be president. I mean I have not seen anyone raise a legitimate argument here in support of him other than I hate Clinton or have access to classified material.
> 
> I mean everyone loves to talk about Clinton's dishonesty yet its a fact that Trump gets on that stage and lies more than 75% of the time.  These candidates are held to completely different standards.



He possesses more world experience acquired via international businesses than either Clinton or Obama did: neither of them have ever had extensive work experience outside of government. Oh sure, tell me all about what she did as SECSTATE, the foreign policy mouth piece of POTUS, when she actually was accountable for her actions or actions of others.

You should really learn the differences between criminal and civil liability.


----------



## Brill (Nov 4, 2016)

Rapid said:


> 'Member when Martha Stewart went to jail for lying to the FBI _once_?



Guess who prosecuted her? Rhymes with Homey.


----------



## benroliver (Nov 4, 2016)

Well I would love to continue this but I just received the worst possible news from my recruiter.  They have come back and denied my enlistment. I just don't care anymore. Corrupt ass people on top of the world.  Fat lazy soldiers everywhere who don't even want to be in the military and here I am not even given the fucking god damn chance. 

Sorry for the derailment, not sure who else to vent to that could possibly understand my frustration besides you guys.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 4, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> I suppose I could do that also.




Somewhere on here I posted something like: "I'd vote for Daffy Fucking Duck before I ever vote for Hillary." I didn't actually think Daffy Duck would run, but since he has, I'm sticking to my guns and voting for him.


----------



## Etype (Nov 4, 2016)

benroliver said:


> Look I will be the first to admit that I dont like Clinton.  I think she represents everything that I hate about the state of special interest big money politics in this country. I think the evidence is clear that the DNC railroaded Bernie the moment they felt his momentum.  Yet still, I cannot ignore the facts.


Are you a third party supporter?


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 4, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Yet that is exactly what you are doing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Trump Saying he "grabbed them by the pussy" implies he grabbed them by the pussy, which when not consensual is sexual assault by even conservative definitions.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 4, 2016)

benroliver said:


> Honestly if the Republicans had nominated someone like Rand Paul to face Hillary I wouldn't be voting for her. The Republican party is divided though, the far right of the spectrum is dictating everything at the moment



FWIW, The GOP has a spotty history when it comes to supporting their candidate for the White House. They have done so again this election cycle. Trump has the personality, and the resources to roll on despite a GOP that can't agree on when to pull the rug out from under you. Trump is where he is because of who he is, no other candidate would have made it this far, on his/her own against HRC.


----------



## Dame (Nov 4, 2016)

Well I'll be darned.




Note: He does not endorse Trump. That (and all other) headlines are put in by editors and others who simply want attention. But this IS worth listening to.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 4, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Trump Saying he "grabbed them by the pussy" implies he grabbed them by the pussy, which when not consensual is sexual assault by even conservative definitions.



Generally it will vary state by state, but most states require penetration of the body (i.e. a finger, tongue or penis) to be considered sexual assualt. Outside of that it would fall under simple assualt, possibly aggravated if injury takes place (i.e. brusing,  scratch, etc).


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 4, 2016)

To somewhat change topic, I was just told by my daughters that today in school they voted for Hillary Clinton. Normal school stuff, right? I ask them why they voted for her, they replied that their whole class did. I again ask why? They reply because our teachers told us that Trump wants to take all the money from poor people and give it to rich people. That he wants to make laws that would make them their brother and mother have to leave the country (my wife is hispanic), etc.

This is the bullshit that makes me want to fuck people up. Their fucking school teacher is there to teach my kids how to read, write and do arithmetic. Not to influence their thinking on national politics.  Now granted in the grand scheme of things, it's just elementary school kids learning about voting and the democratic process of our country. I know that it's just for learning and I know there are teachers probably doing the same with regards to Trump or whomever they support.  I doubt any data from their little vote will ever leave the school. But it still pisses me the fuck off that a snivelingbitch, would lie to my daughters to get them to vote for something they know nothing about, or even care about for that matter. I mean really, my kids and wife are hispanic, so they have to leave the country, who says shit like that to a 8 and 5 year old girls?

I'm debating on going full fucking angry dad at the school Monday,  or just sending a nasty-gram and call it good. I got my ass chewed pretty good for my last come to Jesus meeting at the school. My wife is supposed to handle this shit now, but fuck me, I'd like to verbally rip into this bitch and watch her scurry around in fear.


----------



## Grunt (Nov 4, 2016)

Politics is a section of schooling that the educational system has lost control of. They should be teaching "how" government works and not their personal endorsements of any candidates for any reason.

I would have a talk with the school. I would advise them that it isn't the teacher's place to endorse candidates, but to teach the methods of government. I have had those talks myself. I wouldn't get completely bent up on that subject like I had others, but I would speak with them. If they aren't held accountable, schools will dive deeper into areas they shouldn't and we will continue to have functionally illiterate kids graduating school.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 4, 2016)

Agoge said:


> Politics is a section of schooling that the educational system has lost control of. They should be teaching "how" government works and not their personal endorsements of any candidates for any reason.
> 
> I would have a talk with the school. I would advise them that it isn't the teacher's place to endorse candidates, but to teach the methods of government. I have had those talks myself. I wouldn't get completely bent up on that subject like I had others, but I would speak with them. If they aren't held accountable, schools will dive deeper into areas they shouldn't and we will continue to have functionally illiterate kids graduating school.



This^^^^^^^ is really a huge observation, and speaks to the base of our society; and where it is really failing. It was a long time ago, but we learned State History one year, US History the next year. The final two years were World History. Politics was mentioned in regards to it's impact on history.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 4, 2016)

Agoge said:


> Politics is a section of schooling that the educational system has lost control of. They should be teaching "how" government works and not their personal endorsements of any candidates for any reason.
> 
> I would have a talk with the school. I would advise them that it isn't the teacher's place to endorse candidates, but to teach the methods of government. I have had those talks myself. I wouldn't get completely bent up on that subject like I had others, but I would speak with them. If they aren't held accountable, schools will dive deeper into areas they shouldn't and we will continue to have functionally illiterate kids graduating school.



You are right, but I still love watching those liberal fucks scurry around and tremble in fear when I raise my voice a little bit and give them my "motherfuckers I'll kill you" stare.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 4, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Generally it will vary state by state, but most states require penetration of the body (i.e. a finger, tongue or penis) to be considered sexual assualt. Outside of that it would fall under simple assualt, possibly aggravated if injury takes place (i.e. brusing,  scratch, etc).



That is rape. Sexual assault is different than that.


----------



## DocIllinois (Nov 4, 2016)

My daughter comes home from school not talking about Hillary, but expressing bewilderment about how anyone could bring themselves to vote for Donnie.  

'Get 'em while they're young' isn't exclusively used by jesus freaks, I suppose.


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 4, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> To somewhat change topic, I was just told by my daughters that today in school they voted for Hillary Clinton. Normal school stuff, right? I ask them why they voted for her, they replied that their whole class did. I again ask why? They reply because our teachers told us that Trump wants to take all the money from poor people and give it to rich people. That he wants to make laws that would make them their brother and mother have to leave the country (my wife is hispanic), etc.
> 
> This is the bullshit that makes me want to fuck people up. Their fucking school teacher is there to teach my kids how to read, write and do arithmetic. Not to influence their thinking on national politics.  Now granted in the grand scheme of things, it's just elementary school kids learning about voting and the democratic process of our country. I know that it's just for learning and I know there are teachers probably doing the same with regards to Trump or whomever they support.  I doubt any data from their little vote will ever leave the school. But it still pisses me the fuck off that a snivelingbitch, would lie to my daughters to get them to vote for something they know nothing about, or even care about for that matter. I mean really, my kids and wife are hispanic, so they have to leave the country, who says shit like that to a 8 and 5 year old girls?
> 
> I'm debating on going full fucking angry dad at the school Monday,  or just sending a nasty-gram and call it good. I got my ass chewed pretty good for my last come to Jesus meeting at the school. My wife is supposed to handle this shit now, but fuck me, I'd like to verbally rip into this bitch and watch her scurry around in fear.



