The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Rushy on July 22, 2015, 03:50:26 PM

Title: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 22, 2015, 03:50:26 PM
As of right now Donald Trump is leading the Republican nominee polls by a lot, currently at 24 over Walker's 13 and Bush's 12.

Hillary Clinton is winning the presidential poll and nominee poll by a landslide.

A vote for Trump is a vote for freedom, democracy, and trophy wives. Don't let me down, FES. Topple the Clinton dynasty.


Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on July 22, 2015, 03:54:08 PM
So no matter who wins the election, hilarity is guaranteed to ensue? God bless America.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: EnigmaZV on July 22, 2015, 08:22:13 PM
Donald Trump as President would make for great late night TV.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 22, 2015, 08:33:35 PM

I don't get to vote, seems like a choice between an ugly American version of Silvio Berlusconi or an airbrushed Lucrezia Borgia, read up on Italian history and make your choice.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: rooster on July 22, 2015, 09:05:53 PM
Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Tom Bishop on July 22, 2015, 09:36:40 PM
I will use my common sense and choose the candidate that I believe will do the best job... and that sure isn't the hag Hillary. There are other candidates that could do the job, but they are already in someone's pocket. Republicans and Democrats on both sides are corrupt, and I don't believe anyone can argue with that. Powerful and wealthy friends contribute to their campaigns and get them media coverage all while ensuring their backs are scratched if they win.

If both sides hate Trump and he is financing himself, he has my attention. Trump is the only one I can see that is 'his own man'.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 22, 2015, 11:26:29 PM
I will use my common sense and choose the candidate that I believe will do the best job... and that sure isn't the hag Hillary. There are other candidates that could do the job, but they are already in someone's pocket. Republicans and Democrats on both sides are corrupt, and I don't believe anyone can argue with that. Powerful and wealthy friends contribute to their campaigns and get them media coverage all while ensuring their backs are scratched if they win.

If both sides hate Trump and he is financing himself, he has my attention. Trump is the only one I can see that is 'his own man'.

Would you say that he is winning by a landslide?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 23, 2015, 12:17:41 AM
Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!

Socialist Scum.

I will use my common sense and choose the candidate that I believe will do the best job... and that sure isn't the hag Hillary. There are other candidates that could do the job, but they are already in someone's pocket. Republicans and Democrats on both sides are corrupt, and I don't believe anyone can argue with that. Powerful and wealthy friends contribute to their campaigns and get them media coverage all while ensuring their backs are scratched if they win.

If both sides hate Trump and he is financing himself, he has my attention. Trump is the only one I can see that is 'his own man'.

Trump 2016

Would you say that he is winning by a landslide?

Can't Stump the Trump
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: rooster on July 23, 2015, 01:11:13 AM
Trumpy! From that awful pod people movie. I love it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on July 23, 2015, 01:26:38 AM
Trump's "campaign" thus far is a publicity stunt, not an attempt for political office. Polls this far out mean absolutely nothing.

That said, Hillary Clinton looks like the best likely candidate. As great as Bernie would be, it's not realistic to expect him to win a general election.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 23, 2015, 01:34:56 AM
Trump's "campaign" thus far is a publicity stunt, not an attempt for political office. Polls this far out mean absolutely nothing.

That said, Hillary Clinton looks like the best likely candidate. As great as Bernie would be, it's not realistic to expect him to win a general election.

(https://i.imgur.com/zHS1RUJ.jpg)

TRUMP 2016

Quote
I want Trump to win because I care more about lulz than the future of this country
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 23, 2015, 03:46:28 AM
I sure hope our next president is some asshole who views the office as four years of free advertising for his shitty brand.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 23, 2015, 08:09:12 AM
I sure hope our next president is some asshole who views the office as four years of free advertising for his shitty brand.
Yeah, I hate Hilary too.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Thork on July 23, 2015, 12:08:04 PM
America is choosing between the giant douche and the turd sandwich again. ::)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 23, 2015, 01:44:41 PM
America is choosing between the giant douche and the turd sandwich again. ::)
Wait, which one is which?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 23, 2015, 01:52:03 PM
I sure hope our next president is some asshole who views the office as four years of free advertising for his shitty brand.
Yeah, I hate Hilary too.

I don't get how what I said could apply to Hilary at all.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 23, 2015, 02:19:21 PM
I sure hope our next president is some asshole who views the office as four years of free advertising for his shitty brand.
Yeah, I hate Hilary too.

I don't get how what I said could apply to Hilary at all.
That's fairly common for our discussions, isn't it? (https://shop.hillaryclinton.com/collections/pride)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 23, 2015, 02:30:59 PM
I don't get how what I said could apply to Hilary at all.
That's fairly common for our discussions, isn't it? (https://shop.hillaryclinton.com/collections/pride)

I agree completely.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 23, 2015, 02:40:56 PM
I can't wait for Hillary to jump up on stage, say "I'M A WOMAN" then the crowd goes wild and stampedes to the voting booths, making sure to kill any white cishet males they encounter along the way.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: rooster on July 23, 2015, 03:25:32 PM
The clear choice is Hillary. She's not perfect, but Trump... Trump. C'mon.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 23, 2015, 03:30:33 PM
The clear choice is Hillary. She's not perfect, but Trump... Trump. C'mon.
I don't think he's actually going to win the primaries. If he is, you're fucked either way. In one corner you have a crazy old hypocritical man, in the other, a crazy old hypocritical woman. It basically makes no difference.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 23, 2015, 03:42:07 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, the president of the United States of America, Tony Abbott.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 23, 2015, 04:07:50 PM
I'd rather not see Hillary get the nomination.  She has far too much baggage at this point.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Snupes on July 23, 2015, 04:17:01 PM
The clear choice is Hillary. She's not perfect, but Trump... Trump. C'mon.
I don't think he's actually going to win the primaries. If he is, you're fucked either way. In one corner you have a crazy old hypocritical man, in the other, a crazy old hypocritical woman. It basically makes no difference.
I would rather have somewhat somewhat crazy than someone who's...you know...Trump.

Hillary will basically be Obama 2.0, I think, maybe just a bit more liberal. I mean, I'd rather Bernie Sanders won, but if we have to have either Trump or Hillary I'd rather go with the one who's not Trump. I feel that's a safe bet in all cases.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Thork on July 23, 2015, 04:18:15 PM
I'd rather not see Hillary get the nomination.  She has far too much baggage at this point.
She knows where the kitchen is in the Whitehouse, though.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 23, 2015, 04:43:06 PM
Hillary [...] a bit more liberal.
I don't think an outspoken Christian fundamentalist and opponent of LGBT rights will count as more liberal than Obama.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Snupes on July 23, 2015, 04:47:35 PM
When did she say things that make you say that? All I've heard recently is her being pro-LGBT.

But even if that's so. In terms of what she personally thinks, maybe she won't be. But I don't think that'll have that big of an effect on what she actually does in office. If she's adopting a pro-LGBT persona now that LGBT acceptance is becoming a much wider thing, I don't think she'll do a huge, polarizing 180 once she's in office.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 23, 2015, 05:45:34 PM
All I've heard recently is her being pro-LGBT.
"Recently" being the keyword. That's also why I describe her as "hypocritical". She was very happy to spout her homophobic remarks until she started campaigning, at which point she's suddenly become oh-so-supportive. (And definitely (https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/614541904722665472) didn't (https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/614809916423995392) proceed to commercialise the fuck out of her "support").

There are plenty of examples out there, but here's one to set the tone:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6I1-r1YgK9I

But even if that's so. In terms of what she personally thinks, maybe she won't be. But I don't think that'll have that big of an effect on what she actually does in office. If she's adopting a pro-LGBT persona now that LGBT acceptance is becoming a much wider thing, I don't think she'll do a huge, polarizing 180 once she's in office.
Similarly, you could argue that none of the crazy shit Trump says will affect what he does in office. Either of these arguments would be entirely faith-based.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Snupes on July 23, 2015, 05:46:49 PM
That's true, and I'm not claiming to know how either will go. I just personally think Hillary would do less damage than Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 23, 2015, 05:51:46 PM
I just personally think Hillary would do less damage than Trump.
I'm not trying to defend Trump or side with him (God, please don't think I am...), but I honestly don't view either of them as better or worse.

My current hope right now is that one of the less crazy Republicans will get elected, since the Democratic primaries seem to be set in stone.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Snupes on July 23, 2015, 05:52:40 PM
Well, that's fine. :]
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: rooster on July 23, 2015, 06:21:02 PM
w0w, what an eloquent speech, Hillary.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on July 23, 2015, 06:50:28 PM
Besides an evolution of views from eleven years ago, what are the major reasons people think Hillary would make a poor leader? She has extensive legislative and executive experience, she knows domestic and foreign policy, she has access to top advisers in literally every area from her years of experience in a variety of areas.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 23, 2015, 06:55:26 PM
Besides an evolution of views from eleven years ago
Just because I picked an example from 2004 does not mean her views were evolving since then. She took a massive u-turn in 2013. I wonder why.

what are the major reasons people think Hillary would make a poor leader? She has extensive legislative and executive experience, she knows domestic and foreign policy, she has access to top advisers in literally every area from her years of experience in a variety of areas.
Having experience is one thing. Being trustworthy, representative, and not outright evil is another.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 23, 2015, 08:40:56 PM
And by foreign policy, I suppose you're referring to the deal with Iran, which did nothing more than crush our oil industry and piss off our only major allies in the Middle East. 

We got nothing in return. Iran and their allies still hate us and the only thing keeping them from getting nukes is the UN, the same UN who can't even find official evidence that Israel has nukes.

She also aided in pushing through the affordable Care act, which is a joke. Socialized healthcare isn't a bad idea, but our implementation of it is a disaster. She'll never admit it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Tau on July 23, 2015, 09:19:50 PM
I'm hoping for president Sanders. I'd be okay with Hillary, since she seems competent and being a good person is not a prerequisite for being a good president, and I can't find a republican candidate who doesn't seem insane in some way. Rand Paul would be passably acceptable, since most of his crazier schemes would never actually get past congress.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 23, 2015, 09:36:04 PM

From an outsiders point of view the Republicans scare me most with their connection to the religious bampots, I can't see any future if a country is still shackled to a 2,000 yr old superstition, on that ticket alone I would have to be a democrat, has Trump come out with his beliefs? I know fuck all about him other than his scary visage and the fact he tried to buy Scotland to build a big golf course.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 23, 2015, 09:47:45 PM
Iran and their allies still hate us and the only thing keeping them from getting nukes is the UN, the same UN who can't even find official evidence that Israel has nukes.

Israel never signed the NPT, so the UN could hardly be investigating them for signs of nuclear weapons.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 23, 2015, 09:57:11 PM
Israel never signed the NPT, so the UN could hardly be investigating them for signs of nuclear weapons.

They do, however, officially claim not to have them and have had UN inspectors visit before, none of which found evidence of a nuclear program. Israel is still a member of the UN, and simply because they have not signed the NPT does not render them immune to the UN. They, like everyone else, think the UN is a joke, and rightly so.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on July 23, 2015, 10:19:46 PM
And by foreign policy, I suppose you're referring to the deal with Iran
Or the four years as Secretary of State. Or her extensive diplomatic efforts as First Lady.

She also aided in pushing through the affordable Care act, which is a joke. Socialized healthcare isn't a bad idea, but our implementation of it is a disaster. She'll never admit it.
The Affordable Care Act wasn't socialized health care. Also, she was Secretary of State at the time, which focuses on foreign, not domestic, policy.

They do, however, officially claim not to have them and have had UN inspectors visit before, none of which found evidence of a nuclear program.
First of all, the inspectors are from the IAEA, not the United Nations. The distinction is worth noting. Also, they have refused IAEA inspectors numerous times in the past and evidence has indicated they have developed nuclear technologies that have weapons-only applications.

Israel is still a member of the UN, and simply because they have not signed the NPT does not render them immune to the UN.
It does, however, mean they do not have to abide by the NPT.

Having experience is one thing. Being trustworthy, representative, and not outright evil is another.
Can you find me an example in her long history of public service that she has been outright evil?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 23, 2015, 10:49:22 PM
Or the four years as Secretary of State. Or her extensive diplomatic efforts as First Lady.

Most of which were spent doing fuck all until she decided to run for president.

The Affordable Care Act wasn't socialized health care. Also, she was Secretary of State at the time, which focuses on foreign, not domestic, policy.

Which is irrelevant since she still vocally supported it and wouldn't dare question how good it is. Also, I didn't say ACA was socialized healthcare. If anything, that's exactly the problem.

First of all, the inspectors are from the IAEA, not the United Nations. The distinction is worth noting. Also, they have refused IAEA inspectors numerous times in the past and evidence has indicated they have developed nuclear technologies that have weapons-only applications.

Okay.

It does, however, mean they do not have to abide by the NPT.

That wasn't really relevant to my point, though. I didn't even bring up the NPT.

Can you find me an example in her long history of public service that she has been outright evil?

She is, as far as I know, still female. I haven't checked or anything, but that's apparently one of her main campaign points.

Huehue.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 24, 2015, 06:36:37 AM
Can you find me an example in her long history of public service that she has been outright evil?
Do you want Benghazi rants? Because that's how you get Benghazi rants.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 24, 2015, 05:58:30 PM
In current polls, Colorado, Iowa, and Virginia would rather vote for Jeb Bush than Hillary Clinton. That's pretty interesting. General election polls still show Clinton beating Bush by an average of 5.5 points.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Thork on July 24, 2015, 06:07:31 PM
Clinton or Bush is a vote for war.

Trump is dim, I don't think he's as dangerous. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 24, 2015, 06:10:21 PM
You'll want war soon when Iran gives a nuke to ISIS who then nukes London.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Thork on July 24, 2015, 06:22:20 PM
You'll want war soon when Iran gives a nuke to ISIS who then nukes London.
I guess you're an example of the reason the US has so many terrible presidents. ::)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 24, 2015, 07:34:59 PM
Enlighten me as to what has been so terrible about them.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on July 25, 2015, 06:18:42 AM
Can you find me an example in her long history of public service that she has been outright evil?
Do you want Benghazi rants? Because that's how you get Benghazi rants.
Neither I, nor anyone with a brain, are willing to entertain a right-wing rant about a bureaucratic failure pinned a upon  singular person.  If you want to be belligerent go ahead. I just know you're far better than that.]




Polls mean nothing this far out. If you want further explanation this far out let me know.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 25, 2015, 01:08:44 PM
Neither I, nor anyone with a brain, are willing to entertain a right-wing rant about a bureaucratic failure pinned a upon  singular person.
Of course. That's why people talk about Benghazi, and not bureaucratic failures.

Also, this is an obvious quote-mine, but I'm failing to find this quote in context. Does anyone here know what Clinton was actually trying to say?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ib_VIGWFufk
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on July 25, 2015, 01:16:27 PM
It was from a speech on systemic racism:

https://medium.com/@HillaryClinton/hillary-clinton-we-can-t-hide-from-hard-truths-on-race-96ce2257fe5a
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 25, 2015, 01:17:34 PM
Even I have to say that video is horribly out of context.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 25, 2015, 05:21:10 PM
Even I have to say that video is horribly out of context.
Yeah, it's pretty obvious. I was just hoping to find a source

It was from a speech on systemic racism:

https://medium.com/@HillaryClinton/hillary-clinton-we-can-t-hide-from-hard-truths-on-race-96ce2257fe5a
Thanks
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 25, 2015, 08:09:35 PM
You'll want war soon when Iran gives a nuke to ISIS who then nukes London.

Iran is Shia, ISIS is Sunni, they hate each other that's why you're cosying up, if anyone gives them nukes it wil be the Saudi's and they have been buddies with the Republicans for years.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 26, 2015, 02:49:20 PM
Iran is Shia, ISIS is Sunni, they hate each other that's why you're cosying up, if anyone gives them nukes it wil be the Saudi's and they have been buddies with the Republicans for years.

"The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend" only works if the enemy of your enemy isn't already your enemy. Iran hates the West bucketloads more than they hate ISIS.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on July 26, 2015, 03:37:01 PM
I think Jura is saying that the Saudis are more likely to give WMDs to ISIS but won't because the Saudi-US relationship is too valuable.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 26, 2015, 03:55:19 PM
Iran hates the West bucketloads more than they hate ISIS.

lol

srsly ur 2 funny
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 26, 2015, 03:58:02 PM
I think Jura is saying that the Saudis are more likely to give WMDs to ISIS but won't because the Saudi-US relationship is too valuable.

That won't mean they won't do it.

Think about this:
A couple years go by, Obama is out and the Republicans want to fully smear him as the Iran deal went through.
So they talk to the Saudi's, get them to give nukes(or even a dud nuke) to ISIS, ISIS then goes to nuke something.  Republicans blame Iran, smear Obama and Democrats with "He almost/did wipe(d) out a city!".  They're heroes for attacking Iran, Israel is happy, and Oil prices jump up 500%.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: model 29 on July 26, 2015, 04:52:23 PM

I don't get to vote, seems like a choice between an ugly American version of Silvio Berlusconi or an airbrushed Lucrezia Borgia, read up on Italian history and make your choice.
  No thanks.  The new thing in America is to ignore history so that we may repeat it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 26, 2015, 09:52:25 PM
Iran is Shia, ISIS is Sunni, they hate each other that's why you're cosying up, if anyone gives them nukes it wil be the Saudi's and they have been buddies with the Republicans for years.

"The Enemy of my Enemy is my Friend" only works if the enemy of your enemy isn't already your enemy. Iran hates the West bucketloads more than they hate ISIS.

Although they do hate Americans, this sectarian divide has been running since muhammad died, the death toll since the end of the Iraq war between them dwarfs that which the Americans managed,  in 2014 ISIS forces killed over 1,700 Shia civilians at Camp Speicher alone, read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shia%E2%80%93Sunni_relations, it's not a pretty picture.
In trying to manipulate this to the wests advantage we/you have released a geni we have no hope of controlling, model 29 is right.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Thork on July 27, 2015, 10:53:36 AM
What happened to Rand Paul's presidential bid? I thought he was the best option. :(
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on December 09, 2015, 04:02:36 AM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVu5I_JWwAAUB-F.jpg)

#Trump2016
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Fortuna on December 09, 2015, 04:42:48 AM
People like Trump because he's honest. That's pretty much unheard of for a politician, but I think his shitty, anti-liberty ideas trump that fact.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 09, 2015, 05:11:20 AM
http://www.theonion.com/article/will-be-end-trumps-campaign-says-increasingly-nerv-52002
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on December 09, 2015, 07:55:36 AM
There is still another possibility: a third Obama term.

In fact, Congressional Representative Jose Serrano of New York has introduced a bill to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which limits the number of terms a U.S. President may serve.

But it doesn't even have to get to this stage: all that is needed is a declaration of martial law (ongoing terrorist uprisings, or a "nuclear" 9/11); so that the existing president remains in office until the emergency passes (some kind of event which will prevent the actual national election from taking place).


Preferably, we can succeed through coercive means short of military force. We should be open to negotiations with Iran. But always remember that they should not be deemed a success when they only lead to further negotiations. Stronger pressure shouldn’t be postponed in the expectation our forbearance will encourage Iran to act in good faith. Nothing in our experience with Iran suggests it considers such gestures as anything other than a lack of resolve on our part.

Ultimately however, we must remember that their ambitions so far have come with a high tolerance for pain. Therefore, even as we work through the United Nations and with the international community on sanctions and negotiations, we should operate on a dual track. We should also be preparing our allies, and the world, for the reality that unfortunately, if all else fails, preventing a nuclear Iran may require a military solution.


M. Rubio

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on December 10, 2015, 05:36:48 AM
There is still another possibility: a third Obama term.

In fact, Congressional Representative Jose Serrano of New York has introduced a bill to repeal the 22nd Amendment, which limits the number of terms a U.S. President may serve.

But it doesn't even have to get to this stage: all that is needed is a declaration of martial law (ongoing terrorist uprisings, or a "nuclear" 9/11); so that the existing president remains in office until the emergency passes (some kind of event which will prevent the actual national election from taking place)


No.
Jose Serrano has been proposing this bill since 1993.  It has never made a floor vote.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on December 10, 2015, 09:11:03 AM
I'm willing to bet a month's worth of wages that Obama won't get a third term.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Snupes on December 10, 2015, 09:16:28 AM
m8 I'd bet the rest of the money I earn in my life that he won't. I actually, sincerely told my conspiracy theorist brother in law I'd give him every dime I make from now 'til I die if Obama gets a third term. He very firmly believed he would, but wasn't willing to bet anything.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on December 10, 2015, 09:51:19 AM
m8 I'd bet the rest of the money I earn in my life that he won't. I actually, sincerely told my conspiracy theorist brother in law I'd give him every dime I make from now 'til I die if Obama gets a third term. He very firmly believed he would, but wasn't willing to bet anything.
Then he didn't believe it.


Also I remember when it was bush getting a 3rd term.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on December 10, 2015, 07:39:36 PM
You mean this?

You'll want war soon when Iran gives a nuke to ISIS who then nukes London.

Iran is Shia, ISIS is Sunni, they hate each other that's why you're cosying up, if anyone gives them nukes it wil be the Saudi's and they have been buddies with the Republicans for years.




Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Fortuna on December 11, 2015, 01:19:12 AM
If ISIS nuked London, I don't think very many people would have the slightest problem with indiscriminately carpet bombing all of Syria. That would be a pretty suicidal move.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on December 11, 2015, 11:12:16 AM
Banning muslims from coming to the US is a very bad idea. Where would they go instead? Oh yeah, Europe.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on December 11, 2015, 07:51:28 PM
If a major war breaks out in 2016, the chances of a third Obama term increase greatly.

Other than that, the winner will be whichever candidate will gain/attract the votes which would have been given to Trump.

Of course, should any of the main candidates choose to run as an independent/third party (including Sanders), it will make it easier to pick out the winner ahead of time.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on December 12, 2015, 07:28:26 PM
Let us focus on the Republican primaries.

Obviously, in Iowa, the evangelical vote will matter most.

So, one week later, the candidate who wins Iowa might get second or third place in NH.

Given the large number of well-known strong candidates, the SC primary might not be a clear indication of what will happen three months down the road.

Then, on March 1, the evangelical vote will be of considerable importance, especially if one of the candidates is from a home state.

The number of candidates will then narrow considerably: conservative side vs. moderate (establishment) side.

-a brokered convention might be possible
-sudden major surprises (one the main candidates dropping out for whatever reason, choosing to run as an independent) are also possible
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on December 12, 2015, 07:54:35 PM
As for the Democratic nomination:

https://revolutionaryds.wordpress.com/2015/06/16/sanders-can-win-the-democratic-presidential-primary-heres-how/

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/this-is-how-bernie-sanders-could-win/

http://www.latintimes.com/can-bernie-sanders-win-latino-vote-338458
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on December 12, 2015, 08:05:02 PM
Sanders has no chance at all of winning. The election is being more or less setup to ensure that Hillary wins, regardless of anyone else that gets in the way. She is the one that corporations want to see in office.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on December 12, 2015, 08:25:08 PM
Corporations have more to worry about than Clinton's chances of actually winning anything (imagine having to go against a Cruz-Carson ticket): the Fed gradually raising rates in 2016 to some 1%, the looming possibility of a war breaking out in the ME.

It is true that each of the previous presidential contests in the US has been staged (not by corporations but to a low degree; the decisions are always taken at the highest levels of the most powerful secret societies), but this time around there would have been no need to bring Trump into the political process in order to get Clinton elected; this is why the actual analysis is more complex.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on December 13, 2015, 01:29:42 AM
The analysis isn't complex. The candidate that receives the most money wins.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on December 13, 2015, 07:09:01 AM
Certainly money is important up to a certain point.

There have been many analysts who have written articles with titles like, "Is Trump Running A False Flag Campaign", "Is Donald Trump A Democratic Secret Agent", "Is Trump Working For Hillary"...

Such an outcome would mean the end of the Republican Party, as its only role was to get a candidate from another party elected.

Voters will revolt and ask: how could the Republican leadership have been duped to let Trump get all the advantages from the very start, and not say anything about it?

Why let Trump run as an independent at the end of the electoral process, when they could have easily come out and say from the very start that Trump does not represent in any way the Republican party?

Moreover, it would be an irreparable blow to Trump's reputation and character: a con artist whose main goal was to get Clinton elected and in the process fooled his own voters.

Such a simplistic scenario does not make sense at all: it could have been easily prevented by the Republican leadership from the very start.


Trump's role is to prepare the way for someone else, and one of the best and honorable ways to exit would be a brokered convention, where Trump will hit a roadblock: the very complexity of the republican electoral process (party rules, the way delegates are allocated to each state, the bonus delegates, and much more).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on December 17, 2015, 06:59:55 AM
Pretty sure your record is non-existent on predictions.

On December 12, I wrote:

Obviously, in Iowa, the evangelical vote will matter most.

(imagine having to go against a Cruz-Carson ticket)

Then, on March 1, the evangelical vote will be of considerable importance,  especially if one of the candidates is from a home state.


On December 13, many hours before the actual poll came out:

Trump's role is to prepare the way for someone else


Then, the Iowa poll was published, surprising everyone (with the exception of those, including LordDave, who read my messages):

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-12/cruz-soars-to-front-of-the-pack-in-iowa-poll-trump-support-stays-flat-ii3p88rp


On December 12, I also wrote:

the Fed gradually raising rates in 2016 to some 1%

At that time, everyone was sure that the Fed would only raise the rate by 0.25% and then stop for a long time before even considering raising the rates again.


Then, again, to just about everyone's surprise:

...signaling that the pace of subsequent increases will be “gradual”

Then the Fed separately forecast an appropriate rate of 1.375 percent at the end of 2016, implying four 0.25% increases in the rate next year.

As for what will happen on March 1, we will see...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on December 17, 2015, 08:31:55 AM
Pretty sure your record is non-existent on predictions.

On December 12, I wrote:

Obviously, in Iowa, the evangelical vote will matter most.

(imagine having to go against a Cruz-Carson ticket)

Then, on March 1, the evangelical vote will be of considerable importance,  especially if one of the candidates is from a home state.


On December 13, many hours before the actual poll came out:

Trump's role is to prepare the way for someone else


Then, the Iowa poll was published, surprising everyone (with the exception of those, including LordDave, who read my messages):

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-12/cruz-soars-to-front-of-the-pack-in-iowa-poll-trump-support-stays-flat-ii3p88rp (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-12-12/cruz-soars-to-front-of-the-pack-in-iowa-poll-trump-support-stays-flat-ii3p88rp)


On December 12, I also wrote:

the Fed gradually raising rates in 2016 to some 1%

At that time, everyone was sure that the Fed would only raise the rate by 0.25% and then stop for a long time before even considering raising the rates again.


Then, again, to just about everyone's surprise:

...signaling that the pace of subsequent increases will be “gradual”

Then the Fed separately forecast an appropriate rate of 1.375 percent at the end of 2016, implying four 0.25% increases in the rate next year.

As for what will happen on March 1, we will see...


I read an article on npr last week about cruz and the evengelion vote.  Not surprised.



Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on December 17, 2015, 09:20:32 AM
Please provide the link.

You mean this?

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/14/459642064/why-ted-cruz-could-have-a-real-shot-at-the-gop-nomination

(it is dated December 14)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on December 17, 2015, 09:43:07 AM
Please provide the link.

You mean this?

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/14/459642064/why-ted-cruz-could-have-a-real-shot-at-the-gop-nomination (http://www.npr.org/2015/12/14/459642064/why-ted-cruz-could-have-a-real-shot-at-the-gop-nomination)

(it is dated December 14)


So it is.  Still not surprising.


What about all your past prediction?  Like from 4 years ago.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on January 05, 2016, 04:34:09 PM
Some of the best economists in the world offer their opinion on the unexpected danger of higher inflation in the United States:

http://www.international-economy.com/TIE_Sp15_InflationSymp.pdf

See also: http://www.themoneyenigma.com/the-risk-of-inflation-in-2016/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Hoppy on January 05, 2016, 05:38:33 PM
m8 I'd bet the rest of the money I earn in my life that he won't. I actually, sincerely told my conspiracy theorist brother in law I'd give him every dime I make from now 'til I die if Obama gets a third term. He very firmly believed he would, but wasn't willing to bet anything.
Have you told your brother inlaw that the earth s flat?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on January 15, 2016, 12:42:54 PM
(https://theuglytruth.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/putin1.jpg)

According to the official chronology of history, on March 26, 1790, the First Congress passed a law providing, “And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.” This appears to be the only legal text from the time of the Constitution’s adoption that defines the term “natural born citizen.”

"In 1802, Congress enacted a statute to providing that “the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States.”"


This was strategic for Trump: Cruz and Trump have most of the same beliefs. If Trump is removed, Cruz will be the standard bearer. Thus, Trump wants Cruz to be available if he’s removed from contention.

Fact is, as Trump says, Hillary will use Cruz’ eligibility as a weapon. Trump is getting this out of the way, early. It will have burnt through its powder – and power – long before Hillary can try to ignite it.


Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on January 16, 2016, 05:41:32 AM
I'm helping to get Hillary elected.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Shane on January 18, 2016, 12:57:11 AM
I'm helping to get Hillary elected.

Whilst secretly Berning on the inside
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on January 18, 2016, 01:54:03 AM

I'm helping to get Hillary elected.

Whilst secretly Berning on the inside

I got paid to help hill dog. My heart is Berning.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on January 18, 2016, 06:03:24 AM
I read an article on npr last week about cruz and the evengelion vote.

What's his stance on the Rebuilds?

No idea what you mean.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 18, 2016, 06:52:48 AM
I read an article on npr last week about cruz and the evengelion vote.

What's his stance on the Rebuilds?

No idea what you mean.
Just a guess: he couldn't figure out what you meant by "evengelion" (I sure know I can't), so he pretended you said "Evangelion".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebuild_of_Evangelion
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on January 18, 2016, 11:55:33 AM
I read an article on npr last week about cruz and the evengelion vote.

What's his stance on the Rebuilds?

No idea what you mean.
Just a guess: he couldn't figure out what you meant by "evengelion" (I sure know I can't), so he pretended you said "Evangelion".

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

Ah.  Once again my inability to spell has confused all.

Evangelicalism is what I was going for. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on January 25, 2016, 10:03:12 AM
(http://www.newscorpse.com/Pix/GOP/putin-palin1.jpg)

At first glance, the latest polls in Iowa seem to indicate that Trump might be the favorite...

However, the caucus organizers are set up by the state parties and are run by volunteers: only the most motivated voters win.

Trump's support comes from groups of voters that have no history of high voter turnout.

And the ethanol lobby issue has been eclipsed by what republican voters consider to be a more important matter: basic conservative principles.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Thork on January 25, 2016, 10:35:57 AM
Well, it looks like it is going to be Trump.

Trump will win Republican Idol because he has experience in reality TV competitions. And that is exactly what this presidential cycle will be like. Politicians used to have debates run by the groups such as women's lib who would ask questions of the candidates based on their area of interest. The candidates would get a 60 min opening speech, receive follow up questions and then provide a 30 min rebuttal.

Now they go on NBC or Fox debates. They have 60 seconds to talk about the economy for example, get a question back and give a 30 second rebuttal.

This plays to Trump. He's going to slaughter any other Republican.


Now Trump is also going to win the whitehouse. Janet Yellen has seen to that. By November the economy in America is going to be in meltdown with a crashed stock market, bail outs for banks, major corps, huge amounts of debt etc. Yellen pricked the bubble. And no democrat will stand a chance because they are going to be blamed for the financial turmoil as it has happened on Obama's watch and he kept telling everyone he saved the economy ... which he didn't, he kicked the can down the road.


So Trump it is. Enjoy America, enjoy.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on January 25, 2016, 12:14:41 PM
Well, it looks like it is going to be Trump.

Trump will win Republican Idol because he has experience in reality TV competitions. And that is exactly what this presidential cycle will be like. Politicians used to have debates run by the groups such as women's lib who would ask questions of the candidates based on their area of interest. The candidates would get a 60 min opening speech, receive follow up questions and then provide a 30 min rebuttal.

Now they go on NBC or Fox debates. They have 60 seconds to talk about the economy for example, get a question back and give a 30 second rebuttal.

This plays to Trump. He's going to slaughter any other Republican.


Now Trump is also going to win the whitehouse. Janet Yellen has seen to that. By November the economy in America is going to be in meltdown with a crashed stock market, bail outs for banks, major corps, huge amounts of debt etc. Yellen pricked the bubble. And no democrat will stand a chance because they are going to be blamed for the financial turmoil as it has happened on Obama's watch and he kept telling everyone he saved the economy ... which he didn't, he kicked the can down the road.


So Trump it is. Enjoy America, enjoy.
The GOP will block him at the caucus.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on January 25, 2016, 02:03:11 PM

And now the beautiful and highly intelligent Sarah Palin has backed him! The dream ticket for the mentally unwell, IF they get in, say goodbye to civilisation.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on January 26, 2016, 12:51:45 PM

I'm going with a utopian dream here, there are lots of intelligent Americans that will follow their hearts and Bernie will be the next president.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 26, 2016, 12:59:59 PM
Bernie is way too old and frail for the presidency.  He looks like he's about to have a heart attack from the strain in every debate.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 26, 2016, 02:42:19 PM
I'm going with a utopian dream here, there are lots of intelligent Americans that will follow their hearts and Bernie will be the next president.
Look, I know America prides itself in being the "land of the free", but that doesn't mean you can just have free shit forever.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on January 26, 2016, 04:09:18 PM
I'm going with a utopian dream here, there are lots of intelligent Americans that will follow their hearts and Bernie will be the next president.
Look, I know America prides itself in being the "land of the free", but that doesn't mean you can just have free shit forever.

free shit forever?  i think a fairer criticism would be that his proposals are pretty expensive. 

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/22/10814798/bernie-sanders-tax-rates
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 26, 2016, 04:17:16 PM
free shit forever?  i think a fairer criticism would be that his proposals are pretty expensive. 
Yes. Remember the part where I said you can't have free shit forever?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on January 26, 2016, 04:19:40 PM
There are three outcomes I can see.

Option 1) The Republican Caucuses stop Trump from getting the GOP nomination, he throws his toys out of the pram and stands as an independent. The next recession hits and Hilary Clinton gets punished by the Democrats for letting it happen while she was a part of the Cabinet. Bernie is the Democratic candidate. Trump splits the Right-wing vote and Bernie is elected.

Option 2) Trump gets the nomination, the recession hits, Trump uses it to pound the democrats (whoever is nominated) and limps over the line. Global depression follows. Wailing and gnashing of teeth, etc.

3) Trump is nominated, the recession doesn't hit (or is shallower than predicated) Hillary uses it as a demonstration of the government of which she's a part's handling of the crisis, secures the Democratic nomination and strolls comfortably into the Oval Office.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on January 26, 2016, 04:21:08 PM
Not quite sure what you are getting at here Sexy but I'll hazard a guess and you can put me right with bullet points (I know you like that) should you so wish.

Bernie as I understand from the little I've read will put up taxes, especially on the rich and very rich, but also make sure that the corporations don't get away with screwing the system and also make them pay a living wage of $15.
Now I know some will cry ruin and head for the hills but a moderate redistribution of wealth will put more back in the system, the tax to be spent on infrastructure and jobs, simple, world sorted.
What bothers me is the legions of dumb poor, bamboozled by the Republicans into paying for the rich by voting for continual cuts to their services via tax breaks for the rich, just because they hate gays and abortion, or believe Obama is a Muslim, despite people like Romney quite openly saying the lower 47%  are not his concern, even worse the bigger share who just don't vote at all.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 26, 2016, 04:53:24 PM
Bernie as I understand from the little I've read will put up taxes, especially on the rich and very rich, but also make sure that the corporations don't get away with screwing the system and also make them pay a living wage of $15.
And give them free everything. Let's not forget that part.

But yeah, I like the $15/hr idea, too. It's been a while since we saw some hilarious hyperinflation, and it would help prevent another Democratic fiasco for generations to come. Overall, a good long-term outcome.

What bothers me is the legions of dumb poor, bamboozled by the Republicans into paying for the rich by voting for continual cuts to their services via tax breaks for the rich, just because they hate gays and abortion, or believe Obama is a Muslim, despite people like Romney quite openly saying the lower 47%  are not his concern, even worse the bigger share who just don't vote at all.
Or, you know, perhaps some people aren't fans of socialism. Wealth redistribution is only good for you if you're underperforming.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on January 26, 2016, 10:12:29 PM
Well there's a thought, under-performing. 3.32 billion people, nearly half the world living on less than $2.50 a day, the under performing shiftless bastards, what with the poorest 40% living on 5% of the worlds income, while the top 20% (winning!) having ¾, why don't they get off their asses and do some work, I mean warren Buffet made $815 million, Larry Ellison $915M, today! (26/1/16 Forbes) So it can't be hard.
The scales have fallen from my eyes sexy, $15 a day, what was I thinking, where could that possibly come from. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on January 26, 2016, 10:13:36 PM
free shit forever?  i think a fairer criticism would be that his proposals are pretty expensive. 
Yes. Remember the part where I said you can't have free shit forever?

lol i get the gag, i just think it's off the mark.  regardless of what bernie himself might say about the net effects, i don't think it's possible to pay for those policies without the middle class bearing a not-insignificant part of the tax burden.  i think that's the 'referendum' that underlies his bid to be president: more taxes, more services.  personally i'm down with it, but i don't think it's unreasonable not to be.  i think it's ultimately shortsighted, but i sympathize.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 26, 2016, 10:20:08 PM
lol i get the gag, i just think it's off the mark.  regardless of what bernie himself might say about the net effects, i don't think it's possible to pay for those policies without the middle class bearing a not-insignificant part of the tax burden.  i think that's the 'referendum' that underlies his bid to be president: more taxes, more services.  personally i'm down with it, but i don't think it's unreasonable not to be.  i think it's ultimately shortsighted, but i sympathize.
Honestly, we seem to be basically in agreement here. I'm just a bit more violent about my convictions.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on January 27, 2016, 08:47:17 AM
Trump is still leading by a large margin.  WTF?

Seriously, could he actually win the caucus and become the GOP candidate?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on January 27, 2016, 09:17:43 AM
http://presidential-candidates.insidegov.com/stories/9970/one-chart-predicting-next-president

http://www.fastcompany.com/3054762/elasticity/heres-why-polls-are-so-bad-at-predicting-election-results
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 27, 2016, 11:55:51 AM
Donald "No Fucks Given" J. Trump strikes again.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-35416625
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on January 27, 2016, 11:56:20 AM
"I figured I would have spent about $10 million by this point, right? I've spent nothing! I've spent nothing!" he exclaimed in an August interview on the Fox Business Network. "I've spent zero! I mean, zero!"

(D. Trump, October 2015)

Two months later, Trump did not spend the smallest fraction of his $300 million in available cash.

In fact, there is no indication that he has any intention of actually doing so.

In a recent CNN interview, when asked that he might need to spend one billion dollars to run against the Democratic candidate, Trump was visibly uncomfortable with the question, and tried to divert the discussion to another issue.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on January 31, 2016, 12:35:15 AM
Trump won the last Republican debate before the Iowa Caucus by not being there.

(http://i.4cdn.org/pol/1454199392631.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 31, 2016, 01:13:41 AM
The fate of the US presidential race depends on one age-old question:

Will /pol/'s love of Trump force them to get out of their homes and attend the primaries/caucuses?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on January 31, 2016, 01:22:36 AM
The fate of the US presidential race depends on one age-old question:

Will /pol/'s love of Trump force them to get out of their homes and attend the primaries/caucuses?

I guess we'll find out Monday if Trump's poll data is legit or it's just 4chan gaming the system again.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on January 31, 2016, 04:58:50 PM
Would be feared by US enemies...
Well, yeah.  Once the world is the US's enemy, everyone's gonna be afraid of him.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 01, 2016, 11:18:24 PM
Iowa caucus tonight, should have the results by 2300 central time zone. Everyone pray for god-emperor Trump's success.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 01, 2016, 11:57:56 PM
The Iowa caucus is hailed as some kind of first test but it's small, mainly white farmers.  Hardly a telling example of a candidate's standing.

Still, I'm worried Trump will make it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: markjo on February 02, 2016, 04:20:54 AM
Iowa caucus tonight, should have the results by 2300 central time zone. Everyone pray for god-emperor Trump's success.
Nope.  Looks like Cruz pulled off the upset.
Quote from: https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=iowa+caucus+results&eob=R/2/short/m.03s0w/
Cruz (won)    27.7%
Trump    24.4%
Rubio    23.1%
Carson    9.3%
Paul       4.5%
Bush       2.8%
Kasich    1.9%
Fiorina    1.9%
Christie    1.8%
Huckabee    1.8%
Santorum    1%
Gilmore    0%
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 02, 2016, 05:45:20 AM
You understand as much about economics as you do about any other topic.

Pretty sure your record is non-existent on predictions.

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82880#msg82880

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82618#msg82618

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82620#msg82620

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg86809#msg86809

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2016, 08:03:35 AM
You understand as much about economics as you do about any other topic.

Pretty sure your record is non-existent on predictions.

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82880#msg82880

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82618#msg82618

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82620#msg82620

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg86809#msg86809
Congratulations.  You were right by 3%.
I'm shocked.
/sarcasm
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 02, 2016, 12:15:34 PM
How is he right? He never once said who would win Iowa.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 02, 2016, 12:28:19 PM
But I did with each and every message; read them again.

While all of you were busy praising Trump, I noticed several things which could not have occurred by chance (2 Corinthians, no show for the Iowa debate and many other very subtle things).


Now, we will see what happens on March 1; let us not forget that in 2012, a full 65% of the Republican voters in South Carolina said they were evangelical Christians.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 02, 2016, 02:41:54 PM
But I did with each and every message; read them again.

While all of you were busy praising Trump, I noticed several things which could not have occurred by chance (2 Corinthians, no show for the Iowa debate and many other very subtle things).


Now, we will see what happens on March 1; let us not forget that in 2012, a full 65% of the Republican voters in South Carolina said they were evangelical Christians.

Ah, in other words you're keeping your messages as vague as possible to avoid making false predictions. You're doing the same thing horoscopes do and it's not going to fool anyone.

I guess I'm there only one here brave enough to actually say who I predict will win the nomination. I predict Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2016, 02:57:59 PM
I predict Ted Cruz by a very suspiciously narrow margin.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 02, 2016, 03:43:01 PM
You are rushying to unwarranted conclusions, as you have done several times before.

My messages speak for themselves.

Now, please do tell us how Trump is going to win the nomination: what is your analysis?


ld, let us carefully see what is going in NH.

Four years ago just 22% of the state's primary voters were evangelical (47% of the Republican voters described themselves as moderates).

However, the evangelical electorate of the Republican party was not enthusiastic at all in the past two elections; now, they do have someone they can identify with.

According to some social research organizations, there are some 300,000 people of faith who aren't voting in NH (of course, there is no guarantee that they will all vote Republican).

An expert on voting in NH estimated that "a top-notch, flawless field operation could bump up a candidate eight to 12 percentage points".


Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on February 02, 2016, 05:00:21 PM
My messages speak for themselves.

i've been taking your messages to mean that putin is going to win south carolina by at least ten points after officially announcing that his running mate is a grizzly bear.  am i close?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: markjo on February 02, 2016, 05:03:32 PM
Now, please do tell us how Trump is going to win the nomination: what is your analysis?
I predict that the people will come to their senses and Trump will not win the nomination.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Shane on February 02, 2016, 05:06:34 PM
Time to dump the Trump
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 02, 2016, 05:20:27 PM
You are rushying to unwarranted conclusions, as you have done several times before.

My messages speak for themselves.

Now, please do tell us how Trump is going to win the nomination: what is your analysis?


ld, let us carefully see what is going in NH.

Four years ago just 22% of the state's primary voters were evangelical (47% of the Republican voters described themselves as moderates).

However, the evangelical electorate of the Republican party was not enthusiastic at all in the past two elections; now, they do have someone they can identify with.

According to some social research organizations, there are some 300,000 people of faith who aren't voting in NH (of course, there is no guarantee that they will all vote Republican).

An expert on voting in NH estimated that "a top-notch, flawless field operation could bump up a candidate eight to 12 percentage points".

Do you not agree with my prediction?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on February 02, 2016, 07:26:36 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/958QjeG.png)

decent, boys.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 02, 2016, 07:29:47 PM
If Trump had really wanted to run a bona fide campaign, then he would not have committed the mistakes which have contributed greatly to his first loss.

Presumably, the Republican party wants to win the White House: why then would it allow their best candidate to lose in Iowa?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2016, 07:36:18 PM
If Trump had really wanted to run a bona fide campaign, then he would not have committed the mistakes which have contributed greatly to his first loss.

Presumably, the Republican party wants to win the White House: why then would it allow their best candidate to lose in Iowa?

Eh.  His big loss is really that he's not very nice or political.  It makes a lot of people jump for joy but also turns alot off.  He polarizes and as such, lost.  Though it was narrow.

Also, they didn't.  The GOP does not want trump in thr whitehouse.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 02, 2016, 07:45:01 PM
Historically, if Trump had won Iowa, he would have less of a chance to win the nomination, not more of one.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 02, 2016, 07:54:43 PM
His big loss is really that he's not very nice or political.

This is the impression left by his intentional behavior while on the campaign trail, not his real personality.


I repeat, Trump is not serious, at least so far, about campaigning for the GOP nomination.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2016, 07:58:00 PM
His big loss is really that he's not very nice or political.

This is the impression left by his intentional behavior while on the campaign trail, not his real personality.


I repeat, Trump is not serious, at least so far, about campaigning for the GOP nomination.

Yeah, I've know that since he began.  He's a plant to get a democrat in.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 02, 2016, 08:00:57 PM
Historically, if Trump had won Iowa, he would have less of a chance to win the nomination, not more of one.

So what you are saying is that Trump intentionally lost Iowa, in order to fulfill some historical profile in which candidates which lose Iowa then go on to win the nomination.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 02, 2016, 08:05:22 PM
He's a plant to get a democrat in.

No, he is not; please read my comments posted on December 13, 2015:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82666#msg82666
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: markjo on February 02, 2016, 08:47:19 PM
Presumably, the Republican party wants to win the White House: why then would it allow their best candidate to lose in Iowa?
What makes you think that the Republican party wants Trump in the White House?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 02, 2016, 09:51:11 PM
He's a plant to get a democrat in.

No, he is not; please read my comments posted on December 13, 2015:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82666#msg82666

Yes, Trumps role is to become popular then force people to pick someone else when he drops out unexpectedly.

Yeah, thats likely...

He hasn't droppes out yet and isn't likely to due to "complex roadblocms".
If he does anything, it'll be to run as an independant whicb will fuck the gop up so badly by splitting their base in two.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: markjo on February 03, 2016, 02:31:29 AM
In the Iowa caucuses, it appears that a coin toss is a valid way to win a delegate.
Quote from: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/coin-toss-broke-6-clinton-sanders-deadlocks-in-iowa-and-hillary-won-each-time-2016-02-02
While it was hard to call a winner between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders last night, it’s easy to say who was luckier.

The race between the Democrat presidential hopefuls was so tight in the Iowa caucus Monday that in at least six precincts, the decision on awarding a county delegate came down to a coin toss. And Clinton won all six, media reports said.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 03, 2016, 02:40:14 AM
The chances of her winning all six is so improbable that I call bullshit.