Any chance of recourse through the school board?  I don't know how things are in your AO, but where I grew up, an angry parent with a legitimate, well-articulated complaint showing up at one of their meetings (which were open, just like a town board) would draw some attention.  If nothing else, your willingness to show up at their meetings would get the school administrators' attention and would be a solid demonstration of capability and will.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 4, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> That is rape. Sexual assault is different than that.



No dude, sexual assault is rape. :wall:

That's the point, what you are claiming is sexual assault, is in fact just assault. But again it is dependent on the state. I mean really, they going to toss a guy in prison for 25 years for grabbing a pussy? Have him register as a sex offender? How would you defend against that if falsely accused?

And to be clear I don't think any man should be doing that to any woman. If they do, I think they should face a severe punishment.  But the law doesn't call it sexual assualt,  nor should it be IMHO.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 4, 2016)

.Well depending on the state, in NY, where he said it.

*New York* criminalizes a wide range of conduct constituting "*sexual abuse*," which is generally defined as subjecting another person to *sexual* contact without the latter's consent.

More generally, sexual assault vs rape:


What is the *difference* between *rape*and *sexual assault*? *Rape* is defined as unwanted penetration, whether that is oral, anal, or vaginal. *Sexual assault*refers to any unwanted *sexual* contact, including fondling and molestation


----------



## Grunt (Nov 4, 2016)

In many places, the "physical" act of touching would be considered a sexual battery and not necessarily an assault. Just saying for clarity and not necessarily because it's the law where it occurred. 

Either or...he is a tool for doing it and would probably be a fine recipient of a proper throat punch!


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 4, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> No dude, sexual assault is rape. :wall:



Just to be clear, rape is one (of several) ways to you can be sexually assaulted.  Penetration isn't required for sexual assault.  At least according to DoD, it's ANY unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature (penetrative or not).


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 4, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Well depending on the state, in NY, where he said it.
> 
> *New York* criminalizes a wide range of conduct constituting "*sexual abuse*," which is generally defined as subjecting another person to *sexual* contact without the latter's consent.



Now define sexual contact.


----------



## Brill (Nov 4, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> To somewhat change topic, I was just told by my daughters that today in school they voted for Hillary Clinton. Normal school stuff, right? I ask them why they voted for her, they replied that their whole class did. I again ask why? They reply because our teachers told us that Trump wants to take all the money from poor people and give it to rich people.



Ah, the classic struggle between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat when, ultimately, this class will lead to a proletariat revolution.

Sorry buddy, but their teacher is a fucking Marxist...or a progressive Democrat that leans far left.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 4, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> Just to be clear, rape is one (of several) ways to you can be sexually assaulted.  Penetration isn't required for sexual assault.  At least according to DoD, it's ANY unwanted physical contact of a sexual nature (penetrative or not).


DOD has some of the stronger laws regarding sexual assualt.  They also have UCMJ and allow for varying punishment. 

Think of it this way, couple privates fucking around playing the dick slap game. Someone gets mad and claims sexual assault. Not going to hold much water... vs someone actually finger banging Suizy when she passed out at a party.

Under the Texas penal code, sexual assault is the act of rape via penetration. There are other sexual offenses such as public ludness and molestation, etc.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 4, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> .Well depending on the state, in NY, where he said it.
> 
> *New York* criminalizes a wide range of conduct constituting "*sexual abuse*," which is generally defined as subjecting another person to *sexual* contact without the latter's consent.
> 
> ...



*SEXUAL CONTACT*
The intentional touching, either directly or through the clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. 18 USC

But under NY penal code we are both wrong, it's listed as "Sexual Offences Forcible Touching"

S 130.52 Forcible touching.
  A   person   is   guilty   of   forcible  touching  when  such  person
intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose:
   1. forcibly touches the sexual or  other  intimate  parts  of  another
person  for  the purpose of degrading or abusing such person, or for the
purpose of gratifying the actor's sexual desire; or
   2. subjects another person  to  sexual  contact  for  the  purpose  of
gratifying the actor's sexual desire and with intent to degrade or abuse
such  other  person  while  such  other  person is a passenger on a bus,
train, or subway car  operated  by  any  transit  agency,  authority  or
company,  public  or  private, whose operation is authorized by New York
state or any of its political subdivisions.
   For  the  purposes  of  this  section,  forcible   touching   includes
squeezing, grabbing or pinching..
  Forcible touching is a class A misdemeanor.


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 4, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> DOD has some of the stronger laws regarding sexual assualt.  They also have UCMJ and allow for varying punishment.
> 
> Think of it this way, couple privates fucking around playing the dick slap game. Someone gets mad and claims sexual assault. Not going to hold much water... vs someone actually finger banging Suizy when she passed out at a party.



If "Someone" was a willing participant, no it won't water.  But if it was made known that it was unwelcome... yes it absolutely will.

The key difference is whether or not contact was unwanted.  In your second example, there's no question.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 4, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> To somewhat change topic, I was just told by my daughters that today in school they voted for Hillary Clinton. Normal school stuff, right? I ask them why they voted for her, they replied that their whole class did. I again ask why? They reply because our teachers told us that Trump wants to take all the money from poor people and give it to rich people. That he wants to make laws that would make them their brother and mother have to leave the country (my wife is hispanic), etc.
> 
> This is the bullshit that makes me want to fuck people up. Their fucking school teacher is there to teach my kids how to read, write and do arithmetic. Not to influence their thinking on national politics.  Now granted in the grand scheme of things, it's just elementary school kids learning about voting and the democratic process of our country. I know that it's just for learning and I know there are teachers probably doing the same with regards to Trump or whomever they support.  I doubt any data from their little vote will ever leave the school. But it still pisses me the fuck off that a snivelingbitch, would lie to my daughters to get them to vote for something they know nothing about, or even care about for that matter. I mean really, my kids and wife are hispanic, so they have to leave the country, who says shit like that to a 8 and 5 year old girls?
> 
> I'm debating on going full fucking angry dad at the school Monday,  or just sending a nasty-gram and call it good. I got my ass chewed pretty good for my last come to Jesus meeting at the school. My wife is supposed to handle this shit now, but fuck me, I'd like to verbally rip into this bitch and watch her scurry around in fear.




These teachers will vote for Clintion, and she may win. To push that on a captive audience, who is expected to believe everything the teacher says; is way out of line. Better she bring the parents in the room first and speak with them on equal ground is the proper, and adult thing to do. To cram this down defenseless school kids is nothing short of intimidation by the teaching staff. In reaility you have an adult bullying a child. The kids can not begin a debate with the teacher without  risking getting bounced from school for being argumentative. Same holds true for teachers pushing Trump. Debate that among yourselves, teachers.

This is shameful, and the teachers will never see it that way. This is the norm for today. What will tomorrow's "norm" for our society be?


----------



## Brill (Nov 4, 2016)

Jesus, this thread has turned into MSNBC.

Where is this alleged victim that Trump assaulted?  Where were charges filed and when is the hearing?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 4, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> If "Someone" was a willing participant, no it won't water.  But if it was made known that it was unwelcome... yes it absolutely will.
> 
> The key difference is whether or not contact was unwanted.  In your second example, there's no question.



I'm not disagreeing with what you are saying. What I am pointing out is that shit happens sometimes, and even though it's wrong, it may not meet the requirements of a full on sexual assault or punishment that follows. The UCMJ accounts for this stuff, hints the amout of discretion afforded commanders. 

I've actually seen a full on brawl break out because of that stupid dick slap game and when the article 15s start to get talked about one dumbass wanted to claim he had been sexually assaulted.  Big problems over stupid shit, what happened? They all ended up working extra duty in the motor pool for being stupid. No sexual assault, etc. If we're talking federal and state laws, law enforcement is not given the same latitude, hints many different laws regarding sexual offences.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 4, 2016)

Agoge said:


> In many places, the "physical" act of touching would be considered a sexual battery and not necessarily an assault. Just saying for clarity and not necessarily because it's the law where it occurred.
> 
> Either or...he is a tool for doing it and would probably be a fine recipient of a proper throat punch!



Sexual Battery is an unwanted sexual touching. 

Sexual assault is a forced, or coerced sexual contact or behavior that happens without consent.

If you listen to the tape, after Trump brings up the "pussy grabbing", he followed with, "and they let you get away with it". That is his opinion of course. When I first heard the comment, what came to my mind, medical as it is, I was having trouble visualizing the act of "pussy grabbing". Now grabbing a guy by his balls, is and act that fits the anatomy. Grabbing a female "by her pussy", just doesn't fit the anatomy very well. 

The bottom line to the whole thing was that it was a private conversation, or so Trump thought, with a bottom feeding scum bag who would sell anyone out for his five seconds of fame. That the bottom feeder got fired for airing his "private conversation"  with Mr. Trump shows the contempt the network for having an employee sell out the trust of a show's guest.

What things might WJC, & HRC have said in private have been just as bad, they just never ran into the same bottom feeder that Trump did. In fact, Mr bottom feeder would have been canned, and the tape burned before it ever came up; wouldn't it.


----------



## Grunt (Nov 4, 2016)

@Red Flag 1, you are correct sir! My biggest problem with this whole situation is the fact that we are having to have these types of discussions for our top two candidates for President of the United States. 

I can't elaborate enough how sad I think this whole situation is. 

Honestly, I will be glad once it's over so I can see what we -- as a nation -- have to deal with and then drive on.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 4, 2016)

benroliver said:


> partisan fueled witch hunts



Umm, you really don't actually pay attention to things, do you...

What has Trump been convicted of? Does he have controversy on multiple aspects of him? Sure he does. Anyone stepping into the political arena, especially for the presidential office, never mind having a known literal net worth well above the vast majority of currently elected officials (who funnel all their funding through PAC's and shit so they sure as fuck ARE rich, even if on paper they aren't), is going to have skeletons in their closet. Generally speaking, you will never get RICH in this world without pissing some people off. Either your competition or those that never actually competed but are simply jealous of what you can, or have, accomplished.

Trump is a wild card running under the Republican ticket, whereas the Clinton dynasty has already laid enough hands on this nations past, present, and forseeable future. The Executive branch as well as the other branches of government have quite a lot of work to do to pail water, patch holes, and get the sails back up from what this administration has "accomplished", with a Clinton having worked IN that administration.

Given her total disregard for conduct, security, and overall level of "no fucks given unless you sweeten my pot" when put in one of the arguably most influential positions with regards to this nation and it's interactions with the other 96% of the fucking PLANET; there is no valid way that anyone with a sober and coherent thought process would support her, let alone actually vote for her. The "Dynasty" needs to end, *now*.


----------



## Kraut783 (Nov 4, 2016)

Sexual Assault / Rape is defined different depending on the state, or govt (Fed/State)


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 4, 2016)

Agoge said:


> @Red Flag 1, you are correct sir! My biggest problem with this whole situation is the fact that we are having to have these types of discussions for our top two candidates for President of the United States.
> 
> I can't elaborate enough how sad I think this whole situation is.
> 
> Honestly, I will be glad once it's over so I can see what we -- as a nation -- have to deal with and then drive on.



With all the dirt in this election, the first thing I do after voting, will be to go home and take a shower.


----------



## Grunt (Nov 4, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> With all the dirt in this election, the first thing I do after voting, will be to go home and take a shower.



Yep...I told my wife that I will have to take a shower and use steel wool and Lava soap with a diesel rinse to top it off. 

Then, repeat for two-three days until the fungus is gone.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 4, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> With all the dirt in this election, the first thing I do after voting, will be to go home and take a shower.



Don't forget to burn your clothes....


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 4, 2016)

What has Hillary been convicted of, if that is the standard?


----------



## DocIllinois (Nov 4, 2016)

Donnie is suing the pants off * all of his sexual assault accusers, so no use arguing about it.  We will see if his actions met the definition in time.

Unless he's being his usual wild and crazy self and lying about that.  We will see how that works out in time, too.


* A totally intentional pun .


----------



## Brill (Nov 4, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> What has Hillary been convicted of, if that is the standard?



She's been the subject of a hell of a lot more CRIMINAL investigations than any of her opponents...ever.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 4, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> What has Hillary been convicted of, if that is the standard?



If you actually read any of the emails and gained insight into the operational methods and mindset of a Clinton operated establishment, you wouldn't need a conviction to rule Hillary out. 

I have zero faith in the Justice Department anyway as there are tens of thousands of cases where people literally broke the law (Quick example: 4473's with felons and otherwise ineligible individuals attempting to purchase weapons) yet never are prosecuted. Just because you didn't get prosecuted doesn't mean you didn't break the law, and there's proof of having done so for Hillary, in a governmental position... unlike Trump, which has allegations of decades old incidents and to the best of my knowledge has never had a dedicated task force from the FBI dumping his shit.

Plus, her legislative performance was shit for her tenure as a Senator, although she did do better there in terms of actually at least voting on shit than Obama.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 4, 2016)

lindy said:


> She's been the subject of a hell of a lot more CRIMINAL investigations than any of her opponents...ever.



She was convicted though? That is the standard being applied to Trump.


----------



## nobodythank you (Nov 4, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Trump Saying he "grabbed them by the pussy" implies he grabbed them by the pussy, which when not consensual is sexual assault by even conservative definitions.


Grabbed whom? Where is the report? The complainant? The victim? Here is an expert from the transcript,



> *Trump*: "Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything."



Who exactly is them? I'm not excusing his comments, I'm asking within a legal context. 

Additionally, as mentioned previously, the definitions of sexual assault vary. In Florida, there is no crime labled sexual assault, however, the act of grabbing genitalia is simple battery (intentional and unwanted touch or strike). If there is penetration, or union with other genitalia, then the crime becomes sexual battery.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 4, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> She was convicted though? That is the standard being applied to Trump.



Ongoing CRIMINAL investigations > Ongoing CIVIL allegations bud, big f'ing difference, especially if you actually consider the truth of fact regarding the CRIMINAL investigations being for conduct in governmental office (which is the major crux of the matter, as she's hunting for a bigger office) versus CIVIL allegations of personal behavior.

This whole "Conviction" blather comes from:



benroliver said:


> His claim to fame is being a businessman.  Has anyone actually bothered to take a look at that stellar business record? I see quite a bit of talk about the Clinton foundation and the APPEARANCE of impropriety yet no mention of the fact that the Trump foundation has actually been suspended. I mean the Clintons do bring heat on themselves by skirting the line, but even partisan fueled witch hunts still can't pin anything on her. *Trump on the other hand has been convicted over and over yet gets a complete pass from his voting base.*



Large businesses, which Trump runs, conduct legal operations all the time. This is not news.  I'd bet that the Democratic base would turn a blind eye if Steve Jobs raised from the grave to run for President, as just one example on par.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 4, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Grabbed whom? Where is the report? The complainant? The victim? Here is an expert from the transcript,
> 
> 
> 
> ...