1.5% chance of all six being in her favor. So it isn't terrible, but I still call bull.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 03, 2016, 07:20:48 AM
http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/voter-fraud-and-missing-precincts-how-clinton-stole-iowa/ri12583?utm_source=Russia+Insider+Daily+Headlines&utm_campaign=f36ffbdf73-Russia_Insider_Daily_Headlines11_21_2014&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c626db089c-f36ffbdf73-227216917&ct=t(Russia_Insider_Daily_Headlines11_21_2014)&mc_cid=f36ffbdf73&mc_eid=50f375c7ea
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 03, 2016, 09:14:44 AM
The wisdom of cracked:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmZOZjHjT5E
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 03, 2016, 12:13:54 PM
The chances of her winning all six is so improbable that I call bullshit.

1.5% chance of all six being in her favor. So it isn't terrible, but I still call bull.

www.npr.org/2016/02/02/465268206/coin-toss-fact-check-no-coin-flips-did-not-win-iowa-for-hillary-clinton

Long story short: the coin tosses didn't amount to much and were independant flips.  Also, caucuses are fucking confusing.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on February 03, 2016, 03:22:54 PM
Iowa was a victory for Trump. Cruz winning in his base state was the expected result, and the fact that he barely won even while committing voting fraud means he's on thin ice. This result simply shows that Trump is a legitimate candidate and he's going to take NH easy.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 03, 2016, 04:50:52 PM
Both Sanders and Trump each have extremely large leads in the NH polls so we'll see how that works out next Tuesday. 

It'll be a truly interesting race if we end up with a Trump vs Sanders ordeal.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 03, 2016, 05:03:24 PM
r u b i o   2 0 1 6
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 03, 2016, 05:21:15 PM
On the Republican side, the 18 percentage points difference in the recent NH polls can be overcome as I have described earlier.

On the Democratic side, there might still be surprises: if a major war breaks out, as I have said before, Obama's chances for a third term increase greatly.

If Hillary is forced to drop out of the race, another major figure (perhaps Kerry) might step in.

Let us go back to my message posted on December 12:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82618#msg82618

The number of candidates will then narrow considerably: conservative side vs. moderate (establishment) side.

This is exactly what is happening now: Cruz vs. Rubio. However, the establishment vote is split among several candidates, especially on March 1.

Then, on March 1, the evangelical vote will be of considerable importance, especially if one of the candidates is from a home state.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on February 03, 2016, 05:25:23 PM
so you correctly predicted that the field would narrow after iowa and that the evangelical vote would be important

wow gj i'm impressed 10/10
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 03, 2016, 05:36:32 PM
There is another point of view which offers a different take on the whole situation:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/11/jeb-bush-is-2016s-john-kerry-213341

However, this time around the moderate/establishment vote is split up all the way to "super tuesday", after which it might be too late to try to emulate Kerry's 2004 campaign.


Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 03, 2016, 05:55:52 PM
On the Republican side, the 18 percentage points difference in the recent NH polls can be overcome as I have described earlier.

On the Democratic side, there might still be surprises: if a major war breaks out, as I have said before, Obama's chances for a third term increase greatly.

If Hillary is forced to drop out of the race, another major figure (perhaps Kerry) might step in.

Let us go back to my message posted on December 12:

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82618#msg82618

The number of candidates will then narrow considerably: conservative side vs. moderate (establishment) side.

This is exactly what is happening now: Cruz vs. Rubio. However, the establishment vote is split among several candidates, especially on March 1.

Then, on March 1, the evangelical vote will be of considerable importance, especially if one of the candidates is from a home state.

Obama won't get a 3rd term just like Bush didn't.

Yes, the field would narrow.  Thats a given.

What about Trump?  Its clearly Cruz vs Trump now.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 03, 2016, 06:03:07 PM
Lol, some Trump fans think it was all a conspiracy.  Somehow.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/02/02/no-trump-fans-marco-rubio-and-microsoft-didnt-steal-your-votes/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 03, 2016, 06:21:34 PM
It would be incredibly easy to vote fix electronic ballots. It's why a lot of countries still use paper ballots.

I'm not saying that's what happened, but it could very easily be done.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 03, 2016, 06:53:49 PM
On March 1, whichever of the candidates is from a home state, will win big overall on that day.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 03, 2016, 07:14:10 PM
On March 1, whichever of the candidates is from a home state, will win big overall on that day.

So Carly Fiorina will win big.  Got it.
Also Ted Cruz.

But that's it.  So which one will win big?  Or will both win big?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 03, 2016, 07:30:15 PM
According to exit polls, evangelical Christians comprised a majority of 2012 Republican primary voters in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Louisiana, and majorities of 2008 voters in Texas, Missouri, and Arkansas (states where exit polls were not conducted last time). Although exit polls aren’t available, evangelicals, based on their share of the overall population, will likely comprise a majority of GOP voters in other Heartland states including Kansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia.

In December, Cruz held only three events in Iowa, but attended 10 in the South.

By contrast, Trump's sole super state visit was to Virginia (one event). Likewise, Fiorina made only one visit to the southern states.

Cruz has devoted significant time and resources to the southern states even at a very early stage of the primaries.



Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 03, 2016, 09:10:19 PM
According to exit polls, evangelical Christians comprised a majority of 2012 Republican primary voters in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Louisiana, and majorities of 2008 voters in Texas, Missouri, and Arkansas (states where exit polls were not conducted last time). Although exit polls aren’t available, evangelicals, based on their share of the overall population, will likely comprise a majority of GOP voters in other Heartland states including Kansas, Kentucky, and West Virginia.

In December, Cruz held only three events in Iowa, but attended 10 in the South.

By contrast, Trump's sole super state visit was to Virginia (one event). Likewise, Fiorina made only one visit to the southern states.

Cruz has devoted significant time and resources to the southern states even at a very early stage of the primaries.

Still waiting for an answer.  Which gop candidate with a home state on march 1 will win big?  You can't just say that and there be two possibilities.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 04, 2016, 07:25:21 AM
The answer that you seek is virtually contained in the question that you posed: I already explained that Fiorina has not devoted the time/resources needed to win in the South.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 04, 2016, 07:42:12 AM
The answer that you seek is virtually contained in the question that you posed: I already explained that Fiorina has not devoted the time/resources needed to win in the South.

See, I got what you implied, but you said before that whoever would have a home state march 1 would win big.  So I wanted a concrete, non-horoscope answer.  (Because you didn't check who had a home state before posting)

So, Ted Cruz will wil big March 1.  Is thst what you're saying?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 04, 2016, 03:06:01 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DdCYMvaUcrA
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 04, 2016, 03:30:26 PM
Let us suppose that the numbers listed in the latest polls are somewhat right: with a very good ground operation, Cruz can add some 10% to his current standing. But it still won't be enough.

Therefore, the only way Cruz can win NH is if undeclared voters sign up to vote in the Republican primary, a very real possibility.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on February 04, 2016, 05:57:36 PM
Let us suppose that the numbers listed in the latest polls are somewhat right: with a very good ground operation, Cruz can add some 10% to his current standing. But it still won't be enough.

Therefore, the only way Cruz can win NH is if undeclared voters sign up to vote in the Republican primary, a very real possibility.

Define "very real possibility."
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 04, 2016, 06:48:01 PM
An estimated 1 in 5 Republican voters in NH are evangelical. A very good ground operation can certainly increase the percentage in favor of a certain candidate. However, libertarian issues will have to be addressed in addition to religious concerns.

Let us remember that in 2004, John Kerry went from 11 points down to 9 points up in just a week and won by 12.

In NH there are some 380,000 unregistered voters (more than 40% of the electorate), who can vote either Rep. or Dem.

What then is a real possibility?

To capture a good percentage of the 300,000 people of faith who are not usually voting in NH: this certainly can be accomplished by a very strong conservative candidate.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 05, 2016, 04:20:53 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O74XDI-o7xc

Jeb is the only politician running for President that isn't a cruel sociopath.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on February 05, 2016, 04:24:34 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O74XDI-o7xc

Jeb is the only politician running for President that isn't a cruel sociopath.

It is terrifying that a Bush is the least dangerous candidate.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 05, 2016, 04:57:02 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/ted-cruz-finds-eager-religious-audience-in-moderate-new-hampshire-217998
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Thork on February 05, 2016, 06:56:38 PM
$100m. For a job that pays $400,000 a year for 4 years?

It but be one long ride of bribes and back handers to help get you your money back.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 05, 2016, 10:25:23 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/ted-cruz-finds-eager-religious-audience-in-moderate-new-hampshire-217998 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/ted-cruz-finds-eager-religious-audience-in-moderate-new-hampshire-217998)

Thought you said it wouldn't be enough?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 10, 2016, 01:12:33 AM
The NH primary was today.  I gave in and voted for Bernie.  It looks like he and Trump have won.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 10, 2016, 06:45:58 AM
As I have stated from the very start, the Republican contest will not begin in earnest until March 1 (SC is just a warm up).

In NH, the first and third place winners practically just showed up and got the delegates, while the other candidates essentially gave it all they had at their disposal.

With the exception of Cruz, all the other candidates have ignored the South, having behaved as if there are no Republican voters there; some rely on the endorsements from their own family or from a governor of a state, others have no ground operation, yet they somehow think it is all going to work out.

In any case, any Republican who will win the nomination will be up against collectivism/socialism/with a nuance of communism (Sanders), a very good opportunity to score a big win.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 10, 2016, 09:45:28 AM
The NH primary was today.  I gave in and voted for Bernie.  It looks like he and Trump have won.


What.
The.
Fuck?!


I thought NH was smarter than that!  Trump?  Really?


Well fuck.  I'm calling it, Trump is winning the nomination barring any GOP interferance.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 10, 2016, 10:15:39 AM
(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/02/Donald-Trump-Ted-Cruz-AP-640x480.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on February 10, 2016, 11:47:44 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-new-hampshire_us_56b8fcc5e4b04f9b57dab13b?dl07ldi

Why is huffpost so hilarious?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 10, 2016, 01:22:51 PM
CAN'T STUMP WON'T STUMP
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Shane on February 10, 2016, 02:45:36 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-new-hampshire_us_56b8fcc5e4b04f9b57dab13b?dl07ldi

Why is huffpost so hilarious?

I love that blog
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 10, 2016, 05:56:51 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-new-hampshire_us_56b8fcc5e4b04f9b57dab13b?dl07ldi

Why is huffpost so hilarious?

Interesting that a lot of sites are using similar titles with similar stories. Why is the media so afraid of Trump? They laughed at him when he "lost" Iowa. Is it not so funny anymore? Trump will make America great again and there is nothing these fuckers can do to stop it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 10, 2016, 06:39:54 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-new-hampshire_us_56b8fcc5e4b04f9b57dab13b?dl07ldi

Why is huffpost so hilarious?

Interesting that a lot of sites are using similar titles with similar stories. Why is the media so afraid of Trump? They laughed at him when he "lost" Iowa. Is it not so funny anymore? Trump will make America great again and there is nothing these fuckers can do to stop it.
Because the corporate masters demand it.  They know that if Trump is president, they'll have to make a deal.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on February 11, 2016, 08:36:34 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-new-hampshire_us_56b8fcc5e4b04f9b57dab13b?dl07ldi

Why is huffpost so hilarious?

Interesting that a lot of sites are using similar titles with similar stories. Why is the media so afraid of Trump? They laughed at him when he "lost" Iowa. Is it not so funny anymore? Trump will make America great again and there is nothing these fuckers can do to stop it.

Maybe because the last time an ego driven demagogue with floppy hair rode to power on the back of "I'll make this country great again" buoyed along by the prejudice of retards, we had a world war?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 11, 2016, 01:24:06 PM
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/02/the_gop_establishment_s_candidates_will_not_perform_well_against_donald.html
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 11, 2016, 02:57:17 PM
Maybe because the last time an ego driven demagogue with floppy hair rode to power on the back of "I'll make this country great again" buoyed along by the prejudice of retards, we had a world war?

Hitler objectively made Germany great again. Germany went from a economic mess to the most powerful country in Europe, and arguably it still is.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on February 11, 2016, 03:48:36 PM
Maybe because the last time an ego driven demagogue with floppy hair rode to power on the back of "I'll make this country great again" buoyed along by the prejudice of retards, we had a world war?

Hitler objectively made Germany great again. Germany went from a economic mess to the most powerful country in Europe, and arguably it still is.

Point! But that was a long term effect and after half the country had been occupied by the Russians for years and most of their cities had been reduced to rubble.
From an outsiders point of view there are few if any American cities that wouldn't benefit from this, but as a local is it a risk you want to take, you will get to wear a uniform for a while, but it won't be up to standards of the Hugo Boss designed ones the Nazi's had, probably some Hilfiger nightmare. The plus point would be that there would be a great coming together of white, black and Hispanic,... as you languish together in Chinese concentration camps.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 11, 2016, 04:16:02 PM
Point! But that was a long term effect and after half the country had been occupied by the Russians for years and most of their cities had been reduced to rubble.
From an outsiders point of view there are few if any American cities that wouldn't benefit from this, but as a local is it a risk you want to take, you will get to wear a uniform for a while, but it won't be up to standards of the Hugo Boss designed ones the Nazi's had, probably some Hilfiger nightmare. The plus point would be that there would be a great coming together of white, black and Hispanic,... as you languish together in Chinese concentration camps.

It took the entire planet a decade to stop Hitler. How long do you think it will take to stop God-Emperor Trump?

Also this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JB259lgEorA
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 11, 2016, 07:48:30 PM
Something I realized: Trump supporters want what they claim Obama is doing now.


Hear me out.
They want someone who lies (Trump has lied)
They want someone who will do things no matter what. (Who needs congressional approval)
They want someone with no political experience (A cry in 2008 was Obama having no real experience)
They want someone arrogant, vein, selfish, greedy, and good at making backroom deals. (This is Trump summarized)
They want someone who will fail at foreign policy (Trump would start WW3)
They want someone who will make oil many times more expensive in the US. (When you insult muslims, you insult OPEC, and right now, they're crashing the oil market so you bet they can raise it up.  See the 1970s oil embargo)
They want a racist.
They want someone who will disregard the law and constitution at his leisure.  (So long as its not against me)

So, Tump supporters want the Obama image they see as their leader. 

I also predjct a Trump presidency will have more executive orders than Obama.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 11, 2016, 09:11:57 PM
Dave summarily proved Trump will be as good a president as Obama is.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on February 11, 2016, 09:28:42 PM
They want someone who lies (Trump has lied)

No more than Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.

Quote
They want someone who will do things no matter what. (Who needs congressional approval)
Quote
They want someone with no political experience (A cry in 2008 was Obama having no real experience)

So you acknowledge that he's never held public office, but you also claim to know what he will do in public office based on no precedence whatsoever. Fascinating.

Quote
They want someone arrogant, vein, selfish, greedy, and good at making backroom deals. (This is Trump summarized)

Trump is the only candidate who's not lining his pockets with massive campaign contributions. He's the only candidate placing himself and his agenda before the money. How is that selfish or greedy?

Quote
They want someone who will fail at foreign policy (Trump would start WW3)

Trump would have by far the best relations with Russia out of any of the candidates, and his experience with international trade makes him more qualified than any other candidate.

Quote
They want someone who will make oil many times more expensive in the US. (When you insult muslims, you insult OPEC, and right now, they're crashing the oil market so you bet they can raise it up.  See the 1970s oil embargo)

There's no reason to believe this is remotely true. Trump's interests in curbing terrorism more or less align with OPEC's.

Quote
They want a racist.

Trump has never stated anything that would suggest he is a racist, and any claims to that effect are nothing but pure slander.
 
Quote
They want someone who will disregard the law and constitution at his leisure.  (So long as its not against me)

Again, there's no precedence for Trump disregarding the law or the constitution in public office.

Quote
So, Tump supporters want the Obama image they see as their leader. 

I also predjct a Trump presidency will have more executive orders than Obama.

Cool story.

I give this liberal shame-rhetoric a PolitiFact™ rating of Mostly True™.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on February 11, 2016, 09:56:32 PM
Point! But that was a long term effect and after half the country had been occupied by the Russians for years and most of their cities had been reduced to rubble.
From an outsiders point of view there are few if any American cities that wouldn't benefit from this, but as a local is it a risk you want to take, you will get to wear a uniform for a while, but it won't be up to standards of the Hugo Boss designed ones the Nazi's had, probably some Hilfiger nightmare. The plus point would be that there would be a great coming together of white, black and Hispanic,... as you languish together in Chinese concentration camps.

It took the entire planet a decade to stop Hitler. How long do you think it will take to stop God-Emperor Trump?



To stop the God-Emperor!

There are similarities, but there are some major differences. Both twisted populists but one was a gifted orator  "What luck for rulers that men do not think" never truer than now, but Trump? He gets an audience member to say that Ted Cruz is a pussy.
Hitler had an organised cadre of supporters all singing the same song, Trump is a one man band. Hitler was able to unite a country, largely through fear and terror, Trump will split America open. Germany new what war meant, Americans play at war, it's remote controlled, it's Hollywood and call of duty.
He will be stopped, hopefully Americans love of shooting each other will see to it first, otherwise there may not be an awful lot left when it's done.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2016, 10:24:15 PM
What is it with lefties and rushing into apocalyptic scenarios? I don't like Trump either, but I strongly doubt he's going to suddenly fuck the world up.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 11, 2016, 10:42:11 PM
What is it with lefties and rushing into apocalyptic scenarios? I don't like Trump either, but I strongly doubt he's going to suddenly fuck the world up.

There was a ton of similar nonsense from the right when Obama won reelection.  No political faction has a monopoly on goofy doomsaying.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2016, 10:52:44 PM
Right-wingers accused Obama of planning to start WW3? Could you show me some examples of that? I mean, I'm sure there was a fringe somewhere out there, but I strongly doubt you could compare that to the Trump doomsayers.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on February 11, 2016, 10:58:23 PM
What is it with lefties and rushing into apocalyptic scenarios? I don't like Trump either, but I strongly doubt he's going to suddenly fuck the world up.

Ah! but it is so much fun.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2016, 11:01:04 PM
Jura, lay off the whiskey, you're starting to lose it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 11, 2016, 11:05:36 PM
Right-wingers accused Obama of planning to start WW3? Could you show me some examples of that? I mean, I'm sure there was a fringe somewhere out there, but I strongly doubt you could compare that to the Trump doomsayers.

I don't know about a world war specifically, but there was plenty of gibberish about concentration camps, the economy collapsing, and, uh, the literal apocalypse:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2015/01/01/3607416/4-things-2015-obama-reelected/

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/01/20/two-years-after-apocalyptic-predictions-related-obama-presidency-life-goes
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 11, 2016, 11:36:27 PM
Right, don't take me wrong, but left-wing media claiming that the right said something isn't exactly all that convincing.

In Trump's case, we have gems like this (https://archive.is/7wlfF) plastered across seemingly "normal" (i.e. not considered radical) liberal media. I think a fair comparison would be Fox News putting out a feature on Obama's concentration camps on their front page, for example.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on February 11, 2016, 11:45:24 PM
Right, don't take me wrong, but left-wing media claiming that the right said something isn't exactly all that convincing.

In Trump's case, we have gems like this (https://archive.is/7wlfF) plastered across seemingly "normal" (i.e. not considered radical) liberal media. I think a fair comparison would be Fox News putting out a feature on Obama's concentration camps on their front page, for example.

This is just tangentially related, but if you're linking to archive.is, could you also provide the original source if it's available? Many people cannot access archive.is (including people from Finland like myself) as the site admin is a proponent of censorship.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 12, 2016, 01:11:49 AM
In this particular case, I'm linking to an archived homepage of HuffPo featuring this:

(http://i.imgur.com/o2N7gJy.png)

The original is unavailable since the homepage has since changed :(
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on February 12, 2016, 02:48:03 AM
In this particular case, I'm linking to an archived homepage of HuffPo featuring this:

(http://i.imgur.com/o2N7gJy.png)

The original is unavailable since the homepage has since changed :(

I admit it's a blaringly sensationalist headline, but do you really not think Trump has shown himself to be all three of those things?  Comparing it to talk of "Obama's concentration camps" (which I'm assuming don't actually exist in the real world, though you can correct me if I'm wrong) seems to go a bit on the deep end.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 12, 2016, 04:16:53 AM
Right, don't take me wrong, but left-wing media claiming that the right said something isn't exactly all that convincing.

All right, are these sources acceptable, then?

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266285251515531264

http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2012/11/14/market-selloff-after-obamas-re-election-no-accident-recession-coming/

http://www.businessinsider.com/marc-faber-obama-is-a-disaster-the-stock-market-should-have-fallen-50-and-you-should-buy-yourself-a-machine-gun-2012-11

http://www.newsmax.com/Outbrain/Limbaugh-doomed-Obama-re-elected/2012/09/11/id/451480/

Quote
In Trump's case, we have gems like this (https://archive.is/7wlfF) plastered across seemingly "normal" (i.e. not considered radical) liberal media. I think a fair comparison would be Fox News putting out a feature on Obama's concentration camps on their front page, for example.

Wait, are we talking about hysterical predictions of doom here, or just sensationalist ad hominem attacks?  I shouldn't have to provide an example of the side I'm criticizing endorsing a loony conspiracy theory if you're just providing an example of the side you're criticizing simply calling someone names.  And on that count, Fox has certainly made their fair share of silly personal attacks, my personal favorite being the time Sean Hannity implied Obama was a snob for putting Dijon mustard on his burger:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAvq12Sa3VE
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 12, 2016, 08:07:24 AM
I don't have the time or energy to respond to Blanko except to say that my statements did indeed have exaggeration.  I'll try to back it up but no promises.


As for WW3, here's why I think that.

Trumo has made 2 statements that will cause international anger:
Make Mexico pay for a wall.
Ban all Muslims from entering America.

Mexico:
Mexico isn't going to pay for it.  Congress sure as hell won't either.  And just forcing the issue could easily casue Mexico to make trade more difficult.  In retaliation, Trump may try to suspend NAFTA in some way or close the southern border.  If Mexico stands firm, it could hurt the US economic sector that relies on "Made in Mexico." In response and to avoid looking weak, Trump threatens military action. Mexico calls the bluff.  Trump invades.

Great excuse to attack the US.  (Attacking an Ally)

Middle East:
Ban on muslims creates uproar in many nations, most notably Middle Eastern.  OPEC responds with another oil Embargo.  The fracking wells and tar sand wells have been devistated by the low price so they'll take time to ramp back up.  Frustration and demand for action would prompt Trump to launch an attack.  A show of force to prove America is Great.


Far fetched?  Maybe.  But so is alot of things until they happen.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on February 12, 2016, 09:01:08 AM

But Seriously folks!

If “violence is the last refuge of the incompetent” where else has he got to go? If the population of the USA proves itself dumber than it looks and he does get in, his supporters, dragged along by hate speak and bar room rhetoric, are going to expect him to back up his promises on having the biggest army on earth and not taking shit from no one, his ability to bluster a deal using leverage in corporate America (4 times bankrupt?). Doesn’t make him a match for Putin and his team of KGB trained manipulators or the Chinese hierarchy where political survival can be a life or death struggle, the antithesis of “speak softly and carry a big stick” he will swagger around until someone gives him a bloody nose, then where?

Now where’s the Whiskey?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 12, 2016, 10:04:09 AM
On the other side, the DNC seems to hate Sanders.

http://usuncut.com/news/the-dnc-superdelegates-just-screwed-over-bernie-sanders-and-spit-in-the-faces-of-voters/

Anyone else think Clinton is the favored candidate?  I mean, O'Malley didn't even get a headline until he quit.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 12, 2016, 01:46:26 PM
Even if the US actually invaded Mexico the most we'd ever get is a stern warning letter from the UN. No country on the planet can afford to sanction us, no country on the planet can afford to go to war with us. Welcome to globalism.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 12, 2016, 02:49:45 PM
Even if the US actually invaded Mexico the most we'd ever get is a stern warning letter from the UN. No country on the planet can afford to sanction us, no country on the planet can afford to go to war with us. Welcome to globalism.

That bothers me greatly.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 12, 2016, 07:51:33 PM
http://www.weeklystandard.com/sc-poll-trump-32-cruz-26-rubio-20-bush-10/article/2001032
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 12, 2016, 11:18:13 PM
Wait, are we talking about hysterical predictions of doom here, or just sensationalist ad hominem attacks?  I shouldn't have to provide an example of the side I'm criticizing endorsing a loony conspiracy theory if you're just providing an example of the side you're criticizing simply calling someone names.
Jura already provided us with an example. Remember what prompted me to ask the question in the first place? Everyday liberals are talking doomsday. That's a bit "out there". You can try and match it up with the far right, but that's still comparing the "norm" to the "extreme" on the opposite side.

I admit it's a blaringly sensationalist headline, but do you really not think Trump has shown himself to be all three of those things?
I don't think he has. I don't think he's *right*, but he's not bigoted either.

Comparing it to talk of "Obama's concentration camps" (which I'm assuming don't actually exist in the real world, though you can correct me if I'm wrong) seems to go a bit on the deep end.
I'm not sure why everyone suddenly thinks I'm comparing anything here. I criticised Jura for this literally-Hitler-doomsday-time post (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg89593#msg89593) and claimed that many liberals seem to do that. Saddam then responded by pointing out that there are loonies on both sides, and he compared it to the "Obama concentration camps" claims. I then asked for examples, and tangentially brought up HuffPo as a hilariously bad sensationalist heading.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266285251515531264
No doomsday, no concentration camps, no claims of bigotry, just an accurate statement of the economic situation at the time and a spot-on identification of the cause. Your point?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/investor/2012/11/14/market-selloff-after-obamas-re-election-no-accident-recession-coming/
Again, not quite on topic. Saying that Obama fucked over the economy by the end of his second term is hardly a groundbreaking statement, and it's definitely not what you promised me.

http://www.businessinsider.com/marc-faber-obama-is-a-disaster-the-stock-market-should-have-fallen-50-and-you-should-buy-yourself-a-machine-gun-2012-11
At least this guy is sensationalist. Still, nowhere near comparable.

http://www.newsmax.com/Outbrain/Limbaugh-doomed-Obama-re-elected/2012/09/11/id/451480/
Unless you're saying we should take the word "doomed" literally (please don't), I don't see your point. Limbaugh gonna Limbaugh, and he's still not accusing Obama of even being a dictator.

It really seems like you're trying to make a comparison between "w0w Obama did/does/will fuck over the economy!!!" to "NH GOES RACIST SEXIST XENOPHOBIC [by supporting Trump]" or "Y'know, Trump and Hitler are p. similar fam". I sincerely don't think that's a fair comparison in the slightest.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 13, 2016, 04:00:15 PM
Trump is literally Hitler he will world war 3 and holocaust the Mexicans. Like share and upboat this message if you don't you're a cis het xenophobic racist

Vote 4 Bernie he will give us free liberal arts degrees
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 13, 2016, 04:17:03 PM
http://atruthsoldier.com/fema-extermination-camps/

w0w why are righties such lunatics?  The equivalent to this would be MSNBC running a headline telling all white people to kill themselves to make up for slavery.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 13, 2016, 04:50:23 PM
Saddam, honey, we already talked about comparing the far right to the everyday left, and why doing that would be shit. Don't waste our time.

Now, can you or can you not back up your original claim in a straight-forward, honest manner?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on February 13, 2016, 09:46:34 PM
I don't know Sexpest, but yet again I suspect a bit of ASD (observation not insult), I don't think you see that Rushy and I were actually just using ridiculous scenario construction as a  bonding technique, yes he is likely to be the other side of the barricades to me come the glorious day (whilst you sit in a corner rocking with your head in your hands), but we were fucking about.
Or maybe (less likely), you do have a sense of humour and you do see, but want to get under Saddam's skin soo much.
Anyway off topic, as to your point, why do lefties go doomsday? When ever a right-wing loon comes into power in America, they are by definition of low intellect (see Reagan, Bush), so the thinkers (lefties) can't help but imagine “ what happens if the wheels come off”, meaning maybe their carers step outside and leave them next to the doomsday button or near the red phone when the Russians ring, it's not happened yet but it could, luckily up to yet they have some hideous self serving (but intelligent and articulate) British Prime minister to keep them on track, Reagan had Maggie and Bush had the equally awful Blair, unfortunately Trump wouldn't have any-one, mainly because he is under the misapprehension that he doesn't need them, but anyway we only have the moonfaced Cameron at the moment and he doesn't cut it, so just maybe worry a bit, it's what we do.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 13, 2016, 10:07:35 PM
Right...

I'm just going to slowly... back... away...

Saddam, I'm going to consider my point to be proven and self-evident, given the above.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on February 13, 2016, 10:23:13 PM
Holy mother of run-on sentences...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 13, 2016, 11:33:47 PM
Lol jura

Anyone who has ever been President is far more intelligent than most of the country. Anyone capable of mass manipulation, regardless of their endearing cohorts, is of utmost intelligence. In fact most candidates themselves have more leadership and intellect than most. By claiming what they are doing is unintelligent, you're basically saying it's easy, and if it's easy, a lot more people would be able to do it.

You could say that some weren't very knowledgeable, but I do hope you're not conflating knowledge with intelligence.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 14, 2016, 12:10:47 AM
Lol jura

Anyone who has ever been President is far more intelligent than most of the country. Anyone capable of mass manipulation, regardless of their endearing cohorts, is of utmost intelligence. In fact most candidates themselves have more leadership and intellect than most. By claiming what they are doing is unintelligent, you're basically saying it's easy, and if it's easy, a lot more people would be able to do it.

You could say that some weren't very knowledgeable, but I do hope you're not conflating knowledge with intelligence.

One can be stupid and still have a following.  Trump is mostly just saying what a large, angry portion of America repeats.  The difference is that he has money, is a known name, and isn't afraid of the lime light nor shys from it.  Your average, angry American will complain to coworkers or on facebook, but wouldn't have the courage or confidence to say the same thing out on the streets or up on a stage.  Nor would they want to give up their jobs to pursue public office.

That said, I do believe Donald Trump is saying and doing the things he does intentionally so, yes, he is intelligent.  What scares me is if he wants to do them anyway.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 14, 2016, 12:45:22 AM
I don't care what Trump believes anymore. He called Ted Cruz a pussy on live television. He has my vote.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on February 14, 2016, 03:48:15 AM
It doesn't matter who wins the Presidency now that Scalia croaked. The liberals will overtake the SC.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 14, 2016, 04:26:17 AM
I wouldn't go so far as to call Bush or Trump unintelligent, but it's the sort of personality, or attitude towards politics that they seem to share that bothers me.  It's like there's an emphasis on bravado, swagger, and the appearance of resolute fearlessness at all times, as if any display of patience, humility, or thoughtfulness immediately translates into weakness or self-doubt in the public sphere.  It's a great way to win an election, but an awful way to run a country, and I don't see Trump suddenly switching gears and adopting a more nuanced approach if he were to be elected.  There's a very interesting article about this attitude and its effect on Bush's presidency that's worth a read:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/magazine/faith-certainty-and-the-presidency-of-george-w-bush.html

My favorite part is Karl Rove's creepy monologue about the "reality-based community."
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on February 14, 2016, 04:26:48 AM
It doesn't matter who wins the Presidency now that Scalia croaked. The liberals will overtake the SC.

Don't worry, the Republicans will ensure there's a vacancy in his spot until after the election.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: model 29 on February 15, 2016, 05:55:11 PM
Vote 4 Bernie he will give us free liberal arts degrees
And he'll give living wages to everybody regardless if they want to work or not, and pay off the debt, and free healthcare with a government run single payer system, and do it all by taking back the money from rich people or corporations and using those funds, and it will last forever.

Yep, the US can be a model socialist utopia just like Venezuela.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 15, 2016, 10:32:45 PM
And he'll give living wages to everybody regardless if they want to work or not, and pay off the debt, and free healthcare with a government run single payer system, and do it all by taking back the money from rich people or corporations and using those funds, and it will last forever.

Yep, the US can be a model socialist utopia just like Venezuela.

Let's just be happy that Bernie Sanders, even if elected, will die from old age before he can do anything meaningful in office.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 15, 2016, 10:39:16 PM
Bernie "Hnnnngh" Sanders
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 16, 2016, 06:19:06 AM
A question for all the Trump supporters here: how well do you think he will do in the upcoming primary in SC?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on February 16, 2016, 10:25:08 PM
Lol jura

Anyone who has ever been President is far more intelligent than most of the country. Anyone capable of mass manipulation, regardless of their endearing cohorts, is of utmost intelligence. In fact most candidates themselves have more leadership and intellect than most. By claiming what they are doing is unintelligent, you're basically saying it's easy, and if it's easy, a lot more people would be able to do it.

You could say that some weren't very knowledgeable, but I do hope you're not conflating knowledge with intelligence.

LOL Rushy,

"I know that human beings and fish can coexist peacefully" Bush!

He may well be more intelligent than most of you, (which would explain alot) but on a world wide perspective? No.

Your only hope is Bernie.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 17, 2016, 01:12:26 AM
LOL Rushy,

"I know that human beings and fish can coexist peacefully" Bush!

He may well be more intelligent than most of you, (which would explain alot) but on a world wide perspective? No.

This is an impressive amount of illusory superiority.

Your only hope is Bernie.

Bernie "I can state what the problem is but not the solution" Sanders? That Bernie? The last time we had a bunch of idiots state what the problem is but have no idea how to solve it we got the Affordable Care Act to "solve" our healthcare crisis by giving millions of government dollars to the insurance companies and pharmaceutical firms that were fucking us in the first place.

(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtl1/v/t1.0-9/12718364_1087151531329602_4103902408220608278_n.jpg?oh=83532f660ce5766c7105ad082bce8199&oe=572B8D82)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on February 17, 2016, 04:05:40 AM
The last time we had a bunch of idiots state what the problem is but have no idea how to solve it we got the Affordable Care Act to "solve" our healthcare crisis by giving millions of government dollars to the insurance companies and pharmaceutical firms that were fucking us in the first place.

(https://scontent-atl3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtl1/v/t1.0-9/12718364_1087151531329602_4103902408220608278_n.jpg?oh=83532f660ce5766c7105ad082bce8199&oe=572B8D82)

That's the American way.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 17, 2016, 07:00:29 AM
http://www.redstate.com/california_yankee/2016/02/15/south-carolina-race-close-cruz-catches-trump/

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/02/right-to-rise-poll-finds-trump-cruz-in-tight-race
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on February 17, 2016, 12:32:45 PM
www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-35594007

god fucking damn it jeb get a pr person
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: lolwut? on February 17, 2016, 08:23:43 PM
http://www.jebbush.com (http://www.jebbush.com)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 17, 2016, 09:03:43 PM
Rushy already posted that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O74XDI-o7xc

Jeb is the only politician running for President that isn't a cruel sociopath.

keep up bro
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 21, 2016, 01:40:40 AM
Ayy my main man Trump won South Carolina. Make America Great Again!

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWT_cm8XAAA-nNK.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 21, 2016, 02:33:41 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/21/us/politics/jeb-bush.html

I'm surprised he would drop out so soon, but I guess the writing's been on the wall for some time now.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 21, 2016, 06:50:13 AM
http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82618#msg82618

Let us focus on the Republican primaries.

Obviously, in Iowa, the evangelical vote will matter most.


So, one week later, the candidate who wins Iowa might get second or third place in NH.

Given the large number of well-known strong candidates, the SC primary might not be a clear indication of what will happen three months down the road.

Then, on March 1, the evangelical vote will be of considerable importance, especially if one of the candidates is from a home state.

The number of candidates will then narrow considerably: conservative side vs. moderate (establishment) side.


The Republican contest will actually begin on March 1; let us see what will happen on that day.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 21, 2016, 07:40:29 AM
Ayy my main man Trump won South Carolina. Make America Great Again!

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CWT_cm8XAAA-nNK.jpg)
Fuck....

Tump is on a roll.  At this rate, he'll be against Hillary.  By that point, his victory is assured.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 21, 2016, 05:32:08 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/wC7OUSt.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 23, 2016, 11:37:30 AM
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2016/02/20-donald-trump-south-carolina-overestimation-hudak

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/22/why-donald-trump-cant-win-the-white-house/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 23, 2016, 01:21:05 PM
I like how Levee has gone from vague nonsense  predictions to just posting other people's opinions. What's wrong, buddy? You scared of Trump's high energy campaign to make America great again?

I am upping the ante on my prediction. I predict that, not only will Trump win the nomination, but he will win the general election. In January 2017, we will be welcoming Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 23, 2016, 01:26:38 PM
I like how Levee has gone from vague nonsense  predictions to just posting other people's opinions. What's wrong, buddy? You scared of Trump's high energy campaign to make America great again?

I am upping the ante on my prediction. I predict that, not only will Trump win the nomination, but he will win the general election. In January 2017, we will be welcoming Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America.

I reluctantly agree.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 23, 2016, 02:07:09 PM
rushy, you can't be that naive, or can you?

Trump is acting following a script, that's all.

To make America great (again), one must deal with the Fed, the national debt that cannot be paid anymore, and much more.

Why do you think the electoral landscape was radically altered, by moving up the primary dates for several states, on March 1?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 23, 2016, 06:53:56 PM
To make America great again, requires a fundamental change in philosophy (metaphysics: study of the universe, epistemology: study of knowledge and ethics: values/virtues).

Politics is a branch of ethics, it is the product of a philosophic system.

This is what has to change, from collectivism/pragmatism/progressive movement/statism/democracy (tyranny by the majority) to the philosophy of inner synarchy.

America today is the result of the catastrophic political decisions based on the philosophy of statism:

The trashing of the Constitution by Abraham Lincoln

The Sherman Antitrust Act

The unprecedented entry of the government in the fields of finance

The New Deal of the thirties

The pressure-group pragmatism of the political parties which demand controls (government intervention)


Toward Soviet America by William Z. Foster. Head of the Communist Party USA, Foster indicates that a National Department of Education would be one of the means used to develop a new socialist society in the U.S (which actually came into being in 1979-1980).

Co-signer of the Humanist Manifesto, C.F. Potter said in 1930:  "Education is thus a most powerful ally of humanism, and every American public school is a school of humanism. What can the theistic Sunday schools, meeting for an hour once a week, teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 24, 2016, 12:33:57 PM
Bibliographical references for the Lincoln affair:

http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-mr-lincolns-war-an-irrepressible-conflict-1440

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/lincfasc.html

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/03/the-imaginary-abe-a-reply-to-harry-jaffas-in-re-jack-kemp-v-joe-sobran.html


The staging of the Lincoln "assassination":

http://mileswmathis.com/lincoln.pdf
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 24, 2016, 12:53:06 PM
Bibliographical references for the Lincoln affair:

http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-mr-lincolns-war-an-irrepressible-conflict-1440

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/lincfasc.html

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/03/the-imaginary-abe-a-reply-to-harry-jaffas-in-re-jack-kemp-v-joe-sobran.html


The staging of the Lincoln "assassination":

http://mileswmathis.com/lincoln.pdf
Lincolin's death is irrelevant to the 2016 elections.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 24, 2016, 03:23:04 PM
Basically, Dave, Levee is a Cruz supporter who is having a mental meltdown because Cruz is very obviously not going to win. Levee is now hoping that someone literally kills Trump just so he can be right about something for once in his life.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 24, 2016, 03:37:46 PM
I am not a Cruz supporter.

I have been merely pointing out to you the strange things that occurred during the past three months: Trump not attending the debate prior to the Iowa primary, Two Corinthians, the media attacks on Cruz, and many other subtle facts, which could not have happened by chance.

All of you here are under the impression that Trump actually believes that American will be great again, or that he is financially independent, not taking orders from anybody.

Trump is not part of the upper echelon of power, he only acts out the part he has been given in this electoral process.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 24, 2016, 03:43:22 PM
Who do you support?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 24, 2016, 04:21:17 PM
I support the underground American president.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 24, 2016, 06:57:15 PM
I am not a Cruz supporter.

I have been merely pointing out to you the strange things that occurred during the past three months: Trump not attending the debate prior to the Iowa primary, Two Corinthians, the media attacks on Cruz, and many other subtle facts, which could not have happened by chance.

All of you here are under the impression that Trump actually believes that American will be great again, or that he is financially independent, not taking orders from anybody.

Trump is not part of the upper echelon of power, he only acts out the part he has been given in this electoral process.
I don't.
Trump is running for other reasons than political power.  He's already rich and owns a lot of stuff with his name on it.  POTUS is a lot of stress that I'm sure he realizes.  He either knows he can't do the things he says or he thinks he can and is delusional.

Also:
What the hell is "Two Corinthians" supposed to mean?


But seriously, you're honestly thinking we think politics and this presidential run is fair? 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 24, 2016, 07:11:19 PM
Levee supports moleman for president.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 24, 2016, 07:20:06 PM
Levee supports moleman for president.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e7/Hans_Moleman.png)

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 25, 2016, 07:24:47 AM
http://nation.foxnews.com/2016/02/24/cavuto-your-world-exclusive-romney-calls-trump-release-his-tax-records-theres-reason

The reason I replaced my messages with Vril Society images (not Nazi), was to delete the portions where I reminded everyone that this website is run by people who are NOT actual FE believers (the very reason they refuse to include my proven and tested AFET in the faq).

Does everyone here know what an "underground American president" is?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 25, 2016, 07:43:49 AM
Google says no one knows what that is.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 25, 2016, 07:45:23 AM
http://soshable.com/why-trump-is-hiding-his-tax-returns-from-voters/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2016/02/22/trumps-word-salads-conceal-his-ignorance/


No wonder.

Try another search: the Kennedy assassinations were staged.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 25, 2016, 01:08:28 PM
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/donald-trump-hiding-bombshell-in-tax-returns-mitt-romney/articleshow/51136198.cms

However, the following article was written four days ago, before it became a headline:

http://socialnewswatch.com/2016/02/20/if-trumps-tax-returns-didnt-contain-a-bombshell-he-would-have-released-them-already/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 25, 2016, 01:18:26 PM
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/donald-trump-hiding-bombshell-in-tax-returns-mitt-romney/articleshow/51136198.cms

However, the following article was written four days ago, before it became a headline:

http://socialnewswatch.com/2016/02/20/if-trumps-tax-returns-didnt-contain-a-bombshell-he-would-have-released-them-already/

Yeah and?
Donald Trump having politically damning tax returns is not news.  Just putting his income with 9 digits is enough to turn people off.  Or should.

It won't, unless it shows he pays like 5% tax or something.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 25, 2016, 01:24:28 PM
By Trump's own admission, he could shoot a man on fifth avenue in broad daylight and he wouldn't lose any voters. I don't give a shit what his tax returns say, and I doubt anyone that is voting for him does, either.

Levee doesn't want to make America great again. He wants Cruz to tell him sweet lies.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 25, 2016, 01:24:47 PM
This article was written on February 1, 2016:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/02/01/when-will-donald-trumps-tax-returns-be-public/


People are, and should be, very concerned about his tax returns and the reason why he continually postpones releasing them to the public.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 25, 2016, 01:41:41 PM
This is from three days ago, it features Trump's own responses to the question about the tax returns:

http://www.fultonpostnews.com/opinion/donald-trumps-tax-return-dodge-h27600.html
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on February 25, 2016, 01:53:18 PM
lrn2CapitalGainsTax. By taking a low salary and earning the majority of their wealth in dividends the ultra-rich can avoid roughly half the %'s that the rest of us are taxed at.  Sam Walton didn't take a ridiculously low salary because it was cute or because of some nebulous sense of company pride. He did it for the tax breaks. That's just the beginning too, there are many tricks that the rich can do to pay much lower percentages that would make the rest of us balk. (setting up charities, shell companies, and even flat-out avoiding the aforementioned capital gains tax are a few perfectly legal ways to lower your taxes)

Trump doesn't want people to see what % he gets taxed at because his opposition will accuse him of avoiding taxes. When in reality, we should be much, much more concerned about his mental stability it he were not taking advantage of these legal tax loopholes.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 25, 2016, 01:58:31 PM
I would definitely prefer to make my income with qualified dividends instead of wages.

Most people are just hoping Trump is doing something terrible, like when Mitt Romney's tax returns showed that he was using the Mormon Church to siphon taxfree money.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 25, 2016, 02:07:49 PM
http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/25/4-questions-voters-need-donald-trump-to-stop-dodging/ (one might think that it is question #2 that is most important, the tax returns issue; no, question #4 is even more challenging)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 26, 2016, 09:58:53 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4OwJOVi0ec

Vicente Fox,  (former) President of Mexico
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 26, 2016, 11:44:53 AM
There is actually a massive amount of options we have at our disposal to force Mexico to pay for the wall. Cutting foreign aid or bringing back Mexican import taxes are two good examples floating around right now.

Trump, hilariously enough, could force them to effectively pay for the wall and bring back the jobs manufacturers are sending over there. Very effective.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on February 26, 2016, 01:29:33 PM
There is actually a massive amount of options we have at our disposal to force Mexico to pay for the wall. Cutting foreign aid or bringing back Mexican import taxes are two good examples floating around right now.

Trump, hilariously enough, could force them to effectively pay for the wall and bring back the jobs manufacturers are sending over there. Very effective.

But then the price of your shit goes up.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 26, 2016, 01:33:18 PM
There is actually a massive amount of options we have at our disposal to force Mexico to pay for the wall. Cutting foreign aid or bringing back Mexican import taxes are two good examples floating around right now.

Trump, hilariously enough, could force them to effectively pay for the wall and bring back the jobs manufacturers are sending over there. Very effective.

Wouldn't import tax require the removal of NAFTA?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 26, 2016, 02:02:16 PM
But then the price of your shit goes up.

Freedom isn't free.

Wouldn't import tax require the removal of NAFTA?

Trump called NAFTA "a disaster" and wanted to break it entirely.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 26, 2016, 05:38:41 PM
But then the price of your shit goes up.

Freedom isn't free.
Tell that to the walmart shoppers.

Quote
Wouldn't import tax require the removal of NAFTA?

Trump called NAFTA "a disaster" and wanted to break it entirely.
I can't imagine that would help slow the tide of illegals.  Or make Mexico or Canada happy.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 26, 2016, 05:43:40 PM
I can't imagine that would help slow the tide of illegals.  Or make Mexico or Canada happy.

I doubt Trump really cares about what other countries think. They need us more than we need them.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Thork on February 26, 2016, 06:16:15 PM
I can't imagine that would help slow the tide of illegals.  Or make Mexico or Canada happy.

I doubt Trump really cares about what other countries think. They need us more than we need them.
You have a national deficit. Your imports exceed your exports. You are giving people dollars that you print as you need them, in exchange for real goods and services. Who needs who?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 26, 2016, 06:29:31 PM
I can't imagine that would help slow the tide of illegals.  Or make Mexico or Canada happy.

I doubt Trump really cares about what other countries think. They need us more than we need them.
You have a national deficit. Your imports exceed your exports. You are giving people dollars that you print as you need them, in exchange for real goods and services. Who needs who?

The real question is why is the world dumb enough to keep giving us resources for thin sheets of green paper that we print out billions of everyday.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 27, 2016, 05:40:22 AM
I can't imagine that would help slow the tide of illegals.  Or make Mexico or Canada happy.

I doubt Trump really cares about what other countries think. They need us more than we need them.
You have a national deficit. Your imports exceed your exports. You are giving people dollars that you print as you need them, in exchange for real goods and services. Who needs who?

The real question is why is the world dumb enough to keep giving us resources for thin sheets of green paper that we print out billions of everyday.

Because worse come to worst we got the bullets to back up the bullshit
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 27, 2016, 06:14:15 AM
http://www.salon.com/2016/02/24/america_youre_stupid_donald_trumps_political_triumph_makes_it_official_were_a_nation_of_idiots/

Yesterday, Trump was asked again about his tax returns: "I won't release them."

The reporter asked again: We called the IRS and they said nothing precludes you from releasing not only this year's tax returns, but also the returns for the past years. Trump dodged the question.

Certainly by June those tax returns will have to be released and it will mean another reason for the delegates at the convention to withdraw their vote for Trump.