His comments taken in context with the 10 women accusing him of similar actions.


----------



## Kraut783 (Nov 4, 2016)

Accusing or actually pressing criminal charges...two different things.

and I don't mean suing.....that ain't filing charges.


----------



## Brill (Nov 4, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> She was convicted though? That is the standard being applied to Trump.



If either of us did this, we'd be convicted of mishandling and unauthorized disclosure. 

Clinton sent daughter material that was later classified

Trump said some shit...Hillary did some shit.


----------



## AWP (Nov 4, 2016)

When all of this is over with I hope the American people remember a few things.

- The DNC is essentially organized crime. At best they are morally and ethically bankrupt. HRC and staff committed multiple felonies, destroyed evidence, misled investigators, and whatever else I'm forgetting. The DNC colluded to rig the Democratic nomination...self-inflicted "crime."

- On the other side, the RNC is impotent, devoid of leadership, and increasingly out of touch with Americans. 3 presidential election cycles and they trot out McCain (viable until he went with Palin and the wheels fell off), Romney, and then had their party hijacked by a businessman turned reality TV star. This year something like 200-300 Republican sought the nomination and lost it to a guy like Trump. The RNC couldn't groom one or two viable candidates over the last 12 years?

We desperately need a third party, if only to remind the other two their house are broken, utterly broken. This election is truly coming down to who the people hate less. Does anyone remember policy discussions? The last month was "crooked Hillary" and "grab 'em by the pussy" instead of "Here's what we will do for America."

Democrat or Republican, if you're happy with the state of your party, I just don't even know what to say.


----------



## Il Duce (Nov 4, 2016)

Later classified...that means it was not classified when it was sent.  If someone sends me unclassified information, unmarked, and I send it to someone else - then later someone decides they'd like that information to be classified - I do not go to jail.  In fact, very few people go to jail for NDCIs - nobody in my experience as an S2 at almost every level.

I believe I understand, even if I don't agree, feelings that HRC is a criminal, security risk/spy/traitor, and corrupt.  However, I think some level of perspective is also warranted.  If you're on the warpath for this kind of routine bullshit I hope you'll be marching on RNC HQ with torches blazing when parts of the NIE are leaked, CIA identities are disclosed, Congressional collusion with Israeli intelligence is caught on tape and suppressed, or any of the other BS that happened in the Bush administration and is likely to happen again.

One thing I think I've learned in this election cycle, as someone who has supported HRC from the beginning - and voted for her, not against DT - is that perspective is very important.  Seeing DT has made me re-look many of my past opinions on the Bush administration (both of them) and especially GOV Romney's candidacy.

Regardless of the outcome of this election, and I still believe HRC will win by 4%+ and break 300 in the EC, we're all still going to have to live here - and live with the knowledge that pretty close to half of Americans voted the opposite way we did.  I think if we've decided those on the other side are all idiots who hate America, love Hitler/ISIS/Child Rape/Pokémon Go, and have zero judgment then we are even more fucked.  That's why, even though I am likely voting your way @benrolliver I didn't like or agree with your last several posts.  I don't like it when people post shit about what an idiot I am with no morals because of the way I vote so I try to avoid posting or supporting things that say that about them.  Hopefully there's some room to understand other people see things differently than we do. 

Or, maybe not.


----------



## benroliver (Nov 4, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> Ongoing CRIMINAL investigations > Ongoing CIVIL allegations bud, big f'ing difference, especially if you actually consider the truth of fact regarding the CRIMINAL investigations being for conduct in governmental office (which is the major crux of the matter, as she's hunting for a bigger office) versus CIVIL allegations of personal behavior.
> 
> This whole "Conviction" blather comes from:
> 
> ...



Yes setting up a fake University and defrauding students is just "allegations of personal behavior". 

Also, tell me again how many times Hillary has been indicted on criminal charges, let alone convicted? Please I would love to know.

Call it blather all you want, but it seems pretty clear to me.  As for the comment about Steve Jobs.  Have you bothered to google anything the "liberal media" has written about him? Yawn I am done with this.

Apple factories accused of exploiting Chinese workers


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 5, 2016)

Trump University was like ITT Tech...not real.  But people who go to DeVry and such are cool with thinking that it is.


----------



## Brill (Nov 5, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> She was convicted though? That is the standard being applied to Trump.



My understanding is the Grand Jury will announce their findings after 2100 PST on Tuesday.


----------



## Brill (Nov 5, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> Later classified...that means it was not classified when it was sent.  If someone sends me unclassified information, unmarked, and I send it to someone else - then later someone decides they'd like that information to be classified - I do not go to jail.  In fact, very few people go to jail for NDCIs - nobody in my experience as an S2 at almost every level.



Sir, if I send you info that clearly indicates information AND details sources and methods, regardless of header, footer, and paragraph markings AND you forward that to your family member...your career as an Intel professional is DONE. Not only would you lose current but future access as well. Merely storing that info in your house is enough to suspend access and more that likely get it completely revoked. I cite Snowden's shit and Washington Post articles as examples. (I do agree with your statements but recommend going further to educate the masses.)

Regarding "upgrading" from unclassified to classified, that ONLY happens when multiple pieces of unclassified info is put together. (For others, A, B, C, D, when isolated are unclassified but combined, they would clearly indicate defense information. Val Plame, her true employer, her advertised employer, and assigned duty location were examples that got Scotter Libby into trouble.) My point is that when an analyst sends a classified email WITHOUT proper markings, they violate multiple policies and regulations. Habitual violations result in performance counseling and ultimate loss of network access.

Hillary was the HEAD of a Department which has a Bureau that produces and analyzes intelligence, yet the HEAD of that Department had neither a NIPR, SIPR, nor JWICS account.

Her direct subordinates, brought over from private practice, sent and received classified info on her behalf. At least one kept classified information on her spouse's "perv serv" and accessed God knows what.

I will fully agree with you on the retrospective look at previous support to other administrations. I feel as if I've been played.:wall:

I absolutely cannot support your love of Pokémon Go.


----------



## Brill (Nov 5, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> When all of this is over with I hope the American people remember a few things.
> 
> Democrat or Republican, if you're happy with the state of your party, I just don't even know what to say.



After the reforms that will occur post election 2016, if you like your Party, you can keep your Party.


----------



## Brill (Nov 5, 2016)




----------



## Rapid (Nov 5, 2016)

"Beyonce and Jay Z turn out for Hillary Clinton"
US election 2016: Trump momentum forces new Clinton effort - BBC News

LOL


----------



## DocIllinois (Nov 5, 2016)

lindy said:


>



A fine indicator of how most of the rest of the world views whomever  will be our  next.... "President."

Dear Spiegel had another cover with just Donnie on it and the word, "Wahnsinn."

Yep.


----------



## Il Duce (Nov 5, 2016)

lindy said:


> Sir, if I send you info that clearly indicates information AND details sources and methods, regardless of header, footer, and paragraph markings AND you forward that to your family member...your career as an Intel professional is DONE. Not only would you lose current but future access as well. Merely storing that info in your house is enough to suspend access and more that likely get it completely revoked. I cite Snowden's shit and Washington Post articles as examples. (I do agree with your statements but recommend going further to educate the masses.)
> 
> Regarding "upgrading" from unclassified to classified, that ONLY happens when multiple pieces of unclassified info is put together. (For others, A, B, C, D, when isolated are unclassified but combined, they would clearly indicate defense information. Val Plame, her true employer, her advertised employer, and assigned duty location were examples that got Scotter Libby into trouble.) My point is that when an analyst sends a classified email WITHOUT proper markings, they violate multiple policies and regulations. Habitual violations result in performance counseling and ultimate loss of network access.
> 
> ...