In a direct confrontation, Sanders will win against Trump (I was the only one to suggest that Sanders does have a good chance at becoming the Democractic nominee, contrary to what our friend Rushy was posting at the same time, back on December 12).

I also said that a brokered convention is very possible: all Cruz has to do is win some 4 states on Tuesday, and wait until the party rules will put an end to Trump's ascension in the polls.

Everyone in the Republican party knows that Cruz can win big against either Sanders or Hillary: why then would they have subjected themselves to this ordeal, when they could have stopped Trump from using their platform from the very start?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 27, 2016, 06:31:16 AM
If Sanders doesn't get the nomination I'm voting for Trump out of spite.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 27, 2016, 09:28:44 AM
What Trump has done is to practically launch an independent bid for the presidency, using the Republican party as a platform.

He won't listen to the leaders of the party, he has disdain for politicians (including Republicans).

Question: why then would the GOP put up with something like this from the very start?

Certainly they could have stopped Trump in his tracks one year ago, by informing him that he is welcome to run as an independent.

Does it make any sense at all for noted, public, respected Republican leaders to complain NOW that Trump is not a true conservative, and actually does not represent the party?

Therefore, there is only one way out of this mystery: it was all planned from the beginning in order to achieve a certain goal.

No other candidate (democrat or republican), for the past 50 years, would have been able to make it past the first primary under the public's scrutiny, having to deal with the "Trump university scam" and the "tax returns issue". Yet, so far, Trump has been spared what would have been a devastating inquiry into his finances/business practices, one which would have spelled the end of a political career for any other candidate.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 27, 2016, 12:47:01 PM
Sanders has no chance to be nominated. He has already lost. Sanders' key support demographic isn't old enough to vote and the ones that can don't even bother showing up to the primary polls. Democrat turnout this year is abysmal. In addition to all of this, Bernie doesn't excite people; he bores them.

Hillary will win the nomination and then lose to God Emperor Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 27, 2016, 01:26:08 PM
The information in Trump's tax filings forms the basis of his claim that he, above all other candidates, has the business and negotiating skills to "make America great again."

His pretentions to leadership are directly related to those tax returns he absolutely does not want to release.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 27, 2016, 03:15:08 PM
The information in Trump's tax filings forms the basis of his claim that he, above all other candidates, has the business and negotiating skills to "make America great again."

His pretentions to leadership are directly related to those tax returns he absolutely does not want to release.

Are you really surprised that someone doesn't want to post their private finances to the public? Would you want to post your tax returns on this forum?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 27, 2016, 05:29:15 PM
The information in Trump's tax filings forms the basis of his claim that he, above all other candidates, has the business and negotiating skills to "make America great again."

His pretentions to leadership are directly related to those tax returns he absolutely does not want to release.

Are you really surprised that someone doesn't want to post their private finances to the public? Would you want to post your tax returns on this forum?

If they couldn't force Barry to present his birth certificate as proof that he was even eligible to run as president they definitely can't force you to release your tax returns.

It's all a big show, trump is around to keep the flame kindled on racism because they know it's dying out on a popular level. Sanders is the flicker of hope à la Ron Paul they give us every few cycles, and Clinton represents business as usual.

Does anyone really think that the keys to our country would be given to someone that may only be around for four years? Anything they really want to implement is planned years in advance and done regardless who is in office.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 27, 2016, 07:02:49 PM
If they couldn't force Barry to present his birth certificate as proof that he was even eligible to run as president they definitely can't force you to release your tax returns.

It's all a big show, trump is around to keep the flame kindled on racism because they know it's dying out on a popular level. Sanders is the flicker of hope à la Ron Paul they give us every few cycles, and Clinton represents business as usual.

Does anyone really think that the keys to our country would be given to someone that may only be around for four years? Anything they really want to implement is planned years in advance and done regardless who is in office.

How is Trump going to "keep the flame kindled on racism" if he has never said anything remotely racist? I don't understand where all this "TRUMP IS WAICIST" nonsense is coming from when no one can actually give me any quotes from Trump that prove racism.

The only racist things I've ever seen during this election is Bernie voters complaining that blacks are "too uneducated to realize Bernie is best for them." That's their only response to the fact that minority voters prefer Clinton.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 27, 2016, 07:46:06 PM
If they couldn't force Barry to present his birth certificate as proof that he was even eligible to run as president they definitely can't force you to release your tax returns.

It's all a big show, trump is around to keep the flame kindled on racism because they know it's dying out on a popular level. Sanders is the flicker of hope à la Ron Paul they give us every few cycles, and Clinton represents business as usual.

Does anyone really think that the keys to our country would be given to someone that may only be around for four years? Anything they really want to implement is planned years in advance and done regardless who is in office.

How is Trump going to "keep the flame kindled on racism" if he has never said anything remotely racist? I don't understand where all this "TRUMP IS WAICIST" nonsense is coming from when no one can actually give me any quotes from Trump that prove racism.

The only racist things I've ever seen during this election is Bernie voters complaining that blacks are "too uneducated to realize Bernie is best for them." That's their only response to the fact that minority voters prefer Clinton.

He said Mexicans are rapists and murderers and proposed a immigration ban on Muslims. Just because it's not black or white don't mean race isn't involved. His "supporters," if thats what you want to call the people paid to attend his rallies, are portrayed as this angry racist remnant that feels disenfranchised... Now I say portrayed because thats exactly what it is. We don't know if theres an actual faction of real citizens that feel this way, but the media pushing the concept inevitably influenced the TV watchers to either relate or debate.

To me it was overwhelmingly obvious that popular support the past two elections has been behind disestablishment candidates, Ron Paul, Sanders, (interestingly enough, only running in the twilight of their careers) and any numbers the media shows you are just that... As good as fabrications, designed to give credibility to a fixed system. Its one big production designed to keep a finger on the pulse of the average man, and give an illusion of choice and a share in the guilt associated with hazardous foreign and domestic policy.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 27, 2016, 07:59:15 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431858/donald-trump-2016-campaign-must-be-stopped
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 27, 2016, 08:31:22 PM
He said Mexicans are rapists and murderers and proposed a immigration ban on Muslims.

Mexican is a nationality; Muslim is a religious preference. Neither of those things are races.

Just because it's not black or white don't mean race isn't involved. His "supporters," if thats what you want to call the people paid to attend his rallies, are portrayed as this angry racist remnant that feels disenfranchised... Now I say portrayed because thats exactly what it is. We don't know if theres an actual faction of real citizens that feel this way, but the media pushing the concept inevitably influenced the TV watchers to either relate or debate.

Sounds more like you can't come up with a reasonable criticism so you just figure "racism" will suffice. Trump has the best economic, foreign, and social policies out of all candidates currently running.

To me it was overwhelmingly obvious that popular support the past two elections has been behind disestablishment candidates, Ron Paul, Sanders, (interestingly enough, only running in the twilight of their careers) and any numbers the media shows you are just that... As good as fabrications, designed to give credibility to a fixed system. Its one big production designed to keep a finger on the pulse of the average man, and give an illusion of choice and a share in the guilt associated with hazardous foreign and domestic policy.

Guess you better give up now, then. You can't change anything about the world, ever, the masterminds are infinitely more powerful and more intelligent than you.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 27, 2016, 09:18:10 PM
My criticism definitely isn't towards trump specifically, but youre playing semantics when you say mexico is a country and muslim is a religious preference. How exactly do you single out those people in a broad sense if not by race? Do you think he meant the gringos from mexica are the rapist? Or do you think you can spot a muslim in a crowd if he isnt wearing a turban or kaffiyeh?

I dont want to be the bearer of bad news but it is the entire system that is broken, trying to use this system to enact positive change is futile.

By "system" I mean the plain as day bribery that takes place through the vehicle of lobbying wherein corportate interests at the cost of the greater good are prioritized. It's obvious to everyone with any moderate level of mental ability that global corporations write the laws and have engineered a modern day form of slavery in the guise of capitolism. So no, I will not be voting.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 27, 2016, 09:25:46 PM
How exactly do you single out those people in a broad sense if not by race?

Mexicans are from Mexico and Muslims believe Muhammad is a prophet that could speak the word of god. I don't see how either of those things are related to a race. It sounds to me like you're the racist here, bucko.


I dont want to be the bearer of bad news but it is the entire system that is broken, trying to use this system to enact positive change is futile.

By "system" I mean the plain as day bribery that takes place through the vehicle of lobbying wherein corportate interests at the cost of the greater good are prioritized. It's obvious to everyone with any moderate level of mental ability that global corporations write the laws and have engineered a modern day form of slavery in the guise of capitolism. So no, I will not be voting.

Literal defeatism.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on February 27, 2016, 10:14:43 PM
How exactly do you single out those people in a broad sense if not by race?

Mexicans are from Mexico and Muslims believe Muhammad is a prophet that could speak the word of god. I don't see how either of those things are related to a race. It sounds to me like you're the racist here, bucko.


I dont want to be the bearer of bad news but it is the entire system that is broken, trying to use this system to enact positive change is futile.

By "system" I mean the plain as day bribery that takes place through the vehicle of lobbying wherein corportate interests at the cost of the greater good are prioritized. It's obvious to everyone with any moderate level of mental ability that global corporations write the laws and have engineered a modern day form of slavery in the guise of capitolism. So no, I will not be voting.

Literal defeatism.

Textbook apologetics.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 27, 2016, 10:47:16 PM
UNSTUMPABLE!

Who's next? The Trump train has no brakes!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 28, 2016, 09:39:41 AM
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/alan/160202
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 28, 2016, 04:15:41 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CTzFpYJWUAAHLbp.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 28, 2016, 07:15:11 PM
Right.

You still haven't been able to figure out which faction Trump actually works for.

Let me help you.

Why would David Duke lavish such praise on Trump, ahead of the super tuesday primaries?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 28, 2016, 07:44:54 PM
(http://imgur.com/HphTud7.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/J9kjYjA.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on February 28, 2016, 09:27:43 PM
Reported for Healthy Earth alt.

The Trump train stops at the general election.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 28, 2016, 09:49:37 PM
Romney is winning by a landslide.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 29, 2016, 11:47:00 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/divisions-within-gop-over-trumps-candidacy-are-growing/2016/02/28/97b16010-de3a-11e5-8d98-4b3d9215ade1_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_gopcivilwar810p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory


Basically, the GOP is on the brink of civil war.
Half of them hate Trump.
The other Half just want to beat Hillary, no matter the cost.

And the Vice Chairman of the DNC just resigned to support Bernie Sanders.  Which means the DNC is backing Hillary and demands everyone else does to.

This is politics in America: Winning is what matters.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 29, 2016, 03:58:56 PM
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/02/deace-the-importance-of-home-state-victories
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on February 29, 2016, 04:45:44 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnpO_RTSNmQ
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on February 29, 2016, 05:43:52 PM
Texas held early voting from February 16-26 at various early voting locations.

Here is the polling done by Monmouth University on these early votes in Texas:

http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/fd1752af-cc7a-4b4c-9125-1d26f351cc4a.pdf

Texas allows early voting and 18% of those polled report having already cast their vote. Nearly half (44%) of these early voters checked Cruz’s name on their ballots.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on February 29, 2016, 10:15:52 PM
Bernie Sanders is on Reddit literally begging his supporters for more money to fund his already dead chance of being POTUS:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/48bqz6/reddit_you_have_supported_me_since_this_campaign/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on February 29, 2016, 11:10:30 PM
Bernie Sanders is on Reddit literally begging his supporters for more money to fund his already dead chance of being POTUS:

https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/48bqz6/reddit_you_have_supported_me_since_this_campaign/ (https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/48bqz6/reddit_you_have_supported_me_since_this_campaign/)

Eh.  At least his PR guy knows where to go.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 01, 2016, 06:34:25 AM
http://forward.com/opinion/334488/donald-trump-is-playing-mr-neutral-on-everything-from-israel-to-the-klan-an/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 01, 2016, 07:35:55 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/24/ted-cruz-campaign-look-to-texas/

500,000 votes have already been cast in Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)’s home state of Texas, and one million will be cast by Friday (one million early votes would represent 60 percent of the total in Texas).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 01, 2016, 12:09:10 PM
With Cruz you lose.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 01, 2016, 12:18:41 PM
So far, the only certainty is this: Trump will lose big in a general election (running against either Clinton - who will unleash hellfire on Trump, making the primaries look like a knitting circle, or Sanders - if Hillary is indicted).

Again, we have to go back to the question I posed a long time ago:

Why would the GOP put up with Trump's candidacy from the very start?

If Cruz wins big in Texas, the number of candidates should narrow down to at most three.


Again, think: why would David Duke endorse Trump NOW, right before the crucial super tuesday primaries?

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 01, 2016, 12:22:09 PM
So far, the only certainty is this: Trump will lose big in a general election (running against either Clinton - who will unleash hellfire on Trump, making the primaries look like a knitting circle, or Sanders - if Hillary is indicted).

Again, we have to go back to the question I posed a long time ago:

Why would the GOP put up with Trump's candidacy from the very start?

If Cruz wins big in Texas, the number of candidates should narrow down to at most three.


Again, think: why would David Duke endorse Trump NOW, right before the crucial super tuesday primaries?


Actually its "Why would it be reported now."
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 01, 2016, 12:27:32 PM
The GOP needs at least 40% of the Hispanic vote to win the general election.

How are they going to achieve that with Trump? They cannot, as they knew it from the very start.

With either Cruz or Rubio, things change for the better: both can win against either Clinton or Sanders.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 01, 2016, 01:35:36 PM
The Nevada primary made it obvious that Hispanics actually like Trump better.

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/02/Pasted-image-at-2016_02_24-01_00-PM.png&w=1484)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 01, 2016, 04:04:57 PM
The Nevada primary made it obvious that Hispanics actually like Trump better.

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/02/Pasted-image-at-2016_02_24-01_00-PM.png&w=1484)

The worst part of this all is Kasich is the only one out of the whole lot I would ever vote for... and he seems to get shrugged off eventhough a lot of what he says has merit and makes sense, and he is a proven as a successful head of an executive branch.

I would be baffled if I actually thought for a second this shit wasn't rigged beyond belief, and Kasich is in on it just as much.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on March 01, 2016, 04:30:03 PM
You don't want America to be great again?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 01, 2016, 04:38:23 PM
You don't want America to be great again?

Do any globalists actually want America to be great again? The New World Order they been throwing in our faces for the past 40 years makes us assume the bent over position as just another vassal state.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 01, 2016, 05:56:12 PM
Trump is the only candidate in the race who isn't a globalist. Building a wall between nations and striking down trade agreements is the most literal opposite of globalism you can achieve. It's called nationalism, and it's been the front and center topic of nearly any of Trump's speeches.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on March 01, 2016, 06:15:03 PM
Trump is the only candidate in the race who isn't a globalist. Building a wall between nations and striking down trade agreements is the most literal opposite of globalism you can achieve. It's called nationalism, and it's been the front and center topic of nearly any of Trump's speeches.

That certainly explains why David Duke endorsed him, and why he was so reluctant to disavow him (you generally want to avoid distancing yourself from your constituency).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 01, 2016, 06:25:15 PM
Trump is the only candidate in the race who isn't a globalist. Building a wall between nations and striking down trade agreements is the most literal opposite of globalism you can achieve. It's called nationalism, and it's been the front and center topic of nearly any of Trump's speeches.

That certainly explains why David Duke endorsed him, and why he was so reluctant to disavow him (you generally want to avoid distancing yourself from your constituency).

David Duke never endorsed him in the first place, he's even on video pissed off that people thought he did. David Duke thinks Jews control the world and part of Trump's family is Jewish.

Most NWO nutballs want Cruz because he is "God's chosen one." See Levee for details on that.

All of this KKK nonsense about Trump is no better than when republitards kept saying Obama supports the Black Panthers.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 01, 2016, 06:32:58 PM
Trump is the only candidate in the race who isn't a globalist. Building a wall between nations and striking down trade agreements is the most literal opposite of globalism you can achieve. It's called nationalism, and it's been the front and center topic of nearly any of Trump's speeches.

You can say that, but he also owns many companies that operate all around the world. He is just saying shit that he thinks will resonate with his target audience right now. Nullifying Nafta is not something a president could ever accomplish on his own. It would take 10 years of study to even understand the impact it could have. Even if it somehow happened, it wouldn't simply make America "great again."

Serious question though, are you trolling or an actual Trump supporter? I haven't met a supporter in real life yet.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 01, 2016, 06:39:06 PM
The Nevada primary made it obvious that Hispanics actually like Trump better.

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/02/Pasted-image-at-2016_02_24-01_00-PM.png&w=1484)

"You know what I'm really happy about, because we've saying it for a long time? Forty-six percent with the Hispanics! Forty-six percent! Number one with Hispanics!," the real estate mogul said.


But Trump's claim runs counter to ALL polling of Hispanics nationwide.

A new survey from The Washington Post and Univision finds 8 in 10 Latinos view Trump unfavorably, and 7 in 10 view him very unfavorably, more than any other candidate.


Let us remember also:

1. The Nevada GOP caucuses were closed to people not already registered as Republicans - that means Trump won the subset of Latino voters who were already Republicans. What's more, according to the entrance polls, just 8% of the voters taking part in the GOP caucuses said they were Latinos.

2. The full sample size of voters captured by the polls was 1,573. That means Trump's claim that he is "No. 1 with Hispanics" is based on about 125 registered Republicans.


In order to fully understand why David Duke endorsed Trump, one must go back in time some 150 years: who actually founded the KKK? A challenge for the other readers/participants in the discussion to come up with the correct answer.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 01, 2016, 06:45:30 PM
You can say that, but he also owns many companies that operate all around the world. He is just saying shit that he thinks will resonate with his target audience right now. Nullifying Nafta is not something a president could ever accomplish on his own. It would take 10 years of study to even understand the impact it could have. Even if it somehow happened, it wouldn't simply make America "great again."

Serious question though, are you trolling or an actual Trump supporter? I haven't met a supporter in real life yet.

I am literally voting for Trump.

In any case, yes, he might be lying, but if that's your concern then why support any candidate at all? If one is lying, well you might as well assume they all are. I'm fairly certain that's what you already do, since you've made it clear you have a very defeatist attitude when it comes to politics.

If I'm going to vote for a liar, I'm going to at least vote for an entertaining one.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on March 01, 2016, 06:48:10 PM
Trump is the only candidate in the race who isn't a globalist. Building a wall between nations and striking down trade agreements is the most literal opposite of globalism you can achieve. It's called nationalism, and it's been the front and center topic of nearly any of Trump's speeches.

That certainly explains why David Duke endorsed him, and why he was so reluctant to disavow him (you generally want to avoid distancing yourself from your constituency).

David Duke never endorsed him in the first place, he's even on video pissed off that people thought he did. David Duke thinks Jews control the world and part of Trump's family is Jewish.

Oh come on.  He may not have "officially" endorsed him, but he certainly did encourage his radio listeners to vote for Trump.  Why split hairs?  David Duke wants to make America great again!

And even so it still explains why Trump would be reticent about denouncing Duke.  Duke's people are his bread and butter after all.  Obviously his lie about not knowing who was being talked about is pure unadulterated nonsense.  He used his name.  What other explanation than that he didn't want to alienate his legion of racist followers?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 01, 2016, 08:37:07 PM
Trump is the only candidate in the race who isn't a globalist. Building a wall between nations and striking down trade agreements is the most literal opposite of globalism you can achieve. It's called nationalism, and it's been the front and center topic of nearly any of Trump's speeches.

That certainly explains why David Duke endorsed him, and why he was so reluctant to disavow him (you generally want to avoid distancing yourself from your constituency).

David Duke never endorsed him in the first place, he's even on video pissed off that people thought he did. David Duke thinks Jews control the world and part of Trump's family is Jewish.

Oh come on.  He may not have "officially" endorsed him, but he certainly did encourage his radio listeners to vote for Trump.  Why split hairs?  David Duke wants to make America great again!

And even so it still explains why Trump would be reticent about denouncing Duke.  Duke's people are his bread and butter after all.  Obviously his lie about not knowing who was being talked about is pure unadulterated nonsense.  He used his name.  What other explanation than that he didn't want to alienate his legion of racist followers?

Ah, yes, there it is, the Trump is racist bandwagon. This really adds to the discussion.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on March 01, 2016, 08:47:22 PM
Trump is the only candidate in the race who isn't a globalist. Building a wall between nations and striking down trade agreements is the most literal opposite of globalism you can achieve. It's called nationalism, and it's been the front and center topic of nearly any of Trump's speeches.

That certainly explains why David Duke endorsed him, and why he was so reluctant to disavow him (you generally want to avoid distancing yourself from your constituency).

David Duke never endorsed him in the first place, he's even on video pissed off that people thought he did. David Duke thinks Jews control the world and part of Trump's family is Jewish.

Oh come on.  He may not have "officially" endorsed him, but he certainly did encourage his radio listeners to vote for Trump.  Why split hairs?  David Duke wants to make America great again!

And even so it still explains why Trump would be reticent about denouncing Duke.  Duke's people are his bread and butter after all.  Obviously his lie about not knowing who was being talked about is pure unadulterated nonsense.  He used his name.  What other explanation than that he didn't want to alienate his legion of racist followers?

Ah, yes, there it is, the Trump is racist bandwagon. This really adds to the discussion.

Weird that you make such an assumption.  It is never stated or even implied in that post.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 01, 2016, 09:20:12 PM
Trump may not be racist, but a good chunk of his fans are, and there's no doubt he deliberately panders to them.  He doesn't want to send them the message that he's not secretly on their side, so naturally he's reluctant to denounce any of them.  He couldn't even bring himself to wholeheartedly condemn the nuts in Boston who beat up a homeless man in his name.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 01, 2016, 09:22:13 PM
I don't do pedantics here, so that's not going to work, Roundy.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on March 01, 2016, 10:05:33 PM
I don't do pedantics here, so that's not going to work, Roundy.

The first thing that struck me was the extreme irony of you saying something like this.

The second was that you still managed to completely miss the point, and right after Saddam spelled it out for you.

Not that the latter surprises me.  You do, after all, support Donald Trump for president.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 01, 2016, 10:12:37 PM
I don't do pedantics here, so that's not going to work, Roundy.

The first thing that struck me was the extreme irony of you saying something like this.

The second was that you still managed to completely miss the point, and right after Saddam spelled it out for you.

Not that the latter surprises me.  You do, after all, support Donald Trump for president.

People like Donald Trump are winning because his opponents don't know how to argue policy anymore. They're all like you and Saddam. Politicians and the media are so accustomed to making things go away by shouting "racism" that they have forgotten how to tackle policies head-on.

Feel free to argue policy here, though, since you can talk about racism to your heart's content but it won't convince anyone.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on March 01, 2016, 10:41:08 PM
Why do people hate racism and racists so much? I find it extremely discriminating.

Also, to stay on topic. Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on March 02, 2016, 01:11:07 AM
I don't do pedantics here, so that's not going to work, Roundy.

The first thing that struck me was the extreme irony of you saying something like this.

The second was that you still managed to completely miss the point, and right after Saddam spelled it out for you.

Not that the latter surprises me.  You do, after all, support Donald Trump for president.

People like Donald Trump are winning because his opponents don't know how to argue policy anymore. They're all like you and Saddam. Politicians and the media are so accustomed to making things go away by shouting "racism" that they have forgotten how to tackle policies head-on.

Feel free to argue policy here, though, since you can talk about racism to your heart's content but it won't convince anyone.

Trump is literally winning for the exact same reason he didn't want to denounce David Duke: he is appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Period.

After all, you yourself said that you're voting for him because he's entertaining.  Oh, but I'm sure his (likely impossible to implement, as you yourself seem willing to concede) policies are important to you too.

If I'm going to vote for a liar, I'm going to at least vote for an entertaining one.

That this kind of thing is what matters to people in a presidential candidate is disturbing (to say the least), but after having been through eight years of Dubya, not entirely surprising.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 02, 2016, 03:03:51 AM
Trump is literally winning for the exact same reason he didn't want to denounce David Duke: he is appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Period.

After all, you yourself said that you're voting for him because he's entertaining.  Oh, but I'm sure his (likely impossible to implement, as you yourself seem willing to concede) policies are important to you too.

If I'm going to vote for a liar, I'm going to at least vote for an entertaining one.

That this kind of thing is what matters to people in a presidential candidate is disturbing (to say the least), but after having been through eight years of Dubya, not entirely surprising.

It's pretty clear at this point that neither of us are willing to discuss the policies at hand because both of us think the other is a dumbass.
Title: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on March 02, 2016, 04:07:22 AM
Unless Trump murders a half-black, half-Asian Jewish Muslim LGBTQ toddler with Asperger's, the Republican nomination is sewn up.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on March 02, 2016, 05:11:16 AM
Unless Trump murders a half-black, half-Asian Jewish Muslim LGBTQ toddler with Asperger's, the Republican nomination is sewn up.

And even then...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on March 02, 2016, 05:49:47 AM
Unless Trump murders a half-black, half-Asian Jewish Muslim LGBTQ toddler with Asperger's, the Republican nomination is sewn up.

And even then...

Really it could only make him more popular with his fanbase.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 02, 2016, 06:33:15 AM
Without David Duke's support, Trump's leads in the southern states he did win would have been much smaller (GA, TN, AL).

By the time the Clintons get done with Trump, 9 out of 10 Hispanics will not vote for him (not to mention the African-American vote).

As I have said from the very start, contrary to each and every other opinion posted here, Trump's role/mission is to prepare the way for someone else.

Not only would Trump lose to either Clinton or Sanders, but the elections for the Senate and the House will turn into a nightmare for the GOP.

Trump is history for the Republican party.


From now on, Trump is going to have to deal with the Trump university scam, the tax returns issue, the New York Times tapes, the KKK comments: it is all over.

How is any delegate at the Cleveland convention going to vote for Trump, once his tax returns are out in the open?


Cruz won his home state big (exactly as I have said from the beginning), a thing that neither Rubio nor Kasich would be able to do.

No matter how much DC dislikes him, Cruz can win against either Clinton or Sanders, he can unify the GOP so that they will win handily in the Senate and the House.

Rubio might have a chance against Clinton, but he does not have the charisma needed to bring the necessary results for the GOP in either the Senate or the House races.


The ultimate Democratic insiders know it too.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/11/clinton-ally-david-brock-cruz-will-end-nominee/

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/podesta-cruz-is-likely-gop-nominee-216713


For those who know, who really understand politics, these two statements are very important as to what is going on the GOP side of the election:

Tonight Iowa has proclaimed to the world: morning is coming. (T. Cruz)

Donald is not going to make America great, he's going to make America orange. (M. Rubio)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2016, 07:04:39 AM
Quote from: sandokhan
Cruz won his home state big (exactly as I have said from the beginning), a thing that neither Rubio nor Kasich would be able to do.


You said


Quote
On March 1, whichever of the candidates is from a home state, will win big overall on that day.


As of March 1, that was Ted Cruz.  He did not win big overall.  He won 2 states. He lost big, over all.


You very strongly implied that Ted Cruz would win the south because he devoted significant resources to it.  He did not.

So who is Trump paving the way for?  Because it isn't a GOP candidate.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 02, 2016, 07:16:56 AM
The two quotes from my previous message can be understood even better, if an answer can be provided to the question/challenge I posed earlier:

Who founded the KKK?

Remember, if you can answer this question, you will be able to understand everything re: American politics.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2016, 09:34:53 AM
The two quotes from my previous message can be understood even better, if an answer can be provided to the question/challenge I posed earlier:

Who founded the KKK?

Remember, if you can answer this question, you will be able to understand everything re: American politics.
No.  No it doesn't.
Your quotes are quite clear: you indicated Ted Cruz would win big.  He did not.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2016, 10:18:14 AM
I have not yet finished reading this but so far its interesting:
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11127424/trump-authoritarianism
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 02, 2016, 10:20:19 AM
Did Cruz do what he was supposed to do, attack Trump directly and strongly on the issues which would have derailed any other candidate? He did not.

Yet, with doing practically nothing at all, he won three states (Alaska included).

Had he reminded the voters on the Trump university scam, the tax returns issue, he would have won in Arkansas, and perhaps in Georgia too.

I was right about everything except the extent of Cruz's win on super tuesday; yet, he refrained from attacking Trump, which would have done the job.


Now, can anybody answer this question: who founded the KKK?

Remember, you have to go back to at least 1830 to understand the whole issue.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2016, 10:24:03 AM
Did Cruz do what he was supposed to do, attack Trump directly and strongly on the issues which would have derailed any other candidate? He did not.

Yet, with doing practically nothing at all, he won three states (Alaska included).

Had he reminded the voters on the Trump university scam, the tax returns issue, he would have won in Arkansas, and perhaps in Georgia too.

I was right about everything except the extent of Cruz's win on super tuesday; yet, he refrained from attacking Trump, which would have done the job.


Now, can anybody answer this question: who founded the KKK?

Remember, you have to go back to at least 1830 to understand the whole issue.


Attacking Trump would have no effect.


Also: 1830?!
The KKK didn't exist then.


Also, you tell us the answer because the answer I google will most likely be wrong to you.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 02, 2016, 10:32:15 AM
The KKK was founded by the Knights of the Golden Circle, one of the most mysterious secret societies of the United States.

Now, who founded the KGC?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2016, 11:09:41 AM
The KKK was founded by the Knights of the Golden Circle, one of the most mysterious secret societies of the United States.

Now, who founded the KGC?
I was going to list 4 names so it's a good thing I let you answer your own question with your own answer.

And how could I know if it's the most secret society in the US?  It doesn't have a wiki page if it's so secretive.


Anyway:
You were wrong, Trump is going to win.  He'll probably win the presidency.
Then you'll be fucked and I'll be over here between laughing and cowering.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 02, 2016, 12:11:23 PM
Cruz couldn't even win more than 50% of his home state. His campaign is toast.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2016, 12:12:55 PM
Cruz couldn't even win more than 50% of his home state. His campaign is toast.

Sssoooo... he didn't win big in his home state?  (Sorry, haven't seen the full tallies)

Welp, Sandokhan was very wrong indeed.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 02, 2016, 01:13:27 PM
http://conservativeangle.com/revealed-secret-recording-of-donald-trump-will-derail-entire-campaign/

Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) urged Republican challenger Donald Trump to allow the New York Times to release a “secret tape” of Trump allegedly explaining the flexibility of his immigration plans.

According to a report published on Monday, the New York Times editorial board recorded an off-the-record meeting it had with Trump in January where he portrayed his immigration proposals as more flexible than previously stated.

“I call on Donald: Ask the New York Times to release the tape and do so today before the Super Tuesday primary,” he said before a campaign rally in San Antonio. “There are one of two instances. It is either false, and if Donald didn’t say that to the New York Times than he deserves to have this cleared up and releasing the tape can clear it up. The alternative is that it is true.”

“That tape can clear it up and the voters deserve to know if he says something different when he is talking to the New York Times than when he is talking to the voters and they deserve to know before Super Tuesday,” he said.


Had the tapes been available to the public before super tuesday, Trump would have lost in most of the southern states; also, Cruz's current lead in Texas, 44%, would have increased to over 50%.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/271237-romney-nyt-transcript-could-be-another-trump-bombshell


lorddave...where did you attend school? Obviously you don't know d*ck about history, the four names you found were not the right ones.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2016, 01:31:28 PM
http://conservativeangle.com/revealed-secret-recording-of-donald-trump-will-derail-entire-campaign/ (http://conservativeangle.com/revealed-secret-recording-of-donald-trump-will-derail-entire-campaign/)

Republican presidential candidate Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) urged Republican challenger Donald Trump to allow the New York Times to release a “secret tape” of Trump allegedly explaining the flexibility of his immigration plans.

According to a report published on Monday, the New York Times editorial board recorded an off-the-record meeting it had with Trump in January where he portrayed his immigration proposals as more flexible than previously stated.

“I call on Donald: Ask the New York Times to release the tape and do so today before the Super Tuesday primary,” he said before a campaign rally in San Antonio. “There are one of two instances. It is either false, and if Donald didn’t say that to the New York Times than he deserves to have this cleared up and releasing the tape can clear it up. The alternative is that it is true.”

“That tape can clear it up and the voters deserve to know if he says something different when he is talking to the New York Times than when he is talking to the voters and they deserve to know before Super Tuesday,” he said.


Had the tapes been available to the public before super tuesday, Trump would have lost in most of the southern states; also, Cruz's current lead in Texas, 44%, would have increased to over 50%.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/271237-romney-nyt-transcript-could-be-another-trump-bombshell (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/271237-romney-nyt-transcript-could-be-another-trump-bombshell)
You seem to know alot about what would have happened yet not about what will.



Quote
lorddave...where did you attend school? Obviously you don't know d*ck about history, the four names you found were not the right ones.

And you know this... How?  I never posted them. 
Also, it was 6.  I didn't scroll right.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2016, 01:42:10 PM
I stand corrected.
The mysterious secret society KGC does have a wiki page.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 02, 2016, 03:06:38 PM
Hey Dave, could you do me a favor and stop baiting Levee. He is quite literally insane and is incapable of adding any worthwhile content to the thread. I'd prefer someone like Roundy chime back in. I know him and Saddam are capable of policy discussion. They just don't want to discuss it.

Trump's economic policy is the best of all candidates, for example. Several top economic firms have already stated that his economic package should produce the highest average growth in all sectors versus other candidates.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2016, 03:15:01 PM
Hey Dave, could you do me a favor and stop baiting Levee. He is quite literally insane and is incapable of adding any worthwhile content to the thread. I'd prefer someone like Roundy chime back in. I know him and Saddam are capable of policy discussion. They just don't want to discuss it.

Trump's economic policy is the best of all candidates, for example. Several top economic firms have already stated that his economic package should produce the highest average growth in all sectors versus other candidates.


Alright.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 02, 2016, 03:56:33 PM
Hey Dave, could you do me a favor and stop baiting Levee. He is quite literally insane and is incapable of adding any worthwhile content to the thread. I'd prefer someone like Roundy chime back in. I know him and Saddam are capable of policy discussion. They just don't want to discuss it.

Trump's economic policy is the best of all candidates, for example. Several top economic firms have already stated that his economic package should produce the highest average growth in all sectors versus other candidates.

Do you believe this growth to translate to a stronger middle class? Or is Trump going to be more worried about the 1% which he obviously can relate to a lot more than an average American Citizen.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 02, 2016, 04:13:33 PM
Trump's economic policy is the best of all candidates, for example. Several top economic firms have already stated that his economic package should produce the highest average growth in all sectors versus other candidates.

which firms?

also, what do you find appealing about trump's china policy?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 02, 2016, 04:38:50 PM
Do you believe this growth to translate to a stronger middle class? Or is Trump going to be more worried about the 1% which he obviously can relate to a lot more than an average American Citizen.

I'm more interested in how well my portfolio performs.

which firms?

also, what do you find appealing about trump's china policy?

Taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan

That's the only major one from the top of my head.

As far as his China policy goes, I believe it will raise product costs and make it obvious how depressed China has made national wages. China and other parts of Asia use borderline slave labor to produce low quality, low cost products. I think having a nationalist president who will hamper trade agreements will be ultimately beneficial. Things like NAFTA have been a disaster, even Bill Clinton admits NAFTA was a total mistake.

Of course we also have to remember Obama said the same things during his candidacy and I haven't seen a whole lot of fixing going on. Congress probably still loves the trade deal (or more specifically, that sweet sweet corporate funding).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 02, 2016, 04:44:48 PM
I'm more interested in how well my portfolio performs.

Which is part of the issue at large here. The poorer the rest of America is the more your inevitably going to be taxed to make up for it. Trump can talk all the shit he wants, if the SNAP program (aka foodstamps) went away we'd have rioting on our hands... I say this because I would be right there looting and rioting myself. I have a household of 6 people and I work 40 hours a week, and my girlfriend does to, and we wouldn't be able to barely make it the way we do without that particular program.

Would I prefer to make a decent wage, pay less of my income on skyrocketing energy prices and housing costs, and not have to use a program that basically subsidizes poverty? You betcha, but that's not the reality of America right now, and as long as there are those at the top sucking all the money towards themselves it will never be any better than this.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 02, 2016, 05:36:41 PM
Well in that case you can vote for whichever candidate is going to do that.

I would like to addendum my prediction on Trump. I predict he will win the nomination and the general election and IN ADDITION I predict his pick for VP will be John Kasich.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 02, 2016, 06:13:55 PM
The Nevada primary made it obvious that Hispanics actually like Trump better.

(https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/files/2016/02/Pasted-image-at-2016_02_24-01_00-PM.png&w=1484)

Where in this image does it show that Hispanic's like Trump better than the alternatives?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 02, 2016, 06:40:10 PM
Trump's speech from last night (super Tuesday)

https://youtu.be/4WCUtqw4rAs




Where in this image does it show that Hispanic's like Trump better than the alternatives?

Ayy lmao good meme friend haha
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2016, 06:55:56 PM
Well in that case you can vote for whichever candidate is going to do that.

I would like to addendum my prediction on Trump. I predict he will win the nomination and the general election and IN ADDITION I predict his pick for VP will be John Kasich.

Considering Chris Christie is standing behind him in that speech below, I'm gonna bet it's Chris.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 02, 2016, 07:29:53 PM
That'd be a poor choice. Christie wouldn't pull any voters Trump doesn't already have.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 02, 2016, 08:11:27 PM
That'd be a poor choice. Christie wouldn't pull any voters Trump doesn't already have.
You think Trump cares about that? 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on March 02, 2016, 08:30:28 PM
That'd be a poor choice. Christie wouldn't pull any voters Trump doesn't already have.
You think Trump cares about that?
I'm sure his campaign staff does.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 02, 2016, 08:51:09 PM
That'd be a poor choice. Christie wouldn't pull any voters Trump doesn't already have.
You think Trump cares about that?

Yes.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 02, 2016, 08:54:35 PM
https://youtu.be/4WCUtqw4rAs

Does anyone else get a Brutus vibe from Christie in that still?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 02, 2016, 09:42:03 PM
Taxfoundation.org/article/details-and-analysis-donald-trump-s-tax-plan

that doesn't say that his "economic package should produce the highest average growth in all sectors versus other candidates."  it does say that trump's plan would increase GDP by 11.5%, but that comes at the cost of an additional 10 trillion dollars in debt over the next ten years: "Overall, the plan would reduce federal revenue on a static basis by $11.98 trillion over the next ten years...However, if we account for the economic growth that the plan would produce, the plan would end up lowering revenue by $10.14 trillion over the next decade. The larger economy would increase wages, which would narrow the revenue lost through the individual income tax by about $666 billion and increase payroll tax revenues by $839 billion, with the remainder of the recouped revenue coming from other taxes."

the return on the increase in growth isn't as large as the loss of revenue.  as i understand it, debt isn't bad per se, but doubling our debt for 12% GDP growth is a poor bargain.

the tax foundation's own alan cole penned a piece titled Donald Trump’s Tax Plan Will Not Be Revenue-Neutral Under Any Circumstances (http://taxfoundation.org/blog/donald-trump-s-tax-plan-will-not-be-revenue-neutral-under-any-circumstances), in which he writes, "As you can imagine, then, I was puzzled by this statement in Mr. Trump’s piece: “With moderate growth, this plan will be revenue-neutral.”  I do not believe this to be true under any scenario remotely resembling Mr. Trump’s plan...Tax cuts can do a great deal of good; each of the provisions I outlined above could help a lot of people lead better lives. However, the reductions in federal revenue need to be acknowledged, and likely mitigated through substantial cuts in spending, in order to make this plan feasible."

i don't think trump can get this proposal though congress, i don't think he can get the subsequent budget cuts he would need to make it worthwhile, and i wouldn't want trump to be in charge of that process anyway.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 02, 2016, 10:41:56 PM
I wasn't making the argument that Trump's plan is perfect, but I am arguing that it is better than the alternatives. Debt is important, but keep in mind that the Tax Foundation assumes that spending remains the same. You even mentioned Alan Cole's comments yourself. A lot of programs are going to be cut in the future; we quite simply can't maintain current federal spending.


Also, this:
(http://imgur.com/WFW0324.jpg)

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 03, 2016, 03:10:42 AM
I wasn't making the argument that Trump's plan is perfect, but I am arguing that it is better than the alternatives. Debt is important, but keep in mind that the Tax Foundation assumes that spending remains the same. You even mentioned Alan Cole's comments yourself. A lot of programs are going to be cut in the future; we quite simply can't maintain current federal spending.

i think cole's remark gets right to the heart of what i think is such a major flaw in trump's tax plan that he functionally has no tax plan at all.  cole and his cohorts indicate that trump's tax cuts comes at the cost of a $10 trillion revenue shortfall for the fed that can only be mitigated by spending cuts.  it's pretty unfathomable that congress would ever approve a tax plan that doubles our national debt in ten years, and it's even more unfathomable that congress would approve any budget that cuts spending by around 25%.  we spend almost $4 trillion annually, and we'd have to permanently reduce that figure by $1 trillion annually to make it revenue neutral.  even if it were conceivably possible (i really don't think it is), it would be a massive political battle for trump, even within his own party.

i'm also genuinely puzzled by the conservative support for such proposals.  not trying to be snide, but you say yourself that we can't maintain current federal spending, and i assume that like most fiscal conservatives you believe that it's bad for national debt.  does it not trouble you that his tax proposal so wildly increases our debt without really a word said on how to pay for it?  isn't that at least a little irresponsible?

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 03, 2016, 05:57:14 AM
I wasn't making the argument that Trump's plan is perfect, but I am arguing that it is better than the alternatives. Debt is important, but keep in mind that the Tax Foundation assumes that spending remains the same. You even mentioned Alan Cole's comments yourself. A lot of programs are going to be cut in the future; we quite simply can't maintain current federal spending.

i think cole's remark gets right to the heart of what i think is such a major flaw in trump's tax plan that he functionally has no tax plan at all.  cole and his cohorts indicate that trump's tax cuts comes at the cost of a $10 trillion revenue shortfall for the fed that can only be mitigated by spending cuts.  it's pretty unfathomable that congress would ever approve a tax plan that doubles our national debt in ten years, and it's even more unfathomable that congress would approve any budget that cuts spending by around 25%.  we spend almost $4 trillion annually, and we'd have to permanently reduce that figure by $1 trillion annually to make it revenue neutral.  even if it were conceivably possible (i really don't think it is), it would be a massive political battle for trump, even within his own party.

i'm also genuinely puzzled by the conservative support for such proposals.  not trying to be snide, but you say yourself that we can't maintain current federal spending, and i assume that like most fiscal conservatives you believe that it's bad for national debt.  does it not trouble you that his tax proposal so wildly increases our debt without really a word said on how to pay for it?  isn't that at least a little irresponsible?

He'll just fire $1 Trillion worth of staff.  Its not hard.

Heck, if he puts medicare funding to 0, thats most of it there.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on March 03, 2016, 06:02:26 AM
Heck, if he puts medicare funding to 0, thats most of it there.

But is that his intent?  The answer seems to fluctuate from season to season.  I'm pretty sure right now it's at "Keep Medicare" but who knows in spring?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 03, 2016, 06:42:09 AM
Back in December, I suggested that a Cruz-Carson ticket will easily win the presidency for the GOP.

Now, a Cruz-Rubio ticket looks more likely, although T. Cruz might choose someone else.


Who founded the KGC?

First clue; from one of the most fascinating works ever published on the subject, This One Mad Act by Izola Forrester.

https://awesometalks.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/glimpsing-a-shadow-from-richmond-john-wilkes-booth-and-the-richmond-grays.pdf

(for those who don't know, JWB survived well after the Civil War: http://barnesreview.org/pdf/TBR2008-no3-4-15.pdf )

Second clue; Lord Palmerston's real name was Henry John Temple.


In the Knights of the Golden Circle's view, Abraham Lincoln betrayed the Constitution and trashed its principles.

http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-mr-lincolns-war-an-irrepressible-conflict-1440

http://jonjayray.tripod.com/lincfasc.html

http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2013/03/the-imaginary-abe-a-reply-to-harry-jaffas-in-re-jack-kemp-v-joe-sobran.html


Now, the two quotes I posted earlier can be understood in their full significance:


Tonight Iowa has proclaimed to the world: morning is coming. (T. Cruz)

Donald is not going to make America great, he's going to make America orange. (M. Rubio)


Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 03, 2016, 07:12:14 AM
http://tarpley.net/fascist-trump-humiliated-by-17-point-cruz-victory-margin-in-texas-the-great-prize-of-super-tuesday/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 03, 2016, 09:03:04 AM
Latest Trump university scam ad (IL, FL, MI):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnCGwdyiIuA&feature=youtu.be&t=16
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 03, 2016, 12:41:14 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/mitt-romney-eviscerate-donald-trump-phony-fraud-n530877
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on March 03, 2016, 01:15:55 PM
Romney is winning by a landslide
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 03, 2016, 01:27:00 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/could-republicans-rally-around-ted-cruz-as-the-trump-alternative/ (the article includes the latest ad against Trump, "Unelectable", by itself it would spell disaster for Trump on any election day)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 03, 2016, 01:48:46 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/could-republicans-rally-around-ted-cruz-as-the-trump-alternative/ (the article includes the latest ad against Trump, "Unelectable", by itself it would spell disaster for Trump on any election day)
Unlikely.  The reasons people are voting for Trump are not based on logical, well thought out reasons.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 04, 2016, 12:51:23 AM
i think cole's remark gets right to the heart of what i think is such a major flaw in trump's tax plan that he functionally has no tax plan at all.  cole and his cohorts indicate that trump's tax cuts comes at the cost of a $10 trillion revenue shortfall for the fed that can only be mitigated by spending cuts.  it's pretty unfathomable that congress would ever approve a tax plan that doubles our national debt in ten years, and it's even more unfathomable that congress would approve any budget that cuts spending by around 25%.  we spend almost $4 trillion annually, and we'd have to permanently reduce that figure by $1 trillion annually to make it revenue neutral.  even if it were conceivably possible (i really don't think it is), it would be a massive political battle for trump, even within his own party.

Doubling our national debt in 10 years isn't as bad as it sounds. Our debt has more than doubled since 2008 and no one has batted an eye.

What would your proposed solution be for reducing that debt? Increasing taxes won't work and decreasing them won't work. Therefore, the only possible solution is to cut spending, something you've already pointed out as apparently impossible.

i'm also genuinely puzzled by the conservative support for such proposals.  not trying to be snide, but you say yourself that we can't maintain current federal spending, and i assume that like most fiscal conservatives you believe that it's bad for national debt.  does it not trouble you that his tax proposal so wildly increases our debt without really a word said on how to pay for it?  isn't that at least a little irresponsible?

The fact of the matter is that there is no viable solution to the debt without cutting spending and you've made it clear that is not a possible solution. I'm confused on what exactly you're expecting me to say, here.

Unlikely.  The reasons people are voting for Trump are not based on logical, well thought out reasons.

Which one is the logical candidate, then?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 04, 2016, 02:36:19 AM
correction: i was wrong about the debt numbers.  i thought our total federal debt was at ~$10 trillion, but it's nearly $20 trillion.

Doubling our national debt in 10 years isn't as bad as it sounds. Our debt has more than doubled since 2008 and no one has batted an eye.

What would your proposed solution be for reducing that debt? Increasing taxes won't work and decreasing them won't work. Therefore, the only possible solution is to cut spending, something you've already pointed out as apparently impossible.

The fact of the matter is that there is no viable solution to the debt without cutting spending and you've made it clear that is not a possible solution. I'm confused on what exactly you're expecting me to say, here.

i'm not saying that congress could never ever cut any spending at all.  i'm saying that it's highly improbable that congress will pass this tax policy.  i don't think congress will pass a budget that immediately cuts spending by 25%, and i don't think congress will pass a budget that so drastically increases our debt.  nothing congress has done in my lifetime gives me any faith that either are possible, let alone both.

i agree that cutting spending is a productive way to reduce our debt, but that's not entirely the issue.  as per your source, trump's tax plan would reduce federal revenue by $12 trillion in ten years, but the revenue gained from economic growth over that time is only ~$2 trillion.  i agree that debt isn't intrinsically bad, but this particular plan is a net-cost, not a net-benefit.  it would increase the rate at which our debt grows with respect to gdp (which is currently negative).  if we aim to reduce our debt, then this plan is significantly worse than the status quo.

even if trump could somehow get both his tax cuts and massive budget cuts through congress, then we'd still just be back to even with regard to gdp and spending.  the opportunity-cost of all of that is awful.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 04, 2016, 02:46:05 AM
Trump released his healthcare plan today.

Quote from: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform
   
1. Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.
2. Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.
3. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.
4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.
5. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.
6. Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.
7. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 04, 2016, 05:44:23 AM
Unlikely.  The reasons people are voting for Trump are not based on logical, well thought out reasons.

Which one is the logical candidate, then?
Each candidate has supporters who have logical reasons for such support and they make up the majority of thst person's base.
Trump is the opposite.  The logical supporters are the minority.



Trump released his healthcare plan today.

Quote from: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform
   
1. Completely repeal Obamacare. Our elected representatives must eliminate the individual mandate. No person should be required to buy insurance unless he or she wants to.
2. Modify existing law that inhibits the sale of health insurance across state lines. As long as the plan purchased complies with state requirements, any vendor ought to be able to offer insurance in any state. By allowing full competition in this market, insurance costs will go down and consumer satisfaction will go up.
3. Allow individuals to fully deduct health insurance premium payments from their tax returns under the current tax system. Businesses are allowed to take these deductions so why wouldn’t Congress allow individuals the same exemptions? As we allow the free market to provide insurance coverage opportunities to companies and individuals, we must also make sure that no one slips through the cracks simply because they cannot afford insurance. We must review basic options for Medicaid and work with states to ensure that those who want healthcare coverage can have it.
4. Allow individuals to use Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). Contributions into HSAs should be tax-free and should be allowed to accumulate. These accounts would become part of the estate of the individual and could be passed on to heirs without fear of any death penalty. These plans should be particularly attractive to young people who are healthy and can afford high-deductible insurance plans. These funds can be used by any member of a family without penalty. The flexibility and security provided by HSAs will be of great benefit to all who participate.
5. Require price transparency from all healthcare providers, especially doctors and healthcare organizations like clinics and hospitals. Individuals should be able to shop to find the best prices for procedures, exams or any other medical-related procedure.
6. Block-grant Medicaid to the states. Nearly every state already offers benefits beyond what is required in the current Medicaid structure. The state governments know their people best and can manage the administration of Medicaid far better without federal overhead. States will have the incentives to seek out and eliminate fraud, waste and abuse to preserve our precious resources.
7. Remove barriers to entry into free markets for drug providers that offer safe, reliable and cheaper products. Congress will need the courage to step away from the special interests and do what is right for America. Though the pharmaceutical industry is in the private sector, drug companies provide a public service. Allowing consumers access to imported, safe and dependable drugs from overseas will bring more options to consumers.


I saw this.  From what I read some is impractical (price transparency), some are already being done (HSA and cross state competition) and #7 is a Bernie Sanders point.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 04, 2016, 07:11:18 AM
Judge Andrew Napolitano warns "She should be terrified of the fact that he’s been granted immunity," adding that "they would not be immunizing him and thereby inducing him to spill his guts unless they wanted to indict someone."


Napolitano argued that the revelation that former Clinton aide Bryan Pagliano, who set up Clinton’s private email server in 2009, is reportedly being offered immunity means he will likely be called to testify against someone much higher on the “totem pole.”
 
Pagliano will likely be asked how he was able to “migrate a State Department secure system onto her private server.” He then presented this theoretical question: “Mr. Pagliano, did Mrs. Clinton give you her personal Secretary of State password to enable you to do that?”
 
“If he answers, ‘yes,’ we have an indictment for misconduct in office as well as espionage. She should be terrified of the fact that he’s been granted immunity,” Napolitano added.
 
The Judge explained that only a federal judge can grant immunity and will only do so if a sitting jury is ready to hear testimony from the “immunized person,” suggesting the investigation is well on its way to a possible indictment.
 
“We also know they are going to seek someone’s indictment, because they would not be immunizing him and thereby inducing him to spill his guts unless they wanted to indict someone,” he said.


Other officials have a different view.


A former State Department inspector general who served in that capacity from 2005 to 2008 said Hillary Clinton will never be indicted for her email server scandal because A, the State Department itself would be implicated and B, she’s being shielded from prosecution by four very powerful Democratic Party women.

Those women, he said, were Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, the head of the criminal division at the department, Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and even White House aide Valerie Jarrett.

Krongard said the case would likely fade, but even if those four women took the referral, the most they would pursue would be a plea-bargain for misdemeanor counts, the New York Post reported.


Howard Krongard, in an interview with the New York Post, said Clinton was never actually assigned a state.gov email address, and that in itself shows the department was aware and at least tacitly approving of her private email system.

Krongard also said it was highly unusual for the inspector general of State position to remain unfilled for the entire tenure of Clinton’s term at the department, from 2009 to 2013.

“This is a major gap,” he said. “In fact, it’s without precedent. It’s the longest period any department has gone without an IG.”

One role of an inspector general is to ensure government entities aren’t committing fraud, waste and abuse; another, however, is to make sure government officials aren’t violating communications security provisions.

“It’s clear she did not want to be subject to internal investigations,” Krongard said, the New York Post reported.


Trump has hinted that Clinton might be criminally indicted, and it is safe to speculate that he is not pulling this out of nowhere, but rather that he is hearing it first hand from powerful people in the USDOJ and the FBI.


http://www.unz.com/anapolitano/hillary-clintons-false-hopes/


Cruz and Rubio must address now the economic issues in a more direct way, in order to win more voters to their side.

Trump was not able to address any of the accusations that were brought to him, during the Detroit debate; he even refused to release the New York Times tapes to the public.


It is obvious that a civil war is coming to the United States (the catalyst will be a stock market collapse; this time around the Fed will not save Wall Street).

Will this revolution start in the northern states or in the southern states? That is, at the time this civil war breaks out, will the President be a Democrat or a Republican?

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 04, 2016, 07:58:11 AM
Does being inditd on criminal charges or even found guilty proclude you from being president?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 04, 2016, 09:31:40 AM
Back in the summer of 2015, Trump had plenty of advantages over Hillary (Clinton's support for the Iraq war, charges of mysogyny that could not be brought against Trump [not by Hillary], Clinton's sudden changes of position).

But now, 8 out of 10 Hispanics view Trump unfavorably; the KKK comments will bring most of the Black vote over to the Democratic side; and Trump has lost most of the support of the Catholic vote (without which no Republican can get into the White House).

Nor can he portray himself any longer as a successful business man who will bring prosperity and abundance to the country: now we have the Trump university scam and the looming tax returns issue.

If the New York Times tapes are made public, it is all over for Trump.


The following excerpt is from Current Affairs (Nathan Robinson):

Trump's various unique methods of attack would instantly be made far less useful in a run against Sanders. All of the most personal charges (untrustworthiness, corruption, rank hypocrisy) are much more difficult to make stick. The rich history of dubious business dealings is nonexistent. None of the sleaze in which Trump traffics can be found clinging to Bernie. Trump’s standup routine just has much less obvious personal material to work with. Sanders is a fairly transparent guy; he likes the social safety net, he doesn’t like oligarchy, he’s a workaholic who sometimes takes a break to play basketball, and that’s pretty much all there is to it.

Trump can't clown around nearly as much at a debate with Sanders, for the simple reason that Sanders is dead set on keeping every conversation about the plight of America’s poor under the present economic system. If Trump tells jokes and goofs off here, he looks as if he’s belittling poor people, not a magnificent idea for an Ivy League trust fund billionaire running against a working class public servant and veteran of the Civil Rights movement. Instead, Trump will be forced to do what Hillary Clinton has been forced to do during the primary, namely to make himself sound as much like Bernie Sanders as possible. For Trump, having to get serious and take the Trump Show off the air will be devastating to his unique charismatic appeal.
 
Sanders, by contrast, will almost certainly behave as if Trump isn’t even there. He is unlikely to rise to Trump’s bait, because Sanders doesn’t even care to listen to anything that’s not about saving social security or the disappearing middle class. He will almost certainly seem as if he barely knows who Trump is. Sanders’s commercials will be similar to those he has run in the primary, featuring uplifting images of America, aspirational sentiments about what we can be together, and moving testimonies from ordinary Americans.



Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 04, 2016, 11:02:37 AM
http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2016/03/03/debate-ted-cruz-marco-rubio-donald-trump-ted-cruz/

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/03/03/winners-losers-tonight%E2%80%99s-fox-news-gop-debate/

http://www.redstate.com/diary/swansonnation/2016/03/03/cruzs-gamble/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 04, 2016, 12:03:38 PM
Each candidate has supporters who have logical reasons for such support and they make up the majority of thst person's base.
Trump is the opposite.  The logical supporters are the minority.

What proves this to be the case?

I saw this.  From what I read some is impractical (price transparency), some are already being done (HSA and cross state competition) and #7 is a Bernie Sanders point.

It's good to know that not only are you an expert on practical healthcare applications, but that you believe Bernie Sanders invented the idea of imports.

If you want to critique the plan then a number-by-number format would suffice. I don't see how making vague statements about the plan helps the thread.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 04, 2016, 12:23:44 PM
Each candidate has supporters who have logical reasons for such support and they make up the majority of thst person's base.
Trump is the opposite.  The logical supporters are the minority.

What proves this to be the case?
Mostly the clips I've heard from Trump Supporters, speaking to Trump supporters, and Trump's own plans which are so vague that their support is purely emotional.
Take the wall he wants to build.
There's already a wall.  Several of them in various locations with varying degrees of security.  So he's proposing to build ANOTHER wall.  And have Mexico pay for it.  He makes no mention of how or what kind or where the wall will be or how it'll be monitored.  I mean, we have a long and (in some places) deadly border with Mexico.  Just patrolling it is going to take hundreds of people if not thousands.

Then banning Muslims.  This is not going to stop anything as he has no way of actually knowing who is Muslim or not. 

The support is largely based on "He will stop them".  See my previous link to the rise of authoritarianism.

Quote
I saw this.  From what I read some is impractical (price transparency), some are already being done (HSA and cross state competition) and #7 is a Bernie Sanders point.

It's good to know that not only are you an expert on practical healthcare applications, but that you believe Bernie Sanders invented the idea of imports.

If you want to critique the plan then a number-by-number format would suffice. I don't see how making vague statements about the plan helps the thread.
Sorry, I was referring to what I read, not my actual knowledge.  What I read is that some of it is impractical, not that I read it and determined it was impractical.
Here's the article I read.
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/03/469019745/trump-health-plan-recycles-gop-chestnuts-and-adds-a-populist-wrinkle
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 04, 2016, 01:54:24 PM
Andrew Napolitano sold his legal opinion to Fox News a long time ago.  I wouldn't take his analysis of any given situation as being indicative of anything other than what his audience wants to hear.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 04, 2016, 02:34:18 PM
Obama sees Star Wars.  Trump gets upset.
http://www.cnet.com/news/donald-trump-shames-president-obama-for-watching-star-wars/


Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 04, 2016, 09:00:08 PM
Mostly the clips I've heard from Trump Supporters, speaking to Trump supporters, and Trump's own plans which are so vague that their support is purely emotional.

I've had the opposite experience. People are so polarized against Trump that they haven't bothered (or outright refuse) to learn about his actual policies. They just parrot "Trump is xenophobic! Trump is racist!" etc. without any real meat to their argument. I've learned the vast majority of people who hate Trump argue from emotion, not logic. No one here could even produce a single racist statement Trump made and the 'xenophobia' claim makes no sense either. Trump has only ever spoken about illegal immigration and has made a point that legal immigration is welcome. It's not xenophobic to filter out who can live in your country.


Take the wall he wants to build.
There's already a wall.  Several of them in various locations with varying degrees of security.  So he's proposing to build ANOTHER wall.  And have Mexico pay for it.  He makes no mention of how or what kind or where the wall will be or how it'll be monitored.  I mean, we have a long and (in some places) deadly border with Mexico.  Just patrolling it is going to take hundreds of people if not thousands.

There's a fence and it's mostly garbage and placed very terribly along the border. Trump has cited the wall the Israeli's built many times. It cost roughly 1.8 million dollars per mile and that's the "8 billion dollar" estimate comes from. When Trump says we'll "make Mexico pay for it" he doesn't literally mean Mexico will write us a check. Mexico receives billions of dollars in foreign aid. They're about to receive 8 billion dollars less.

Walls are generally a psychological barrier and not necessarily a functional one. Simply hearing about Trump being elected will probably deter a lot of would-be illegal aliens, whereas things like sanctuary cities and free education increase their movement.


Then banning Muslims.  This is not going to stop anything as he has no way of actually knowing who is Muslim or not.

I doubt he will actually ban Muslims, I do support it, however. Then again, I'd support the complete banning of religion if given the choice, so I'm not really the person to bother on this point.


Sorry, I was referring to what I read, not my actual knowledge.  What I read is that some of it is impractical, not that I read it and determined it was impractical.
Here's the article I read.
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/03/03/469019745/trump-health-plan-recycles-gop-chestnuts-and-adds-a-populist-wrinkle

The plan isn't perfect, but it's a step in the right direction.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Dionysios on March 04, 2016, 10:05:12 PM
Bernie! Bernie! Bernie!
>second.

Sanders is not a socialist or radical unless compared to his competition, but he's by far the best option among the candidates.

Noam Chomsky endorsed Sanders and said that he doesn't have much of a chance. In corroboration of that I've since read that the reason Clinton has an advantage over him has nothing to do with the desires of common voters. Over the last two years her team has focused on getting the super delegates in each state to promise her their vote. The super delegates are a sizeable fraction of delegates in every state who are not elected by the voters at all. This fact heavily prejudices the elections in advance and is unsurprisingly omitted by major media because emphasis upon it would make people understand how the elections are a fraud designed to make it appear as if the establishment candidate defeated any challengers fair and square which is a lie.

That being said, Clinton is the lesser of two evils compared to Trump (who would indeed make for better late night TV).

So it's looking like Bill Clinton will get third and fourth terms as U.S. president. Republican presidents are not quite that clever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btJfkPBLULg
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 05, 2016, 01:59:06 AM
The best thing about Bernie Sanders is that he has no idea how to run a campaign. We would be in trouble if he managed to get people to vote for him.

Edit: Ben Carson has officially suspended his campaign.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 05, 2016, 03:04:36 PM
A dedicated lifelong Democratic voter said that voting for the Democratic Party is good for you
That's fantastic
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 05, 2016, 03:56:59 PM
The best thing about Bernie Sanders is that he has no idea how to run a campaign. We would be in trouble if he managed to get people to vote for him.

trump and bernie are basically the same candidate.  "america sucks because of [insert your greatest fears here], and only i can save you with my plan to [insert policy proposal that congress will never, ever pass]."

imo imo tbqh
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 05, 2016, 04:07:24 PM
trump and bernie are basically the same candidate.  "america sucks because of [insert your greatest fears here], and only i can save you with my plan to [insert policy proposal that congress will never, ever pass]."

imo imo tbqh

They do agree with a lot of policies, but Trump is a leader who has had executive power for most of his life. Bernie Sanders is a bum who lived off of government money most of his life. One is HIGH ENERGY, the other one is a mess, just like Jeb. Bernie Sanders is not fit to be POTUS. He doesn't know how to lead people, which is why his campaign is going to shit.

Also, I withdraw my prediction that John Kasich will be the VP.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 05, 2016, 05:09:49 PM
Mostly the clips I've heard from Trump Supporters, speaking to Trump supporters, and Trump's own plans which are so vague that their support is purely emotional.
Take the wall he wants to build.
There's already a wall.  Several of them in various locations with varying degrees of security.  So he's proposing to build ANOTHER wall.  And have Mexico pay for it.  He makes no mention of how or what kind or where the wall will be or how it'll be monitored.  I mean, we have a long and (in some places) deadly border with Mexico.  Just patrolling it is going to take hundreds of people if not thousands.

Then banning Muslims.  This is not going to stop anything as he has no way of actually knowing who is Muslim or not. 

The support is largely based on "He will stop them".  See my previous link to the rise of authoritarianism.

That doesn't sound very emotional to me.  Did you mean that their support is largely intuitive?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 05, 2016, 07:06:10 PM
Do not underestimate the wonderful vision of socialism; the working class can see how well it functions for the rich, they can also observe that for the past 80 years America has had a mixed economy.

Sanders is the new Jimmy Carter. Should Hillary get indicted, there is no one else left to win the nomination.

As I have described in my last message, Sanders would win against Trump, even though his campaign might not be very well run.

Only a true conservative can run successfully against Sanders, this much all the major figures in the GOP understand.

Democracy means public ownership of the major means of production, said Sanders back in 1987.

However, in America, the idea of public ownership of the means of production is a dead issue.

What the current leadership (both parties) is working to achieve is something else: retain private property, but have public control over its use and disposal.


Both Sanders and Trump are being used to create something very dangerous in America: to secure the vote of seemingly independent constituents who are lulled into a false sense of political novelty, only to be terribly disappointed (thus increasing the chances and the conditions necessary for a civil war).






Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on March 06, 2016, 12:59:15 AM
www.loser.com
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 06, 2016, 08:57:30 PM
Mostly the clips I've heard from Trump Supporters, speaking to Trump supporters, and Trump's own plans which are so vague that their support is purely emotional.

I've had the opposite experience. People are so polarized against Trump that they haven't bothered (or outright refuse) to learn about his actual policies. They just parrot "Trump is xenophobic! Trump is racist!" etc. without any real meat to their argument. I've learned the vast majority of people who hate Trump argue from emotion, not logic. No one here could even produce a single racist statement Trump made and the 'xenophobia' claim makes no sense either. Trump has only ever spoken about illegal immigration and has made a point that legal immigration is welcome. It's not xenophobic to filter out who can live in your country.
But he does say he'll ban Muslims and he did say that Mexico is sending us rapists and murders.
But, yes, we do argue from emotion alot.  After all, Donald Trump is a very emotional guy and holds a grudge.  Though his threats of lawsuits don't usually end up happening so that's at least something.

Quote

Take the wall he wants to build.
There's already a wall.  Several of them in various locations with varying degrees of security.  So he's proposing to build ANOTHER wall.  And have Mexico pay for it.  He makes no mention of how or what kind or where the wall will be or how it'll be monitored.  I mean, we have a long and (in some places) deadly border with Mexico.  Just patrolling it is going to take hundreds of people if not thousands.

There's a fence and it's mostly garbage and placed very terribly along the border. Trump has cited the wall the Israeli's built many times. It cost roughly 1.8 million dollars per mile and that's the "8 billion dollar" estimate comes from. When Trump says we'll "make Mexico pay for it" he doesn't literally mean Mexico will write us a check. Mexico receives billions of dollars in foreign aid. They're about to receive 8 billion dollars less.

Walls are generally a psychological barrier and not necessarily a functional one. Simply hearing about Trump being elected will probably deter a lot of would-be illegal aliens, whereas things like sanctuary cities and free education increase their movement.
I looked at the fence Israel is building.
First off, it started in 2002.
It got about 62% finished by 2012 and has nearly no progress by 2014.  In late 2014, it was defunded as it did nothing to prevent the suicide bombings it was built do prevent.  Instead, other, more political avenues have been more effective.

Also, the wall was planned to be 430 miles in length.
The US-Mexico border is closer to 2,000 miles.

Finally, 90% of said fence is , to quote wikipedia:

So basically chain link fence, barbed wire, a walking path, some kind of sensor, and sand.
Now it's a mighty pointy fence but if it took Israel 10 years to build only 200ish miles of fence and they had people actually dying, exactly how will Donald Trump build a fence 10 times as long in 8 years? (assuming 2 terms)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 06, 2016, 09:02:32 PM
But he does say he'll ban Muslims and he did say that Mexico is sending us rapists and murders.

I don't see an issue here.


I looked at the fence Israel is building.
First off, it started in 2002.
It got about 62% finished by 2012 and has nearly no progress by 2014.  In late 2014, it was defunded as it did nothing to prevent the suicide bombings it was built do prevent.  Instead, other, more political avenues have been more effective.

It was built to prevent illegal Egyptian migrants, not suicide bombings, and it prevented 99% of them. We have to keep in mind, though, that Israelis have a shoot-on-sight policy. Whereas we don't fire on migrants.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/31/israeli-fence-cuts-migration-egypt

Finally, 90% of said fence is , to quote wikipedia:

  • A ditch and a pyramid shaped stack of six coils of barbed wire on the eastern side of the structure, barbed wire only on the western side.
  • A path enabling the patrol of IDF forces on both sides of the structure.
  • An intrusion- detection fence, in the center, with sensors to warn of any incursion.
  • Smoothed strip of sand that runs parallel to the fence, to detect footprints.
So basically chain link fence, barbed wire, a walking path, some kind of sensor, and sand.
Now it's a mighty pointy fence but if it took Israel 10 years to build only 200ish miles of fence and they had people actually dying, exactly how will Donald Trump build a fence 10 times as long in 8 years? (assuming 2 terms)

Why must it be built during Trump's term in office? Do you expect a fence to suddenly pop out of the ground when he is inaugurated?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 07, 2016, 04:47:44 AM
But he does say he'll ban Muslims and he did say that Mexico is sending us rapists and murders.

I don't see an issue here.
Seems rather knee jerk and sterotyping

Quote
I looked at the fence Israel is building.
First off, it started in 2002.
It got about 62% finished by 2012 and has nearly no progress by 2014.  In late 2014, it was defunded as it did nothing to prevent the suicide bombings it was built do prevent.  Instead, other, more political avenues have been more effective.

It was built to prevent illegal Egyptian migrants, not suicide bombings, and it prevented 99% of them. We have to keep in mind, though, that Israelis have a shoot-on-sight policy. Whereas we don't fire on migrants.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/dec/31/israeli-fence-cuts-migration-egypt
Wrong fence.  The one I'm talking about (the super one I assumed Trump meant) was the fence around the west bank, not the southern border.  The southern border fence is not much different from waht we have just along a much much much smaller area.

Also: how do they know no one came over?  If they did and no one noticed, they'd have no clue.


Quote
Finally, 90% of said fence is , to quote wikipedia:

  • A ditch and a pyramid shaped stack of six coils of barbed wire on the eastern side of the structure, barbed wire only on the western side.
  • A path enabling the patrol of IDF forces on both sides of the structure.
  • An intrusion- detection fence, in the center, with sensors to warn of any incursion.
  • Smoothed strip of sand that runs parallel to the fence, to detect footprints.
So basically chain link fence, barbed wire, a walking path, some kind of sensor, and sand.
Now it's a mighty pointy fence but if it took Israel 10 years to build only 200ish miles of fence and they had people actually dying, exactly how will Donald Trump build a fence 10 times as long in 8 years? (assuming 2 terms)

Why must it be built during Trump's term in office? Do you expect a fence to suddenly pop out of the ground when he is inaugurated?
Do you really expect the next president/congress to approve continued funding otherwise?  Unless it has nearly immediate results or its guarenteed to be built no matter what, once Trump leaves it could be stopped at an instant.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 07, 2016, 01:16:06 PM
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_revenge_of_the_lower_classes_and_the_rise_of_american_fascism_20160302

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 08, 2016, 02:45:04 AM
Seems rather knee jerk and sterotyping

How so?

Wrong fence.  The one I'm talking about (the super one I assumed Trump meant) was the fence around the west bank, not the southern border.  The southern border fence is not much different from waht we have just along a much much much smaller area.

(http://i.imgur.com/gx3grhJ.png)

Looks like that one was pretty effective to me, Dave.


Also: how do they know no one came over?  If they did and no one noticed, they'd have no clue.

If you have 30,000 illegal crossings a year turn into about 40, then you might think the statistical error of people who crossed but weren't found becomes pretty irrelevant.

Do you really expect the next president/congress to approve continued funding otherwise?  Unless it has nearly immediate results or its guarenteed to be built no matter what, once Trump leaves it could be stopped at an instant.

Having half a fence would still be preferable to having none. At least Trump tried to give this country its balls back in that case.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 08, 2016, 03:40:18 AM
...he did say that Mexico is sending us rapists and murders.

I don't see an issue here.

You don't see an issue with a bullshit conspiracy theory that Trump pulled out of his ass to cater to racist morons?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 08, 2016, 03:58:19 AM
...he did say that Mexico is sending us rapists and murders.

I don't see an issue here.

You don't see an issue with a bullshit conspiracy theory that Trump pulled out of his ass to cater to racist morons?

Nice kafkabaiting. If you're not going to make a reasonable argument, why post at all?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 08, 2016, 04:21:51 AM
Nice kafkabaiting. If you're not going to make a reasonable argument, why post at all?

I looked up "kafkabaiting" (or "kafkatrapping"); it appears to be a buzzword used exclusively by conspiracy nuts and sleazy right-wing webshites.  The gist of it is that you accuse someone of something, then use their denials as further evidence of your accusation?  That's certainly not what I'm doing.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 08, 2016, 04:24:40 AM
Nice kafkabaiting. If you're not going to make a reasonable argument, why post at all?

I looked up "kafkabaiting" (or "kafkatrapping"); it appears to be a buzzword used exclusively by conspiracy nuts and sleazy right-wing webshites.  The gist of it is that you accuse someone of something, then use their denials as further evidence of your accusation?  That's certainly not what I'm doing.

You're doing it again, and implicitly accusing me of being a "conspiracy nut" and "sleazy right-wing". And what if I deny your accusation, are you just going to let it go and admit you were wrong? I don't think so.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 08, 2016, 03:23:14 PM
I'll gladly have a discussion with you Saddam if you'll do me the favor of untriggering yourself and start using your bigboy words.

"That's racist!" is not an acceptable response, especially when Dave's quote didn't even mention a race.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 08, 2016, 04:38:52 PM
http://fiscalfactcheck.crfb.org/how-do-donald-trumps-campaign-proposals-so-far-add-up/

it is "literally impossible" to balance the budget under trump's proposals.  his plan is demonstrably worse than the status quo.
Quote
Roughly speaking, achieving a balanced budget by 2026 would require roughly $8 trillion of deficit reduction over ten years; and that figure would increase to between $19.7 trillion and $23.1 trillion over a decade assuming the enactment of Mr. Trump’s website proposals.5

To achieve this level of savings with spending reductions alone would require huge cuts. For example, cutting the entire budget (other than the VA and immigration enforcement, which are increased in his plans) across-the-board would require a reduction of 39 to 46 percent – a figure that is highly unlikely to be achieved.

Those cuts, however, include cutting Social Security benefits by nearly half – when Mr. Trump has argued multiple times that Social Security benefits should be left alone. Exempting Social Security, cuts would need to total 55 to 65 percent. Also removing Medicare, which Mr. Trump has called for protecting as well (though he has also proposed some small potential savings in the Medicare space), cuts would need to total 75 and 87 percent. And if defense were also exempted, as an area Mr. Trump has committed to strengthening, it becomes literally impossible to balance the budget with only spending cuts.
(http://fiscalfactcheck.crfb.org/app/uploads/2016/02/Trump-Cuts-4.png)

the economy would have to grow twice as quickly as its historic high to pay for these cuts.
Quote
Assuming Tax Foundation’s economic feedback estimates are linear relative to GDP growth after 10 years, it would require 7.7 to 9.0 percent real annual growth to simply pay for the initiatives on Donald Trump’s website, and 10.4 to 11.4 percent real annual growth to balance the budget within a decade. In other words, to balance the budget, growth would have to be roughly 5 times as large as projected, and twice as high as the fastest growth period in the last 60 years (which was between 1959 and 1968).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 08, 2016, 04:53:00 PM
I'll gladly have a discussion with you Saddam if you'll do me the favor of untriggering yourself and start using your bigboy words.

"That's racist!" is not an acceptable response, especially when Dave's quote didn't even mention a race.

To continually deny the obvious racist implications of saying muslims should be banned from this country, and mexican immigrants are rapist and murderers, is at best apologetic and at worst wholehearted agreement with such bigoted rhetoric.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 08, 2016, 05:39:54 PM
I'll gladly have a discussion with you Saddam if you'll do me the favor of untriggering yourself and start using your bigboy words.

"That's racist!" is not an acceptable response, especially when Dave's quote didn't even mention a race.

To continually deny the obvious racist implications of saying muslims should be banned from this country, and mexican immigrants are rapist and murderers, is at best apologetic and at worst wholehearted agreement with such bigoted rhetoric.

How can someone who never mentions race be racist? It's at best xenophobia, which is really just a globalist buzzword invented to shame people into thinking their country doesn't have its own rights.

No one here other than Garygreen has come up with even one good point against Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 08, 2016, 06:15:34 PM
How about this:

Donald Trump is an asshole.

That's basically it. One look and you can tell he is so obviously out of touch with his own horrible smegma, let alone relate with anyone who isn't at least a millionaire. He in no way could ever possibly represent the average american citizen, unless of course the average american citizen is a bunch of out of touch, self-absorbed billionaires that is.

You can debate that all you want, but I know a douche bag when I see one.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 08, 2016, 06:41:57 PM
Trump is an ass, that's true enough, but the problem is that all the other candidates are warmongering psychopaths, crazed loonies, or both.

Thusly I can conclude that Trump's personality is better than the other candidates as well.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 08, 2016, 06:47:46 PM
Trump is an ass, that's true enough, but the problem is that all the other candidates are warmongering psychopaths, crazed loonies, or both.

Thusly I can conclude that Trump's personality is better than the other candidates as well.

Yeah, I guess a likable, non psychopath is too much to ask for huh lol... can we at least get a likable psychopath???

Patrick Bateman for President 2016!!!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 08, 2016, 07:12:50 PM
As I have said from the very start, Trump is reading a script, is acting out a role, that is all. He couldn't care less about America being great again, or about the wall at the border, or any other issue raised during the campaign; it is an act.

His main role is to prepare the way for someone else.



Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 08, 2016, 07:26:16 PM
As I have said from the very start, Trump is reading a script, is acting out a role, that is all. He couldn't care less about America being great again, or about the wall at the border, or any other issue raised during the campaign; it is an act.

His main role is to prepare the way for someone else.
But who and how?  Even if he drops out the day before the election, its not like Ted Cruz can suddenly be on the ballott.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 08, 2016, 07:43:26 PM
I have carefully explained to all of you here which secret society is behind Trump's campaign, and how it is cooperating with a more powerful organization which has chosen one of its own as the GOP nominee.

Trump is creating a false sense of political novelty, which is being used to channel the votes and the energy to someone else.


Now, he is under a ceaseless barrage of attack ads paid for by super PACs, whose contribution runs in the tens of millions of dollars (ten million dollars being spent just in Florida).

The attacks against Trump are unprecedented in recent political history.

And yet, they bring to the public's knowledge facts which are absolutely true: the university scam, the NY Times tapes, the refusal to release the tax returns, and much more.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 08, 2016, 08:18:31 PM
DAMMIT DAVE WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 08, 2016, 08:22:55 PM
DAMMIT DAVE WE'VE BEEN OVER THIS

Sorry sorry..
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 09, 2016, 12:47:06 AM
it is "literally impossible" to balance the budget under trump's proposals.  his plan is demonstrably worse than the status quo.

Then hopefully he will change it as necessary.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 09, 2016, 06:11:46 AM
it is "literally impossible" to balance the budget under trump's proposals.  his plan is demonstrably worse than the status quo.

Then hopefully he will change it as necessary.
If we go by his previous business ventures, he'll abandon it prior to completion.  Hope his VP pick is good.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on March 09, 2016, 08:38:43 AM
Trump is an ass, that's true enough, but the problem is that all the other candidates are warmongering psychopaths, crazed loonies, or both.

Thusly I can conclude that Trump's personality is better than the other candidates as well.

As the bullfrog is a warmonger (bomb the shit out of them, shoot em with bullets dipped in pigs blood etc), clearly crazed and by your admission, an ass, WTF, change sides Rushy. You can do it, there is a wonderful green option in Jill Stein, we got to change track sooner or later, the corporate backed ass-holes will lurch from one mess to another salting away their billions while the world goes to shit, hoping that when it all goes tits up they can ride it out in a bunker you won't have an invite to. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 09, 2016, 02:10:37 PM
As the bullfrog is a warmonger (bomb the shit out of them, shoot em with bullets dipped in pigs blood etc), clearly crazed and by your admission, an ass, WTF, change sides Rushy. You can do it, there is a wonderful green option in Jill Stein, we got to change track sooner or later, the corporate backed ass-holes will lurch from one mess to another salting away their billions while the world goes to shit, hoping that when it all goes tits up they can ride it out in a bunker you won't have an invite to.

You seem to be under the impression I think being an ass is an undesirable quality. Trump's personality is amazing. He's the only candidate that I can sit there and listen to his entire speech. Just last night a reporter asked him a question about his mean language and he told the guy to sit back down and he moved on to another press question. Trump is amazing.

If we go by his previous business ventures, he'll abandon it prior to completion.  Hope his VP pick is good.

Is this in comparison to all of the vast successful executive expertise of his opponents? The only person with executive history in this race besides Trump is Hillary. Do you prefer Hillary, Dave?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on March 09, 2016, 03:04:59 PM

Is this in comparison to all of the vast successful executive expertise of his opponents? The only person with executive history in this race besides Trump is Hillary. Do you prefer Hillary, Dave?

Bernie Sanders was a 3-term mayor.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 09, 2016, 03:11:01 PM
If we go by his previous business ventures, he'll abandon it prior to completion.  Hope his VP pick is good.

Can you please cite the ventures he's abandoned and ones he hasn't so that we can compare them side by side? Thanks.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 09, 2016, 03:24:28 PM

Is this in comparison to all of the vast successful executive expertise of his opponents? The only person with executive history in this race besides Trump is Hillary. Do you prefer Hillary, Dave?

Bernie Sanders was a 3-term mayor.

TIL
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on March 09, 2016, 04:02:56 PM

Is this in comparison to all of the vast successful executive expertise of his opponents? The only person with executive history in this race besides Trump is Hillary. Do you prefer Hillary, Dave?

Bernie Sanders was a 3-term mayor.

TIL

(http://i.imgur.com/5ajbeWB.gif?noredirect)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on March 09, 2016, 04:42:37 PM


"Trump's personality is amazing. You seem to be under the impression I think being an ass is an undesirable quality."

Clearly not Rushy, clearly not!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 09, 2016, 08:29:15 PM
http://therightscoop.com/fox-business-host-marco-rubio-likely-to-drop-out-before-florida-primary/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 09, 2016, 08:45:13 PM
If we go by his previous business ventures, he'll abandon it prior to completion.  Hope his VP pick is good.

Is this in comparison to all of the vast successful executive expertise of his opponents? The only person with executive history in this race besides Trump is Hillary. Do you prefer Hillary, Dave?
No, this is simply that when something happens that he can't control (such as expenses run over or legal issues crop up) Donald Trump, like any smart business man, will jump ship.
Just ask Scotland.



If we go by his previous business ventures, he'll abandon it prior to completion.  Hope his VP pick is good.

Can you please cite the ventures he's abandoned and ones he hasn't so that we can compare them side by side? Thanks.
I'm not sure I can. 
This one I'm most thinking of but not as abandoned as I thought:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/12/donald-trump-scotland-golf/421065/

And of course, this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-mortgage-failed-heres-what-that-says-about-the-gop-front-runner/2016/02/28/f8701880-d00f-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

But eh.  Whatever.  Point is, he's a business man.  If there's no profit, why keep going?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 09, 2016, 09:26:21 PM
"That's racist!" is not an acceptable response especially when Dave's quote didn't even mention a race.

This is the third time you've very, very liberally (and incorrectly) interpreted a criticism of Trump's attempts to pander to racist voters to mean nothing more than "That's racist/Trump's racist/You're racist."  Within the very same sentence, you turn on pedant-mode and insist that Mexico/Mexican is technically not a race in and of itself and therefore any discussion of race and racism is irrelevant - not the first time you've done that, either.  Setting the apparent hypocrisy of this aside, I'll respond to both claims:

Briefly addressing the latter point first, you're quibbling.  You know perfectly well what's meant when people talk about race and racism in this context.  Yes, technically, nationalities and ethnicities aren't races, but it's very common to colloquially refer to general bigotry and discrimination as racism.  Nobody's trying to trick you, nobody's trying to twist the argument into being about something it's not, they're just using everyday language in a casual sense.  I wouldn't use those terms in an academic paper or anything, but in an informal discussion like this, I really don't think it's unreasonable to just let it slide.

As for the racism charge, I'll drop the loaded phrasing and express my concerns seriously.  Trump's language feels like it's intended to appeal first and foremost to the lowest common denominator, ignorant, prejudiced people who know very little about politics beyond a knee-jerk fear of the unknown.  The way he talks about illegal immigration shows this most vividly.  There are plenty of reasons to want to crack down on illegal immigration, such as the importance of the rule of law, the impact on the economy (a subject that Trump, given his background, should be very qualified to talk about), etc., but Trump's position seems to be based more than anything else on the more sensational threat of the Mexicans being out to get us.  The immigrants are drug smugglers.  They're killers.  They're rapists.  That last one I know because, well, who else could it be that's doing the raping?  Oh, and the Mexican government is behind it all, they're deliberately sending us these people!

And his weird brand of nasty populism doesn't stop there.  There was the time he made up a story (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/22/donald-trump/fact-checking-trumps-claim-thousands-new-jersey-ch/) about seeing thousands of Muslims cheering in New Jersey after 9/11, which I would write off as him just mistaking some footage from Middle Eastern countries that were celebrating 9/11, if not for the fact that he doubled down on his claims when it was pointed out to him that both the media and police had no evidence of anything of the sort happening (and contrary to what certain websites have claimed, Trump has not been vindicated on this point, as discussed here (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/02/new-information-doesnt-fix-donald-trumps-911-claim/)).  He also championed the birther movement for a few years, and yes, I am absolutely calling the birthers racist to the core.  As I mentioned earlier, he was even hesitant to fully disavow the nuts in Boston who beat up a homeless man in his name, instead just giving a rambling response (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/21/trump-says-fans-are-very-passionate-after-hearing-one-of-them-allegedly-assaulted-hispanic-man/) about how passionate and driven his followers are.  And finally, there's his Twitter account, which is full of delightful messages like this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/23/donald-trump/trump-tweet-blacks-white-homicide-victims/), this (https://twitter.com/GoAngelo/status/617875992594546688), and this (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/635998754546548737).

That's what people are talking about when they mention Trump and racism.  Nobody is accusing Trump of calling for a return to segregated schools, or declaring white people the master race.  And personally, I don't think that he really believes all the garbage he says.  What he is doing, however, is nudging and winking at the bigots out there that make up his base, hinting to them that he shares their concerns about these people, while always leaving himself enough wiggle room to deny any racist intention if called out on it publicly.  But I think any reasonable person can connect the dots and figure out what the subtext is.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on March 09, 2016, 11:44:42 PM


"Trump's personality is amazing. You seem to be under the impression I think being an ass is an undesirable quality."

Clearly not Rushy, clearly not!

Given that Rushy himself is something of an ass,  does this surprise you?  I have no doubt he looks up to Trump as a paragon of character.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 10, 2016, 12:21:11 AM
This is the third time you've very, very liberally (and incorrectly) interpreted a criticism of Trump's attempts to pander to racist voters to mean nothing more than "That's racist/Trump's racist/You're racist."  Within the very same sentence, you turn on pedant-mode and insist that Mexico/Mexican is technically not a race in and of itself and therefore any discussion of race and racism is irrelevant - not the first time you've done that, either.  Setting the apparent hypocrisy of this aside, I'll respond to both claims:

Briefly addressing the latter point first, you're quibbling.  You know perfectly well what's meant when people talk about race and racism in this context.  Yes, technically, nationalities and ethnicities aren't races, but it's very common to colloquially refer to general bigotry and discrimination as racism.  Nobody's trying to trick you, nobody's trying to twist the argument into being about something it's not, they're just using everyday language in a casual sense.  I wouldn't use those terms in an academic paper or anything, but in an informal discussion like this, I really don't think it's unreasonable to just let it slide.

As for the racism charge, I'll drop the loaded phrasing and express my concerns seriously.  Trump's language feels like it's intended to appeal first and foremost to the lowest common denominator, ignorant, prejudiced people who know very little about politics beyond a knee-jerk fear of the unknown.  The way he talks about illegal immigration shows this most vividly.  There are plenty of reasons to want to crack down on illegal immigration, such as the importance of the rule of law, the impact on the economy (a subject that Trump, given his background, should be very qualified to talk about), etc., but Trump's position seems to be based more than anything else on the more sensational threat of the Mexicans being out to get us.  The immigrants are drug smugglers.  They're killers.  They're rapists.  That last one I know because, well, who else could it be that's doing the raping?  Oh, and the Mexican government is behind it all, they're deliberately sending us these people!

And his weird brand of nasty populism doesn't stop there.  There was the time he made up a story (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/22/donald-trump/fact-checking-trumps-claim-thousands-new-jersey-ch/) about seeing thousands of Muslims cheering in New Jersey after 9/11, which I would write off as him just mistaking some footage from Middle Eastern countries that were celebrating 9/11, if not for the fact that he doubled down on his claims when it was pointed out to him that both the media and police had no evidence of anything of the sort happening (and contrary to what certain websites have claimed, Trump has not been vindicated on this point, as discussed here (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/dec/02/new-information-doesnt-fix-donald-trumps-911-claim/)).  He also championed the birther movement for a few years, and yes, I am absolutely calling the birthers racist to the core.  As I mentioned earlier, he was even hesitant to fully disavow the nuts in Boston who beat up a homeless man in his name, instead just giving a rambling response (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/21/trump-says-fans-are-very-passionate-after-hearing-one-of-them-allegedly-assaulted-hispanic-man/) about how passionate and driven his followers are.  And finally, there's his Twitter account, which is full of delightful messages like this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/23/donald-trump/trump-tweet-blacks-white-homicide-victims/), this (https://twitter.com/GoAngelo/status/617875992594546688), and this (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/635998754546548737).

That's what people are talking about when they mention Trump and racism.  Nobody is accusing Trump of calling for a return to segregated schools, or declaring white people the master race.  And personally, I don't think that he really believes all the garbage he says.  What he is doing, however, is nudging and winking at the bigots out there that make up his base, hinting to them that he shares their concerns about these people, while always leaving himself enough wiggle room to deny any racist intention if called out on it publicly.  But I think any reasonable person can connect the dots and figure out what the subtext is.

Twisting the very words we use into different meanings is a form of offense, Saddam. We see it everyday. We are given words that mean bad things and those bad things should make us feel bad. Racism, bigotry, xenophobia, transphobic, homophobic. Many people here, including even yourself, rule over an institution of shaming people into a certain belief system. It doesn't matter what that belief system is, but what matters is how we as a society arrive to that conclusion. It's no coincidence that the term "phobia" was co-opted into so many words. It means 'fear' and implying that someone is afraid of something implicitly means they are weak. You are afraid of other people. You are afraid of gays. You are afraid of transgenders. You are afraid.

What does this mean to the population as a whole? It means you've created an atmosphere of fear, not belief. The reason Trump does so terrible in closed caucus states is because voters are afraid to say "I'm voting for Trump" inside a huge crowd. The truth is that nothing changed what people believed. The current political parties have failed to tackle actual class and race issues. They failed because they don't want to. They failed because fear is the basic principle they've ensured society succumbs to. What fear results in is 'fight or flight' mode and now that fear has turned into rage. By shaming people into believing something, this nation has created a huge swath of pent up rage. Politicians don't talk about why racism is bad. They don't talk about why it exists in the first place. They don't talk about the roots of problems, they state the problem, and they state the solution, and then you just sort of have to believe that they can arrive at that solution somehow. All of them do this. All of them.

In the end, I'll need you to forgive me, but I'm attracted to that rage. The anger, the hate, the rage that Trump has tapped into is magnificent. What's so interesting about this is people like yourself would like to believe you were in the fight against racism, bigotry, or even xenophobia. You don't know why these things exist because you don't understand them. That's, what I believe, truly scares people when it comes to Trump. He has shown that vast swathes of these people still exist and they are very, very active, and you haven't the slightest goddamn clue how to stop them when the shaming stops working.

With that said, let's move over into the meat of Trump's policies. One thing we can be sure of, what Trump says, and maybe not necessarily what he believes, is pure unadulterated Nationalism. America is going to be made great again, fuck everyone else. That's something I can get behind. We have trade deficits with nearly the entire planet and 'free trade' deals have caused this to be one huge nation of consumerism. The bottom has fallen out of the manufacturing industries and nearly all jobs held by young people today are service jobs that require the lowest common denominator of intelligence. It also happens to be why wages are depressed and why our unemployment is still high. "but muh unemployment rate of 5%" well, oops, I guess it turns out that's because the Feds decided to count people who gave up looking for a job as 'employed'. The unemployment rate is now garbage. The only reasonable economic indicator is now the participation rate, which most people are more than happy to never mention is at 62.9% (http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000)

We have the highest corporate tax rates of any civilized country in the world. Even Sweden, the gem of Social Democracy, has a lower corporate tax rate than us. This means that corporations flee from the US as fast as they can. The rest of the world gets a pretty good deal, though. Just stick your headquarters in Ireland and all of that sweet sweet American consumerism funnels the ol' dollarydoos right into Irish government. America is quite literally giving economic welfare to everyone except Americans. This, by the way, is where Bernie gets his crazy 'effective corporate tax rate' because he is under the impression he can tax corporations that aren't headquartered in the US; Sanders counts the money given to the Irish as taxes America should have gotten. (http://taxfoundation.org/article/us-corporate-effective-tax-rate-myth-and-fact)

I could go on for a really long time. But ultimately the point is, Saddam, I don't care if you call me or Trump or his supporters racist or xenophobes or whatever you want because you can't tell me why. You think about the morality of a policy, not its actual impact, and so therefore your thoughts on the subject are irrelevant. You live in a 'reality has a liberal bias' world. A feels>reals world. So feel free to move to Canada with the rest of the feels peoples while their economy burns to ashes.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 10, 2016, 01:13:22 AM
yeah living in america fuckin sucks i wish i lived someplace that was beating us at the trade game like china or brazil those places are awesome i wish we were great like china

i hate that actual retarded people are taking over our contry
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Thork on March 10, 2016, 01:28:33 AM
How much is Mitt Romney winning by now?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 10, 2016, 02:17:40 AM
yeah living in america fuckin sucks i wish i lived someplace that was beating us at the trade game like china or brazil those places are awesome i wish we were great like china

i hate that actual retarded people are taking over our contry

This is a non sequitur. I praised China's trade policies, not their country in general. Their currency manipulation and trade management is amazing for such a large nation.

How much is Mitt Romney winning by now?

Actually he just filed his papers for the RNC nomination and said accepting the nomination from a brokered convention "isn't out of the question." Romney, like Cruz, thinks he is God's chosen one. Grade-A whacko. Also, THIS!