@lindy - you're not describing what happened with SEC Clinton's server or the subsequent upgrades.  In some cases the 'upgraded' information was because someone mentioned or shared newspaper articles that covered topics the IC would like classified.

I've had this experience frequently with national level agencies and some folks with certain INT backgrounds - they want to tell you a message is classified if you use one word, but if you replace it with another word that means the exact same thing you're somehow good to go.

I agree with the FBI's initial assessment - though it took them months to decide what should have been clear in weeks at most - SEC Clinton, and especially her staff, acted carelessly and foolishly given what was entrusted to them but nothing criminal happened.  If we want to act like she and her staff are some sort of sleeper agents or traitors to the crown there are a shit-ton of GOs, congresspeople, and senior leaders (especially non-career ambassadors) who we ought to be going after as well.

I think being intense on security is great - I've tried to do it my whole career.  However, I've also had the frequent experience - including those that negatively impacted my career - where leaders downplayed, cut-corners, and ignored regulatory guidance or best practices.  HRC is not the devil on this stuff - she's just one of the pack.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 5, 2016)

lindy said:


>



A while back, I did ask,"What does the rest of the world think of us"?

Now we know, but is that mud, or something else?


----------



## DocIllinois (Nov 5, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> A while back, I did ask,"What does the rest of the world think of us"?
> 
> Now we know, but is that mud, or something else?



Its most certainly manure, IMO.  


Perhaps the major political parties should be more critical and thoughtful in their choice of candidate.

Perhaps there should be much higher standards for a candidate for the most powerful executive office, and the document outlining an inappropriately bare minimum of candidate "standards" should be modified to keep certain individuals out of consideration, and to require more job-specific training and experience.

Because they're politically leading the entire United States of America and 16 territories.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 5, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> FWIW, The GOP has a spotty history when it comes to supporting their candidate for the White House. They have done so again this election cycle. Trump has the personality, and the resources to roll on despite a GOP that can't agree on when to pull the rug out from under you. Trump is where he is because of who he is, no other candidate would have made it this far, on his/her own against HRC.



GOP candidates have a history of being spineless, look at Romney in the debates.
I said it before, and am saying it again.  Trump used the Democratic/Liberal/Alinsky playbook to take his rivals out during the primaries and continues to use it against her in the run up till Tuesday.
No other Republican would be this lose to winning.



Diamondback 2/2 said:


> To somewhat change topic, I was just told by my daughters that today in school they voted for Hillary Clinton. Normal school stuff, right? I ask them why they voted for her, they replied that their whole class did. I again ask why? They reply because our teachers told us that Trump wants to take all the money from poor people and give it to rich people. That he wants to make laws that would make them their brother and mother have to leave the country (my wife is hispanic), etc.
> 
> This is the bullshit that makes me want to fuck people up. Their fucking school teacher is there to teach my kids how to read, write and do arithmetic. Not to influence their thinking on national politics.  Now granted in the grand scheme of things, it's just elementary school kids learning about voting and the democratic process of our country. I know that it's just for learning and I know there are teachers probably doing the same with regards to Trump or whomever they support.  I doubt any data from their little vote will ever leave the school. But it still pisses me the fuck off that a snivelingbitch, would lie to my daughters to get them to vote for something they know nothing about, or even care about for that matter. I mean really, my kids and wife are hispanic, so they have to leave the country, who says shit like that to a 8 and 5 year old girls?
> 
> I'm debating on going full fucking angry dad at the school Monday,  or just sending a nasty-gram and call it good. I got my ass chewed pretty good for my last come to Jesus meeting at the school. My wife is supposed to handle this shit now, but fuck me, I'd like to verbally rip into this bitch and watch her scurry around in fear.



Go visit, just don't start screaming or threatening.  E-mails and phone calls are ignorable.



Agoge said:


> Politics is a section of schooling that the educational system has lost control of. They should be teaching "how" government works and not their personal endorsements of any candidates for any reason.
> 
> I would have a talk with the school. I would advise them that it isn't the teacher's place to endorse candidates, but to teach the methods of government. I have had those talks myself. I wouldn't get completely bent up on that subject like I had others, but I would speak with them. If they aren't held accountable, schools will dive deeper into areas they shouldn't and we will continue to have functionally illiterate kids graduating school.



You can also raise it at a school board meeting, this is Texas and the teacher doesn't have a union to protect him/her.



lindy said:


> Ah, the classic struggle between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat when, ultimately, this class will lead to a proletariat revolution.
> 
> Sorry buddy, but their teacher is a fucking Marxist...or a progressive Democrat that leans far left.



Most of them are, those that can do, and those that can't teach comes to mind.



TLDR20 said:


> What has Hillary been convicted of, if that is the standard?



Cattle futures anyone, oh wait; they had a fall guy.  The Clintons are like pro-athletes who have a designated fall guy to do the time.  At sometime you have to look at their circle of friends and ask why they surround themselves with criminals.



DocIllinois said:


> A fine indicator of how most of the rest of the world views whomever  will be our  next.... "President."
> 
> Dear Spiegel had another cover with just Donnie on it and the word, "Wahnsinn."
> 
> Yep.



How does Der Spiegel view Merkle, or immigration?
How did they portray Obama 8 years ago?
They world doesn't view the current guy as a strong leader, I think Trump is willing to stand up to others.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 5, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> @lindy - you're not describing what happened with SEC Clinton's server or the subsequent upgrades.  In some cases the 'upgraded' information was because someone mentioned or shared newspaper articles that covered topics the IC would like classified.
> 
> I've had this experience frequently with national level agencies and some folks with certain INT backgrounds - they want to tell you a message is classified if you use one word, but if you replace it with another word that means the exact same thing you're somehow good to go.
> 
> ...


No. that was not careless.  That was unauthorized disclosure, that's not even spillage (which can happen simply by not encrypting an email).


----------



## DocIllinois (Nov 5, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> How does Der Spiegel view Merkle, or immigration?
> How did they portray Obama 8 years ago?
> They world doesn't view the current guy as a strong leader, I think Trump is willing to stand up to others.



Not well.
Not favorably.

If only 'standing up to others' were the main occupational requirement to being POTUS.  I admit that its possible I've been just imagining all other activities of that office for the past few decades, to include working with other leaders.  

Perhaps he can next run for political office in China; only 40% of people say they have no confidence in his leadership there.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 5, 2016)

At the end of the day Trump believes vaccines cause autism. I could never vote for someone that is that purposefully ignorant of science.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 5, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> At the end of the day Trump believes vaccines cause autism. I could never vote for someone that is that purposefully ignorant of science.



I did not know that^^^ about him.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 5, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I did not know that^^^ about him.



Trump weighs in on vaccine-autism controversy

He has been talking about it since 2012.


----------



## Bypass (Nov 5, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> These fucking guys are just as bad as the BLM dudes....
> 
> Pro-Trump Militia members in Georgia in hand-to-hand combat training | Daily Mail Online
> _
> ...


I live in the same state as these people. SMH


----------



## Brill (Nov 5, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> @lindy - you're not describing what happened with SEC Clinton's server or the subsequent upgrades.  In some cases the 'upgraded' information was because someone mentioned or shared newspaper articles that covered topics the IC would like classified.
> 
> I've had this experience frequently with national level agencies and some folks with certain INT backgrounds - they want to tell you a message is classified if you use one word, but if you replace it with another word that means the exact same thing you're somehow good to go.
> 
> ...