(http://i.imgur.com/cVzPhmb.jpg)

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 10, 2016, 05:46:12 AM
yeah living in america fuckin sucks i wish i lived someplace that was beating us at the trade game like china or brazil those places are awesome i wish we were great like china

i hate that actual retarded people are taking over our contry

This is a non sequitur. I praised China's trade policies, not their country in general. Their currency manipulation and trade management is amazing for such a large nation.

frustrated hyperbole.  forgive me; i just kinda can't believe we're back to voting for the angriest and most rage-filled ultranationalist idiot we can find.  i feel like history has been down the rage-filled ultranationalist road before a whole bunch of times and maybe let's try something different and less fucking terrifying.

american conservatism has a proud history of intellectualism that's been shit on for half a century, and apparently this is where we are now.  awesome.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 10, 2016, 07:38:18 AM
I don't know what Americans are so terrified of. It's not a dictatorship, presidents can't simply pass anything they want into legislation. However, if you look at Trump's policies that are actually reasonable, they're not that bad:

-anti-TPP
-reducing trade deficits
-bringing back overseas money on a single-time tax
-health care reform
-improved relations with Russia

Meanwhile, Bernie has:

-?????????????????????

Let's be real, if we lived in a world where American presidents could act on all their promises, Bernie would destroy the American economy much faster than Trump would. But thankfully that is not the case, and presidents are little more than representative leaders, so Trump is obviously the much better choice. Can you even imagine Bernie negotiating with Putin? He would get eaten alive.

Of course, if all you want is a safe and sure president, you should vote for Hillary. She's easily the best diplomat with the most experience out of the viable candidates, and she's nothing but a Democratic Party sockpuppet whose policies are dead center on the status quo with no intent to ever change it. But it's pretty obvious American voters are tired of politics being handled in that manner, and who even knows what's going to happen with her indictment?

Basically, this election is a shitfest with no real good options, so people are just directing their pent-up frustrations to the candidate who speaks to them the most. And honestly, I think it speaks pretty highly of American voters that they can see past the deplorable smear campaign perpetrated by the mainstream media against Trump (well, at least some of them can). Regardless of the election results, people are waking up and beginning to distrust the media and see the obvious strings.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 10, 2016, 02:16:26 PM
Sanders and Clinton promised a Univision moderator not to deport a single person during their presidency during last night's debate.

Wow, I sure am glad I'm voting for the candidate who will actually enforce my country's laws.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 10, 2016, 04:11:17 PM
If we go by his previous business ventures, he'll abandon it prior to completion.  Hope his VP pick is good.

Can you please cite the ventures he's abandoned and ones he hasn't so that we can compare them side by side? Thanks.
I'm not sure I can. 
This one I'm most thinking of but not as abandoned as I thought:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/12/donald-trump-scotland-golf/421065/

And of course, this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-mortgage-failed-heres-what-that-says-about-the-gop-front-runner/2016/02/28/f8701880-d00f-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

But eh.  Whatever.  Point is, he's a business man.  If there's no profit, why keep going?

What? In what universe does that make sense? Hillary's a mother so she'll bake cookies for America. Sanders is a Yankee so he'll go to war with the South. Trump is a businessman so he will quit if he's not making a profit.

This may shock you Dave, but people are more than their titles. You fire off all these things you're clearly parroting from whatever Facebook feeds you follow, and when asked to back up your assertions your response is, "I'm not sure I can." How about instead of regurgitating whatever you read that aligns with your presuppositions, you state things you can handle.  Lets start with a small one:

Trump is going to make America great again. (You should repeat this often.)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 10, 2016, 05:11:14 PM
Sanders and Clinton promised a Univision moderator not to deport a single person during their presidency during last night's debate.

Wow, I sure am glad I'm voting for the candidate who will actually enforce my country's laws.

They promised they wouldn't deport kids and illegal immigrants who don't have criminal records.  I doubt they would keep that promise, though.

Regardless of the election results, people are waking up and beginning to distrust the media and see the obvious strings.

What?  People don't trust the media?  This is a radical new concept that might just be too edgy and subversive for me to wrap my mind around.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 10, 2016, 05:31:17 PM
If we go by his previous business ventures, he'll abandon it prior to completion.  Hope his VP pick is good.

Can you please cite the ventures he's abandoned and ones he hasn't so that we can compare them side by side? Thanks.
I'm not sure I can. 
This one I'm most thinking of but not as abandoned as I thought:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/12/donald-trump-scotland-golf/421065/

And of course, this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-mortgage-failed-heres-what-that-says-about-the-gop-front-runner/2016/02/28/f8701880-d00f-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html

But eh.  Whatever.  Point is, he's a business man.  If there's no profit, why keep going?

What? In what universe does that make sense? Hillary's a mother so she'll bake cookies for America. Sanders is a Yankee so he'll go to war with the South. Trump is a businessman so he will quit if he's not making a profit.

This may shock you Dave, but people are more than their titles. You fire off all these things you're clearly parroting from whatever Facebook feeds you follow, and when asked to back up your assertions your response is, "I'm not sure I can." How about instead of regurgitating whatever you read that aligns with your presuppositions, you state things you can handle.  Lets start with a small one:

Trump is going to make America great again. (You should repeat this often.)

I can't due to the size of the list involved.  Magazines, steaks, golf courses, and a multitude of other companies and buildings.  I have neither the time nor the access to his personal portfolio to find every single business he's ever started.  I doubt you could either.

Sanders is a politician.
Clinton is a politician.
Trump is a businessman.
To claim that their career experience would not strongly influence their presidency is ignorant.

But how about this statement:
I hope America gets the tyrant it wants.  I hope Donald Trump spits in the face of allies and enemies alike.  I hope he rips apart NAFTA, economically fucks China, and violates the 4th amendment finding all the illegals.

I'll be here in a civilized country, avoiding America.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 10, 2016, 07:02:55 PM

I can't due to the size of the list involved.  Magazines, steaks, golf courses, and a multitude of other companies and buildings.  I have neither the time nor the access to his personal portfolio to find every single business he's ever started.  I doubt you could either.

Ohhhhh, so you meant to say that you heard he filed bankruptcy a couple times and closed a few projects before completion and in your ignorance of business you assumed that's the scarlet-letter mark of a failed businessperson. Gotcha.

Perhaps -- and this one's gunna blow your mind -- perhaps John Oliver doesn't know everything about everything and his show is -- hold on! -- just out to make ratings.

Sanders is a politician.
Clinton is a politician.
Trump is a businessman.
To claim that their career experience would not strongly influence their presidency is ignorant.

But that's not what you said is it? You said that because he's a businessman he will quit when there is no profit in it. You're just backpedaling now that you've been shown the inanity in your statement. However, as you appear to have forgotten, we are on a forum and I (or anyone really) can scroll up or click back to see what you said. I'm doing it now, lets see... Yep, Dave said that if there is no profit in it, Trump won't keep going. Looking for the part where you said say that their career will influence a politician's presidency... looking... looking... looking...
Nope, seems like you just made that shit right up when you were pressed on your ridiculous statements. If, perhaps, that's the message you meant to convey all along, then may I suggest you be more cognizant of the words you use. It will alleviate all this double-speaking backtalk you have to do to qualify all your statements and get us back on topic about how Trump will make America great again.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 10, 2016, 07:50:10 PM
I'll be here in a civilized country, avoiding America.

The country you're staying in has some of the strongest immigration laws on the planet,   Dave. You're one to talk about Trump when you live in a place described as one of the most xenophobic places in Europe.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 10, 2016, 08:30:50 PM

I can't due to the size of the list involved.  Magazines, steaks, golf courses, and a multitude of other companies and buildings.  I have neither the time nor the access to his personal portfolio to find every single business he's ever started.  I doubt you could either.

Ohhhhh, so you meant to say that you heard he filed bankruptcy a couple times and closed a few projects before completion and in your ignorance of business you assumed that's the scarlet-letter mark of a failed businessperson. Gotcha.
Hold on... Where did I say he's a failed businessman?  He's obviously not as he holds a lot of properties, casinos, brands, tv shows, etc...  Why he wishes to give them up to be president, however, is an interesting question.

Quote
Perhaps -- and this one's gunna blow your mind -- perhaps John Oliver doesn't know everything about everything and his show is -- hold on! -- just out to make ratings.
British Documentary, actually.  On Norwegian television.
Also, Trump is out to make money and an image.  At least, he has been for 30+ years.

Quote
Sanders is a politician.
Clinton is a politician.
Trump is a businessman.
To claim that their career experience would not strongly influence their presidency is ignorant.

But that's not what you said is it? You said that because he's a businessman he will quit when there is no profit in it. You're just backpedaling now that you've been shown the inanity in your statement. However, as you appear to have forgotten, we are on a forum and I (or anyone really) can scroll up or click back to see what you said. I'm doing it now, lets see... Yep, Dave said that if there is no profit in it, Trump won't keep going. Looking for the part where you said say that their career will influence a politician's presidency... looking... looking... looking...
Nope, seems like you just made that shit right up when you were pressed on your ridiculous statements. If, perhaps, that's the message you meant to convey all along, then may I suggest you be more cognizant of the words you use. It will alleviate all this double-speaking backtalk you have to do to qualify all your statements and get us back on topic about how Trump will make America great again.
My appologies, allow me to clarify:
Trump is a successful businessman.  He is worth a few Billion in assets.  He is not stupid.  As a smart, successful businessman, he will not waste time on failed ventures.  He will not continue to dump money into a non-profitable company without thinking it will be profitable.  He will abandon anything that will damage his image or his fortune and fight, very very hard, to maintain both.

So, I expect a Trump presidency to be full of force, policy changes based on current need, and the interests of Trump's presidency and image to be more important than other people or the nation.  He will make himself great.  And nothing anyone says will persuade him that he's succeeded.


Maybe that's what you want.  Maybe that's what America wants.  But when president Trump is told No by congress for the first time, something he isn't accustomed to, it will not be pretty.  I look forward to it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 10, 2016, 08:32:25 PM
I don't know what Americans are so terrified of. It's not a dictatorship, presidents can't simply pass anything they want into legislation. However, if you look at Trump's policies that are actually reasonable, they're not that bad:

-anti-TPP
-reducing trade deficits
-bringing back overseas money on a single-time tax
-health care reform
-improved relations with Russia

he doesn't frighten me because i think he's going to be a despot.  he frightens me because he represents the abandonment of substance for form.  rushy's post basically spells out what i think all trump supporters share in common: the belief that it doesn't matter how dogshit trump's policies are so long as he says all the right ultranationalist keywords in all his speeches.  i am frightened by the belief that it doesn't matter what trump says so long as he is angry, hateful, and insulting.  those are poor qualities in anyone, let alone in the president.

and for some reason none of these supporters have managed to yet figure out that psst hey you know that he could just be saying whatever he thinks you want to hear, right?  it's mind-boggling.  like maybe when he says "we're going to slash taxes and slash the budget and also keep social security spending and medicare/medicaid spending and increase military spending," we should all take a moment to reflect on how dumb that is and tell him to get lost.  it frightens me to think that maybe he could walk out on stage and declare that he's going to cut taxes to zero and increase military spending to infinity, and maybe he wouldn't lose any supporters in the process.

his trade deficit talk is just as outrageous, but again his supporters just lap it up because "yeah fuck china go america we rule they drool hahahaha!"  he displays either an ignorance of economics so profound that it should be immediately disqualifying, or a willingness to lie that should be equally discrediting.  trade deficits are not indicators of poor economic output.  if anything, the opposite is true.  this is because current account deficits are balanced by capital account surpluses.  by definition.  basically everything that trump says about trade deficits is breathtakingly, unforgivably wrong.  he appears to fundamentally misunderstand how our economy works.

http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/econ/eop/2006/2006-6.pdf
Quote
A country’s capital account balance reflects its net sales or purchases of assets with other countries. Its current account balance reflects its net sales or purchases of goods and services with other countries along with net flows of income and transfer payments. The current account and capital account must exactly offset one another. This means the value of a current account surplus will be mirrored by the value of a capital account deficit, and a current account deficit will be mirrored by a capital account surplus of equal value.
[...]
In 2004 (the most recent calendar year for which data exist), the United States ran a current account deficit of $668 billion. This deficit meant the United States imported more goods and services than it exported. The counterpart to the U.S. current account deficit was a U.S. capital account surplus. This surplus meant that foreign investors purchased more U.S. assets than U.S. investors purchased in foreign assets, investing more in the United States than the United States invested abroad. By economic definition, a country’s current and capital account balances must offset one another. Therefore, the U.S. current account deficit was matched by a capital account surplus of $668 billion.
[...]
Because foreigners invested more in the United States than the United States invested abroad, the United States received net foreign capital and financial inflows (hereafter called net capital inflows). Countries like the United States that run capital account surpluses and current account deficits receive net foreign capital inflows.
[...]
What factors encourage large and persistent U.S. foreign capital inflows? Several factors, which reflect U.S. economic strengths, encourage these
inflows. In particular, a high rate of U.S. growth encourages foreign capital to be “pushed” toward the United States.
[...]
In principle, the United States can continue to receive net capital inflows (and run current account deficits) indefinitely provided it uses these inflows
in ways that promote its future growth and help the United States to remain an attractive destination for foreign investment. The key issue concerning U.S. foreign capital inflows is not their absolute level but the efficiency with which they are used. Provided capital inflows promote strong U.S. investment, productivity, and growth, they provide important benefits to the United States as well as to countries that are investing in the United States.

http://www.cato.org/publications/trade-policy-analysis/tradebalance-creed-debunking-belief-imports-trade-deficits-are-drag-growth
Quote
The consensus creed is based on a misunderstanding of how U.S. gross domestic product is calculated. Imports are not a “subtraction” from GDP. They are merely removed from the final calculation of GDP because they are not a part of domestic production.

Contrary to the prevailing view, imports are not a “leakage” of demand abroad. In the annual U.S. balance of payments, all transactions balance. The net outflow of dollars to purchase imports over exports are offset each year by a net inflow of foreign capital to purchase U.S. assets. This capital surplus stimulates the U.S. economy while boosting our productive capacity.

An examination of the past 30 years of U.S. economic performance offers no evidence that a rising level of imports or growing trade deficits have negatively affected the U.S. economy. In fact, since 1980, the U.S. economy has grown more than three times faster during periods when the trade deficit was expanding as a share of GDP compared to periods when it was contracting. Stock market appreciation, manufacturing output, and job growth were all significantly more robust during periods of expanding imports and trade deficits.

https://www.aei.org/publication/another-name-for-trade-deficit-is-capital-account-surplus-balance-of-payments-always-0/
Quote
As a direct consequence of our current account deficits, the U.S. economy has been the beneficiary of more than $8 trillion worth of capital inflows from foreigners since 1980.  Because the Balance of Payment accounts are based on double-entry bookkeeping, the annual current account and capital account have to net to zero, so that any current account (trade) deficit (surplus) is offset one-to-one by a capital account surplus (deficit) and the balance of payments therefore always nets out to (equals) zero. And that’s why it’s called the “balance” of payments, because once we account for trade flows and capital flows, everything balances, and there are no deficits or surpluses on a net basis.
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ahpWrFO8WFM/TZkyZmhwGLI/AAAAAAAAPKE/Tm_wnRXSOvs/s400/bp.jpg)

if you want to decry the lack of manufacturing jobs available in the us, then blame robots, not china.  china has very little to do with it.  manufacturing output continues to increase in the us.  that jobs don't keep up with the increase is a function of the increased output of workers, not trade policy: http://conexus.cberdata.org/files/MfgReality.pdf
(http://i.imgur.com/KDmO4oy.png)

what ultimately disappoints me is not that trump couldn't pass a macro final or whatever.  i couldn't, and i can't pretend to understand how our economy works.  but it really didn't take me that long to find a slew of experts in economics all saying "uh, you know current account deficits are actually fine, and if anything they only happen because our economy is so fucking rad to maxxxxxxxx."  if there are economic experts out there who agree with trump's characterization of our economic relationship with china, i'm struggling to find them.

oh look another obnoxiously long gg post.  neat.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 10, 2016, 08:56:33 PM

I can't due to the size of the list involved.  Magazines, steaks, golf courses, and a multitude of other companies and buildings.  I have neither the time nor the access to his personal portfolio to find every single business he's ever started.  I doubt you could either.

Ohhhhh, so you meant to say that you heard he filed bankruptcy a couple times and closed a few projects before completion and in your ignorance of business you assumed that's the scarlet-letter mark of a failed businessperson. Gotcha.
Hold on... Where did I say he's a failed businessman?  He's obviously not as he holds a lot of properties, casinos, brands, tv shows, etc...  Why he wishes to give them up to be president, however, is an interesting question.

Quote
Perhaps -- and this one's gunna blow your mind -- perhaps John Oliver doesn't know everything about everything and his show is -- hold on! -- just out to make ratings.
British Documentary, actually.  On Norwegian television.
Also, Trump is out to make money and an image.  At least, he has been for 30+ years.

Quote
Sanders is a politician.
Clinton is a politician.
Trump is a businessman.
To claim that their career experience would not strongly influence their presidency is ignorant.

But that's not what you said is it? You said that because he's a businessman he will quit when there is no profit in it. You're just backpedaling now that you've been shown the inanity in your statement. However, as you appear to have forgotten, we are on a forum and I (or anyone really) can scroll up or click back to see what you said. I'm doing it now, lets see... Yep, Dave said that if there is no profit in it, Trump won't keep going. Looking for the part where you said say that their career will influence a politician's presidency... looking... looking... looking...
Nope, seems like you just made that shit right up when you were pressed on your ridiculous statements. If, perhaps, that's the message you meant to convey all along, then may I suggest you be more cognizant of the words you use. It will alleviate all this double-speaking backtalk you have to do to qualify all your statements and get us back on topic about how Trump will make America great again.
My appologies, allow me to clarify:
Trump is a successful businessman.  He is worth a few Billion in assets.  He is not stupid.  As a smart, successful businessman, he will not waste time on failed ventures.  He will not continue to dump money into a non-profitable company without thinking it will be profitable.  He will abandon anything that will damage his image or his fortune and fight, very very hard, to maintain both.

So, I expect a Trump presidency to be full of force, policy changes based on current need, and the interests of Trump's presidency and image to be more important than other people or the nation.  He will make himself great.  And nothing anyone says will persuade him that he's succeeded.


Maybe that's what you want.  Maybe that's what America wants.  But when president Trump is told No by congress for the first time, something he isn't accustomed to, it will not be pretty.  I look forward to it.

That's much more clear. I'm glad you could finally articulate this idea.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on March 10, 2016, 09:15:08 PM

Just wondered which era of American history you would turn the clocks back too? It's always a bit of a mystery when I hear people harking back to the golden age as they seem to cherry pick bits from here and there, forgetting all the shit that went with it.
The British nationalist have some mythical amalgamation of Richard the lion-heart (a particularly bad time to be in Britain if you know your history) and the height of the Victorians (see Dickens for the down side), so when was America great?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 10, 2016, 09:21:33 PM

Just wondered which era of American history you would turn the clocks back too? It's always a bit of a mystery when I hear people harking back to the golden age as they seem to cherry pick bits from here and there, forgetting all the shit that went with it.
The British nationalist have some mythical amalgamation of Richard the lion-heart (a particularly bad time to be in Britain if you know your history) and the height of the Victorians (see Dickens for the down side), so when was America great?
The 20s or 50s.
We were fresh from the war, great economy, everyone was happy except for those who were socially oppressed (but who cares about them, am I right?).  Plus we got "In God We Trust" put on our money and "Under God" in our pledge in the 50s.  What's not to love?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 11, 2016, 03:42:38 AM
so when was America great?

1980 to 1988.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on March 11, 2016, 03:43:44 AM
The 90s were pretty fucking sweet too.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on March 11, 2016, 04:32:43 AM
The 90s were pretty fucking sweet too.

Damn right. I grew up in the 90s so nostalgia is a factor but everything seemed better, before we had smart phones and social media, before the internet was weaponized into a weapon of mass distraction.

But there was a pretty bad crack epidemic we delt with for a while.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 11, 2016, 04:43:05 AM
I don't know what Americans are so terrified of. It's not a dictatorship, presidents can't simply pass anything they want into legislation. However, if you look at Trump's policies that are actually reasonable, they're not that bad:

-anti-TPP
-reducing trade deficits
-bringing back overseas money on a single-time tax
-health care reform
-improved relations with Russia

he doesn't frighten me because i think he's going to be a despot.  he frightens me because he represents the abandonment of substance for form.  rushy's post basically spells out what i think all trump supporters share in common: the belief that it doesn't matter how dogshit trump's policies are so long as he says all the right ultranationalist keywords in all his speeches.  i am frightened by the belief that it doesn't matter what trump says so long as he is angry, hateful, and insulting.  those are poor qualities in anyone, let alone in the president.

and for some reason none of these supporters have managed to yet figure out that psst hey you know that he could just be saying whatever he thinks you want to hear, right?  it's mind-boggling.  like maybe when he says "we're going to slash taxes and slash the budget and also keep social security spending and medicare/medicaid spending and increase military spending," we should all take a moment to reflect on how dumb that is and tell him to get lost.  it frightens me to think that maybe he could walk out on stage and declare that he's going to cut taxes to zero and increase military spending to infinity, and maybe he wouldn't lose any supporters in the process.

his trade deficit talk is just as outrageous, but again his supporters just lap it up because "yeah fuck china go america we rule they drool hahahaha!"  he displays either an ignorance of economics so profound that it should be immediately disqualifying, or a willingness to lie that should be equally discrediting.  trade deficits are not indicators of poor economic output.  if anything, the opposite is true.  this is because current account deficits are balanced by capital account surpluses.  by definition.  basically everything that trump says about trade deficits is breathtakingly, unforgivably wrong.  he appears to fundamentally misunderstand how our economy works.

[...]

what ultimately disappoints me is not that trump couldn't pass a macro final or whatever.  i couldn't, and i can't pretend to understand how our economy works.  but it really didn't take me that long to find a slew of experts in economics all saying "uh, you know current account deficits are actually fine, and if anything they only happen because our economy is so fucking rad to maxxxxxxxx."  if there are economic experts out there who agree with trump's characterization of our economic relationship with china, i'm struggling to find them.

oh look another obnoxiously long gg post.  neat.

Trade deficits may not be as bad as Trump makes them out to be, but working to reduce them is hardly bad either - unless you wish to claim that creating jobs is bad. And I think it's kinda interesting that you think he says "whatever we want to hear" when discussing a topic people barely understand in the first place. Just out of curiosity though, if you think Trump is misinformed and only speaking to people's fantasies, what do you think of Bernie Sanders? His policies are deliberately impossible and carry intrinsic and easy to understand benefits to the working class and college kids. His whole platform is just fantasy fulfillment. Shouldn't the support he's gaining be just as frightening to you, if not more so?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 11, 2016, 12:18:20 PM
The 90s were pretty fucking sweet too.

Damn right. I grew up in the 90s so nostalgia is a factor but everything seemed better, before we had smart phones and social media, before the internet was weaponized into a weapon of mass distraction.

But there was a pretty bad crack epidemic we delt with for a while.

Yeah, thanks Al Gore for the internet.  What a jerk.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 11, 2016, 07:37:15 PM
http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/09/heres-the-math-on-why-obsessing-over-florida-makes-no-sense/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 12, 2016, 01:04:47 AM
Trade deficits may not be as bad as Trump makes them out to be, but working to reduce them is hardly bad either - unless you wish to claim that creating jobs is bad.

but fixating on the trade deficit is to ignore half of the ledger of our balance of trade with china.  a trade deficit is a capital account surplus by definition: we imported more goods than we exported, so by definition we exported more of our financial assets (dollars) than we imported.  why is selling dollars for goods better or worse than selling goods for dollars?  from the perspective of balance of trade, they're equal.  reducing the trade deficit isn't per se good for growth, and manufacturing employment decline is empirically driven by production, not trade.

let's suppose that i run a firm in america, and i want to buy computers for my business.  so, i spend some of my dollars importing computers from china.  they get dollars, and i get a computer.  one day my accountant comes to me and says, "bad business practices, dude.  we're losing to china!  we've imported a bunch of computers from china, but we've exported no goods to them at all!  we're running a trade deficit!  unless we start exporting goods to china, we're in real trouble!"

on the other side of the globe is the firm from which i bought computers.  one day their accountant goes to the ceo and says, "bad business practices, dude.  we're losing to america!  we've imported a bunch of capital from america, but we've exported no capital to them at all!  we're running a capital account deficit!  unless we start exporting financial assets to america, we're in real trouble!"

no doubt this analogy is fatally flawed somewhere, but i only want it to demonstrate that both of these hypothetical accountants are saying the same thing and making the same mistake: failing to acknowledge the other side of the ledger.  neither of them is running a true "deficit," they're just trading financial assets for goods.  whether or not the deal is good for me is just a function of what my firm can do with what i just bought.  if i buy goods that help me expand my business and hire new employees, then it's obviously good for growth and employment.  if i buy a bunch of dirt and leave it sitting in a pile, then it's a bad deal for growth.

likewise, the value of our trade with china can't be understood by looking at one side of the ledger or the other.  its relationship to growth and employment is a function of what we're buying.

And I think it's kinda interesting that you think he says "whatever we want to hear" when discussing a topic people barely understand in the first place. Just out of curiosity though, if you think Trump is misinformed and only speaking to people's fantasies, what do you think of Bernie Sanders? His policies are deliberately impossible and carry intrinsic and easy to understand benefits to the working class and college kids. His whole platform is just fantasy fulfillment. Shouldn't the support he's gaining be just as frightening to you, if not more so?

i mentioned already that i think sanders is employing much of the same rhetoric of fearpandering (that's a word, right?) as trump.  i find most of what sanders has to say about wall street/finance/capitalism/free trade extremely divisive and counterproductive.  that said, i don't find it frightening the way i find trump's nationalism frightening.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 12, 2016, 11:17:41 AM
I don't think it's fair to generalize trade deficits as a literal non-issue as you seem to portray them as, but if it's that much of a trigger to you, I'm willing to drop it - my point will stand just fine without it.

Meanwhile, these fascist BLM thugs in Chicago are playing right into Trump's hands - don't they realize that turning him into a martyr will only guarantee him the presidency? It happened with Reagan, it will happen with Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 12, 2016, 12:45:22 PM
BLM simultaneously made Trump look good and caused Kasich, Rubio and Cruz to crucify themselves by blaming Trump for the riot. BLM and Bernie supporters just did more for Trump than the rally alone ever could.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 12, 2016, 02:11:02 PM
http://www.redstate.com/diary/imperfectamerica/2016/03/11/art-steal...-democrats-voting-gop-contests-make-huuggeee-difference/

(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5ewOUTjlmkM/VuPwzRgLfjI/AAAAAAAABy4/6tWHh99CytwMLbIFY6Yw9F7v45o3_4lgQ/s640/StealInfoGraphicX2.jpg)

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 12, 2016, 02:46:50 PM
Well yeah, no shit states where independents and democrats vote makes a difference. Cruz is a looney that only the most hardcore neocons could possibly like. Trump is a moderate that is drawing the old Reagan Democrats out of the woodworks. This is why Cruz has zero chance of ever winning the general election. Ol' Lyin' Ted makes people so uncomfortable a neurologist had to investigate his creepy face: https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-fallible-mind/201601/why-ted-cruz-s-facial-expression-makes-me-uneasy

Trump is already proving he is better than the other candidates on both sides of the election.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 12, 2016, 02:55:58 PM
Yeah, I don't know how people can think Cruz stands a chance in a general election. There simply aren't enough ultra-conservatives in the US for that to be mathematically possible. You need the moderate vote to win a general election, which Trump has.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 12, 2016, 03:10:47 PM
A general election is won because of three basic factors (they proved to be a decisive element at least in the last four presidential elections): Hispanic vote, African-American vote and the Catholic vote.

8 out of 10 Hispanics view Trump as unfavorable.

Given the KKK comments, you can imagine the percentage of the Black vote actually going to Trump.

You don't argue with a Jesuit Pontiff, if you want the Catholic vote to be in your favor.


Democrats are praying that Trump will make it into the final: no matter who is up against him, either Clinton or Sanders, it will turn into a disaster for the GOP (not to mention the Senate and the House elections, where prospecting republican challengers/incumbents will actually have to run anti-Trump ads).

Virtually the ONLY issue that has benefited Trump was/is the trade/economy: a clever ad campaign focusing on the university scam will put an end to his image as a successful businessman.

Let us remember also the tax returns issue: in just a few months' time, Trump will have no choice but to release them to the public/media's scrutiny.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 12, 2016, 03:18:44 PM
You're placing way too much emphasis on the KKK thing. It was a petty media spin that nobody took seriously.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on March 12, 2016, 06:54:47 PM
BLM simultaneously made Trump look good and caused Kasich, Rubio and Cruz to crucify themselves by blaming Trump for the riot. BLM and Bernie supporters just did more for Trump than the rally alone ever could.
This is good for Bitcoin.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 12, 2016, 07:25:56 PM
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/1/11141692/trump-university-fraud-lawsuit

Bad news for Donald Trump: a court strengthened a fraud lawsuit against Trump University

Before the presidential campaign is over, Donald Trump could end up having to testify in three separate cases about his allegedly fraudulent university.

A New York appeals court ruled Monday that a $40 million lawsuit from the state's attorney general could proceed, and that it could include evidence from up to six years ago about Trump University's deceptive practices.

Trump University wasn't a university but a multilevel marketing scam

Trump University — which was never licensed to call itself a "university" — shut down in 2010. But the legal fallout, including Schneiderman's suit, has continued.

The university, Schneiderman has charged, was a "bait and switch," a classic multilevel marketing scheme: People are told that the real benefits they want are only available if they keep paying, essentially urging them to throw good money after bad.

People were lured into a free workshop with marketing materials that promised they'd learn Trump's real estate secrets from his "handpicked" instructors and maybe even from Trump himself. Instead, they were urged to sign up for a three-day seminar that cost nearly $1,500. And at that seminar, they were pushed to sign up for an elite mentorship program that could cost as much as $35,000 per year.

Trump didn't handpick the mentors. He didn't write the curriculum. He didn't even show up at the seminars. Instead, students got to take a photo with a cardboard cutout of him.

Even the most expensive mentorship didn't deliver, Schneiderman's lawsuit charges. Some mentors simply vanished. Others had no background in real estate at all.

When Trump's candidacy looked like a publicity stunt, Trump University mostly flew under the radar.

Two class-action lawsuits from Trump University students are also working their way through the legal system in San Diego district court. Trump University's treatment of the elderly is getting special scrutiny: Some of the plaintiffs are over 60 and sank tens of thousands of dollars into Trump University's workshops and mentorships.

The final pretrial conferences for the cases are in March and June, and at least one could go to trial as soon as August.

US District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, has said he's eager to move the cases forward and has acknowledged that it's unusual to have a presidential candidate in his courtroom, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune. And it's likely that Trump himself will have to testify: He's on the witness list.

As Time magazine's Steve Brill pointed out, Trump University's victims often look a lot like Trump's voters: lower middle class, white, often elderly, and worried about their economic situation.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 12, 2016, 07:39:39 PM
http://www.commondreams.org/views/2015/10/01/trumpocrisy-how-donald-became-billionaire-and-what-means-rest-us
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 12, 2016, 08:17:34 PM
http://whitetrashtest.com/tag/trump-university-scam/ (the best analysis of the trump university scam)

The Attorney General noted that at the free seminars, instructors played a video featuring Donald Trump telling prospective students, ‘We’re going to have professors that are absolutely terrific – terrific people, terrific brains, successful, the best’ and noted that they were ‘all people that are handpicked by me.’”

Sound familiar?  These allegations are easy to believe because those words mimic what Donald Trump is presently telling the American people in his run for the Republican presidential nomination.  Elect Trump, and America will be great again.  Elect Trump, and he will handpick the best and the brightest and the most terrific, tough minds to negotiate our deals and solve all our problems.  Elect Trump, and we will all be successful and rich beyond our expectations.

In the same way as Donald Trump conducts his presidential campaign, Trump laces his pitch for Trump University with glittering generalities and get-rich-quick language.  Trump entices his audience by telling them that if they sign up with Trump University and take action, then they will become a success, unless they simply don’t love it, in which case, “it’s never, ever going to work.”  When they arrive at the seminar, the Trump University pitch keeps increasing the size of the carrot in front of the donkey.  Follow Trump, and all of America becomes rich and successful, more rich and successful with each new speech he gives.  Don’t follow Trump, and the people of America really don’t want to be successful and are content with being losers.

Trump wants us to believe he will replace all the incompetent, stupid, weak, lightweight, political hacks with the brightest, most terrific, successful, best of the best, toughest people who will manage with maximum efficiency and negotiate deals so good they will fix everything Trump perceives to be wrong with American.  But what does the experience with Trump University foretell, and why are so many people suing him for what they perceive to have been a scam?

“Given the state of the law, [Trump] would be at substantial risk of being embroiled in these [Trump University] lawsuits while serving as president.”
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 12, 2016, 09:10:47 PM
BLM simultaneously made Trump look good and caused Kasich, Rubio and Cruz to crucify themselves by blaming Trump for the riot. BLM and Bernie supporters just did more for Trump than the rally alone ever could.
This is good for Bitcoin.

Hilariously enough I did think about that exact statement while I was typing. "Shit, this is just like the 'this is good for bitcoin' meme, eh, whatever" The event has already made a genuine impact on poll numbers, so it isn't like I was wrong in any case.


Rubio is going the way of Jeb! and he'll be asking people to 'please clap' any day now: http://townhall.com/columnists/rebeccahagelin/2016/03/08/the-rubio-rally-that-wasnt-n2130095
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 13, 2016, 07:15:06 AM
https://youtu.be/tE_G0hLByqI

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/10/trump-wine-is-built-on-acres-of-lies.html

Is that true?  The wbsite does say that its not affiliated with Donald Tump...


Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Tom Bishop on March 13, 2016, 07:39:07 AM
https://youtu.be/tE_G0hLByqI

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/03/10/trump-wine-is-built-on-acres-of-lies.html

Is that true?  The wbsite does say that its not affiliated with Donald Tump...

It's a Trump Wine, just like Trump said. It's his son's company.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 13, 2016, 01:15:30 PM
The tolerant left:

https://twitter.com/TweetBrettMac/status/708525579600064512
https://twitter.com/HighCapacity223/status/708584057102151684

Please remember that Trump supporters are all scum of the earth evil racists. (◕‿◕✿)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 13, 2016, 01:28:38 PM
The tolerant left:

https://twitter.com/TweetBrettMac/status/708525579600064512
https://twitter.com/HighCapacity223/status/708584057102151684

Please remember that Trump supporters are all scum of the earth evil racists. (◕‿◕✿)
I looked at the videos but had no sound so I dkdn't hear anything. 

Not sure what it proves.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 13, 2016, 01:31:35 PM
The tolerant left:

https://twitter.com/TweetBrettMac/status/708525579600064512
https://twitter.com/HighCapacity223/status/708584057102151684

Please remember that Trump supporters are all scum of the earth evil racists. (◕‿◕✿)
I looked at the videos but had no sound so I dkdn't hear anything. 

Not sure what it proves.

Um, okay. Maybe next time watch the videos with sound before making a post with zero input?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 13, 2016, 01:37:52 PM
Are you okay, Dave? Are they giving you any strange pills or injections in Norway?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 13, 2016, 03:23:21 PM
Are you okay, Dave? Are they giving you any strange pills or injections in Norway?

I don't think I am ok.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 13, 2016, 03:53:14 PM
I don't think it's fair to generalize trade deficits as a literal non-issue as you seem to portray them as, but if it's that much of a trigger to you, I'm willing to drop it - my point will stand just fine without it.

to be clear, i'm not saying that trade deficits can never be problematic.  i'm saying that they don't tell you anything in a vacuum.  the factors that determine whether or not our trade policies are sustainable can't be reduced to "we import more goods than we export."  that's asinine.  his china policy is literally 'china is protectionist and that's fucked up so let's be protectionist and beat china at protectionism.  somehow.  and hope that that doesn't have any other bad effects.'  that so many people just gobble it up because it feels good is disappointing.

his budget proposal is garbage.  his trade policy is garbage.  his immigration policy is garbage.  his foreign policy proposals are literally illegal.  he's a joke, but it's a funny joke, so let's make that joke the president?  ugh.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 13, 2016, 04:02:57 PM
his budget proposal is garbage.  his trade policy is garbage.  his immigration policy is garbage.  his foreign policy proposals are literally illegal.  he's a joke, but it's a funny joke, so let's make that joke the president?  ugh.

Well, you don't have better options, so sure.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 13, 2016, 06:52:53 PM
his foreign policy proposals are literally illegal.
ooh, dis gon' be gud.

Please, tell me more!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 13, 2016, 06:56:58 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432702/donald-trump-peak-here-republican-primary

“Peak Trump” — the apogee before the dwindling — might be approaching for the perhaps bogus billionaire (would a real one bother with fleecing those who matriculate at Trump University?) who purports to prove his business wizardry, colossal wealth, and stupendous generosity not by releasing his tax returns but by displaying a pile of steaks.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 13, 2016, 07:02:35 PM
his budget proposal is garbage.  his trade policy is garbage.  his immigration policy is garbage.  his foreign policy proposals are literally illegal.  he's a joke, but it's a funny joke, so let's make that joke the president?  ugh.

Well, you don't have better options, so sure.

there are (and were) plenty of alternatives: kasich, clinton, bush, rubio, sanders, nolan ryan, my neighbor's new cat, an interesting leaf i saw outside once, etc.  maybe even ted cruz.  those are all better options than 'being smart is dumb let's just be mad.'

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-protester-isis-hoax_us_56e57d2be4b0860f99d951ab
Quote
“No, no, no, no, he was,” Trump said. “If you look on the Internet, if you look at clips, he was waving an American flag... He was walking, dragging the American flag on the ground."

Trump was referring to a video posted on the Internet that shows DiMassimo marching and dragging an American flag. The video appears to depict a protest at Wright State University, which is in Dayton. The video Trump tweeted was overdubbed with Arabic music and text.

But the video appears to be a parody or a hoax, and no law enforcement agency has suggested that DiMassimo has terrorist ties of any kind.

Still, Trump remained adamant.
[...]
When Todd reminded him again that the video appears to be a hoax and that no law enforcement official has suggested any terrorist ties, Trump remained firm in his contention and the trustworthiness of its source.

“All I know is what's on the Internet,” the GOP front-runner said.

lol yeah i want this asshole to be the president.

he's already admitted that he wants to empower the justice department to sue journalists who oppose him, and now he's basically giving us a preview of coming attractions on how he'll probably deal with white house protestors: just assert that they're terrorists and have them arrested.  that'll be neat for everybody.

his foreign policy proposals are literally illegal.
ooh, dis gon' be gud.

Please, tell me more!

not literally all of them.

is that better?  was i precise enough for you?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 13, 2016, 07:09:03 PM
there are (and were) plenty of alternatives: kasich, clinton, bush, rubio, sanders, nolan ryan, my neighbor's new cat, an interesting leaf i saw outside once, etc.  maybe even ted cruz.

I don't agree that those are better options. Can you explain why you think they are?

Quote
those are all better options than 'being smart is dumb let's just be mad.'

That's not what Trump is, so that's fine.

Quote
he's already admitted that he wants to empower the justice department to sue journalists who oppose him, and now he's basically giving us a preview of coming attractions on how he'll probably deal with white house protestors: just assert that they're terrorists and have them arrested.  that'll be neat for everybody.

I think you're confused, silencing the opposition is what the left wants. Trump wants libel laws that are already in place to be enforced.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 13, 2016, 07:17:56 PM
I think you're confused, silencing the opposition is what the left wants. Trump wants libel laws that are already in place to be enforced.

I don't know.  I mean, it's already been ruled that the first amendment allows the press to lie so Trump really has to take it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 13, 2016, 07:28:31 PM
I think you're confused, silencing the opposition is what the left wants. Trump wants libel laws that are already in place to be enforced.

I don't know.  I mean, it's already been ruled that the first amendment allows the press to lie so Trump really has to take it.

They're allowed to lie insofar as the government can't pass a law prohibiting them from lying, but they can still be sued for it.  In any case, there are no federal laws on defamation, so there isn't a lot that the president can actually do about it.  I suppose he could try and get one passed, but it would be tough to get it past the courts.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 13, 2016, 07:38:31 PM
I think you're confused, silencing the opposition is what the left wants. Trump wants libel laws that are already in place to be enforced.

I don't know.  I mean, it's already been ruled that the first amendment allows the press to lie so Trump really has to take it.

They're allowed to lie insofar as the government can't pass a law prohibiting them from lying, but they can still be sued for it.  In any case, there are no federal laws on defamation, so there isn't a lot that the president can actually do about it.  I suppose he could try and get one passed, but it would be tough to get it past the courts.
Yeah but lawsuits against mega news networks are bound to fail or be tied up and cost more money than most people make.



On another note: What happens to Donald's corporate holdings when he's president?  He can't actually use them or manage them, right?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 13, 2016, 11:46:27 PM
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/13/470294270/trump-on-rally-violence-dont-accept-responsibility-might-pay-legal-bills

Ok, seriously, The Fuck?
How can you lie so blatantly and keep lying with the same story even when you have clips right there in front of you?

I can get that he'd say he doesn't condone violence at his rallys but when he's got clips of him literally telling people to use violence at his rallys, I ..

No, this man can't be sane or serious.  I'm sorry, he's either delusional or he's trolling all of America.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 14, 2016, 02:14:00 AM
On another note: What happens to Donald's corporate holdings when he's president?  He can't actually use them or manage them, right?

He said his daughter, Ivanka, will take over.

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/13/470294270/trump-on-rally-violence-dont-accept-responsibility-might-pay-legal-bills

Ok, seriously, The Fuck?
How can you lie so blatantly and keep lying with the same story even when you have clips right there in front of you?

I can get that he'd say he doesn't condone violence at his rallys but when he's got clips of him literally telling people to use violence at his rallys, I ..

No, this man can't be sane or serious.  I'm sorry, he's either delusional or he's trolling all of America.

He is saying that protesters who interrupt his rallies should be attacked, and they should. These guys are constantly pushing and shoving people and tearing up signs, so it's no surprise that Trump would think they should be punched in the face. The media hates Trump so they only report a protester being attacked, not the fact that the protester is always some thug.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 14, 2016, 06:15:57 AM
On another note: What happens to Donald's corporate holdings when he's president?  He can't actually use them or manage them, right?

He said his daughter, Ivanka, will take over.
Good to know he'll still be in contol then.

Quote
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/13/470294270/trump-on-rally-violence-dont-accept-responsibility-might-pay-legal-bills

Ok, seriously, The Fuck?
How can you lie so blatantly and keep lying with the same story even when you have clips right there in front of you?

I can get that he'd say he doesn't condone violence at his rallys but when he's got clips of him literally telling people to use violence at his rallys, I ..

No, this man can't be sane or serious.  I'm sorry, he's either delusional or he's trolling all of America.

He is saying that protesters who interrupt his rallies should be attacked, and they should. These guys are constantly pushing and shoving people and tearing up signs, so it's no surprise that Trump would think they should be punched in the face. The media hates Trump so they only report a protester being attacked, not the fact that the protester is always some thug.
Not my point.
If he wants to say "I condone violence against people who act like dicks" then fine but he isn't, is he?  He's saying one thing in interviews and another at rallys.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 14, 2016, 09:49:58 AM
not literally all of them.

is that better?  was i precise enough for you?
You're improving, but I'd still like to see some literally illegal policies :D
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 14, 2016, 11:39:40 AM
Not my point.
If he wants to say "I condone violence against people who act like dicks" then fine but he isn't, is he?  He's saying one thing in interviews and another at rallys.

In not sure I even understand your point. Every time I answer your inquiries you move the goal posts until you have adequately ensured no one can meet your requirements.

He wants to make sure these idiots are punished for attacking people at his rally. If you had been keeping up with politics you would have known far before the Chicago rally that BLM has been upsetting his rallies for several months.

It sounds to me like you've already decided you hate Trump and are now desperate for any information to support you. Why should I waste the truth on you?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 14, 2016, 12:06:11 PM
Not my point.
If he wants to say "I condone violence against people who act like dicks" then fine but he isn't, is he?  He's saying one thing in interviews and another at rallys.

In not sure I even understand your point. Every time I answer your inquiries you move the goal posts until you have adequately ensured no one can meet your requirements.

He wants to make sure these idiots are punished for attacking people at his rally. If you had been keeping up with politics you would have known far before the Chicago rally that BLM has been upsetting his rallies for several months.

It sounds to me like you've already decided you hate Trump and are now desperate for any information to support you. Why should I waste the truth on you?
Then why does he say he doesn't condone violence at his rallys?  He clearly does!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: drevko on March 14, 2016, 01:52:09 PM
And? Who cares?

First, the other candidates may have their corruptions too.

Second, people support Trump in spite of his know corruption because they are tired of politically correct bullshit, they are ANGRY, they don't give a fuck about past dealings of Trump.

It's not about Trump per se as an individual, it's now about a symbol, the war against the mass media and the social justice warriors, the awakening against the censure and inquisition of the mass media and their hypocrisy.

Facts of corruption of Trump DON'T MATTER, it's an emotional war of many who are tired of the system and of being told who is "acceptable" and who is not.

The others are not better, their voters don't give a fuck about trump university.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 14, 2016, 02:21:06 PM
And? Who cares?

First, the other candidates may have their corruptions too.

Second, people support Trump in spite of his know corruption because they are tired of politically correct bullshit, they are ANGRY, they don't give a fuck about past dealings of Trump.

It's not about Trump per se as an individual, it's now about a symbol, the war against the mass media and the social justice warriors, the awakening against the censure and inquisition of the mass media and their hypocrisy.

Facts of corruption of Trump DON'T MATTER, it's an emotional war of many who are tired of the system and of being told who is "acceptable" and who is not.

The others are not better, their voters don't give a fuck about trump university.
I am fully aware of the reasons for the Rise of Trump.
He's a fascist speaking to people who demand action against (X).

Trump is right, he could murder someone on 5th ave. in daylight and not lose any points or votes.  And that is why people should care: Because he could murder you and everyone would cheer your death
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 14, 2016, 02:53:17 PM
Not my point.
If he wants to say "I condone violence against people who act like dicks" then fine but he isn't, is he?  He's saying one thing in interviews and another at rallys.

In not sure I even understand your point. Every time I answer your inquiries you move the goal posts until you have adequately ensured no one can meet your requirements.

This is what I call the Dave Dance. Let me walk you though the steps:

1: Dave blasts out a comment that's demonstrably false and clearly shows his ignorance.
2: You correct him on his assertion.
3: Dave pretends like you misunderstood him and tells you what he really meant when he's really just changing what he said in step 1.
4: Repeat.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 14, 2016, 03:20:35 PM
Not my point.
If he wants to say "I condone violence against people who act like dicks" then fine but he isn't, is he?  He's saying one thing in interviews and another at rallys.

In not sure I even understand your point. Every time I answer your inquiries you move the goal posts until you have adequately ensured no one can meet your requirements.

This is what I call the Dave Dance. Let me walk you though the steps:

1: Dave blasts out a comment that's demonstrably false and clearly shows his ignorance.
2: You correct him on his assertion.
3: Dave pretends like you misunderstood him and tells you what he really meant when he's really just changing what he said in step 1.
4: Repeat.


Explain to me how Trump saying he does not condone violence at his rallys is false.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 14, 2016, 04:15:31 PM
there are (and were) plenty of alternatives: kasich, clinton, bush, rubio, sanders, nolan ryan, my neighbor's new cat, an interesting leaf i saw outside once, etc.  maybe even ted cruz.