If the FBI said that of the emails they found (implying there could be others deleted) they found TS, S, and C info, to include SAP, I doubt many of those were "retro": the headers, footers, and paragraph markings were INTENTIONALLY removed as was its transfer from SIPR and JWICS.  Even if the USG concedes the retro classification, the TS and S transmitted, stored, and disseminated to uncleared personnel are ALL grounds for at least permanent loss of access (e.g gross negligence) and at most felony conviction (e.g. intentional = treason).

These emails were INTENTIONALLY modified for transfer on NIPR, which flags classification markings to sysadmins in order to detect spillage.

I 100% agree with the fact she is just another of the pack. 

I too have seen serious shit swept under the rug but was also personally involved in a case where an AF EOD airmen kept confidential weapons manuals in his garage. The consequences and penalties were very severe.


----------



## Brill (Nov 5, 2016)

Sigh...

Police: Laptops With Clinton Schedule Info Stolen From SUV In Philadelphia


----------



## DocIllinois (Nov 5, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I did not know that^^^ about him.



And a climate change denier.  And believes President Obama is solely to blame for ebola in the US.  And...


----------



## Rapid (Nov 5, 2016)

Can't wait for the season finale of America.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 5, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Trump weighs in on vaccine-autism controversy
> 
> He has been talking about it since 2012.



Our of curiosity, who'd you vote for in 2008?

Cause opinions change and I'm sure once Trump is around more educated people and less Hollyweird (which is where the anti-vaccine idiots congregate); his position can change .

This is 2008, both Hillary and Obama made comments doubting the conclusive science.

Autism: The Unlikely New Campaign Issue


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 5, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> Our of curiosity, who'd you vote for in 2008?
> 
> Cause opinions change and I'm sure once Trump is around more educated people and less Hollyweird (which is where the anti-vaccine idiots congregate); his position and change .
> 
> ...



I didn't vote in 2008.


----------



## Dienekes (Nov 5, 2016)

My roommate's dad has been bitching about the election for weeks and how he just can't vote for Trump. He voted early the other day and told my roommate, "Well, son, I bit the bullet......and voted for Pence as VP." Nice little bit of justification for those who can't stomach voting for either candidate.


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 5, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> And a climate change denier.  And believes President Obama is solely to blame for ebola in the US.  And...



Hell, I am a deplorable climate change denier too!


----------



## Rapid (Nov 5, 2016)

Trump might say some retarded and mean things. Meanwhile, Clinton is the most corrupt, bought-out, psychotic politician who's going to keep society in its downward, leftist, SJW trajectory. Someone who would sell out the country for a Pringle if it kept her in power.

The choice is an un-Presedential candidate or a traitor.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 5, 2016)

There's a third option and the Queen is being gracious.

Queen Offers to Restore British Rule Over United States - The New Yorker


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 5, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> There's a third option and the Queen is being gracious.
> 
> Queen Offers to Restore British Rule Over United States - The New Yorker



While I appreciate a third alternative as much as the next guy, fuck the queen.  Ain't no man or woman better than me because of birthright.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 5, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> fuck the queen.



Yeah, that statement won't stir up any shit.


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 5, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Yeah, that statement won't stir up any shit.



You say that like it's a problem.  All this time I thought you were a Marine...


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 5, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> You say that like it's a problem.  All this time I thought you were a Marine...



No problem here - 

I was just defending my Canadian compadres who might take offense to such language towards their beloved Queen. :-"


----------



## Etype (Nov 5, 2016)

There's something I need to tell all of you guys.

I have BleachBit on my Linux browser, and use it regularly.


----------



## Queeg (Nov 5, 2016)

Win or lose, the Clintons and the DNC are going to have Weinergate and Wikilieaks hanging over them like a massive protein fart for the rest of their existence, which is a good thing.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 5, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> No problem here -
> 
> I was just defending my Canadian compadres who might take offense to such language towards their beloved Queen. :-"



No worries.   We don't duel over such trivial things anymore.


----------



## SpitfireV (Nov 5, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> While I appreciate a third alternative as much as the next guy, fuck the queen.  Ain't no man or woman better than me because of birthright.



Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, probably Clinton.

You guys are doing alright on the dynasty thing without our help.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 5, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, probably Clinton.
> 
> You guys are doing alright on the dynasty thing without our help.



Yep. And if I had a Million Dollars, I'd wager you have not heard the last of Michelle.


----------



## SpitfireV (Nov 5, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> No worries.   We don't duel over such trivial things anymore.



We should. Last duel in NZ was in the 1920s after some Russian insulted the King.


----------



## Marine0311 (Nov 5, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> We should. Last duel in NZ was in the 1920s after some Russian insulted the King.



I bet that ended well!


----------



## SpitfireV (Nov 5, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> I bet that ended well!



Ran the sword through his arm haha!

Got it wrong, it was 1935.

"At Auckland, on Friday, 12 July 1935, a duel with swords was fought between a former English Army officer and a foreigner, said to have been a Russian, who made a grossly insulting remark about King George V. After fighting for a few minutes, the Englishman ran his sword through his opponent's arm and the affair ended."


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 5, 2016)

Etype said:


> There's something I need to tell all of you guys.
> 
> I have BleachBit on my Linux browser, and use it regularly.


I think the bigger shock is that you use Linux!


----------



## Etype (Nov 5, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I think the bigger shock is that you use Linux!


I'm a dual booter.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 5, 2016)

Etype said:


> I'm a dual booter.



I think these days it's called "Booting both ways.".


----------



## Etype (Nov 5, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> I think these days it's called "Booting both ways.".


Why limit it to both ways? You can boot three or four ways of you want to.

Or, you could use virtual machines, and be questionable.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 5, 2016)

Etype said:


> Why limit it to both ways? You can boot three or four ways of you want to.
> 
> Or, you could use virtual machines, and be questionable.



You missed the joke...


----------



## Etype (Nov 5, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> You missed the joke...


I think I got it.

I made it inclusive of the Q, you were very exclusive and insensitive.


----------



## SpitfireV (Nov 5, 2016)

I'm triggered now you cunts, thanks.


----------



## Etype (Nov 5, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> I'm triggered now you cunts, thanks.


Thank your fellow foreigner.


----------



## Queeg (Nov 5, 2016)

We prefer the term FVEYES partner.


----------



## Rapid (Nov 5, 2016)

Not attacked, but rushed off stage. Supposedly the guy had a gun? This all just happened so who knows.

But if that's the case, it's some serious shit... though it won't be in the news for more than five minutes because they won't want to show anything that'll help Trump.






He came back on stage right after.

Libs on the one hand: Stop victim blaming!
Libs on the other hand: "He faked it to gain sympathy, fuck Drumpf xDDDD"


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 5, 2016)

Nothing to see here til after the 8th....


----------



## SpitfireV (Nov 5, 2016)

I don't get your obsession with this election, Rapid.


----------



## Rapid (Nov 5, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> I don't get your obsession with this election, Rapid.



Because the amount of leftie butthurt a Trump win would cause would be amazing. Mostly, I just hate Clinton and everything she represents.


----------



## SpitfireV (Nov 5, 2016)

Still, not up to us eh.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 5, 2016)

This election is going to be interesting all the way to the end. 

Donald Trump is rushed away by Secret Service while speaking during Reno rally | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Brill (Nov 6, 2016)

Rapid said:


> Can't wait for the season finale of America.



I sure do hope the lead actors get replaced in the next season.



Ooh-Rah said:


> Yeah, that statement won't stir up any shit.



Unless we're talking about the FUTURE Queen.

Good info for the masses.

How Does The Electoral College Work And Is It Fair?

A fascinating review of the unquestionable brilliance of our Founding Fathers.



> Thus, *impeachment is more analogous to a civil lawsuit* than a criminal proceeding. A person can be prosecuted for a crime even after being civilly sued for the same misconduct. Like impeachment, the civil suit has a lower burden of proof and legal standards that are not as exacting because it is not the functional equivalent of a criminal case. Just as *impeachment is only about removing a corrupt official’s power*, the civil suit is merely about compensation for damages. Neither involves the potential loss of liberty that a criminal conviction does.
> 
> In impeachment, the official is held to a higher standard of conduct because public office is an extraordinary privilege, not a fundamental right. Public office is a trust with awesome attendant powers; a person may be manifestly unfit for it without having committed indictable crimes. Therefore, high crimes and misdemeanors — which, again, need not be indictable penal offenses — are easier to prove: *Congress may fashion its own rules for the proceeding, there is no judicial oversight, and no requirement that all essential elements of criminal offenses be proved beyond a reasonable doubt under strict rules of evidence — Congress must merely determine that violations of the public trust have occurred and that they warrant removal of that trust.* By contrast, because a criminal prosecution does involve the potential deprivation of fundamental rights, the standards of proof are more exacting and the protections of judicial due process are guaranteed.



If Hillary Is Corrupt, Congress Should Impeach Her



Rapid said:


> Because the amount of leftie butthurt a Trump win would cause would be amazing. Mostly, I just hate Clinton and everything she represents.



But she's British! 

US Election 2016: Hillary Clinton's English mining roots - BBC News


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 6, 2016)

So is everyone cool with the President encouraging illegal voting?


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 6, 2016)

Economists say their part on WSJ

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/EconomistLetter11012016.pdf


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 6, 2016)

Everyone that's making money off of politicians are against Trump, I'm surprised it took them this long.


----------



## compforce (Nov 6, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> So is everyone cool with the President encouraging illegal voting?



I don't like him or his policies, but that was pretty iffy.  I never heard him say that illegals should vote.  I did hear him say all citizens can vote and that no one is going to go back and investigate the voting.  Is the implication that "as noone is going to investigate, illegals should vote"?  Without full context, it's impossible to say.  I'd be a hypocrite if I asserted that a partial, out of context, statement by the President is OK, but all the out of context statements by Trump weren't.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 6, 2016)

compforce said:


> I don't like him or his policies, but that was pretty iffy.  I never heard him say that illegals should vote.  I did hear him say all citizens can vote and that no one is going to go back and investigate the voting.  Is the implication that "as noone is going to investigate, illegals should vote"?  Without full context, it's impossible to say.  I'd be a hypocrite if I asserted that a partial, out of context, statement by the President is OK, but all the out of context statements by Trump weren't.



She asked about illegals, he said they were "citizens" if they contributed to society and all "citizens" should vote.  Pretty clear to me.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 6, 2016)

She called them undocumented citizens...my grandparents are rolling over in their graves with all of the Mexicans that failure to become Americans.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 6, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> So is everyone cool with the President encouraging illegal voting?


 An out-of-c0ntext quote from the president being used to gin up outrage?  Why I never!!!

Here's the full interview.  It's very clear that he wasn't talking about illegal immigrants voting


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 6, 2016)

Being Mexican American...I'm not a fan of the We Are Mitu media branch thing that has come about.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 6, 2016)

Everyone stand down..I watched a white male conservative Trump supporter help a black female Hillary supporter fix their disabled car after picking up Papa Johns pizza for his family.....AMERICA is going to be OK...Please don't enter the Launch codes!!!!:-"


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 6, 2016)

How is this legal? These apps help people trade votes to boost Clinton in swing states


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 6, 2016)

Welp. the FBI said "no charges" again. 

Any comments from the crooked Hillary brigade? Are we supposed to hate the FBI again cause this means they're back to supporting Hillary and a corrupt organization and a joke etc etc etc? How about Trump's continued criticism of the Mosul offensive, even when it appears as if everyone else in the known universe is saying "Yeah, well, it's war but it's going well."

I can't fucking wait for Tuesday.


----------



## DocIllinois (Nov 6, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Welp. the FBI said "no charges" again.
> 
> Any comments from the crooked Hillary brigade? Are we supposed to hate the FBI again cause this means they're back to supporting Hillary and a corrupt organization and a joke etc etc etc? How about Trump's continued criticism of the Mosul offensive, even when it appears as if everyone else in the known universe is saying "Yeah, well, it's war but it's going well."
> 
> I can't fucking wait for Tuesday.



Oh, the email whining will continue in short order, have no doubt.  Throw some conspiracy and general government distrust in for good measure.


Its a fat chance that Donnie will lose (which he will) and go quietly into the night.

I think he's just getting his hideous and gelastic circus warmed up, and would be hardly surprised if his presidential "bid" ended up only being a publicity stunt for self promotion.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 6, 2016)

I'm sure he will "listen to the experts" though right?


----------



## Il Duce (Nov 7, 2016)

lindy said:


> If the FBI said that of the emails they found (implying there could be others deleted) they found TS, S, and C info, to include SAP, I doubt many of those were "retro": the headers, footers, and paragraph markings were INTENTIONALLY removed as was its transfer from SIPR and JWICS.  Even if the USG concedes the retro classification, the TS and S transmitted, stored, and disseminated to uncleared personnel are ALL grounds for at least permanent loss of access (e.g gross negligence) and at most felony conviction (e.g. intentional = treason).
> 
> These emails were INTENTIONALLY modified for transfer on NIPR, which flags classification markings to sysadmins in order to detect spillage.
> 
> ...



@lindy I guess we'll see when FOIA lets us read the details of the investigation however many years from now but I think it's very unlikely that's the way these NDCIs happened.  I think the talked about but never released video the HRC campaign discussed in detail in the WikiLeaks disclosures is likely much closer to the truth.

It would be very easy to prove and prosecute if somehow people moved emails from classified systems to an unclassified account.  Much more likely, and fitting with everything I've credibly heard about this - and my own experience, these high-level people wrote emails to each other back and forth discussing high level policy.  In those emails they talked about stuff they should have only talked about on classified networks.  When all those emails were reviewed by the IC - who love to classify shit - some of the things discussed were found to be - or retroactively became - classified.

Doesn't make it right, but it does make it much more understandable and fits the reasons why this was virtually impossible to prosecute.  I would wager serious money if you got me a transcript of every email or conversation 4-stars have and let me run it through the same process they would come back with similar levels of classified.  Again, doesn't make it right - but should give some idea of context.

Not trying to make you love HRC or celebrate this shit - just saying I think the worries that no secrets will be safe in an HRC whitehouse is extraordinarily overblown.  And yes, there is a President Clinton joke in the word 'overblown.'


----------



## Centermass (Nov 7, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Welp. the FBI said "no charges" again.
> 
> Any comments from the crooked Hillary brigade? Are we supposed to hate the FBI again cause this means they're back to supporting Hillary and a corrupt organization and a joke etc etc etc? How about Trump's continued criticism of the Mosul offensive, even when it appears as if everyone else in the known universe is saying "Yeah, well, it's war but it's going well."
> 
> I can't fucking wait for Tuesday.



My question is how in the hell did they go through and examine 650,000 emails in one week? 

If someone could explain it, I, for one, would be most interested in knowing "How."


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 7, 2016)

I think it is weird that people are all for unknown people with unknown motivations releasing the communications(some of them private) of our presidential candidates. If anything this makes me uncomfortable. If the leaks are only from official sources, I'm okay with it, but releasing personal, private communications, without consent, and with no accountability makes me weirded out going forward. 

I do find this different than "hot mike" recordings, in which case I feel there is no implication of privacy, as that privacy is waived when a microphone is put in.