I don't agree that those are better options. Can you explain why you think they are?

nolan ryan was throwing 100mph fastballs in the 1970s.  and he's the all-time strikeout leader.  if that's not presidential material, i dunno what is.

more seriously, i'm not sure i could be much more clear: i think trump is divisive, abrasive, insulting, bullying, and ignorant.  i think his personality is awful, i think his policies are dogshit, and i think the nationalism he's trying to rile up is dangerous and disturbing.  i don't think the other candidates share all of those qualities.  kasich, for example, is even-keeled and smart.  i disagree with many of his policies, but they're at least debatable.  kasich wouldn't completely fracture the gop as trump is doing now.  he wouldn't be a daily embarrassment to our country.  foreign heads of state probably wouldn't fantasize about strangling him.

not literally all of them.

is that better?  was i precise enough for you?
You're improving, but I'd still like to see some literally illegal policies :D

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/432350/if-i-say-do-it-theyre-going-do-it-thats-what-leadership-all-about
Quote
BAIER: Mr. Trump, just yesterday, almost 100 foreign policy experts signed on to an open letter refusing to support you, saying your embracing expansive use of torture is inexcusable. General Michael Hayden, former CIA director, NSA director, and other experts have said that when you asked the U.S. military to carry out some of your campaign promises, specifically targeting terrorists’ families, and also the use of interrogation methods more extreme than waterboarding, the military will refuse because they’ve been trained to turn down and refuse illegal orders. So what would you do, as commander-in-chief, if the U.S. military refused to carry out those orders?

TRUMP: They won’t refuse. They’re not going to refuse me. Believe me.

BAIER: But they’re illegal.

TRUMP: Let me just tell you, you look at the Middle East. They’re chopping off heads. They’re chopping off the heads of Christians and anybody else that happens to be in the way. They’re drowning people in steel cages. And he — now we’re talking about waterboarding.

http://time.com/4244608/donald-trump-military-orders-illegal/
Quote
The targeting of terrorists’ families isn’t a close call. “You have to take out their families,” Trump said in December, referring to members of ISIS and other terrorist groups. “They say they don’t care about their lives. You have to take out their families.”

The logic of Trump’s call is clear: use the threat of death against terrorists’ families as a crowbar to change the terrorists’ behavior. So, ironically, is its legality: “Any order to specifically target civilian family members who are not directly participating in hostilities is simply a nonstarter for today’s military,” says Dunlap, who says he has no public opinion on any candidate. Such a command, he adds, would be a “classic example of an illegal order that could not and would not be obeyed.”

trump has since "clarified" that he won't ask the military to break the law.  i'm not sure why i should believe that.

i don't think he's backtracked on china, though.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/roger-alford/trumps-proposed-great-chinese-tariff-wall_b_9358376.html
Quote
Second, how would the tariff increase impact American exporters? Trump's tariff wall is undoubtedly illegal under the WTO rules. The rules were designed to make sure that countries keep their trade promises. Donald Trump's proposal is a blatant breach of our promise to keep tariffs low. All of our tariff rates are "bound," meaning we have committed by treaty not to increase beyond the bound rate. Every imported product has a bound tariff rate, and under GATT Article II, any tariff above that ceiling violates the WTO rules.

Trump's proposed tariff wall would break United States' promise to maintain its current tariff rates. China would have the right to bring an action before the WTO to challenge the 45 percent tariff increase. Just as the United States would undoubtedly win if China tried to do something similar to us, China would undoubtedly win if it challenged the Trump tariff wall. The WTO would demand that the United States keep its tariff promises, and authorize China to raise tariffs on United States' products coming into China equal to the harm the United States caused to China.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 14, 2016, 06:04:00 PM
more seriously, i'm not sure i could be much more clear: i think trump is divisive, abrasive, insulting, bullying, and ignorant.  i think his personality is awful, i think his policies are dogshit, and i think the nationalism he's trying to rile up is dangerous and disturbing.  i don't think the other candidates share all of those qualities.  kasich, for example, is even-keeled and smart.  i disagree with many of his policies, but they're at least debatable.  kasich wouldn't completely fracture the gop as trump is doing now.  he wouldn't be a daily embarrassment to our country.  foreign heads of state probably wouldn't fantasize about strangling him.

Well, that's a lot of opinions people clearly disagree with. Sure, you can have your own views, but I think a lot of what you've said is symptomatic of shaming people for holding a different view - perhaps due to not fully understanding their perspective.

You want to hear my take on it? It's precisely because of the leftist culture of shaming that Trump is gaining traction - people see a constant increase in identity politics and silencing of dissenting views, and a public condoning of hate groups like BLM. They're up against people with an "it's fine if I do it" mentality, people who scream at and spit on Trump supporters for simply wearing a MAGA hat, and they're infuriated that nobody is condemning their actions. People can complain all they want about Trump "inciting violence", but at the end of day, it's not Trump supporters that are actually violent - it's their opponents. Yet whenever a 78 year old redneck punches a protester, it's Trump's supporters that are under the magnifying glass.

You can't blame Trump for starting it. He's not divisive; the country was already divided before he stepped into the ring. What he's doing is simply bringing attention to it and giving people a voice. It's true that Trump is reckless and many of his policies don't hold up, but I think it's just a gamble Trump supporters are willing to take - they see in Trump a catalyst of change in the cultural mind set, and really Trump is the only person who could make it happen - an iconoclast that can be abrasive and insulting while using it to his advantage. Nobody plays the media like Trump does, and it's fundamental to his success.

And what of his "dangerous" policies? No problem - the US government has plenty of checks in place to prevent the president from doing anything too extreme. It's probably not something Bernie supporters have realised yet. I think a Trump presidency and a Bernie presidency would look pretty similar in practice. Neither would sign TPP, neither would start any wars and neither are beholden to the rich elite and special interests. Trump wouldn't get his tariffs and mass deportation, and Bernie wouldn't give free shit to everyone. And I think that's just fine - it's certainly preferable to the cronyism of Hillary, or the theocracy of Cruz.

Also, don't worry about Trump being an embarrassment - America already is an embarrassment to the rest of the world.  :-*
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 14, 2016, 09:54:54 PM
Explain to me how Trump saying he does not condone violence at his rallys is false.

There's nothing wrong with telling people to punch someone who pushes and shoves them or rips up their property.

Saying these are "protesters" at Trump rallies is a misnomer. They're terrorists. They attack people.

Tell me this, Dave. If Trump is so violent and encouraging his supporters to be violent, why is it that Trump's rallies are being attacked almost every time but not once has a Trump supporter attacked a Bernie or Hillary rally? I mean certainly if this violent rhetoric is working, wouldn't attacks on their rallies be more commonplace than attacks on Trump's rallies?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 12:00:58 AM
Explain to me how Trump saying he does not condone violence at his rallys is false.

There's nothing wrong with telling people to punch someone who pushes and shoves them or rips up their property.

Saying these are "protesters" at Trump rallies is a misnomer. They're terrorists. They attack people.

Tell me this, Dave. If Trump is so violent and encouraging his supporters to be violent, why is it that Trump's rallies are being attacked almost every time but not once has a Trump supporter attacked a Bernie or Hillary rally? I mean certainly if this violent rhetoric is working, wouldn't attacks on their rallies be more commonplace than attacks on Trump's rallies?

Oh for the love of...

That is not my issue!  My issue is that he is saying he does NOT want his peiple to do that when talking to an interviewer but DOES when talking at his rally.  If he wanta to promote the use of force against force, I don't give a fuck, but be fucking consistent!


As for why they aren't attacking a Hillary or Bernie rally:
I suspect either its because they can't be arsed to do it(not enough motivation to go out of their way) or the "thugs" are paid for by Trump to garnish media attention.  After all, why would the other side want to make Trump a victim? 
I actually think its more the former.  Trump supporters are energetic and brave when surrounded by like minded people and when Trump says fight, they fight.  But outside of that, they're not going to do it.  They aren't going to risk anything when the safety of the crowd isn't on their side.

Meanwhile, Trump has gained such a polarized view that some are just angry enough to fight against the crowd.


Basically: Trump supporters are cowards. 

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 15, 2016, 12:10:12 AM
Or perhaps they're just regular Americans, while the "protesters" have already shown their true colours in Ferguson.

Only one of these groups has yet to set a town on fire, y'know.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 12:26:41 AM
Or perhaps they're just regular Americans, while the "protesters" have already shown their true colours in Ferguson.

Only one of these groups has yet to set a town on fire, y'know.
But Trump is being attacked at all his rallys, even the ones not near Ferguson.  Are you saying that one town is traveling/tailgating?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on March 15, 2016, 12:35:45 AM
Obviously there are Trump haters all over the US.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 15, 2016, 01:10:26 AM
the "thugs" are paid for by Trump to garnish media attention. 

I can't do this anymore.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 15, 2016, 02:45:56 AM
Basically: Trump supporters are cowards.

w0w, generalize much? Are you saying that only cowards can support Trump or that once one supports Trump they become a coward?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 05:29:45 AM
the "thugs" are paid for by Trump to garnish media attention. 

I can't do this anymore.
Oh please.  What, you think people aren't paid to go to rallys to show numbers?  That people aren't paid to post on social media sites?  This shit happens.  Of course you'll note I didn't think it likely.  Doesn't make it impossible though.


Basically: Trump supporters are cowards.

w0w, generalize much? Are you saying that only cowards can support Trump or that once one supports Trump they become a coward?
Yeah, I am.  Fuck being PC.  You trump supporters are cowards.  All of you are cowards.  You yell and scream when you're safe in a crowd or hiding behind the computer but where are you the rest of the time?  Do you complain about the filthy rapist mexicans to your coworkers?  Do you talk about how Muslims need to be banned to your friends?  Do you protest the media, loud and true?

Or have you been sitting on your fucking ass waiting for some big and powerful man's cock to suck?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 15, 2016, 05:37:08 AM
the "thugs" are paid for by Trump to garnish media attention. 

I can't do this anymore.
Oh please.  What, you think people aren't paid to go to rallys to show numbers?  That people aren't paid to post on social media sites?  This shit happens.  Of course you'll note I didn't think it likely.  Doesn't make it impossible though.


Basically: Trump supporters are cowards.

w0w, generalize much? Are you saying that only cowards can support Trump or that once one supports Trump they become a coward?
Yeah, I am.  Fuck being PC.  You trump supporters are cowards.  All of you are cowards.  You yell and scream when you're safe in a crowd or hiding behind the computer but where are you the rest of the time?  Do you complain about the filthy rapist mexicans to your coworkers?  Do you talk about how Muslims need to be banned to your friends?  Do you protest the media, loud and true?

Or have you been sitting on your fucking ass waiting for some big and powerful man's cock to suck?

what in God's name am I reading
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 05:41:33 AM
the "thugs" are paid for by Trump to garnish media attention. 

I can't do this anymore.
Oh please.  What, you think people aren't paid to go to rallys to show numbers?  That people aren't paid to post on social media sites?  This shit happens.  Of course you'll note I didn't think it likely.  Doesn't make it impossible though.


Basically: Trump supporters are cowards.

w0w, generalize much? Are you saying that only cowards can support Trump or that once one supports Trump they become a coward?
Yeah, I am.  Fuck being PC.  You trump supporters are cowards.  All of you are cowards.  You yell and scream when you're safe in a crowd or hiding behind the computer but where are you the rest of the time?  Do you complain about the filthy rapist mexicans to your coworkers?  Do you talk about how Muslims need to be banned to your friends?  Do you protest the media, loud and true?

Or have you been sitting on your fucking ass waiting for some big and powerful man's cock to suck?

what in God's name am I reading
My rant.  Wanna complain about it?  Tell me it makes no sense?  Wanna pick it apart word by word?  Go on!  Do it!  I fucking DARE you!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on March 15, 2016, 05:44:47 AM
That's almost Th*rk level.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on March 15, 2016, 05:56:19 AM
Suddenly this thread has become kind of epic.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 15, 2016, 07:15:35 AM
http://www.vox.com/2016/3/14/11224468/donald-trump-women-ad
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 15, 2016, 11:16:25 AM
Trump supporters are cowards for not attacking people? Well, that's an interesting way to look at it...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 15, 2016, 11:23:53 AM
Are you okay, Dave? Are they giving you any strange pills or injections in Norway?

I don't think I am ok.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 11:48:44 AM
Trump supporters are cowards for not attacking people? Well, that's an interesting way to look at it...
Trump Supporters are cowards for only speaking out and fighting back when in Trump's presence as opposed to all the pussy, wimpy liberals who are willing to fight inside the lion's den and risk a punch to the face. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 15, 2016, 11:53:38 AM
You don't think it's problematic that they live in a country where they're afraid to be open about their political preferences at risk of persecution?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 12:22:08 PM
You don't think it's problematic that they live in a country where they're afraid to be open about their political preferences at risk of persecution?
Well, that IS the way they want it.  Just not THEIR political preferences.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 15, 2016, 12:22:24 PM
Trump stirs in people a visceral sense of pride and support for America. It's easy to see why one would punch someone whose trying to tear down the foundations that this country was built on.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 15, 2016, 12:22:35 PM
Dave realized his anti-violence stance was complete garbage and 180'd so that he could argue people attacking Trump was a good thing lmao

Trump has stumped the shit out of Dave.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 15, 2016, 12:26:19 PM
You don't think it's problematic that they live in a country where they're afraid to be open about their political preferences at risk of persecution?
Well, that IS the way they want it.  Just not THEIR political preferences.

Source?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 12:53:31 PM
Trump stirs in people a visceral sense of pride and support for America. It's easy to see why one would punch someone whose trying to tear down the foundations that this country was built on.
He does!
I mean, it requires that he blame others for America's problems, but yeah, he does.  It's what Fascists do.

Dave realized his anti-violence stance was complete garbage and 180'd so that he could argue people attacking Trump was a good thing lmao

Trump has stumped the shit out of Dave.
Hm?
Anti-violence stance?

Look, I'm all for violence, I just wish he'd say so to interviewers.  He's saying it to his supporters but when asked by the press he's all "I don't condone violence at my rallys" which is BS.  He needs to man up and proclaim "If you see someone being a dick at my rally, you need to punch them, kick them, or kill them."
In fact, I've started reading Trump's speeches and interviews and already it makes me want to punch him.   

And yes, he HAS stumped me.  His speeches are a lot of words and self-praise but not much on substance.  Which is fine.  Again, that's what America prides itself on: Self Praise and lack of substance.


You don't think it's problematic that they live in a country where they're afraid to be open about their political preferences at risk of persecution?
Well, that IS the way they want it.  Just not THEIR political preferences.

Source?
Go listen to a rally.  That's all the source I need.  Just listen to the crowd.  Listen to how they KNOW they're right and everyone else is wrong.  How those who oppose them need to be stopped.  There is no compromise.  There is no peace.  There is only war.


Look, it's --Well its the way it must be.  I mean, I'm great.  I'm a great guy.  Very likable, everyone thinks so.  Just ask.  Ask my family and they'll tell you, they will, that I'm a great guy.  But when I see people, and I don't mean people like you, I mean the worst, the absolute worst people, standing around, chanting and really, it's more like a religion isn't it?  You can't just have a group of people praise someone and not, you know, not think they're praying too.  Anyway, when I see them chanting and just being so angry about walls and Muslims and by the way, Muslims are great people.  I love Muslims.  Truely, I do.  Ask anyone.  But when you see them chanting about it and wanting to build walls and ban people, you just gotta ask yourself, how did we get here?  I'll tell you how, we never win.  We're always losing.  The people we have, up there, in the media and the press.  I love the press, by the way.  Love them.  But they've got people, and they're bad people.  Not the best and trust me, I know the best.  Believe me, I know people you'd never even heard of who are excellent people.  Very loving, very caring, very easy to get along with.  I get along with them.  So I ask myself, why can't we make America great Together?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 15, 2016, 04:09:23 PM
Republican National Committee

RULE 40

(b) Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a majority of the delegates from each of eight (8 ) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of that candidate for nomination. Notwithstanding any other provisions of these rules or any rule of the House of Representatives, to demonstrate the support required of this paragraph a certificate evidencing the affirmative written support of the required number of permanently seated delegates from each of the eight (8 ) or more states shall have been submitted to the secretary of the convention not later than one (1) hour prior to the placing of the names of candidates for nomination pursuant to this rule and the established order of business.


Only Cruz and Trump thus qualify as candidates for the nomination: the others (Carson, Kasich, Rubio) can't even enter the contest. And the rules will not be changed in the middle of the convention: Kasich and Rubio have no viable path to the election.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 15, 2016, 04:29:50 PM
Look, I'm all for violence

Yikes
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 04:33:43 PM
Look, I'm all for violence

Yikes
What?  If Trump can be all for violence, why not me?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 15, 2016, 05:08:57 PM
Look, I'm all for violence

Yikes
What?  If Trump can be all for violence, why not me?

I'll let you think about it
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 15, 2016, 05:14:21 PM
Dave is beginning to accept the ideals of Trumpism. Now, if only we can get him to listen to what Trump stands for rather than listening to what people say Trump stands for.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 05:58:13 PM
Dave is beginning to accept the ideals of Trumpism. Now, if only we can get him to listen to what Trump stands for rather than listening to what people say Trump stands for.

Trump stands for making America great.
He intends to do this by attacking the econmic enemies of America: Illegals, Mexico, and China.
He intnds to defeat terrorism by becoming a terroist.
He'll get "the best people.  People you've never even heard of."

Not sure what else.  His speeches and interviews are full of self praise and lack of substance.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 15, 2016, 06:08:28 PM
So, in your mind, Dave, you think that when someone asks Trump what he plans to do for the economy, he answers something along the lines of, "I plan to attack illegals, Mexicans, and China."

Is this correct?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 06:21:08 PM
So, in your mind, Dave, you think that when someone asks Trump what he plans to do for the economy, he answers something along the lines of, "I plan to attack illegals, Mexicans, and China."

Is this correct?
Attack in the sense of their impact on America, not bombs or punches. (Ie. Economically for China, legally for Illegals, etc..)

Deport Illegals.
Raise Tarifs to hurt China's manufacturing export sector
Destroy NAFTA

For example:
He would call up the head of Ford and say congratulations on the new Factory in Mexico but anything that comes to the US is now taxed 30% instantly.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 15, 2016, 06:28:58 PM
Destroy globalism.

Both Rupert Murdoch and George Soros hate Trump. That's good enough for me.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 15, 2016, 06:51:59 PM
Deport Illegals.

They are by definition breaking the law. ILLEGALS. What do you suggest we do with law breakers?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 06:55:58 PM
Deport Illegals.

They are by definition breaking the law. ILLEGALS. What do you suggest we do with law breakers?
Oh I'm all for that one.
In fact, I would hope he suspends a few constitutional amendments to make finding them easier.  That 4th Amendment is annoying when you wanna just bust down a door and demand papers.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 15, 2016, 07:22:35 PM
Are you capable of making a legitimate argument? You've regurgitated news headlines for the past several pages. It wasn't effective then and it won't be effective now.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 07:32:51 PM
Are you capable of making a legitimate argument? You've regurgitated news headlines for the past several pages. It wasn't effective then and it won't be effective now.

What's the point?  Trump could murder someone on 5th ave and you'd still vote for him.  No argument, no matter how valid, would win in this thread.  So I'm just going to keep being lazy and regurgitate headlines. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 09:24:24 PM
Question:
When Trump sets high tariffs from China and removes NAFTA, what will the short and long term effects of prices to consumers be?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 15, 2016, 11:04:06 PM
Are you capable of making a legitimate argument? You've regurgitated news headlines for the past several pages. It wasn't effective then and it won't be effective now.

What's the point?  Trump could murder someone on 5th ave and you'd still vote for him.  No argument, no matter how valid, would win in this thread.  So I'm just going to keep being lazy and regurgitate headlines.

I'm disappointed in you, Dave.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 11:08:41 PM
Are you capable of making a legitimate argument? You've regurgitated news headlines for the past several pages. It wasn't effective then and it won't be effective now.

What's the point?  Trump could murder someone on 5th ave and you'd still vote for him.  No argument, no matter how valid, would win in this thread.  So I'm just going to keep being lazy and regurgitate headlines.

I'm disappointed in you, Dave.
What can I say?  The bombardment has worn me down.  Besides, I left America for several good reasons.  I'm quite Anti-America these days.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 15, 2016, 11:14:28 PM
What can I say?  The bombardment has worn me down.  Besides, I left America for several good reasons.  I'm quite Anti-America these days.

Who would have guessed living in the most xenophobic country on the planet would cause you to hate other countries.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 15, 2016, 11:26:40 PM
What can I say?  The bombardment has worn me down.  Besides, I left America for several good reasons.  I'm quite Anti-America these days.

Who would have guessed living in the most xenophobic country on the planet would cause you to hate other countries.
Well, if you hate America, you should leave.  That's what the internet always told me.
So I did.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 16, 2016, 06:29:53 AM
Donald Trump is the front person for the Knights Templar and the Orange Order (the very reason behind his orange hair and spray tan).

I believe that a deal was struck with the Ancient Scottish Rite of Freemasonry and the Jesuit Order well before the actual electoral process, to have Trump prepare the way for someone else (the very reason for his bizarre behaviour and statements) and that, so far, nobody has yet betrayed this alliance.

Now, does everybody here agree with these numbers:

(http://www.redstate.com/uploads/2016/03/Delegate-Table-for-Redstate-after-Super-Tuesday-Florida.jpg)

I have updated the list
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 16, 2016, 10:50:47 AM
Donald Trump is the front person for the Knights Templar and the Orange Order (the very reason behind his orange hair and spray tan).

I believe that a deal was struck with the Ancient Scottish Rite of Freemasonry and the Jesuit Order well before the actual electoral process, to have Trump prepare the way for someone else (the very reason for his bizarre behaviour and statements) and that, so far, nobody has yet betrayed this alliance.
I'm just curious what the Livonian Order and the Latin Empire have to say about this. I mean, we can't have a proper crusade without those guys, right?

Meanwhile, among the (vaguely) sane: RIP Rubio, I guess I have to cling to Kasich now. :(
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 16, 2016, 11:25:56 AM
Trump wins every state with the exception of Ohio.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPFz_EPVAAAnrK2.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 16, 2016, 11:56:45 AM
(http://www.redstate.com/uploads/2016/03/DownGoesTrump-620x433.jpg)

SexWarrior... take a look at some of the hand gestures/signals made by Trump during many of his interviews, only an expert in the history of secret societies (such as yourself) could have missed out on something like this.


Presumably Trump would like to have his ideas translated into laws/regulations passed by the Congress: and here is his big problem.

If Trump makes to the final, the Democrats will win (not only the White House) both the Senate and the House with a clear majority (all they have to do is run ads featuring Trump's own words, as they have begun to do already).

He won't be able to get anything passed in the House, not to mention the Senate: no wall, no trade deals, nothing at all.


Again, the question I posed a long time ago: why would the GOP put up with Trump's excentric behaviour from the outset, when they could have stopped him in his tracks? Why would they want to lose the majority in both the House and Senate and at the same time be represented in the White House by a person which does not share conservative values?

Please refrain from throwing about users' personal information without permission. ~Snupes
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 16, 2016, 11:59:58 AM
(http://www.redstate.com/uploads/2016/03/DownGoesTrump-620x433.jpg)
SexWarrior... take a look at some of the hand gestures/signals made by Trump during many of his interviews, only an expert in the history of secret societies (such as yourself) could have missed out on something like this.


Presumably Trump would like to have his ideas translated into laws/regulations passed by the Congress: and here is his big problem.

If Trump makes to the final, the Democrats will win (not only the White House) both the Senate and the House with a clear majority (all they have to do is run ads featuring Trump's own words, as they have begun to do already).

He won't be able to get anything passed in the House, not to mention the Senate: no wall, no trade deals, nothing at all.


Again, the question I posed a long time ago: why would the GOP put up with Trump's excentric behaviour from the outset, when they could have stopped him in his tracks? Why would they want to lose the majority in both the House and Senate and at the same time be represented in the White House by a person which does not share conservative values?
They haven't been able to stop him despite trying.  And if they pull him, it'll do more damage than not.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 16, 2016, 12:04:45 PM
They haven't been able to stop him despite trying.  And if they pull him, it'll do more damage than not.

Then, contrary to our friend SexWarrior's ramblings on the influence of secret societies, what you are saying is that Trump has a secret agenda, having been able to fool the entire GOP leadership and run an INDEPENDENT bid for the White House, while posing as a Republican.

Rather, it makes more sense to draw another conclusion: the GOP is using Trump to reach some very specific goals, before they get rid of his candidacy at the convention.

Please refrain from throwing about users' personal information without permission. ~Snupes
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 16, 2016, 12:09:59 PM
ITT: sandokhan sees Dave overtaking his throne as the craziest person on FES, attempts to retake it
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 16, 2016, 02:25:58 PM
If Trump makes to the final, the Democrats will win (not only the White House) both the Senate and the House with a clear majority (all they have to do is run ads featuring Trump's own words, as they have begun to do already).

He won't be able to get anything passed in the House, not to mention the Senate: no wall, no trade deals, nothing at all
Do you have any evidence to support your claims, or are you just going to, quite literally, focus on hand-waving?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 16, 2016, 02:58:03 PM
Sure.

The first argument involves the gender gap.

Public Policy Polling found in late February that 51 percent of male GOP voters favored Trump, compared with just 39 percent of female Republicans: this was way before the new anti-Trump ads featuring his quotes.

Trump's gender gap would likely grow much wider in a general election.

Recently (last week in fact) ABC News published a poll that puts Clinton up 21 points among women over Trump in a head-to-head matchup.

This, however, would be a huge problem for Trump:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-needs-7-of-10-white-guys-213699

Trump would have to win 70 percent of white men voting in November to win, more than any Republican has won, even in landslide victories.

Mitt Romney was badly defeated among women voters. Trump would do even worse.

Barack Obama won women voters by 12 points over Romney in what Gallup called the largest gender gap in a presidential election since 1952. Women were the majority of voters that year, outnumbering men by a 55-45 margin, according to the Center for American Progress.


The second argument should be pretty clear: Trump is wildly unpopular with Republican voters.

As of today, total votes cast so far:

TRUMP:  6,492,202

EVERYONE ELSE:  11,378,071


Exactly at this point in the voting process, four years ago we had:

ROMNEY:   6,018,802

EVERYONE ELSE:   5,365,337

DONALD TRUMP IS DISLIKED ALMOST 2:1 OVER ALL OF HIS RIVALS.


As if this wasn't enough, here is a very important third reason why Trump will lose the general election, the white collar vote:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/22/why-donald-trump-cant-win-the-white-house/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 16, 2016, 03:07:31 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/03/16/donald-trump-will-not-participate-in-fox-news-upcoming-gop-debate/

Quote
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said during a telephone interview on Fox News’ “Fox and Friends” Wednesday morning that he will not participate in the upcoming Fox News GOP debate.

[...]

Trump said that instead of participating in Monday’s debate in Salt Lake City, he will deliver a “major speech” at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

This is so fucking funny. Leaving Fox with the ratings suicide of Cruz vs. Kasich, while also improving his favourability with pro-Israel people. And what is that debate going to be about? Cruz will just attack Kasich on being an asylum supporter because he has nobody else to speak to. He's doing the heavy lifting for Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 16, 2016, 03:40:19 PM
more seriously, i'm not sure i could be much more clear: i think trump is divisive, abrasive, insulting, bullying, and ignorant.  i think his personality is awful, i think his policies are dogshit, and i think the nationalism he's trying to rile up is dangerous and disturbing.  i don't think the other candidates share all of those qualities.  kasich, for example, is even-keeled and smart.  i disagree with many of his policies, but they're at least debatable.  kasich wouldn't completely fracture the gop as trump is doing now.  he wouldn't be a daily embarrassment to our country.  foreign heads of state probably wouldn't fantasize about strangling him.

Well, that's a lot of opinions people clearly disagree with. Sure, you can have your own views, but I think a lot of what you've said is symptomatic of shaming people for holding a different view - perhaps due to not fully understanding their perspective.

You want to hear my take on it? It's precisely because of the leftist culture of shaming that Trump is gaining traction - people see a constant increase in identity politics and silencing of dissenting views, and a public condoning of hate groups like BLM.

you asked me why i would prefer any of the other candidates, and i answered.  perhaps i do not fully understand your perspective, but i genuinely don't understand how stating my opinion of trump is "symptomatic of shaming people for holding a different view."  can you elaborate?

even if my response was unsolicited and incredibly inflammatory/insulting, how would that silence any of your dissenting views? 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 16, 2016, 04:00:13 PM
Recently (last week in fact) ABC News published a poll that puts Clinton up 21 points among women over Trump in a head-to-head matchup.

Early polls don't mean anything. Reagan/Carter had Carter ahead by 20 points at the same stage of the election.

Quote
The second argument should be pretty clear: Trump is wildly unpopular with Republican voters.

Likewise, you can't know how that will affect the general election. Are republican voters not going to vote for Trump if he is the nominee?

Also, republicans alone can't decide an election. They don't turn blue states to red, outside factors do - such as the large independent and democrat turnout Trump is getting. If it were a simple democrat vs. republican match, democrats will win every time.

People also conveniently forget about how the electoral college works whenever demographics are involved. They go on about the Latino vote while also not considering that Latinos are concentrated in states that are securely blue or red. The contested states Trump needs to win are primarily white, the demographic he does best with.

you asked me why i would prefer any of the other candidates, and i answered.  perhaps i do not fully understand your perspective, but i genuinely don't understand how stating my opinion of trump is "symptomatic of shaming people for holding a different view."  can you elaborate?

even if my response was unsolicited and incredibly inflammatory/insulting, how would that silence any of your dissenting views?

I wasn't referring to your opinion, I was referring to some of your earlier posts in this thread. And I'm not trying to say you are as bad as the general leftist mindset - I'm sorry if I led you to believe otherwise.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 16, 2016, 04:08:26 PM
They haven't been able to stop him despite trying.  And if they pull him, it'll do more damage than not.

Then, contrary to our friend SexWarrior's ramblings on the influence of secret societies, what you are saying is that Trump has a secret agenda, having been able to fool the entire GOP leadership and run an INDEPENDENT bid for the White House, while posing as a Republican.

Rather, it makes more sense to draw another conclusion: the GOP is using Trump to reach some very specific goals, before they get rid of his candidacy at the convention.

Please refrain from throwing about users' personal information without permission. ~Snupes

Problem 1: if he wins then removing him is going to look bad.
Problem 2: If the GOP were using him to get someone else elected, why would they not just promote their guy and "discourage" competition?  Also, Trump isn't paving anything, he's taking eveything. 
Problem 3: The only person left is Cruz and if they wanted him, they wouldn't need Trump to get attention nor would it be advantageous.


ITT: sandokhan sees Dave overtaking his throne as the craziest person on FES, attempts to retake it
I'm not crazy.  I really am a member of the Illuminati.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 16, 2016, 04:15:11 PM
Please refrain from throwing about users' personal information without permission. ~Snupes

Then, those users should obey the rules listed elsewhere.


Problem 3: The only person left is Cruz and if they wanted him, they wouldn't need Trump to get attention nor would it be advantageous.

Read my messages again.

There are two basic reasons why they needed the Trump circus before the convention itself.


Early polls don't mean anything. Reagan/Carter had Carter ahead by 20 points at the same stage of the election.

Your analogy is weak for several important reasons:

http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2016/03/15/1980-donald-trump-ronald-reagan/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 16, 2016, 04:23:16 PM
Your analogy is weak for several important reasons:

http://www.redstate.com/dan_mclaughlin/2016/03/15/1980-donald-trump-ronald-reagan/

I used it as an example, not an analogy. Early polls don't mean anything.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 16, 2016, 04:29:03 PM
Read my messages again.

There are two basic reasons why they needed the Trump circus before the convention itself.

Which one?  I don't see it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 16, 2016, 05:25:40 PM
I wasn't referring to your opinion, I was referring to some of your earlier posts in this thread. And I'm not trying to say you are as bad as the general leftist mindset - I'm sorry if I led you to believe otherwise.

oh, no apology necessary, i didn't take you to be attacking me personally.  i'm just generally skeptical of the notion that the the right's access to free speech is being impinged on by the left's access to free speech.  more than anything, i just don't agree that the left has a monopoly on polemical rhetoric, as much as i might agree with you that such rhetoric is counterproductive.  but that's another topic altogether i guess.  more to the point, i'm also skeptical that trump represents any kind of salvation from political correctness and the like.  this is part of what i think makes him so divisive, that even his own party believes that his rhetoric is actually dangerous.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on March 16, 2016, 05:51:04 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/16/media/donald-trump-republican-debate-fox/

Debate cancelled lol
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 16, 2016, 06:12:30 PM
I want to see all the peaceful Trump supporters vs the peaceful liberals.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3495162/Trump-warns-riots-not-handed-Republican-nomination-Kasich-victory-Ohio-virtually-guarantees-race-convention.html
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 16, 2016, 10:25:52 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7CBp8lQ6ro

<Snupes> Asked on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” who he talks with consistently about foreign policy, Trump responded, “I’m speaking with myself, number one, because I have a very good brain and I’ve said a lot of things."
<Snupes> Oh my god, this guy
<Snupes> "I have a very good brain and I've said a lot of things." is absolutely my new favourite quote from him.
<Blanko> Well it's true
<Blanko> His IQ is 156
<Foxbox> He has said a lot of things
<Snupes> So many things
<Snupes> With that good brain of his
<Snupes> Foxbox: How is your brain?
<Franklin> Good brain makes the best words
<Snupes> Beautiful
<Snupes> YOu should run for president
<Saddam> I actually tried looking this IQ claim up
<Franklin> Only Trump and high schoolers think they're smart enough to navigate foreign policy by them self.
<Saddam> I'm seeing a lot of message boards and anonymous people saying his IQ is 156
<Foxbox> Snupes: It's broken
<Saddam> http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2015/08/donald-trump-is-a-genius-but-thats-just-his-iq-3038790.html
<Saddam> This appears to be the source of it
<Saddam> http://thesteadydrip.blogspot.com/2015/08/donald-trump-is-genius-but-thats-just.html
<Saddam> this, actually
<Anastas> Both excellent sources
<Snupes> Based on my estimates I did scientifically, I estimate I have an IQ of roughly ~4,324,052,142
<Foxbox> That is a good IQ
<Snupes> (link)
<Snupes> It's not quite as funny actually hearing that amazing quote coming out of his mouth, but still great
<Snupes> "No way I don't believe someone wrote about Osama Bin Laden before the World Trade Center came down"
<Snupes> Yeah man that Osama, he was a big ol' nobody before that
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 16, 2016, 11:11:35 PM
http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/16/media/donald-trump-republican-debate-fox/

Debate cancelled lol

They cancelled the debate after Kasich pulled out in addition to Trump. Without Trump, Kasich probably got scared he might actually have to answer questions during the debate and say something other than "oh golly gee."

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Snupes on March 16, 2016, 11:13:40 PM
Vaguely related to "I have a very good brain and I've said a lot of things":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aFo_BV-UzI

I find analyses of Trump's speech fascinating.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 16, 2016, 11:17:36 PM
"The Pope says Donald Trump is not a nice person. Donald Trump is a very nice person. "

-Donald Trump
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 17, 2016, 06:49:36 AM
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/03/16/anti-trump-groups-threaten-largest-civil-disobedience-action-of-the-century/

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2016/03/16/cruz-no-surprise-trump-is-trying-to-stir-up-riots-challenges-him-to-debate-in-dc/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 17, 2016, 09:13:10 AM
http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2016/03/what_s_hiding_in_donald_trump_s_tax_return.html
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 17, 2016, 02:29:21 PM
I really don't care about Trump's tax return.  It's a distraction from the actual issues at hand.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 17, 2016, 04:40:45 PM
I really don't care about Trump's tax return.  It's a distraction from the actual issues at hand.

Funny thing is, he's said he was proud of his assets and wealth.  He had to present it when he ran.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 17, 2016, 05:04:36 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/MfyPBZj.jpg)

BLM is promising to loot and riot if God-Emperor Trump becomes POTUS. I'll drench the streets with their blood.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 17, 2016, 05:10:53 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/MfyPBZj.jpg)

BLM is promising to loot and riot if God-Emperor Trump becomes POTUS. I'll drench the streets with their blood.
So no matter what, there will be riots.

Enjoy.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 17, 2016, 05:18:29 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/MfyPBZj.jpg)

BLM is promising to loot and riot if God-Emperor Trump becomes POTUS. I'll drench the streets with their blood.
So no matter what, there will be riots.

Enjoy.

When these roaches scurry into the light I'll be able to personally reduce our welfare budget one bug at a time.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 17, 2016, 05:26:20 PM
When these roaches scurry into the light I'll be able to personally reduce our welfare budget one bug at a time.

The Liberals will be the ones without guns. FYI.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 17, 2016, 06:22:21 PM
When these roaches scurry into the light I'll be able to personally reduce our welfare budget one bug at a time.

The Liberals will be the ones without guns. FYI.
Yeah but we got the hackers on our side. :p
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 18, 2016, 12:13:43 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrqqQAfenUo
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 19, 2016, 12:59:36 AM
https://www.facebook.com/mittromney/posts/10153370698696121

Trumpism
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: nametaken on March 19, 2016, 02:36:06 AM
Sorry people, not that it has ever mattered, but it really is all fools gold this time around.

Only two (Deseil (Paper) 1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vermin_Supreme)) (Unleaded (Plastic) 2 (http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/a1/meet-deez-nuts--year-old-northwest-iowan-running-for/article_97e6d5e3-b924-5eac-8cbd-3097e09df305.html)) candidates really matter. Choose responsibly.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 20, 2016, 11:02:19 AM
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/fixgov/posts/2016/01/18-trump-republican-nominee-independent-bid-wallach (it examines the possibility of not one, but two independent bids for the presidency at the same time)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 21, 2016, 09:19:06 AM
https://youtu.be/gNPjmJR-eDg

Further proof Donald Trump is trolling America.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on March 21, 2016, 02:06:28 PM
https://youtu.be/gNPjmJR-eDg

Further proof Donald Trump is trolling America.

I don't understand the troll.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 21, 2016, 02:10:47 PM
https://youtu.be/gNPjmJR-eDg

Further proof Donald Trump is trolling America.

I don't understand the troll.
Notice how be sounds.  How he speaks.

He's normal.  He speaks clearly and average.  He doesn't self promote as much and isn't outrageous in what he says. 
The Trump of today is crazy by comparison.  That's why I think he's trolling.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on March 21, 2016, 04:11:38 PM
https://youtu.be/gNPjmJR-eDg

Further proof Donald Trump is trolling America.

I don't understand the troll.
Notice how be sounds.  How he speaks.

He's normal.  He speaks clearly and average.  He doesn't self promote as much and isn't outrageous in what he says. 
The Trump of today is crazy by comparison.  That's why I think he's trolling.

Don't mistake someone's awareness and modification of a public persona as a troll.  It is fairly common and not necessarily a sign of dishonesty.  It could very easily be an honest appeal to his perceived voter base.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 21, 2016, 09:26:22 PM
You know its funny, I thought Levee was shitting up my thread, but it was actually Lord "I'm okay with violence" Dave all along.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 22, 2016, 02:24:11 AM
You know its funny, I thought Levee was shitting up my thread, but it was actually Lord "I'm okay with violence" Dave all along.
I'm going to make this thread great again.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 22, 2016, 06:43:13 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-reveals-foreign-policy-team-in-meeting-with-the-washington-post/ (the first major foreign affairs policy issued by Trump)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 22, 2016, 07:55:03 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-reveals-foreign-policy-team-in-meeting-with-the-washington-post/ (the first major foreign affairs policy issued by Trump)

ISIS will be pleased.  So am I, actually.  We need less interferance.  Thats how we stop ISIS attacks against us.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 22, 2016, 08:47:23 AM
Make American great again.

Nato is an anachronism.

Let's deal with the 19 trillion debt.

No more bad trade deals.

Rebuild our infrastructure.

Improve relations with Russia.


Why would Trump venture to make such statements, knowing full well that they could never be fulfilled?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on March 22, 2016, 08:51:33 AM
Don't underestimate God-Emperor Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 22, 2016, 08:55:04 AM
Make American great again.

Nato is an anachronism.

Let's deal with the 19 trillion debt.

No more bad trade deals.

Rebuild our infrastructure.

Improve relations with Russia.


Why would Trump venture to make such statements, knowing full well that they could never be fulfilled?
The first is too vague to matter
The second is an opinion
The rest can be dealt with.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 22, 2016, 12:52:45 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-reveals-foreign-policy-team-in-meeting-with-the-washington-post/ (the first major foreign affairs policy issued by Trump)

ISIS will be pleased.  So am I, actually.  We need less interferance.  Thats how we stop ISIS attacks against us.

Interventionism is what made ISIS in the first place. More interventionism is just going to get you more flavors of ISIS.

I can't wait for Trump to actually stop arming the 'moderate' rebels in Syria. Maybe for once we can actually stabilize the region instead of obliterating anything that resembles a government.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 22, 2016, 01:48:16 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/21/donald-trump-reveals-foreign-policy-team-in-meeting-with-the-washington-post/ (the first major foreign affairs policy issued by Trump)

ISIS will be pleased.  So am I, actually.  We need less interferance.  Thats how we stop ISIS attacks against us.

Interventionism is what made ISIS in the first place. More interventionism is just going to get you more flavors of ISIS.

I can't wait for Trump to actually stop arming the 'moderate' rebels in Syria. Maybe for once we can actually stabilize the region instead of obliterating anything that resembles a government.
Agreed.  Wonder how Israel feels...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on March 22, 2016, 01:59:36 PM
Who cares?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on March 22, 2016, 04:19:56 PM
Who cares?
Alot of people.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 23, 2016, 01:05:46 AM
(https://i.imgur.com/Im2Hai0.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on March 23, 2016, 05:52:27 AM
Quote
06:45 < Rushy> http://imgur.com/pvTZ9Fu
This is my favourite thing ever.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 24, 2016, 11:35:17 AM
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/gop-insiders-nominee-wont-be-limited-to-winner-of-8-states/article/2586357

Party officials and knowledgeable sources have confirmed over the past few days that Rule 40(b) doesn't exist for the purposes of the upcoming convention.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 24, 2016, 08:29:52 PM
It won't really matter in the end. Cruz is out of caucus states he can scam and Kasich barely won his home state. All of the remaining states are primaries and Trump is estimated to garner about 1300 delegates by July.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 24, 2016, 08:58:44 PM
The best case scenario for Trump is as follows: right before June 7, he will be some 100 delegates short, having to rely on winning in California to make up the difference.

He will have to release his tax returns very soon, and also he will have to testify in the university scam cases, not to mention that he will hit a roadblock at the convention.

Trump is still trying to run as an independent, while using the Republican party as a platform: this means that the GOP had this planned from the very start, a sure sign that they are not about to lose the general election to the Democrats, not to mention the House and Senate elections, by supporting a nominee who will have a hard time getting the needed Hispanic, Black and Catholic votes on his side; something else must be going on.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 24, 2016, 11:08:45 PM
Trump is already keeping jobs in America and he isn't even president yet:

http://conservativetribune.com/trump-threatened-ford-huge/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=PostTopSharingButtons&utm_content=2016-03-24&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 24, 2016, 11:55:30 PM
Trump is already keeping jobs in America and he isn't even president yet:

http://conservativetribune.com/trump-threatened-ford-huge/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=PostTopSharingButtons&utm_content=2016-03-24&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons

What actually happened is that Ford's CEO dismissed Trump's hyperbolic claims of the company "leaving" America while also reaffirming that their plans for expanding their market internationally would continue.  The website you linked dishonestly quote-mined him to imply that his "here to stay" line was somehow indicating he was capitulating to Trump.  Watching the interview leaves no doubt that that isn't true:

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000503937
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 25, 2016, 02:08:34 AM
He is maintaining a defensive position and will completely pull back once Trump is president.

Also, this!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGnwlPAZjpM
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 25, 2016, 02:24:09 AM
Trump is already keeping jobs in America and he isn't even president yet:

http://conservativetribune.com/trump-threatened-ford-huge/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=PostTopSharingButtons&utm_content=2016-03-24&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/manufacturing-jobs-are-never-coming-back/

i thought we went over this already.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 25, 2016, 02:05:09 PM
Trump is already keeping jobs in America and he isn't even president yet:

http://conservativetribune.com/trump-threatened-ford-huge/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=PostTopSharingButtons&utm_content=2016-03-24&utm_campaign=websitesharingbuttons

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/manufacturing-jobs-are-never-coming-back/

i thought we went over this already.

They claim we should stop talking about it because "countries are already bringing them back" and then go on to point out higher retail jobs than manufacturing jobs in the US. Yes, everyone even taking cursory glances at the stock exchange or US economy papers knows the service industries (including retail) are dominating and rising in the US. This is exactly what is bad. Service industries are some of the least paying jobs available and are the leading cause of stagnant wages. Manufacturing is a skilled labor; services are not.

Companies are like water. They will go through the easiest path available. If that path is moving to Mexico, they will, if that path is moving to China, they will. If that path is moving their shit back to the US because they can't compete, they will. So this article "guys, guys, stop talking about it!!!" is the epitome of idiocy. Our national participation rate is the lowest its been in decades and we're moving all of the skilled labor overseas. At this rate China will be an economic powerhouse and the US will continue to stagnate or recede.

As a country, the US should only have free trade with countries that have close to or equal economies and similar standards of living. Having free trade with Canada and Europe would be fine, but companies too easily take advantage of Mexicans and Chinese because they're poor and have medieval labor laws.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 26, 2016, 01:52:51 AM
They claim we should stop talking about it because "countries are already bringing them back" and then go on to point out higher retail jobs than manufacturing jobs in the US.

this is a painfully inaccurate description of their argument.  what they actually say is, "Whether or not those manufacturing jobs could have been saved, they aren’t coming back, at least not most of them. How do we know? Because in recent years, factories have been coming back, but the jobs haven’t. Because of rising wages in China, the need for shorter supply chains and other factors, a small but growing group of companies are shifting production back to the U.S. But the factories they build here are heavily automated, employing a small fraction of the workers they would have a generation ago."

trump's position is exactly as asinine as decrying the loss of agriculture jobs in america and talking about how he's going to do policies x, y, and z to bring farm jobs back to america.  it really wouldn't matter what his specific proposal is, and it wouldn't matter if farm jobs were the best and most high-paying jobs ever: machines do those jobs now, and that's the end of that.  farm jobs are never going to supplant manufacturing or service jobs in america ever again.  that's not how our economy works anymore.  likewise, manufacturing isn't going to suddenly displace an industry in which 85% of americans work.

(http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/charts/employment/Services-and-Manufacturing-and-growth-adjusted-for-workforce-population-growth-since-1948.gif)

Service industries are some of the least paying jobs available and are the leading cause of stagnant wages. Manufacturing is a skilled labor; services are not.

this is absolute nonsense and just plain wrong.  the service industry comprises the overwhelming majority of jobs in america, and, as you can see from the graph above, wage stagnation started much later than growth in the service industry.

the service industry is huge, and less than 20% of those jobs are in retail. (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm)  transportation and warehousing, finance and insurance, health care and social assistance, legal services, repair services, accounting and bookkeeping services, architectural and engineering services, management and technical consulting services, scientific research and development services, advertising, office administrative services, motion picture and sound recording industries, telecommunications, everything having to do with the internet; these are all hugely important skilled labor jobs in the service industry, and that's just to name a few.

Companies are like water. They will go through the easiest path available. If that path is moving to Mexico, they will, if that path is moving to China, they will. If that path is moving their shit back to the US because they can't compete, they will. So this article "guys, guys, stop talking about it!!!" is the epitome of idiocy.

after you actually read the article, please tell me more about labor costs, because you're making my point for me.  if firms prefer cheap labor to expensive labor, then they probably really highly prefer automated mechanical labor to human labor, right?  isn't that the most cost effective form of labor?  isn't that kind of, maybe, exactly the 'idiotic' point that 538 is making?

by the way, you know what's so great about service industry jobs over manufacturing jobs?  they can't be outsourced to foreign workers.  what you're saying about the service industry is just plain wrong.  the desire to retool our economy to make it more like it was in the first half of the 20th century is totally beyond the pale.

http://www.nber.org/papers/w14822.pdf
http://www.businessinsider.com/growth-of-us-services-economy-2014-9
http://www.ftpress.com/articles/article.aspx?p=2095734&seqNum=3
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on March 26, 2016, 03:20:04 AM
this is a painfully inaccurate description of their argument.  what they actually say is, "Whether or not those manufacturing jobs could have been saved, they aren’t coming back, at least not most of them. How do we know? Because in recent years, factories have been coming back, but the jobs haven’t. Because of rising wages in China, the need for shorter supply chains and other factors, a small but growing group of companies are shifting production back to the U.S. But the factories they build here are heavily automated, employing a small fraction of the workers they would have a generation ago."

trump's position is exactly as asinine as decrying the loss of agriculture jobs in america and talking about how he's going to do policies x, y, and z to bring farm jobs back to america.  it really wouldn't matter what his specific proposal is, and it wouldn't matter if farm jobs were the best and most high-paying jobs ever: machines do those jobs now, and that's the end of that.  farm jobs are never going to supplant manufacturing or service jobs in america ever again.  that's not how our economy works anymore.  likewise, manufacturing isn't going to suddenly displace an industry in which 85% of americans work.

How many jobs are or are not done by machines is irrelevant. I would rather the work being done by machines in America than Mexicans or Chinese. At least we can be sure the machines aren't subject to copious human rights violations.

this is absolute nonsense and just plain wrong.  the service industry comprises the overwhelming majority of jobs in america, and, as you can see from the graph above, wage stagnation started much later than growth in the service industry.

the service industry is huge, and less than 20% of those jobs are in retail. (http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t17.htm)  transportation and warehousing, finance and insurance, health care and social assistance, legal services, repair services, accounting and bookkeeping services, architectural and engineering services, management and technical consulting services, scientific research and development services, advertising, office administrative services, motion picture and sound recording industries, telecommunications, everything having to do with the internet; these are all hugely important skilled labor jobs in the service industry, and that's just to name a few.

Then I should have said the vast majority of services is unskilled labor, then. A great deal of it could even be done without a bachelor's degree (and the fact that many people think the opposite is true is why degrees are so worthless now).


after you actually read the article, please tell me more about labor costs, because you're making my point for me.  if firms prefer cheap labor to expensive labor, then they probably really highly prefer automated mechanical labor to human labor, right?  isn't that the most cost effective form of labor?  isn't that kind of, maybe, exactly the 'idiotic' point that 538 is making?

The point I'm making is that a company moving its manufacturing to Mexico and China is in fact moving a non-zero amount of jobs. If a company makes its parts using machines, it better damn well be doing it in the United States. We're not exactly running out of room here.

What do you think will happen once China's economy gets done playing a game a catchup to ours? We're going to get economically destroyed in a few decades and we'll be stuck with a population almost entirely consisting of a service industry. The very worse case scenario is that results in a very bad case of brain drain and the best case is that we go into Cold War mk2 with China except we'll be holding the short end of the stick.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 26, 2016, 02:23:10 PM
On the notion of the wimminz:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/26/us/politics/donald-trump.html
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on March 27, 2016, 04:39:16 PM
How many jobs are or are not done by machines is irrelevant. I would rather the work being done by machines in America than Mexicans or Chinese. At least we can be sure the machines aren't subject to copious human rights violations.

The point I'm making is that a company moving its manufacturing to Mexico and China is in fact moving a non-zero amount of jobs. If a company makes its parts using machines, it better damn well be doing it in the United States. We're not exactly running out of room here.

automated labor is super relevant.  i'm saying that bringing lost manufacturing back to america is a fool's errand since it won't actually produce a significant amount of jobs.  it will bring mostly robots and some additional output.  since manufacturing output is already at record levels, we clearly don't need the output.  or, more accurately, we don't need it so badly that we should dramatically raise the prices on consumer goods with a bunch of tariffs and import taxes.

Then I should have said the vast majority of services is unskilled labor, then. A great deal of it could even be done without a bachelor's degree (and the fact that many people think the opposite is true is why degrees are so worthless now).

really?  what about electricians, plumbers, architects, bankers, brokers, pilots, truckers, utilities workers, videographers, every job related to computers/the internet, publishers, writers, the insurance industry, real estate managers, accountants/bookkeepers, engineers of every kind, scientific researchers, business managers, business owners, teachers, medical technicians, nurses, paralegals, dentists, therapists, entertainers, maintenance workers...those are just the ones i can think of off the top of my head.  you're underestimating how vast the service sector is.

not all of those jobs require a college degree (dunno why that matters since i'm pretty sure most manufacturing jobs don't either), but they're all skilled labor positions.  what you're saying is the opposite of the truth.  we're a service economy because we have so many educated and skilled workers who can fill so many different economy niches.  those workers don't like working in factories or farms.

What do you think will happen once China's economy gets done playing a game a catchup to ours? We're going to get economically destroyed in a few decades and we'll be stuck with a population almost entirely consisting of a service industry. The very worse case scenario is that results in a very bad case of brain drain and the best case is that we go into Cold War mk2 with China except we'll be holding the short end of the stick.

do you have any evidence to support any of the claims you make?  this is all utter nonsense.  that's not how any of this works.  either way, crushing our economy under the weight of a bunch of idiotic protectionism (and heralded by the gop...i'm just so utterly confused about what's happening in america right now).  how are tax hikes and increasing prices on consumer goods going to save us from china?  are you people listening to yourselves?

http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/08/china-is-killing-us-and-other-populist-myths/
Quote
When it comes to GDP per capita, the World Bank puts the United States at $54,629 and China at $7,590. (China’s income inequality gap, which seems to matter to people, is wider than the United States’s.) Although the nearly eight years of progressive economics creeping into U.S. policy has degraded economic freedom, the World Economic Forum still ranks the U.S. economy as the third most competitive in the world. China is 28th. I could dig up another 100 metrics of wealth and well-being and they would all say the same exact thing. So, yeah, they’re not “killing us” in any measurable way.

Now, I can explain this to my increasingly shrinking pool of protectionist friends—show them some nifty graphs, maybe—but they won’t care. They’ll tell me we don’t make anything anymore! even if U.S. manufacturing output has quadrupled since 1990. They’ll tell me we’re losing, even though the United States is becoming more competitive in manufacturing through automation and other efficiencies, creating advanced technology products with higher pay. The average American worker is responsible for nearly six times the output of the average Chinese worker. Why would we want to “bring back” an unproductive economy that saps jobs, I’ll ask?  It’s all BS, they’ll say.

They’ll tell me the working class is shrinking, but forget that it’s getting richer. Mark Perry at AEI has done great work on dispelling the myth that the middle class is losing ground. As Thomas Sowell points out today, 51 percent of American families will be in the top 10 percent of income earners at some point during their lifetime. Our wages haven’t gone up, says every politician. Yet if we consider what Americans can buy with a dollar, inflation, and how much employers pay in benefits, this isn’t exactly true for most people. They don’t care.

https://hbr.org/2012/03/shattering-the-myths-about-us-trade-policy
Quote
Manufacturing’s contribution to employment in the U.S. has fallen steadily for over half a century, long before America started running trade deficits. The rate of decline from 2000 to 2010—about 0.4 percentage points a year—was the same per year as during the previous 40 years. Moreover, the United States isn’t unique: Data going back to 1973 show that all industrialized countries, even those with large trade surpluses such as Germany and the Netherlands, have reported a similar trend. (See the exhibit “Manufacturing Employment Has Fallen Steadily and Globally.”)

Many people blame trade for the decline in America’s employment in manufacturing, but our research shows that the drivers of the trend in the U.S. are primarily a combination of two other factors: increasing productivity growth in American manufacturing and a shift in demand away from goods toward services.

America’s deindustrialization is “made in America,” so to speak, and it results primarily from Americans’ spending decisions. While productivity growth has led to lower prices, demand has not grown rapidly enough to prevent a declining trend in employment, the data suggest. The reason is similar to that which reduced employment in agriculture: Faster productivity growth has allowed the U.S. to meet its needs and to redeploy workers to other parts of the economy.

Trade deficits in manufactures have played only a partial role in reducing employment—and almost no role over the past decade. Using input-output tables that list the job content of production, we found that in 1998 and 2010, replacing imports with domestically produced goods would have increased manufacturing employment by 2.6 million and 2.9 million in each of those years, respectively. However, over that period, manufacturing employment would have declined by 5.7 million jobs with balanced trade—just 5% less than the 6 million jobs that were lost with the trade deficits that the U.S. actually experienced. (See the exhibit “Balanced Trade Won’t Offset Job Losses Permanently.”)

The main cause, again, is the increasing growth in labor productivity. In current dollars, the manufacturing trade deficit was twice as large in 2010 as it was in 1998, but the output per worker was higher, so the job content of each dollar of deficit has been falling rapidly. Even if the U.S. had enjoyed balanced trade in the past two decades, the share of manufacturing in employment would still have tumbled.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on March 30, 2016, 04:27:12 PM
How about a Trump/Sanders ticket?

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/30/10869974/trump-sanders-economic-history

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 01, 2016, 12:24:52 AM
automated labor is super relevant.  i'm saying that bringing lost manufacturing back to america is a fool's errand since it won't actually produce a significant amount of jobs.  it will bring mostly robots and some additional output.  since manufacturing output is already at record levels, we clearly don't need the output.  or, more accurately, we don't need it so badly that we should dramatically raise the prices on consumer goods with a bunch of tariffs and import taxes.

The prices of consumer goods are eventually going to raise regardless. China is spoofing their currency to make huge gains in the current trading game. They're essentially fueling America's consumerism and in the end it isn't going to be good for the people or the economy of the United States. Talking about record high manufacturing isn't indicative of our situation, since our population employment participation rate is the lowest it has been since the 80's.


really?  what about electricians, plumbers, architects, bankers, brokers, pilots, truckers, utilities workers, videographers, every job related to computers/the internet, publishers, writers, the insurance industry, real estate managers, accountants/bookkeepers, engineers of every kind, scientific researchers, business managers, business owners, teachers, medical technicians, nurses, paralegals, dentists, therapists, entertainers, maintenance workers...those are just the ones i can think of off the top of my head.  you're underestimating how vast the service sector is.

I'll admit here that my definition of the services sector has been vastly poisoned by E-Trade and their search engine. On E-Trade, the services sector consists of retail, sales, and some maintenance service industries. It completely excludes financial, healthcare, technology, energy since these are considered separate stock sectors. This disconnect is really a result of me using my working definition of "services sector" versus the academic approach.

do you have any evidence to support any of the claims you make?  this is all utter nonsense.  that's not how any of this works.  either way, crushing our economy under the weight of a bunch of idiotic protectionism (and heralded by the gop...i'm just so utterly confused about what's happening in america right now).  how are tax hikes and increasing prices on consumer goods going to save us from china?  are you people listening to yourselves?

Historically, tariffs and import tax is actually very good for American interests and time and time again protectionism has proved to be an effective economic ideal. The EU, for example, exists almost entirely as a protectionist entity for European nations. The VAT is a form of 'idiotic' protectionism that's actually done very well.

This additionally proves very true in the manufacturing industry. The majority of Japanese vehicles are actually manufactured in the US, but this was not always true. When they were originally released to US markets many American vehicle companies suffered across the board. Harley Davidson wouldn't even be around if not for a tariff raise (http://www.nytimes.com/1983/04/02/business/us-raises-tariff-for-motorcycles.html)

Quote
When it comes to GDP per capita, the World Bank puts the United States at $54,629 and China at $7,590. (China’s income inequality gap, which seems to matter to people, is wider than the United States’s.) Although the nearly eight years of progressive economics creeping into U.S. policy has degraded economic freedom, the World Economic Forum still ranks the U.S. economy as the third most competitive in the world. China is 28th. I could dig up another 100 metrics of wealth and well-being and they would all say the same exact thing. So, yeah, they’re not “killing us” in any measurable way.

Now, I can explain this to my increasingly shrinking pool of protectionist friends—show them some nifty graphs, maybe—but they won’t care. They’ll tell me we don’t make anything anymore! even if U.S. manufacturing output has quadrupled since 1990. They’ll tell me we’re losing, even though the United States is becoming more competitive in manufacturing through automation and other efficiencies, creating advanced technology products with higher pay. The average American worker is responsible for nearly six times the output of the average Chinese worker. Why would we want to “bring back” an unproductive economy that saps jobs, I’ll ask?  It’s all BS, they’ll say.

They’ll tell me the working class is shrinking, but forget that it’s getting richer. Mark Perry at AEI has done great work on dispelling the myth that the middle class is losing ground. As Thomas Sowell points out today, 51 percent of American families will be in the top 10 percent of income earners at some point during their lifetime. Our wages haven’t gone up, says every politician. Yet if we consider what Americans can buy with a dollar, inflation, and how much employers pay in benefits, this isn’t exactly true for most people. They don’t care.

I'm talking about the future and you're busy quoting the present. Fantastic.

Trade deficits in manufactures have played only a partial role in reducing employment—and almost no role over the past decade. Using input-output tables that list the job content of production, we found that in 1998 and 2010, replacing imports with domestically produced goods would have increased manufacturing employment by 2.6 million and 2.9 million in each of those years, respectively. However, over that period, manufacturing employment would have declined by 5.7 million jobs with balanced trade—just 5% less than the 6 million jobs that were lost with the trade deficits that the U.S. actually experienced. (See the exhibit “Balanced Trade Won’t Offset Job Losses Permanently.”)

Tell that to the people who lost their job when a company moved to Mexico or China. I know plenty of them, and when a man stands up and says "I can bring your job back" they're going to vote for him.

The main cause, again, is the increasing growth in labor productivity. In current dollars, the manufacturing trade deficit was twice as large in 2010 as it was in 1998, but the output per worker was higher, so the job content of each dollar of deficit has been falling rapidly. Even if the U.S. had enjoyed balanced trade in the past two decades, the share of manufacturing in employment would still have tumbled.

If this is the legitimate issue, why aren't the plants just closing altogether? They're moving, not closing, so don't you think there might be some reason they might want to be in Mexico or China instead of here?

It is also very important to remember China is an enemy of the United States.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 01, 2016, 02:37:02 PM
Trump’s delegate count dropping by 50 as a result of what happened during this week’s CNN townhall meeting

"Trump reneged on his pledge to support the GOP candidate. The reason is that by doing so, he may have jeopardized his hold on South Carolina’s 50 delegates.

As Time reports, the Palmetto State was one of several that required candidates to pledge their loyalty to the party’s eventual nominee in order to secure a slot on the primary ballot. Though Trump won all of the state’s 50 delegates in the Feb. 20 primary, anti-Trump forces are plotting to contest their binding to Trump because of his threat on the pledge Tuesday."

South Carolina Republican Party Chairman Matt Moore gave credence to the anti-Trump claims: “Breaking South Carolina’s presidential primary ballot pledge raises some unanswered legal questions that no one person can answer,” he told Time. “However, a court or national convention Committee on Contests could resolve them. It could put delegates in jeopardy.”

http://time.com/4278295/donald-trump-loyalty-pledge-south-carolina-delegates/

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on April 03, 2016, 10:52:41 PM
The prices of consumer goods are eventually going to raise regardless. China is spoofing their currency to make huge gains in the current trading game. They're essentially fueling America's consumerism and in the end it isn't going to be good for the people or the economy of the United States. Talking about record high manufacturing isn't indicative of our situation, since our population employment participation rate is the lowest it has been since the 80's.

i disagree with all of this.

Historically, tariffs and import tax is actually very good for American interests and time and time again protectionism has proved to be an effective economic ideal. The EU, for example, exists almost entirely as a protectionist entity for European nations. The VAT is a form of 'idiotic' protectionism that's actually done very well.

This additionally proves very true in the manufacturing industry. The majority of Japanese vehicles are actually manufactured in the US, but this was not always true. When they were originally released to US markets many American vehicle companies suffered across the board. Harley Davidson wouldn't even be around if not for a tariff raise (http://www.nytimes.com/1983/04/02/business/us-raises-tariff-for-motorcycles.html)

the comparison to reagan's motorcycle tariff isn't apples-to-apples.  that tariff affected a single us manufacturer (and only a narrow subset of consumers), and harley davidson only requested temporary relief in order to restructure their whole firm.  they even successfully lobbied the reagan administration to end the tariff after just a few years.

the bigger picture, though, is that motorcycle consumers are not an integral part of the us economy.  increasing the average price of motorcycles doesn't really affect anything.  trump's tariffs would affect goods-consumers who are vital to production and employment.

a better analogy would be to the steel industry, which was heavily tariffed by the bush administration in 2002 in the face of a decline in us steel production and employment.  the effect was pretty much exactly what you would expect.  us steel consumers (a huge sector of the economy) were hit hard by a massive spike in steel prices.  according to the top source, "More American workers lost their jobs in 2002 to higher steel prices than
the total number employed by the U.S. steel industry itself."

http://www.tradepartnership.com/pdf_files/2002jobstudy.pdf
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-107hhrg81372/html/CHRG-107hhrg81372.htm

also, vats aren't tariffs: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c7211.pdf

I'm talking about the future and you're busy quoting the present. Fantastic.

Tell that to the people who lost their job when a company moved to Mexico or China. I know plenty of them, and when a man stands up and says "I can bring your job back" they're going to vote for him.

this is exactly my point.  you're all going to go out and vote for someone just because he promised you he'd get you your job back.  but you never stopped to ask if he could actually fulfill that promise.  that's no different than the college kids voting for bernie because woooooooo free college and health care for all!

i'm criticizing the notion that china is 'killing us' economically.  you're asserting, without warrant, things about the future that bear no resemblance to the way things actually are.

and, i agree that people losing their jobs is a bad thing.  that's why i don't think we should jump headlong into poorly conceived economic policy that will end up costing more jobs than it saves.  losing 2 service sector jobs to save 1 manufacturing job is bad policy if you care about jobs, and that's what trump is selling.

why aren't the plants just closing altogether? They're moving, not closing

some do close.  some move abroad.  some outsource particular components or processes abroad.  some stay here and earn lower margin.  some restructure and lay-off workers.  there's not some sudden mass exodus of manufacturing firms all to china. 

It is also very important to remember China is an enemy of the United States.

if you insist.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 06, 2016, 06:27:15 PM
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/8wmfl1/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-tales-from-the-trump-archive---donald-trump-s-history-of-misogyny

what
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on April 07, 2016, 12:11:09 PM
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1239484916092364&id=354522044588660


Paul Ryan: A better candidate than Trump or Cruz.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 07, 2016, 12:13:57 PM
http://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-poses-dilemma-for-new-york-republicans-1457104385
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 07, 2016, 03:41:07 PM
Since there are only a few primaries left, we can calculate the total number of delegates alloted for each candidate, up until June 7:

Trump 964

Cruz 794

Kasich 178

That is, Trump will need to win at least 273 delegates, out of a total of 303, come June 7.

Let us remember that in Pennsylvania only 17 of the total 71 delegates are bounded, and Cruz has been working hard to meet with and talk to the possible unbounded delegates at various meetings.

In New Jersey, just like in New York (where the most important factor will be the Rubio voters), Trump is not especially popular with Republicans, even though they will vote for him.

The best case scenario right now for Trump in California is an even split of the total vote with Cruz; a more realistic outcome is Cruz winning at least 100 delegates there.


Let also remember that Trump will have to take the stand in just a few months, in the university scam case.

Also he will have to release his tax returns BEFORE the Cleveland convention.


An independent bid by Trump will only take place with Sanders on the same ticket (or both running independent bids simultaneously), I believe (both are independent, and share many common views), which will weaken the Democrats' chances considerably.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on April 08, 2016, 09:59:03 AM
Trumps wall plan:

Quote
What is in Trump's plan?
Trump says as president, he would block the estimated $24 billion in remittances that Mexicans in the U.S. send back home until Mexico pays $5 billion to $10 billion for the construction costs of the wall.
Once the money is deposited, he says he would allow the flow of remittances to resume to Mexico again. In his campaign memo outlining the plan (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/pay-for-the-wall), Trump writes, "It's an easy decision for Mexico. Make a one-time payment of $5 - $10 billion to ensure that $24 billion continues to flow into their country year after year."


Couple of things I have issues with.
1. $10 Billion isn't enough for a wall the size and strength he proposes.  Unless he uses cheap Mexican labor.
2. He proposes that any transfer of money to Mexico requires proof of legal residency.  And how do we do this?  Drivers Licenses are easily faked (so the haters say) and anything else is a passport or a birth certificate.  Yes, I'm talking about natural born citizens.  Which means if you need to send money to anyone in Mexico for any reason, you gotta prove you're a US citizen or legal alien.  This includes businesses.
3. How the hell does all the legal and illegals sending money into Mexico come close to $24 Billion?
According to this:
http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/mexican-immigrants-united-states


There are about 12 Million Mexicans in the US. 

Each one (including children) must send about $2,000 a year to Mexico.  Doesn't seem likely to me.   My guess is that the number includes business transactions as well, so Trump is proposing we stop buying anything from Mexico via wire transfer.  Which is going to...
1. Piss off the banks who rely on the fees.
2. Piss off the businesses who rely on buying ANYTHING outside of the US.

3. Piss off the foreign voters who want to send money to family. PS. my wife was in that boat.  Had to send money to her Norwegian account every month to pay her loans when she lived here.  Does that mean she'd have to prove she's legal every time she sent money via paypal?

4. A one time payment?  To who?  Trump?  Or Congress? And how long will THAT take before it's used on something else? 



And, of course, this requires congressional approval.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 09, 2016, 06:08:05 PM
http://allnewsintheworld.com/2016/04/08/ted-cruz-risks-primary-disqualification-in-new-jersey-other-late-primary-states-charges-professor-victor-williams/

Rafael Cruz is a dirty Canadian rat and soon he might be taken off the ballot for failing to meet the definition of "natural born citizen." Constitutional lawyer, my ass. Go back to Canada, Rafael.

Quote
Williams’ fraud charges had quick effect in New Jersey. Rather than accepting Cruz’s ballot petition when filed last week, the Secretary of State (Kim Guadagno) scheduled the unusual Administrative Law hearing for April 11. The Canadian-born Cruz must prove that he did not falsely certify his eligibility for office.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on April 09, 2016, 06:12:19 PM
http://allnewsintheworld.com/2016/04/08/ted-cruz-risks-primary-disqualification-in-new-jersey-other-late-primary-states-charges-professor-victor-williams/

Rafael Cruz is a dirty Canadian rat and soon he might be taken off the ballot for failing to meet the definition of "natural born citizen." Constitutional lawyer, my ass. Go back to Canada, Rafael.

Quote
Williams’ fraud charges had quick effect in New Jersey. Rather than accepting Cruz’s ballot petition when filed last week, the Secretary of State (Kim Guadagno) scheduled the unusual Administrative Law hearing for April 11. The Canadian-born Cruz must prove that he did not falsely certify his eligibility for office.


Aaahahahhahahahahhahahahha!!!!


Where are the birthers now?!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 09, 2016, 07:04:08 PM
Stop getting your news from crank sites, Rushy.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 09, 2016, 07:35:13 PM
Stop getting your news from crank sites, Rushy.

Oh, sorry Saddam, I forgot you're incapable of searching for information over the Internet.

Here, the law professor they spoke about is a writer on Huff Post, which I'm sure is your number one source of reality these days: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/not-eligible-to-play-top-_b_9554784.html

He announced his full intentions of charging Cruz in court and now other people are writing articles on how that's coming along. That's how news works, Saddam. They write about new things happening as they develop. Shocking, I know, but try to think about it for a bit and maybe it'll clear up the fog in your head.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 09, 2016, 09:41:36 PM
Cruz is under no more serious scrutiny about his eligibility to be president than Obama, and the cries of a political activist on the Internet (along with the clickbait websites repeating his claims) are not going to change that.  Also, Kim Guadagno is the lieutenant governor of New Jersey, not the Secretary of State.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 09, 2016, 10:19:53 PM
Cruz is under no more serious scrutiny about his eligibility to be president than Obama, and the cries of a political activist on the Internet (along with the clickbait websites repeating his claims) are not going to change that.  Also, Kim Guadagno is the lieutenant governor of New Jersey, not the Secretary of State.

Except the fact that Cruz was born in Canada is actually established and that there is precedent for naturalization not counting as 'natural born'. This is why it was a big deal whether Obama was born in Kenya or not, because if he was, then he wasn't eligible to be president.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 10, 2016, 02:04:56 AM
He wasn't naturalized.  He's a citizen because his mother was a citizen.  Also, calling Cruz "Rafael," presumably to emphasize his foreignness, is very immature.  It reminds me of the people here who always referred to Pope Benedict as "Ratzinger," undoubtedly just because that had "rat" in it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 10, 2016, 07:56:27 AM
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/04/07/five-things-must-know-new-york-gop-primary/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 10, 2016, 03:29:24 PM
He wasn't naturalized.  He's a citizen because his mother was a citizen.  Also, calling Cruz "Rafael," presumably to emphasize his foreignness, is very immature.  It reminds me of the people here who always referred to Pope Benedict as "Ratzinger," undoubtedly just because that had "rat" in it.

He started going by "Ted" for the sole reason that he knew Texas wouldn't vote for "Rafael" There's power in a name, Saddam, and using the right name at the right time and place can ruin a man; especially a man running on a platform of voters that aren't fond of foreigners.

nomen est omen

Also, he is a citizen because his mother was a citizen, but he was born in a foreign nation on foreign soil (e.g., not a military base). That doesn't meet the "natural born" requirement in the Constitution. Natural born is defined in English common law as "such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England" and while obviously you could say "lol Canada is a dominion of the crown of England!" the concept when applied to the US means you must be born within the dominion of the US. Unless he was born in an Embassy or on a military base, that requirement isn't meet overseas.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 10, 2016, 03:43:10 PM
Also, calling Cruz "Rafael," presumably to emphasize his foreignness, is very immature.
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about John Oliver and his audience calling Trump "Drumpf"?

Pope Benedict as "Ratzinger," undoubtedly just because that had "rat" in it.
That seems far-fetched. Wojtyła and Bergoglio had/have to deal with it too. It's a bit rude, sure, but I strongly doubt it has anything to do with the sound of "Ratzinger".
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on April 10, 2016, 04:46:50 PM
There's power in a name, Saddam,

This is true, just ask Donald Drumpf!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 10, 2016, 05:47:55 PM
This is true, just ask Donald Drumpf!
Yeah, that rich German dude clearly planned for his descendants to rise to power... during the Thirty Years' War...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on April 10, 2016, 05:55:04 PM
Make Donald Drumpf again!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on April 10, 2016, 05:59:46 PM
It's the current year!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 10, 2016, 07:31:38 PM
He started going by "Ted" for the sole reason that he knew Texas wouldn't vote for "Rafael"

As I told you on IRC, this isn't true.  He's gone by Ted at least since 1992, as shown by a thesis he wrote back then:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/480888/cruz-thesis.pdf

Quote
Also, he is a citizen because his mother was a citizen, but he was born in a foreign nation on foreign soil (e.g., not a military base). That doesn't meet the "natural born" requirement in the Constitution. Natural born is defined in English common law as "such as are born within the dominions of the crown of England" and while obviously you could say "lol Canada is a dominion of the crown of England!" the concept when applied to the US means you must be born within the dominion of the US. Unless he was born in an Embassy or on a military base, that requirement isn't meet overseas.

"Natural born" isn't defined in the Constitution, while federal law extends birthright citizenship to those born either on American soil or to an American parent.  I'll concede that it is possible that a court might rule that you
have to be born on American soil to be eligible to run for president, but the chances of that happening - especially in the next few months - are very remote.

Out of curiosity, how do you feel about John Oliver and his audience calling Trump "Drumpf"?

That was pretty immature too, but at the very least, it was intended to just give him a goofy name that nobody could take seriously, rather than a xenophobic hint that he wasn't one of us.

Quote
That seems far-fetched. Wojtyła and Bergoglio had/have to deal with it too. It's a bit rude, sure, but I strongly doubt it has anything to do with the sound of "Ratzinger".

Maybe.  I just remember a few people here always calling him that, and seemingly finding excuses to repeat the name.  Moreso than calling Francis "Bergoglio," certainly, but then again, he hasn't come under nearly as much criticism as Benedict.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 10, 2016, 08:51:36 PM
As I told you on IRC, this isn't true.  He's gone by Ted at least since 1992, as shown by a thesis he wrote back then:

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/480888/cruz-thesis.pdf

Okay, I still hate Rafael.


"Natural born" isn't defined in the Constitution, while federal law extends birthright citizenship to those born either on American soil or to an American parent.  I'll concede that it is possible that a court might rule that you
have to be born on American soil to be eligible to run for president, but the chances of that happening - especially in the next few months - are very remote.

"Natural born" is defined by both English common law (which is historically accepted to be the basis on the Constitution) and Supreme Court precedence (United States v. Wong Kim Ark 1898). There are also many other examples:

Quote
“…A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens…”

Here’s how Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black, who wrote the majority opinion in the citizenship case of Afroyim v. Rusk, said it in Rogers v Bellei (1971):

"Although those Americans who acquire their citizenship under statutes conferring citizenship on the foreign-born children of citizens are not popularly thought of as naturalized citizens, the use of the word “naturalize” in this way has a considerable constitutional history. Congress is empowered by the Constitution to “establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization,” Art. I, Sec 8. Anyone acquiring citizenship solely under the exercise of this power is, Constitutionally speaking, a naturalized citizen.”

Here’s how Justice William O. Douglas said it in Schneider V. Rusk (1964):

“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.”

And in Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9 (1913), the Supreme Court said:

"Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency.”

In U.S. v. Fisher , 48 F S 7, the court said:

"A naturalized citizen, broadly speaking, enjoys all the rights of the native citizen, except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction, Const. rt. 2, par 1, cl 4 and this constitutional exception is limited alone to the occupancy of the office of President of the United States.”

Like I said, Saddam, it isn't in question whether or not a foreign-born person who was not on a military base or embassy can be president (the answer being that they can't). The only question here is why this isn't a bigger deal and why the only person willing to challenge Cruz on it is a law professor in New Jersey.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on April 10, 2016, 09:42:11 PM
But the Case of Weedin v Chin Bow, Chief Justice Taft wrote the opinion of the court:

Quote
...The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/169/649) 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890, establishes that at common law in England and the United States the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli, that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute; that by the statute of 7 Anne (1708) c. 5, § 3, extended by the statute of 4 George II (1731) c. 21, all children born out of the ligeance of the Crown of England whose fathers were or should be natural-born subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children, respectively, were deemed natural-born subjects of that kingdom to all intents and purposes whatsoever. That statute was extended by the statute of 13 George III (1773) c. 21, to foreign-born grandchildren of natural-born subjects but not to the issue of such grandchildren. 169 U. S. 671, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/169/671) 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890. De Geer v. Stone, 22 Ch. D. 243, 252; Dicey, Conflict of Laws, 178, 781. The latter author says (page 782) that British nationality did not pass by descent or inheritance beyond the second generation. These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence.

So according to English Common Law, the son of a citizen who was born abroad is considered a natural born citizen.  The grandson of a natural born citizen is also a natural born citizen if born abroad.  Cruz's father is Cuban.  His mother is American.  His Grandfather on his mother's side is... unknown.  If he is a natural born citizen, then he should be ok by English common law.  If not, then he is not.


Odd the Republicans aren't making a bigger issue of this.  What does Rush Limbaugh think?  Oh, he's a Cruz supporter, thinks McCain and Cruz had the same birth issue (cause US military bases are the same as a civilian hospital in Canada apparently) and thinks the whole birther issue is funny.  Guess it's only an issue if it's a Democrat born in Hawaii.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 10, 2016, 09:48:36 PM
But the Case of Weedin v Chin Bow, Chief Justice Taft wrote the opinion of the court:

Quote
...The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/169/649) 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890, establishes that at common law in England and the United States the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli, that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute; that by the statute of 7 Anne (1708) c. 5, § 3, extended by the statute of 4 George II (1731) c. 21, all children born out of the ligeance of the Crown of England whose fathers were or should be natural-born subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children, respectively, were deemed natural-born subjects of that kingdom to all intents and purposes whatsoever. That statute was extended by the statute of 13 George III (1773) c. 21, to foreign-born grandchildren of natural-born subjects but not to the issue of such grandchildren. 169 U. S. 671, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/169/671) 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890. De Geer v. Stone, 22 Ch. D. 243, 252; Dicey, Conflict of Laws, 178, 781. The latter author says (page 782) that British nationality did not pass by descent or inheritance beyond the second generation. These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence.

So according to English Common Law, the son of a citizen who was born abroad is considered a natural born citizen.  The grandson of a natural born citizen is also a natural born citizen if born abroad.  Cruz's father is Cuban.  His mother is American.  His Grandfather on his mother's side is... unknown.  If he is a natural born citizen, then he should be ok by English common law.  If not, then he is not.


Odd the Republicans aren't making a bigger issue of this.  What does Rush Limbaugh think?  Oh, he's a Cruz supporter, thinks McCain and Cruz had the same birth issue (cause US military bases are the same as a civilian hospital in Canada apparently) and thinks the whole birther issue is funny.  Guess it's only an issue if it's a Democrat born in Hawaii.

The Common Law precedence doesn't matter because I later found actual Supreme Court rulings on the definition of "Natural Born" in the Constitution. The Common Law basis only comes into play if there is no Court precedence, which isn't the case anymore.

I'm sure the same people looking for Obama's birth certificate are now sweeping Cruz's foreign birth under the rug.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on April 10, 2016, 09:51:29 PM
But the Case of Weedin v Chin Bow, Chief Justice Taft wrote the opinion of the court:

Quote
...The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/169/649) 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890, establishes that at common law in England and the United States the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli, that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute; that by the statute of 7 Anne (1708) c. 5, § 3, extended by the statute of 4 George II (1731) c. 21, all children born out of the ligeance of the Crown of England whose fathers were or should be natural-born subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children, respectively, were deemed natural-born subjects of that kingdom to all intents and purposes whatsoever. That statute was extended by the statute of 13 George III (1773) c. 21, to foreign-born grandchildren of natural-born subjects but not to the issue of such grandchildren. 169 U. S. 671, (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt//text/169/671) 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890. De Geer v. Stone, 22 Ch. D. 243, 252; Dicey, Conflict of Laws, 178, 781. The latter author says (page 782) that British nationality did not pass by descent or inheritance beyond the second generation. These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence.

So according to English Common Law, the son of a citizen who was born abroad is considered a natural born citizen.  The grandson of a natural born citizen is also a natural born citizen if born abroad.  Cruz's father is Cuban.  His mother is American.  His Grandfather on his mother's side is... unknown.  If he is a natural born citizen, then he should be ok by English common law.  If not, then he is not.


Odd the Republicans aren't making a bigger issue of this.  What does Rush Limbaugh think?  Oh, he's a Cruz supporter, thinks McCain and Cruz had the same birth issue (cause US military bases are the same as a civilian hospital in Canada apparently) and thinks the whole birther issue is funny.  Guess it's only an issue if it's a Democrat born in Hawaii.

The Common Law precedence doesn't matter because I later found actual Supreme Court rulings on the definition of "Natural Born" in the Constitution. The Common Law basis only comes into play if there is no Court precedence, which isn't the case anymore.
But there hasn't been a ruling, has there?  I see the opinions being stated and you're right, there is court precedence, but until it's actually ruled one way or another, it's up in the air, isn't it? 



Also, because I think it's interesting:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/275789-trump-primary-processes-on-both-sides-corrupt

Trump is supporting Bernie because Bernie keeps winning but calls the entire process of picking a representative corrupted saying the the Republicans are worse than the Democrats.

Quote
"Because the system is corrupt. And it's worse on the Republican side."

It's nice to see a Republican state that their party is more corrupt than the Democrats.  :)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 10, 2016, 10:33:29 PM
Yeah after the Colorado gaffe I agree with him. If you can win an entire state only to have every delegate turn around and support Cruz, then obviously something is wrong with the voting system.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 11, 2016, 02:31:53 AM
@Rushy: That's not how courts work.  When a court makes a ruling, the legal precedent that is set is no more than the subject of the case itself.  The opinions that judges write are meant to explain their reasoning and how they arrived at their decision.  They're not necessarily irrelevant to future cases, but you can't just take an individual line from the opinion on a separate (albeit related) subject and treat it as though it constitutes a ruling in and of itself.  If that were the case, there would be a hundred different potential rulings contained in every new ruling the courts delivered, and many of them would contradict each other.  It's forbidden by the Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case_or_Controversy_Clause) for courts to issue rulings on hypothetical or potential future cases, in any event.  There needs to be a case on the specific subject of whether or not someone born outside of the United States is eligible to run for president before we can say that there's precedent on the subject, and so far the people who are trying to press this issue (including Victor Williams) are stuck on the stage of trying to prove that they have legal standing to challenge Cruz's eligibility.

And English common law, while certainly a major influence on the writing of the Constitution, is not an authority in this country.  A judge might take it into consideration if they were ruling on the subject, but it means very little by itself.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 11, 2016, 05:33:45 AM
That was pretty immature too, but at the very least, it was intended to just give him a goofy name that nobody could take seriously, rather than a xenophobic hint that he wasn't one of us.
There is nothing silly about "Drumpf" - it's a perfectly typical German surname. The only thing that's notable about it is exactly its origin. Your argument really boils down to "it's not xenophobic when I find it funny".
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 11, 2016, 01:53:16 PM
To the fickle American electorate, "Drumpf" does sound silly, just as "Trump" sounds impressive.  Even if you disagree, that was Oliver's argument.  As he described it:

Quote
Drumpf is much less magical. It’s the sound produced when a morbidly obese pigeon flies into the window of a foreclosed Old Navy. Drumpf. It’s the sound of a bottle of store-brand root beer falling off the shelf in a gas station minimart.

There was nothing about making fun of it for sounding German.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on April 11, 2016, 02:39:33 PM
fwiw, i had no clue it was a german name until this thread.  i thought it was just supposed to sound like a funny name.

americans arent well versed in 19th century german surnames
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 11, 2016, 02:56:58 PM
To the fickle American electorate, "Drumpf" does sound silly, just as "Trump" sounds impressive.  Even if you disagree, that was Oliver's argument.
I'm seeing a trend here. "Ratzinger" sounds funny, as is "Drumpf". Are you sure you (or the fickle American electorate) don't just find German names hilarious? If so, how can you argue that this stems from anything other than blatant xenophobia? Dummköpfe.

I quite like Rosenbaum's take on this situation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/03/john-olivers-donald-drumpf-jokes-play-on-the-same-ugly-xenophobia-trump-does/

americans arent well versed in 19th century german surnames
You're looking at the 17th century here. Yes, it's that petty. John Oliver is making fun of someone for changing their surname nearly 400 years ago.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on April 11, 2016, 03:50:34 PM
You're looking at the 17th century here. Yes, it's that petty. John Oliver is making fun of someone for changing their surname nearly 400 years ago.

eh, i really think the joke oliver is making is not "he's german!" but "lol drumpf is a dumb sounding name."  i don't think the bit would work if trump's surname had once been muller or weber or something.

tbh i also don't care about rushy calling cruz rafael; i'm only suggesting that americans are even dumber than you give us credit. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on April 11, 2016, 04:46:45 PM
John Oliver is a comedian. The Drumpf thing was a joke. I wouldn't be the least surprised if it was intended to be a riff on the Donald's xenophobic attitude. It is funny to me that a conservative columnist , not to mention some people here, are taking it so seriously.

Yes, we find many foreign names humorous sounding. If you want to argue there's insidious racism motivating that you are entitled to your opinion, but I rather doubt it's something that is specific to Americans.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 11, 2016, 06:30:01 PM
John Oliver is a comedian.
That's a rather generous description.

The Drumpf thing was a joke. I wouldn't be the least surprised if it was intended to be a riff on the Donald's xenophobic attitude. It is funny to me that a conservative columnist , not to mention some people here, are taking it so seriously.
What conservative columnist?

Also, I'm just sick of the "racism/sexism/xenophobia is ok when we do it, it's just a prank bro!" attitude that the American left so loves to flaunt. You guys need to pick a side and stick to it - anything else is cheating.

Yes, we find many foreign names humorous sounding. If you want to argue there's insidious racism motivating that you are entitled to your opinion, but I rather doubt it's something that is specific to Americans.
I mean, given Americans' general level of awareness regarding the outside world, there's plenty of reason to suspect that you finding German names funny is rooted in xenophobia, and that it's specific to Americans.

i'm only suggesting that americans are even dumber than you give us credit. 
Fair enough.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on April 11, 2016, 06:49:03 PM

Also, I'm just sick of the "racism/sexism/xenophobia is ok when we do it, it's just a prank bro!" attitude that the American left so loves to flaunt. You guys need to pick a side and stick to it - anything else is cheating.


It sounds like you are saying context and intention have no effect on the meaning of a communication.  If that were the case, a lot of humor in general would be completely impossible.  John Oliver was clearly engaging in satire around the brand value of the Trump name; he basically said as much at the outset.  If you don't appreciate it, that is fine, but don't pretend that this sort of humor is indistinguishable from serious comments. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 11, 2016, 08:05:19 PM
It sounds like you are saying context and intention have no effect on the meaning of a communication.
No, I'm saying that xenophobic jokes are still xenophobic, regardless of being jokes. "It's just a joke lol!" is a very poor excuse if you're trying to criticise someone else for their (alleged) xenophobia.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on April 11, 2016, 11:01:17 PM
yeah americans are super xenophobic of 17th century germans

ffs wtf are you even talking about

John Oliver is a comedian.
That's a rather generous description.
(http://i.imgur.com/vOlA2Ru.png?1)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 12, 2016, 01:01:47 AM
yeah americans are super xenophobic of 17th century germans

ffs wtf are you even talking about

1. makes fun of a german name because it "sounds funny"
2. wants a clearly American assimilated man and his family to revert to his "hilarious" german name
3. calls the man with german heritage hitler

The evidence adds up in the favor of these people being germanphobes.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on April 12, 2016, 02:00:50 AM
change 'germay' to any other country and the joke is exactly as funny.  change 'drumpf' to 'muller' and the joke doesn't make any sense at all.  it's not about germany.  it's about the name 'drumpf' sounding dumb.

have y'all actually seen the bit?  the setup is that name trump literally sounds like success.  the punchline is that his ancestral name sounds goofy and silly and stupid.  i really don't get how anyone could watch that bit and think that the joke has anything to do with the name being german, or even foreign.  he even uses the word onomatopoeia to describe why it's funny.

https://youtu.be/DnpO_RTSNmQ?t=18m
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 12, 2016, 02:11:17 AM
change 'germay' to any other country and the joke is exactly as funny.  change 'drumpf' to 'muller' and the joke doesn't make any sense at all.  it's not about germany.  it's about the name 'drumpf' sounding dumb.

have y'all actually seen the bit?  the setup is that name trump literally sounds like success.  the punchline is that his ancestral name sounds goofy and silly and stupid.  i really don't get how anyone could watch that bit and think that the joke has anything to do with the name being german, or even foreign.  he even uses the word onomatopoeia to describe why it's funny.

Sounds like a thin excuse for Germanphobia to me. Why are you so afraid of Germans, gary?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on April 12, 2016, 02:41:51 AM
Why are you so afraid of Germans, gary?

have you ever smelled a german?  gross.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 12, 2016, 03:13:41 AM
Why are you so afraid of Germans, gary?

have you ever smelled a german?  gross.

There it is, folks. Germanphobia. I propose we ban Gary for being a racist, bigot, sexist, Germanphobic ableist cis pig.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on April 12, 2016, 03:54:26 AM
Why are you so afraid of Germans, gary?

have you ever smelled a german?  gross.

There it is, folks. Germanphobia. I propose we ban Gary for being a racist, bigot, sexist, Germanphobic ableist cis pig.

psh that's so vanilla.  i'm also ageist, orientalist, imperialist, anthropocentric, and urbanist.

but, as my avatar attests, not homophobic.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 12, 2016, 09:03:24 AM
Rushy pretty much covered the subject by now, but hey:

change 'germay' to any other country and the joke is exactly as funny.  change 'drumpf' to 'muller' and the joke doesn't make any sense at all.
Look, this may make super perfect sense to you, but I'm not a xenophobe, so you may have to spell it out for me. The name "Drumpf" sounds like any other German name. The joke doesn't make any sense at all regardless of what name or country you pick1 -- unless you accept the axiom that foreign names are somehow funny.

If I am to assume good faith, your argument is that if his ancestor's name2 was a German name that's more commonly3 known in America, the joke would no longer be funny. In other words, if only his name was less foreign and more like our proper names, the joke would no longer be funny to you.

it's not about germany.  it's about the name 'drumpf' sounding dumb.
Explain how it sounds dumb without invoking nationalities or native languages. In other words, explain it without invoking xenophobia.

he even uses the word onomatopoeia to describe why it's funny.
Damn, he must be so educated and smart. Too bad he's still a bigoted asshole.

Imagine the outrage "comedians" of Oliver's calibre would try to spin if it turned out that "Clinton" meant something funny in a foreign language, or if someone tried calling her "Glympton" to make it sound "funny" (I still don't get it - am I doing it right?). It would be so xenophobic and sexist! But this is okay, because it's about Trump, and Trump is a big meanie.

You people are pathetic.

1 - Except for the "lol Trump is Hitler" bit, of course - his great great great [...] grandfather being German totally helps there.
2 - Four hundred years ago.
3 - Currently. I mean, (https://i.imgur.com/MFYqY4D.jpg) it's 2016!!!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on April 12, 2016, 02:41:10 PM
good faith
lol you're currently pretending to be offended by something just to stick it to someone.

Explain how it sounds dumb without invoking nationalities or native languages. In other words, explain it without invoking xenophobia.
ok...i'll let oliver speak for himself:

"Trump does sound rich.  It's almost onomatopoeic.  Trump! is the sound of a mouthy servant being slapped across the face with a wad thousand dollar bills.  Trump! is the sound of a cork popping on a couple's Champaignneversary: the day renovations to the wine cellar were finally completed...Drumpf is much less magical. It’s the sound produced when a morbidly obese pigeon flies into the window of a foreclosed Old Navy.  Drumpf! It’s the sound of a bottle of store-brand root beer falling off the shelf in a gas station minimart."

i'm going to make up a name: boof.  i've never heard this name before, and if it's real, then i have no idea where it comes from.  the joke is exactly the same if you replace drumpf with boof:

"Trump does sound rich.  It's almost onomatopoeic.  Trump! is the sound of a mouthy servant being slapped across the face with a wad thousand dollar bills.  Trump! is the sound of a cork popping on a couple's Champaignneversary: the day renovations to the wine cellar were finally completed...Boof is much less magical. It’s the sound produced when a morbidly obese pigeon flies into the window of a foreclosed Old Navy.  Boof! It’s the sound of a bottle of store-brand root beer falling off the shelf in a gas station minimart."

the origin of the name is irrelevant.  drumpf, like boof, is an onomatopoeia.  that's the joke.  the joke doesn't work with any funny sounding name.  it that's drumpf is an onomatopoeia.  for example, bumgarner is a really funny sounding german name, but the joke wouldn't make sense at all using that name.

Imagine the outrage "comedians" of Oliver's calibre would try to spin if it turned out that "Clinton" meant something funny in a foreign language, or if someone tried calling her "Glympton" to make it sound "funny" (I still don't get it - am I doing it right?). It would be so xenophobic and sexist! But this is okay, because it's about Trump, and Trump is a big meanie.