----------



## policemedic (Nov 7, 2016)

There is this misconception that emails are private.  They simply aren't.  They are sent through the ether, stored in multiple places and pass through multiple systems...pretty much all in the clear.  Want to keep something private? Encrypt it. Or don't write it down in the first place.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 7, 2016)

policemedic said:


> There is this misconception that emails are private.  They simply aren't.  They are sent through the ether, stored in multiple places and pass through multiple systems...pretty much all in the clear.  Want to keep something private? Encrypt it. Or don't write it down in the first place.



I think that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. I feel like if the government needs a warrant to look at it, it is private enough that a leak is shady. I don't look at leaked naked pictures of celebrities, because I think that is fucked up. I wouldn't read my wife's emails, or those of those I work with. 

I think that when people try and make it more secure we accuse them of hiding things. Going forward I think we will see more legal action regarding the privacy of email, particularly as it becomes our main method of communication.


----------



## Brill (Nov 7, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I think that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. I feel like if the government needs a warrant to look at it, it is private enough that a leak is shady. I don't look at leaked naked pictures of celebrities, because I think that is fucked up. I wouldn't read my wife's emails, or those of those I work with.
> 
> I think that when people try and make it more secure we accuse them of hiding things. Going forward I think we will see more legal action regarding the privacy of email, particularly as it becomes our main method of communication.



Not if you use a USG server! The warning is clearly presented before entering credentials. I'm sure this expectation of privacy is exactly when she used a private server.


----------



## AWP (Nov 7, 2016)

lindy said:


> Not if you use a USG server! The warning is clearly presented before entering credentials.



This is 100% correct. The gov't doesn't need a warrant to look at your traffic, email, chat logs, data, etc.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Nov 7, 2016)

The whole point of the personal server, was that it was personal, and therefore would provide the bobble time of oh, you want my server? gee, the oil just ran out of the cooling bath and all of it's phosporus just lit up. Have fun with that.


----------



## compforce (Nov 7, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I think that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. I feel like if the government needs a warrant to look at it, it is private enough that a leak is shady. I don't look at leaked naked pictures of celebrities, because I think that is fucked up. I wouldn't read my wife's emails, or those of those I work with.



There is no such thing as privacy any longer, it died completely when the internet went mainstream in the late 90's.


----------



## Dame (Nov 7, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I think that there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. I feel like if the government needs a warrant to look at it, it is private enough that a leak is shady. I don't look at leaked naked pictures of celebrities, because I think that is fucked up. I wouldn't read my wife's emails, or those of those I work with.
> 
> I think that when people try and make it more secure we accuse them of hiding things. Going forward I think we will see more legal action regarding the privacy of email, particularly as it becomes our main method of communication.



I learned from my 7th grade teacher (yes, before the interwebz) that you must never, ever, write anything down that you would not want read in a court of law. Period. She lectured us after a particularly interesting note was caught between classmates and she couldn't even read it to the class because SHE was embarrassed by it. She made sure we understood that anything written and signed was subject to being made known to the world at any time. E-mail is signed by default once it leaves with your address on it.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 7, 2016)

Centermass said:


> My question is how in the hell did they go through and examine 650,000 emails in one week?
> 
> If someone could explain it, I, for one, would be most interested in knowing "How."



It would take 53 people working 24 hours a day 7 days a week to go through 650000 emails *thoroughly*!

I doubt the FBI has that much man power to throw at this problem.

So my guess is someone high up blessed off on a Key word search list and then enlisted 2-3 "trusted" people to just watch computers do the work.  Once the .PST has time to index, you can find any key words.  Depending on attachments and sizes, it could take a HOT MINUTE for 650000 emails to index so you can search.

EDIT - took out dumb stuff...sorry!!!:wall:


At the end of the day it is doable but highly unlikely every email was *thoroughly* searched, only the FBI knows how much effort they put into it....all joking aside I hope it was max effort and have to trust it was and nothing serious was found....


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 7, 2016)

Centermass said:


> My question is how in the hell did they go through and examine 650,000 emails in one week?
> 
> If someone could explain it, I, for one, would be most interested in knowing "How."


I read (somewhere) that there were a shit ton of mailers, multiple duplicates of stuff they already had, tons of stuff that had no relation to the actual investigation, so on and so forth.

I didn't get real hung up on the number because I would assume the FBI would be smart enough to filter and sort through the stuff they already had and eliminate the lion's share of the "650,000 emails." Who knows, man.


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 7, 2016)

No media bias or collusion at all...  this and the ignorance that this is happening is what pisses me off the most.  As much of a dumbass as Gary Johnson is, right now he'd be better than either Trump or Clinton.


DNC staffers wrote questions for CNN anchor Wolf Blitzer when he interviewed  Trump, new batch of 8,000 WikiLeaks emails reveals | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Gunz (Nov 7, 2016)

Hillary Fucking Clinton is going to be our fucking president.

Help me, Obi Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope.


----------



## DocIllinois (Nov 7, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Hillary Fucking Clinton is going to be our fucking president.
> 
> Help me, Obi Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope.



You're just now coming around to this?


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 7, 2016)

30 hours, 30 hours, 30 hours, 30 hours......


Just let it be over.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 7, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> You're just now coming around to this?



Yes. Because she's (in effect) been exonerated (at least in the view of the media & her supporters); the FBI director--"a man of integrity and honor"--screwed the pooch; she's been leading in the polls all along; Daffy Duck got my vote--yes, I voted last week-- but I'm 0-2 for the last two elections; and I'm drunk. And yet, like @Freefalling, totally in control of my faculties.


----------



## CDG (Nov 7, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> 30 hours, 30 hours, 30 hours, 30 hours......
> 
> 
> Just let it be over.



For real, for real.  I think both of these candidates suck, and that we're taking another step backwards either way.  That being said, my day to day life won't change and I'm just ready to keep on keeping on.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 7, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> 30 hours, 30 hours, 30 hours, 30 hours......
> 
> 
> Just let it be over.




Yeah, this needs to be put to bed. It is up to the media really.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 7, 2016)

But ammo prices are going to go up.

EDIT


And she's fucking ugly.


----------



## Grunt (Nov 7, 2016)

At this point in the game...minds are made up!

Let the die be cast and let the Warriors drive on....


----------



## Brill (Nov 7, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> 30 hours, 30 hours, 30 hours, 30 hours......



I never took you to be a Kanye West enthusiast.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 7, 2016)

lindy said:


> I never took you to be a Kanye West enthusiast.



Big Booty is his Kryptonite


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 7, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Yeah, this needs to be put to bed. It is up to the media really.



Yeppp....


----------



## DocIllinois (Nov 7, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Yeppp....
> 
> View attachment 17073



Somebody's got the hang of it.


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 7, 2016)

Alabama’s win over LSU means Hillary Clinton will be president

Here it is. Proof is in the puding.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 7, 2016)

See every time I hear a democat say what Bill says below, I feel backed into a corner and want to reply back "F-You, maybe I think your version of America is a step backwards; why am I automatically in the wrong?"

It does not matter that the Republican is Trump, they'd say this no matter who the challenger is.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 7, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> See every time I hear a democat say what Bill says below, I feel backed into a corner and want to reply back "F-You, maybe I think your version of America is a step backwards; why am I automatically in the wrong?"
> 
> It does not matter that the Republican is Trump, they'd say this no matter who the challenger is.


And your wife getting elected means we go back 16 years.


----------



## AWP (Nov 8, 2016)

When the East Coast wakes up everyone will start heading to the polls and our news coverage inundated with election day garbage. I'm killing this thread and starting one to discuss the results in all forms. The race is over, the election is here, and Blair Walsh sucks.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 8, 2016)

What is dead may never die.


----------