You people are pathetic.

which people?  people who aren't offended by the john oliver bit? 

if the clintons used to be the comptons, i would think that was p funny.  would you not?  that's a funny juxtaposition.

the problem here is that you're all bothered about things you just assume i must believe and not what i've actually said. you think liberals are too easily offended, and of course i must be liberal because i said a liberal thing, and somehow you conceive of this as giving a liberal a taste of his own medicine/demonstrating a contradiction/whatever.  that's all that's happening here.  but, i'm not in the 'everything is offensive and terrible' group, so maybe leave me out of that debate.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 12, 2016, 03:48:05 PM
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/04/12/donald-trump-faces-delegate-armageddon-arkasas/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 12, 2016, 06:16:24 PM
lol you're currently pretending to be offended by something just to stick it to someone.
I'm not really offended. I'm just not a fan of making fun of people's nationalities, much less a fan of "haunting" someone with the nationality of their forefathers 4 centuries ago.

It's more of an "ummm that's not in good taste" thing, not a "OH NO YOU DIDN'T" thing. It does disgust me in the same way an old mouldy sandwich would. It's strongly unappealing, but not outrageous.


ok...i'll let oliver speak for himself:

[...]

i'm going to make up a name: boof.  i've never heard this name before, and if it's real, then i have no idea where it comes from.  the joke is exactly the same if you replace drumpf with boof:

[...]

the origin of the name is irrelevant.  drumpf, like boof, is an onomatopoeia.  that's the joke.  the joke doesn't work with any funny sounding name.  it that's drumpf is an onomatopoeia.  for example, bumgarner is a really funny sounding german name, but the joke wouldn't make sense at all using that name.
Okay, so he'd make another joke about how funny and German his name is. I don't see where you're going with this.

which people?  people who aren't offended by the john oliver bit?
People who pretend to care about discrimination, but are happy to discriminate when it suits them. As I said: pick a side.

if the clintons used to be the comptons, i would think that was p funny.  would you not?  that's a funny juxtaposition.
I don't get it.

the problem here is that you're all bothered about things you just assume i must believe and not what i've actually said.
Actually, I was criticising Saddam and Rushy. You just kind of rocked up and assumed I'm talking about you. It's probably because you're so easily offen-

you think liberals are too easily offended, and of course i must be liberal [...]
oh

Seriously, though, until you started really insisting to force yourself into the discussion, my responses to you consisted of a quick correction (17th century, not 19th) and a "Fair enough". Each of these was tacked on at the end of one of my posts. That's not to say I don't want you to get involved in the conversation, but it's rich to assume that I was talking about you.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on April 12, 2016, 10:08:35 PM
You are right, there's absolutely no line between what is appropriate for a comedian to say and what is appropriate for a potential world leader to say and we are all hypocrites for laughing at John Oliver while at the same time  calling Drumpf a monster.  Omg I'm like totes for seriously. Thank you for opening my mind to what an intolerant bigot I am.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 12, 2016, 10:40:50 PM
Oh, don't worry, I wasn't hoping to convince you. I was mostly curious to see if I'm missing something, or if you're just racist (so much that you're willing to go back 400 years in your desperate search. You're beating birthers on that front by quite a margin!). But no matter how many opportunities I give you to explain yourselves, all you have to say is "it's just a prank bro!" or "wow how ridiculous!"

EDIT: Actually, no, I take it back. You did partially admit it.

Yes, we find many foreign names humorous sounding. If you want to argue there's insidious racism motivating that you are entitled to your opinion

Yes, I'm entitled to my opinion that things which are xenophobic by definition are, in fact, xenophobic. Thank you for allowing me to consider that truism.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on April 13, 2016, 01:26:23 AM
For it to be -phobic, it must by definition, be driven by fear. Laughing at a foreign name does not, by necessity, satisfy that definition. Onomatopoeia can easily be another explanation, which is the reason John Oliver offers, so why do you dismiss that out of hand?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on April 13, 2016, 02:45:21 AM
Okay, so he'd make another joke about how funny and German his name is. I don't see where you're going with this.
i'm saying that the joke has nothing to do with the nationality of the name.  that's why the oliver bit never mentions the nationality of the name or even that it's foreign.  the joke is about the way these two words sound in contrast to one another.  it's not even about the name sounding funny because it's foreign.

wouldn't the joke be just as funny/sensical if, hypothetically, the name 'drumpf' was an english name?  how would the bit be any different?

if the clintons used to be the comptons, i would think that was p funny.  would you not?  that's a funny juxtaposition.
I don't get it.
clinton is a prestigious name, and compton is a shitty neighborhood in los angeles.  'clinton' isn't an onomatopoeia, and i'm not a comedy writer; best i could do off the top of my head.  the point is that i would definitely find equal humor in a bit about how the clinton's used to have a name that sounded distinctly un-prestigious. 

You just kind of rocked up and assumed I'm talking about you.
only when you were talking directly to me.  you quoted me and asked me to imagine the outrage at a similar joke involving hilary, then said "you people are pathetic."  you're taking my remarks out of context.  the statements about you being bothered are in response to "you people are pathetic."  prior to that i entered the conversation at my leisure because it's a web forum and not a dinner party.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on April 13, 2016, 09:08:15 AM
You have to work really hard to assign racism to what Oliver said, really hard. But the master hair splitter has put in that work, and it’s a marvel. Missing/twisting the point is an art form only this boy has the motivation to master, or perhaps I am being ungenerous, and when he says “I don’t get it”  maybe this is the case, humour (going on every post of his I’ve read) does seems an alien concept (racism?).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on April 13, 2016, 12:52:03 PM
Oh, don't worry, I wasn't hoping to convince you. I was mostly curious to see if I'm missing something, or if you're just racist (so much that you're willing to go back 400 years in your desperate search. You're beating birthers on that front by quite a margin!). But no matter how many opportunities I give you to explain yourselves, all you have to say is "it's just a prank bro!" or "wow how ridiculous!"

EDIT: Actually, no, I take it back. You did partially admit it.

Yes, we find many foreign names humorous sounding. If you want to argue there's insidious racism motivating that you are entitled to your opinion

Yes, I'm entitled to my opinion that things which are xenophobic by definition are, in fact, xenophobic. Thank you for allowing me to consider that truism.

I can't speak for others, but for me it's pure unbridled racism. When Taylor Swift said that haters gunna hate (hate hate hate hate), she was literally talking about me.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 13, 2016, 03:52:28 PM
For it to be -phobic, it must by definition, be driven by fear.
You're being overly restrictive. While most -phobias are indeed defined by fear, words such as homophobia and xenophobia have clearly evolved past that constraint. A dislike or prejudice are sufficient (https://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/xenophobia), it doesn't have to be rooted in fear.

wouldn't the joke be just as funny/sensical if, hypothetically, the name 'drumpf' was an english name?  how would the bit be any different?
Hypothetically, yes; but that ignores like half of society. You wouldn't find an English name that sounds like something something being slapped across the face with wet money???, because you're already familiar with English names. The unfamiliarity is pretty much required for the joke to work. (And likely the reason why I'm not finding it funny no matter how hard I squint my eyes - I don't find German names to be unfamiliar or uncommon)

Onomatopoeia can easily be another explanation, which is the reason John Oliver offers, so why do you dismiss that out of hand?
I don't dismiss it - I simply point out that it's completely irrelevant. The explanations of "German names are funny" and "German names are funny because they sound like farting noises or whatever" both share the same element of xenophobia.

You have to work really hard to assign racism to what Oliver said, really hard. But the master hair splitter has put in that work, and it’s a marvel. Missing/twisting the point is an art form only this boy has the motivation to master, or perhaps I am being ungenerous, and when he says “I don’t get it”  maybe this is the case, humour (going on every post of his I’ve read) does seems an alien concept (racism?).
Ah yes, another fantastic response of the "it's just a prank bro!!!!" variety. Thank you for your excellent contribution.

I'll have you know that I have an excellent sense of humour. I have the best humour. Everyone knows that, and everyone loves my humour. And I can make America humorous again. We will have jokes again if I win. And I will win, because I'm a winner.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 13, 2016, 04:19:05 PM
Can we just agree to disagree and move on?  Discuss this instead:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/us/politics/donald-trump-losing-ground-tries-to-blame-the-system.html
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 13, 2016, 04:32:47 PM
Can we just agree to disagree and move on?
But calling liberals racist is hilarious.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/us/politics/donald-trump-losing-ground-tries-to-blame-the-system.html
Meh. The two main parties in America are private entities and they can do whatever the heck they want. It was always an innate risk associated with that structure. However, as far as I understand, there's nothing stopping Trump/Sanders from running as independents, and if the system truly is rigged, they should stand a good chance to succeed (and perhaps change the system while they're at it)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on April 13, 2016, 04:36:20 PM
Baby Jebus, Sandokhan's prediction is coming true...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on April 13, 2016, 04:41:22 PM
Can we just agree to disagree and move on?
But calling liberals racist is hilarious.
lol called it

I'll have you know that I have an excellent sense of humour. I have the best humour. Everyone knows that, and everyone loves my humour. And I can make America humorous again. We will have jokes again if I win. And I will win, because I'm a winner.
2016 joke of the year
/sincere
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 13, 2016, 05:04:40 PM
Intermission: if you Google "zodiac killer" an image of Ted Cruz is genuinely the first image on the Google images tab.

This fun fact brought to you by TRUMP. continue whatever it is you guys are arguing about now.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Snupes on April 13, 2016, 07:03:43 PM
wouldn't the joke be just as funny/sensical if, hypothetically, the name 'drumpf' was an english name?  how would the bit be any different?
Hypothetically, yes; but that ignores like half of society. You wouldn't find an English name that sounds like something something being slapped across the face with wet money???, because you're already familiar with English names. The unfamiliarity is pretty much required for the joke to work. (And likely the reason why I'm not finding it funny no matter how hard I squint my eyes - I don't find German names to be unfamiliar or uncommon)

I don't necessarily agree with that, there are English names I find to sound goofy and onomatopoeic despite familiarity, like "Walsh", which sounds to me like someone being submerged in a vat of oil, despite the fact that there are several Walsh's in my life. Honestly it's the only one I can think of off the top of my head, but "Drumpf" has the distinct advantage of the "pf" sound at the end, and is the only German name I can think of that sounds goofy to me. It sounds vaguely like an onomatopoeia for light contact, like "thump", "boff", whatever. Unfamiliarity isn't necessary at all for that kind of humour, just a lucky collection of letters in the right order. Like how I find the surname "Welch" to be awkwardly funny because it sounds vaguely like some kind of squelching sound.

I mean, "everything is racist" is great and all, I know Tumblr has imparted that wisdom onto the world, but I think sometimes things are a lot more simple.

EDIT: I've always found "Bush" kind of humourous, mainly because it sounds like it'd be a sound effect for punching in either the '60s Batman or the comics.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Benjamin Franklin on April 14, 2016, 12:47:15 AM
Can we just agree to disagree and move on?  Discuss this instead:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/us/politics/donald-trump-losing-ground-tries-to-blame-the-system.html
Dumb people don't understand politics and instead of using Google and maybe learning something they get mad.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 14, 2016, 01:10:09 AM
Dumb people don't understand politics and instead of using Google and maybe learning something they get mad.

Ah yes, the classic "hurr durr dems da rulez" defense. This reminds me of Hitchhiker's Guide to Galaxy, where Arthur's house was about to be demolished to build a bypass and it was insisted that this was perfectly okay because the ruling regarding the demolition was readily available.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on April 14, 2016, 02:53:59 PM
Oh, don't worry, I wasn't hoping to convince you.

Oh but you really have. I find foreign names with weird strings of letters funny, sometimes hilarious (I laughed out loud when I saw your real name for the first time, for example) and I never realized until now what a horrible person that makes me. I see now, American comedy has firm roots in racism and John Oliver is no better than a 1940s minstrel show.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 14, 2016, 04:36:09 PM
Oh but you really have. I find foreign names with weird strings of letters funny, sometimes hilarious (I laughed out loud when I saw your real name for the first time, for example) and I never realized until now what a horrible person that makes me. I see now, American comedy has firm roots in racism and John Oliver is no better than a 1940s minstrel show.
Another victory for common sense and reason; although I feel like you're denigrating minstrel shows here by comparing them to John Oliver. You still have much to learn.

I mean, seriously, you're comparing this:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/Minstrel_PosterBillyVanWare_edit.jpg)

to this:

(https://i.imgur.com/MFYqY4D.jpg)

I've always found "Bush" kind of humourous, mainly because it sounds like it'd be a sound effect for punching in either the '60s Batman or the comics.
And yet you don't see hashtag campaigns demanding that Bush changes his surname to something else to make it more or less "funny".
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on April 14, 2016, 06:25:09 PM

I've always found "Bush" kind of humourous, mainly because it sounds like it'd be a sound effect for punching in either the '60s Batman or the comics.
And yet you don't see hashtag campaigns demanding that Bush changes his surname to something else to make it more or less "funny".

You also don't see Bush contending for the GOP nomination. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 14, 2016, 06:52:03 PM
You also don't see Bush contending for the GOP nomination.
Jeb had his prime, even if it didn't end so well. So, uh, yeah, you do see Bush contending for the GOP nomination.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on April 14, 2016, 09:03:12 PM
You also don't see Bush contending for the GOP nomination.
Jeb had his prime, even if it didn't end so well. So, uh, yeah, you do see Bush contending for the GOP nomination.

He conceded over a month ago... He is not contending, and he never had the level of national attention or national incredulity that Trump had/has either.  For very obvious reasons, which you are likely over looking on purpose, Trump is a preferred targetfor satire and Bush is not.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 14, 2016, 09:47:34 PM
Remember that Oliver was arguing that Trump owes at least part of his popularity to the semantic and phonetic appeal of his name.  It wouldn't make sense from a satirical point of view to be making jokes about what Bush or Clinton's names ought to be.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: DuckDodgers on April 14, 2016, 10:10:03 PM
Oliver was also making the claim that Trump was being hypocritical when he attacked Jon Stewart for his name change from Leibowitz to Stewart.  Granted, the situations aren't the same, Stewart changed his while Trump's ancestor was the one who made the change. Without that attack on Stewart's name, I'd be surprised if Drumpf would have ever found the light of day.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4372969,00.html
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 14, 2016, 11:50:50 PM
The Florida prosecutor's office decided not to charge Corey Lewandowski and now Fields once again looks like an idiot playing the victim. Discuss.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on April 15, 2016, 02:05:01 AM
The Florida prosecutor's office decided not to charge Corey Lewandowski and now Fields once again looks like an idiot playing the victim. Discuss.

Literally what?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: model 29 on April 15, 2016, 03:19:15 AM
But calling liberals racist is hilarious.
Because a lot of them are.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on April 15, 2016, 09:38:39 AM
But calling liberals racist is hilarious.
Because a lot of them are.
Ye, but just look how desperate they are to defend themselves.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 15, 2016, 09:52:46 AM
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/434087/ted-cruz-winning-marco-rubio-delegates

"We all know about RNC Rule 40(b) by now, stating that any candidate who wants to be on the ballot for a Convention floor vote in Cleveland at the Republican National Convention will have to have won a majority of delegates in 8 states. So far, both Trump and Cruz have done that, and no others have any realistic possibility of doing it.
However, the wording of the rule as laid out by The National Review’s Brendan Bordelon and Eliana Johnson brings up the possibility that Rule 40(b) could possibly be used by Cruz delegates to shut Trump out of the ballot:

The rules currently require a candidate to secure a petition featuring the signature of a majority of the delegates from eight states in order to be nominated…. [C]ollecting the signatures of a majority of the delegates in the required number of states would take a strong, organized effort on the ground in Cleveland, and Rubio is unlikely to pull it off.

According to one longtime RNC member, “Just because you won a state doesn’t necessarily mean you’re going to have enough people in that delegate slate signing your petition. It’s a matter of high panic even when you’re Mitt Romney or George W. Bush.”


According to this rehash of Rule 40(b), the candidates need to arrive in Cleveland and then get a majority of delegates from 8 states to sign petitions for them to be on the ballot. This process is so difficult that it causes headaches for EASY nomination winners like George W. Bush and Mitt Romney!

So the question is – what if Trump can’t find majorities of delegates on the convention floor from 8 different states that are willing to sign petitions for him to be on the floor vote ballot?  Is it possible that Cruz-supporting and Rubio-supporting and #NeverTrump delegates could combine on the floor to keep Trump from getting the required majority of signatures on petitions from 8 states? Could they keep him from being voted on at all at the convention? Is it possible that Ted Cruz could be the only name on a Cleveland floor ballot?"
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 15, 2016, 01:27:32 PM
The Florida prosecutor's office decided not to charge Corey Lewandowski and now Fields once again looks like an idiot playing the victim. Discuss.

Literally what?

Corey Lewandowski, Trump's campaign manager, was accused of assault/battery by Michelle Fields during a Florida rally. It was big news in March because Trump refused to fire Lewandowski for "assaulting a journalist."
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 15, 2016, 02:33:27 PM
Latest NY poll:

http://politicalmachination.com/poll-new-york-2016-presidential-primary-2/

Trump under 50%.

Also Trump will experience difficulties in the following districts: 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27.

http://politicalmachination.com/trump-ahead-new-york-winner-take-uncertain/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on April 15, 2016, 02:37:34 PM
The Florida prosecutor's office decided not to charge Corey Lewandowski and now Fields once again looks like an idiot playing the victim. Discuss.

Literally what?

Corey Lewandowski, Trump's campaign manager, was accused of assault/battery by Michelle Fields during a Florida rally. It was big news in March because Trump refused to fire Lewandowski for "assaulting a journalist."

Seems like standard American histrionics.  Lewandowski maybe grabbed her arm?  He should apologize like a big boy and everyone move on.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 15, 2016, 03:04:41 PM
The Florida prosecutor's office decided not to charge Corey Lewandowski and now Fields once again looks like an idiot playing the victim. Discuss.

Literally what?

Corey Lewandowski, Trump's campaign manager, was accused of assault/battery by Michelle Fields during a Florida rally. It was big news in March because Trump refused to fire Lewandowski for "assaulting a journalist."

Seems like standard American histrionics.  Lewandowski maybe grabbed her arm?  He should apologize like a big boy and everyone move on.

Why would he apologize? Apologies are for things you shouldn't have done. In my opinion she should have been tackled on the spot for crossing the secret service perimeter. A quick pull away from a presidential candidate seems like a light punishment.

Fox News just fired her so I guess there's that.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on April 15, 2016, 04:15:53 PM
In my opinion she should have been tackled on the spot for crossing the secret service perimeter.

Is there a secret service perimeter for someone seeking a presidential nomination?  Anyway, a well-worded apology could have made it go away quickly without really taking culpability for the action. For example, apologize for over-stepping the secret service, it could have make him seem like a take charge kind of guy who cuts around the red tape, etc...

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 15, 2016, 05:42:23 PM

Is there a secret service perimeter for someone seeking a presidential nomination?
...yes. It's quite literally the reason the Florida prosecutor's office dropped the case: she crossed the secret service line.


  Anyway, a well-worded apology could have made it go away quickly without really taking culpability for the action. For example, apologize for over-stepping the secret service, it could have make him seem like a take charge kind of guy who cuts around the red tape, etc...

Security is part of the campaign manager's job. Again, Cory Lewandowski did absolutely nothing wrong and he has nothing to apologize for. This isn't the first time Michelle Fields acted like someone assaulted her and it probably won't be the last; she is a professional victim.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 16, 2016, 07:40:52 AM
http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/04/14/in-georgia-donald-trump-supporters-sound-the-alarm-perhaps-too-late/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 16, 2016, 05:32:39 PM
Latest anti-Trump ad in NY:

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2016/04/16/watch-crushing-new-cruz-ad-airing-new-york-great-awesome/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 16, 2016, 05:45:52 PM
Latest, large poll in NY state, district by district:

http://39w38kcpdu73bfyfh2rez9zw.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/PM_Graphs2_Trump-ahead-2-1.png
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 17, 2016, 05:44:59 PM
https://www.scribd.com/doc/309313864/CBS-News-2016-Battleground-Tracker-California-April-17-2016

*poll is CBS news

Donald Trump leading California poll by 18 points. Looks like Cruz stealing the Colorado election didn't have a net positive effect. 49% of California Republicans want to vote Trump and 49% believe the nomination process "hasn't been fair." 49% also think he is more electable in November, which means that the 49% number appears to be a solid support base since they're answering consistently.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 17, 2016, 06:10:26 PM
You might have done some homework before posting.

The CBS/YouGov poll is worthless. The only poll that matters was included in my previous message.

Online poll of registered voters. Worthless.

"The CBS News 2016 Battleground Tracker is a panel study based on interviews conducted on the internet of registered voters in California, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, New York,Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The poll was conducted by YouGov, an online polling organization."

"The first wave was fielded between September 3-10, 2015 [...] In the eleventh wave of our primary surveys, respondents in California, New York, and Pennsylvania were contacted April 13-15, 2016.Respondents were selected from YouGovs and two other online panels. These are “opt-in” panels which are open for anyone to join. However, YouGov also randomly selected persons from voter registration lists who had previously voted in primary elections and contacted them by phone. A total of 24017 registered voters were contacted by phone and the YouGov sample includes 1821 phone recruits."

Registered voters... not even registered Republicans (they might have specified at least that).

Moreover, we have this.

'The bad news is that CBS and YouGov have teamed up to systematically overstate Trump’s support in pretty much every primary they have polled this year.

They predicted that Cruz would win Texas by 11% – he ended up winning by over 17%. They predicted that Trump would win Virginia by 13% – he ended up winning by less than 3%. They predicted that Trump would tie Kasich in Ohio, but he ended up losing by 11%. They predicted that Cruz would win Wisconsin by 6%, but he ended up winning by 13%.

In four of the seven primaries CBS News/YouGov have polled thus far, they have missed either Trump’s support or Cruz’s support (or both) outside the margin of error. Given that any polling company that misses on the margin of error more than one time out of every 20 has a systematic problem, we can safely assume that this latest poll from YouGov is likewise trash."


Don't worry, I am not a Cruz supporter.

I was just able to correctly read the entire Republican primary from the very start, using my knowledge of secret societies and their influence upon the electoral process.


For the California primary, you need this:

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-sac-skelton-ted-cruz-delegates-20160407-story.html

http://www.breitbart.com/california/2016/04/13/ted-cruz-win-california-primary-tom-del-beccaro/

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2016/03/27/new-california-poll-shows-tight-race-cruz-trump/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on April 17, 2016, 10:27:47 PM
Oliver was also making the claim that Trump was being hypocritical when he attacked Jon Stewart for his name change from Leibowitz to Stewart.  Granted, the situations aren't the same, Stewart changed his while Trump's ancestor was the one who made the change. Without that attack on Stewart's name, I'd be surprised if Drumpf would have ever found the light of day.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4372969,00.html

Welcome back, DD.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on April 18, 2016, 10:06:00 AM
I don't understand why people think 'Drumpf' sounds funnier than 'Trump,' especially when the latter is a synonym for 'fart.'

To me, it is like "Of course, Donald Fart sounds like success, but would he have gotten so far with a name like 'Donald Farah?"
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 20, 2016, 10:17:00 AM
Since there are only a few primaries left, we can calculate the total number of delegates alloted for each candidate, up until June 7:

Trump 964

Cruz 794

Kasich 178

That is, Trump will need to win at least 273 delegates, out of a total of 303, come June 7.

Let us update this count.

Trump 994 (we add 30 more NY delegates)

Cruz 764

(of course, the real count, where Trump loses all SC delegates, and other delegates from AR, LA and FL, is different)

What we have left is this:

California 172
Indiana 57
New Jersey 51
Washington 44
Maryland 38
Nebraska 36
West Virginia 34
South Dakota 29
Connecticut 28
Oregon 28
Montana 27
New Mexico 24
Rhode Island 19
Pennsylvania 17 +54
Delaware 16

red = very difficult states/delegates for Trump
yellow = tough campaign to gain at least a majority
orange = Christie's political machine

This leaves California, as the last place where any candidate can gain a significant number of delegates.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 20, 2016, 02:20:47 PM
Donald Trump's campaign violated the following federal regulations:

49 CFR § 229.46
49 CFR § 213.307
In particular, of 229.46:
(a) Before each trip, the railroad shall know the following: (1) The locomotive brakes and devices for regulating pressures, including but not limited to the automatic and independent brake control systems, operate as intended;
And 213.307:
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and §§ 213.329, 213.337(a) and 213.345(c), the following maximum allowable operating speeds apply: […]

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on April 20, 2016, 04:53:39 PM
I believe we'll have a contested convention. 

I wish Paul Ryan wanted to run but I can understand why he wouldn't.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on April 22, 2016, 03:02:36 PM
NOT a Trump fan, but I WILL vote for over the Serial Liar or the Math Dropout.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on April 22, 2016, 03:24:59 PM
He wasn't naturalized.  He's a citizen because his mother was a citizen.  Also, calling Cruz "Rafael," presumably to emphasize his foreignness, is very immature.  It reminds me of the people here who always referred to Pope Benedict as "Ratzinger," undoubtedly just because that had "rat" in it.

He started going by "Ted" for the sole reason that he knew Texas wouldn't vote for "Rafael" There's power in a name, Saddam, and using the right name at the right time and place can ruin a man; especially a man running on a platform of voters that aren't fond of foreigners.

nomen est omen

Then how the hell did someone named Barrack Hussein Obama get elected? His last name rhymed with OSAMA for Christ's sake! lol..

Ted Cruz has a lot more problems than his name. Obama showed that charm can get a lot of things overlooked. Cruz is about as likeable as a wet fart.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 26, 2016, 02:33:04 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHS-K7OuLAc
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on April 26, 2016, 01:46:50 PM
Math is hard.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on April 26, 2016, 02:46:48 PM
Math is hard.

Which is why FE supporters avoid it like rabies.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 27, 2016, 01:49:20 AM
Trump wins all five "Super Tuesday 3" states by over 50%

(http://pre09.deviantart.net/2804/th/pre/f/2016/117/5/2/the_donald_by_sharpwriter-da0eh6b.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on April 27, 2016, 06:21:56 AM
I think Shandokan is right: the GOP is going to have a contested convention just to stop Trump.

I wonder if his call to have Bernie run as an independant means he really does think Bernie was treated unfairly or if he thinks he'll lose if its just Clinton.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on April 27, 2016, 06:45:51 AM
I wonder if his call to have Bernie run as an independant means he really does think Bernie was treated unfairly or if he thinks he'll lose if its just Clinton.

He's just laying the groundwork for getting the Berniebot vote in the general election.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on April 27, 2016, 07:24:18 AM
I wonder if his call to have Bernie run as an independant means he really does think Bernie was treated unfairly or if he thinks he'll lose if its just Clinton.

He's just laying the groundwork for getting the Berniebot vote in the general election.
I doubt it.  The berniebots hate Trump.  You can't make the rebels lkke Vader just because he's Luke's father.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on April 27, 2016, 07:41:52 AM
I wonder if his call to have Bernie run as an independant means he really does think Bernie was treated unfairly or if he thinks he'll lose if its just Clinton.

He's just laying the groundwork for getting the Berniebot vote in the general election.
I doubt it.  The berniebots hate Trump.  You can't make the rebels lkke Vader just because he's Luke's father.

You seriously underestimate how much Berniebots hate Hillary. I've seen countless Bernie supporters claim they would rather vote for Trump than Hillary. And even if we ignore the young Reddit crowd, it's undeniable that Trump supporters and Bernie supporters are largely intersectional - they both consist largely of anti-establishment libertarians. It's very likely that many of them will switch over to Trump, even if they disagree with his tone or policies.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on April 27, 2016, 09:35:26 AM
I wonder if his call to have Bernie run as an independant means he really does think Bernie was treated unfairly or if he thinks he'll lose if its just Clinton.

He's just laying the groundwork for getting the Berniebot vote in the general election.
I doubt it.  The berniebots hate Trump.  You can't make the rebels lkke Vader just because he's Luke's father.

You seriously underestimate how much Berniebots hate Hillary. I've seen countless Bernie supporters claim they would rather vote for Trump than Hillary. And even if we ignore the young Reddit crowd, it's undeniable that Trump supporters and Bernie supporters are largely intersectional - they both consist largely of anti-establishment libertarians. It's very likely that many of them will switch over to Trump, even if they disagree with his tone or policies.
That scares me.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on April 27, 2016, 10:14:40 AM
Trump vs a congenital liar or vs a complete math failure? Who would not take Trump?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 27, 2016, 02:37:59 PM
Sanders' best chance as an independent would be him running on the same ticket with Trump. That would be devastating news for the Democrats.

I am still waiting to find out the reason why the GOP put up with Trump, so far, letting him run practically as an independent, while using their party as a platform.

Without Trump in the race, Cruz would have won easily by now; likewise, without Cruz, Trump would well be on his way to the general election, as the GOP nominee.

Cruz has behind him a very powerful secret society, which could have helped him to have performed much better in the NE, but chose not to.

Was it to create even more frustration in the case of Trump losing the nomination/contested election in Cleveland?

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on April 27, 2016, 02:54:17 PM
I think at this point GOP won't even deny Trump the nomination in a contested convention, knowing that not doing so would disenfranchise the entire republican base and fracture the party. They're better off playing nice with Trump so he's more controllable and picks a conservative SCOTUS if elected.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on April 27, 2016, 03:39:47 PM

Cruz has behind him a very powerful secret society, which could have helped him to have performed much better in the NE, but chose not to

How can Cruz have a "secret society" behind him if you know and post about it?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on April 27, 2016, 04:33:29 PM

Cruz has behind him a very powerful secret society, which could have helped him to have performed much better in the NE, but chose not to

How can Cruz have a "secret society" behind him if you know and post about it?
Shandokhan knows everything.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 27, 2016, 04:50:32 PM
It is very easy to discern which secret societies are behind Cruz or Trump: look at their hand signs, and also decipher the following quotes:

Tonight Iowa has proclaimed to the world: morning is coming

T. Cruz


Donald is not going to make America great, he's going to make America orange

M. Rubio


They're better off playing nice with Trump so he's more controllable and picks a conservative SCOTUS if elected.

What you are implying is that the GOP had no way to control Trump, or to predict what was going to happen, and that Cruz is running a false campaign.

Or that they will accept the potential loss of both the Senate and the House in November, just to play nice to Trump.

Or that they do not know that nine out of ten hispanics view Trump unfavorably.

Trump's promises/foreign policy run contrary to everything the GOP has stood for in the past twenty years or so.

This is the reason why I think something else is going on, an unfolding of events which will become clearer the closer we get to November.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 27, 2016, 05:03:47 PM
For all the new people here, please keep in mind Levee (Sandohkn) will ramble endlessly. Please don't bait him or purposely delve into a discussion about the knights Templar, Masons, and other irrelevant garbage or I will remove it from this thread and I will punish YOU not him. Thank you.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on April 27, 2016, 05:07:14 PM
It is very easy to discern which secret societies are behind Cruz or Trump: look at their hand signs, and also decipher the following quotes:

Tonight Iowa has proclaimed to the world: morning is coming

T. Cruz


Donald is not going to make America great, he's going to make America orange

M. Rubio


They're better off playing nice with Trump so he's more controllable and picks a conservative SCOTUS if elected.

What you are implying is that the GOP had no way to control Trump, or to predict what was going to happen, and that Cruz is running a false campaign.

Or that they will accept the potential loss of both the Senate and the House in November, just to play nice to Trump.

Or that they do not know that nine out of ten hispanics view Trump unfavorably.

Trump's promises/foreign policy run contrary to everything the GOP has stood for in the past twenty years or so.

This is the reason why I think something else is going on, an unfolding of events which will become clearer the closer we get to November.

The rank and file GOP got fed up and start the Tea Party. The GOP instead of embracing the movement, which was what het GOP was in the beginning, moved further left and enlisted the help the Dim, er ha Dems and stomped the Tea Party flat.

Well, along comes Trump with is own money, owing no one in power in the GOP. He is not Tea Party but enough so that he is being taken seriously. The GOP has no one to blame but themselves.

The voters don't want Dim lite, they want a strict Constitutional Republican form of government.

I want a closed boarder, lower taxes, the government out of my health care (BummerCare as cost me a 1,238% increase in costs). The government to not spend a penny on anything NOT specific to Article 1 Section 8. I want draconian term limits, as it 12 years in Congress PERIOD and if you want to go from the House to the Senate you MUST resign the office you hold. If you lose the election that is it you're done. You just term limited yourself out FOREVER. I want clean bills with not riders. You can't attach a bill for FBI funding on a Defense Bill. Get rid of the FBI (Article 1 Section 8) No more Executive Orders. Article 1Section 1 Clause 1. No more signing of bills saying what  will be enforced or not. A law is a law is a law. Otherwise veto it and get a bill you want. That is just for starters
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 27, 2016, 05:20:00 PM
David Duke did endorse Trump, that is a fact.

It is also a fact that, because of this endorsement Trump was able to win many of the Southern states.

I leave it to the reader to find out, using his/her own research, which secret society DD belong to.

The only rambling in this thread has been the constant and naive assumption, made by Rushy, that Trump's campaign would be something else than creating a false hope of political novelty.

I made the call from the very start, that Cruz and Trump will be the last candidates standing: I was able to do this based on my knowledge of various secret societies, and their influence on American politics.

Rushy, a question for you: why would the GOP allow Trump to run an independent campaign using their party as a platform?

Do you really know how Trump got started in the gambling operations? Go ahead and find out who was behind the Resorts International company.


The rank and file GOP got fed up and start the Tea Party.

That maybe so, but then what you are saying is that Trump's candidacy is a covert operation run by the GOP.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on April 27, 2016, 05:25:21 PM
And, in order not to be accused of "derailing" this thread, I will not post another message here until July (Cleveland convention).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Saddam Hussein on April 27, 2016, 09:38:58 PM
The government to not spend a penny on anything NOT specific to Article 1 Section 8...Get rid of the FBI (Article 1 Section 8)

Constitutional amendments have expanded the powers of the federal government far beyond what was originally enumerated in Section 8.  Also, the Commerce Clause provides the constitutional justification for a huge amount of what the FBI does.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on April 27, 2016, 09:49:37 PM
The government to not spend a penny on anything NOT specific to Article 1 Section 8...Get rid of the FBI (Article 1 Section 8)

Constitutional amendments have expanded the powers of the federal government far beyond what was originally enumerated in Section 8.  Also, the Commerce Clause provides the constitutional justification for a huge amount of what the FBI does.

The Commerce Clause is and excuse. The Framers and those that debated each clause disagreed with a broad interpretation of said clause and said so many time. The same holds to the General Welfare Clause.

I'd start with the repeal of the 17th Amendment. A lot os people would be tossed by their state's legislatures  for their actions against the State' they are supposed to represent. Harry Reid comes to mind. He backed Obama against the best interests of Nevada.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on April 28, 2016, 06:46:53 AM
The government to not spend a penny on anything NOT specific to Article 1 Section 8...Get rid of the FBI (Article 1 Section 8)

Constitutional amendments have expanded the powers of the federal government far beyond what was originally enumerated in Section 8.  Also, the Commerce Clause provides the constitutional justification for a huge amount of what the FBI does.

The Commerce Clause is and excuse. The Framers and those that debated each clause disagreed with a broad interpretation of said clause and said so many time. The same holds to the General Welfare Clause.

I'd start with the repeal of the 17th Amendment. A lot os people would be tossed by their state's legislatures  for their actions against the State' they are supposed to represent. Harry Reid comes to mind. He backed Obama against the best interests of Nevada.
Unless I'm mistaken, the founding fathers originally had the Articles of Confederation which was too weak to keep a federal government intact or useful.  So pardon me for not giving 18th century people fresh from revolution absolute faith in their ability to plan for 200 years in the future.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on April 28, 2016, 01:10:11 PM
David Duke did endorse Trump, that is a fact.

Don't the Knights Templar and Free Masons endorse Trump too?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on April 28, 2016, 01:11:56 PM
The government to not spend a penny on anything NOT specific to Article 1 Section 8...Get rid of the FBI (Article 1 Section 8)

Constitutional amendments have expanded the powers of the federal government far beyond what was originally enumerated in Section 8.  Also, the Commerce Clause provides the constitutional justification for a huge amount of what the FBI does.

The Commerce Clause is and excuse. The Framers and those that debated each clause disagreed with a broad interpretation of said clause and said so many times. The same holds to the General Welfare Clause.

I'd start with the repeal of the 17th Amendment. A lot os people would be tossed by their state's legislatures  for their actions against the State' they are supposed to represent. Harry Reid comes to mind. He backed Obama against the best interests of Nevada.
Unless I'm mistaken, the founding fathers originally had the Articles of Confederation which was too weak to keep a federal government intact or useful.  So pardon me for not giving 18th century people fresh from revolution absolute faith in their ability to plan for 200 years in the future.

You need to go back and do some research on the reason for the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation were indeed weak. They allowed the States to do things to each other that would over time have destroyed the United States and the reason the Senate and House were elected by TWO different election processes. The CA  also did not protect the citizens form the government. The Constitution does, or did, until people started saying it said things it doesn't and ignoring what the writers said it meant.

Then there is the cherry picking of what  to support and why. The out of context of Jefferson's "Separation of Church and State," quoted by the anti-religious. Far to many people believe the phrase is actually part of the Constitution and specifically the 1st Amendment. But if you quote Jefferson on the Right to bear arms, those same leftist will scream he was a racist slave owner and his words are from Satan himself.  And God help anyone that points out Jefferson attempted to end slavery with 2nd Continental Congress, and later in Va House of Burgess and as POTUS. On that the left says ALL the history books are wrong.

The real problem is we don't, and have not for a long time, teach our own history. We spend our time examining their warts, instead of what they accomplished, then use those warts to mangle our laws into something we want.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on April 28, 2016, 02:18:01 PM
The government to not spend a penny on anything NOT specific to Article 1 Section 8...Get rid of the FBI (Article 1 Section 8)

Constitutional amendments have expanded the powers of the federal government far beyond what was originally enumerated in Section 8.  Also, the Commerce Clause provides the constitutional justification for a huge amount of what the FBI does.

The Commerce Clause is and excuse. The Framers and those that debated each clause disagreed with a broad interpretation of said clause and said so many times. The same holds to the General Welfare Clause.

I'd start with the repeal of the 17th Amendment. A lot os people would be tossed by their state's legislatures  for their actions against the State' they are supposed to represent. Harry Reid comes to mind. He backed Obama against the best interests of Nevada.
Unless I'm mistaken, the founding fathers originally had the Articles of Confederation which was too weak to keep a federal government intact or useful.  So pardon me for not giving 18th century people fresh from revolution absolute faith in their ability to plan for 200 years in the future.

You need to go back and do some research on the reason for the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation were indeed weak. They allowed the States to do things to each other that would over time have destroyed the United States and the reason the Senate and House were elected by TWO different election processes. The CA  also did not protect the citizens form the government. The Constitution does, or did, until people started saying it said things it doesn't and ignoring what the writers said it meant.

Then there is the cherry picking of what  to support and why. The out of context of Jefferson's "Separation of Church and State," quoted by the anti-religious. Far to many people believe the phrase is actually part of the Constitution and specifically the 1st Amendment. But if you quote Jefferson on the Right to bear arms, those same leftist will scream he was a racist slave owner and his words are from Satan himself.  And God help anyone that points out Jefferson attempted to end slavery with 2nd Continental Congress, and later in Va House of Burgess and as POTUS. On that the left says ALL the history books are wrong.

The real problem is we don't, and have not for a long time, teach our own history. We spend our time examining their warts, instead of what they accomplished, then use those warts to mangle our laws into something we want.

You'll find hate mongers on both sides.  I'm a leftist and would not say Jefferson was Satan. 

It should be noted that the constitution is setup to be altered so by altering it, we are doing as the founders expected.  Same with SCOTUS, they interprite the constitution.  If you don't like the new laws or their decisions, then sorry but thats what the constitution allows.  Want it fixed?  Do it yourself.

As for history: what do you expect?  America is full of hateful, greedy, evil people but we want to teach our kids happy things.  We don't like talking about Japanes internment camps.  We don't like talking about taking lands from the indians.  We prefer to say Columbus was a hero and so brave.  He was neither.

Though... Why would we need warts to mangle laws to what we want?  We CHANGE laws to what we want.  The constitution lets us do this.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on April 29, 2016, 01:40:45 AM
Trump now has 994 delegates. Fox News released a new poll that reveals Trump is +27 in California.

Hillary Clinton has 2165 delegates. She is polling +2 over Sanders in California. Keep in mind the California primary is not until June.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/04/22/fox-news-poll-california-presidential-primaries/

Also, a new Oregon Poll that shows Trump as +17

http://res.cloudinary.com/bdy4ger4/image/upload/v1461878385/Hoffman_0416_Survey_Report_iapoi3.pdf

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on May 03, 2016, 11:12:47 PM
Trump wins Indiana and now has 1059 delegates (number includes unbound delegates that have pledged to support Trump). Trump now requires 37% of the remaining delegates to earn the nomination.

Hillary Sanders wins Indiana and now has 1400 delegates (number includes superdelegates pledged to support Sanders). Sanders requires 79% of the remaining delegates to earn the nomination.


Delegate numbers may change as vote counts are finalized.

Ted Cruz has officially suspended his campaign. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ted-cruz-drops-out-of-the-republican-presidential-race/2016/05/03/8f955a06-0fe7-11e6-81b4-581a5c4c42df_story.html

Donald Trump is the Republican nominee for 2016. RNC Chairman Reince Priebus says the party should now focus on defeating Hillary Clinton. https://mobile.twitter.com/Reince/status/727665447684820992
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on May 04, 2016, 02:24:12 AM
And Cruz has thrown in the towel...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on May 04, 2016, 02:27:11 AM
I want to know how this fits into sandokhan's calculations
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on May 04, 2016, 02:32:38 AM
I want to know how this fits into sandokhan's calculations
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on May 04, 2016, 06:24:47 AM
I want to know how this fits into sandokhan's calculations
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on May 04, 2016, 04:13:47 PM
Kasich saw Cruz's towel and raised him one white flag.

I guess neither have been paying their dues to the secret society.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 04, 2016, 04:38:56 PM
t r u m p
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on May 04, 2016, 04:55:23 PM
T R U M P
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on May 06, 2016, 09:56:15 PM
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar or Can't Count Sanders.

I like Cruz, most of the party insiders hate him. That tells me was not going along to get along. We  require someone, a whole lot of someones, in office that are will stand castrate the opposition in order to stand for the Constitution and therefor the people.

But now, now we have to settle for Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 09, 2016, 03:37:35 PM
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar or Can Count Sanders.

I like Cruz, most of the party insiders hate him. That tells me was not going along to get along. We  require someone, a whole lot of someones, in office that are will stand castrate the opposition in order to stand for the Constitution and therefor the people.

But now, now we have to settle for Trump.
  ??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on May 09, 2016, 03:56:51 PM
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar or Can Count Sanders.

I like Cruz, most of the party insiders hate him. That tells me was not going along to get along. We  require someone, a whole lot of someones, in office that are will stand castrate the opposition in order to stand for the Constitution and therefor the people.

But now, now we have to settle for Trump.
  ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

??? ??? ??? ??? ???
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on May 09, 2016, 03:59:21 PM
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar or Can Count Sanders.

I like Cruz, most of the party insiders hate him. That tells me was not going along to get along. We  require someone, a whole lot of someones, in office that are will stand castrate the opposition in order to stand for the Constitution and therefor the people.

But now, now we have to settle for Trump.
  ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

??? ??? ??? ??? ???

Maybe they support The Serial Liar or Can't Count.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on May 09, 2016, 05:06:15 PM
Crooked Hilary and lying Ted will bow before the God-Emperor.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on May 09, 2016, 05:33:19 PM
Crooked Hilary and lying Ted will bow before the God-Emperor.

They will BEND THE KNEE
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on May 09, 2016, 05:58:34 PM
Trump's "campaign" thus far is a publicity stunt, not an attempt for political office. Polls this far out mean absolutely nothing.

That said, Hillary Clinton looks like the best likely candidate. As great as Bernie would be, it's not realistic to expect him to win a general election.

How's Trumps candidacy looking at this point Ben? With DNC shooting themselves in the foot by alienating independent voters, I've seen way more Bernie supporters tell me they will vote for Trump if Hillary wins than anything else. Also, I think #bernieorbust is out trending #nevertrump. At this point I think it's not realistic to expect Mrs. Clinton to win a general election.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on May 09, 2016, 06:13:47 PM
Trump's campaign was pretty much just a publicity stunt a year ago, just like all his previous campaigns were.  I'm sure that Trump was as surprised as anyone when this time it really took off.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on May 09, 2016, 06:24:19 PM
Trump's campaign was pretty much just a publicity stunt a year ago, just like all his previous campaigns were.  I'm sure that Trump was as surprised as anyone when this time it really took off.

Trump didn't have any previous campaigns. He sometimes announced himself for giggles, but never participated in debates or actually held rallies.

Trump trademarked "make America great again" in November 2012. This campaign success was hardly the accident you or anyone else continually claims it is.

It's okay.

Trump is smarter than you.
Trump has more friends than you.
Trump has more money than you.
Trump's family line makes yours look like a line of homeless people.

Saddam, like all non-successful people, really wants to see Trump's success as a complete accident. In Saddam's mind, you can never be successful of your own volition. It's always a happy accident.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 12, 2016, 09:54:18 AM
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar or Can Count Sanders.

I like Cruz, most of the party insiders hate him. That tells me was not going along to get along. We  require someone, a whole lot of someones, in office that are will stand castrate the opposition in order to stand for the Constitution and therefor the people.

But now, now we have to settle for Trump.
  ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

??? ??? ??? ??? ???

Maybe they support The Serial Liar or Can't Count.
No, I was mostly commenting on how your message doesn't consist of a single coherent sentence. Originally I hoped you're just spamming copypasta, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Trump's campaign was pretty much just a publicity stunt a year ago, just like all his previous campaigns were.  I'm sure that Trump was as surprised as anyone when this time it really took off.
lol you're still trying.

Saddam. It's okay. You were wrong. We were right. It's not a big deal. It's a thing that happens. You don't have to keep defending yourself every time something doesn't go your way. Shrug it off and move on.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on May 12, 2016, 10:45:44 AM
Shrug it off and move on.
If only he were capable.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on May 12, 2016, 11:32:39 AM
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar or Can Count Sanders.

I like Cruz, most of the party insiders hate him. That tells me was not going along to get along. We  require someone, a whole lot of someones, in office that are will stand castrate the opposition in order to stand for the Constitution and therefor the people.

But now, now we have to settle for Trump.
  ??? ??? ??? ??? ???

??? ??? ??? ??? ???

Maybe they support The Serial Liar or Can't Count.
No, I was mostly commenting on how your message doesn't consist of a single coherent sentence. Originally I hoped you're just spamming copypasta, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Trump's campaign was pretty much just a publicity stunt a year ago, just like all his previous campaigns were.  I'm sure that Trump was as surprised as anyone when this time it really took off.
lol you're still trying.

Saddam. It's okay. You were wrong. We were right. It's not a big deal. It's a thing that happens. You don't have to keep defending yourself every time something doesn't go your way. Shrug it off and move on.

Except for my naming Clinton Serial Liar and Sanders Can't Count. what I posted is clear. Where live, do they offer adult reading classes?

Edited because Simon and Schuster have been employed here as spelling and grammar Nazis
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on May 12, 2016, 11:43:25 AM
Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

Archived for later commemoration in the meme history of FES
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on May 12, 2016, 12:03:03 PM
Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

Archived for later commemoration in the meme history of FES
XD. Classic!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on May 12, 2016, 01:50:49 PM
Except for my naming Clinton Serial Liar and Sanders Can't Count. what I posted is clear. Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?
Sigh, okay, let's go through your post step by step:

Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar or Can Count Sanders.
"Can Count Sanders"? What can he count? Why is that an insult?

That tells me was not going along to get along.
What? "That tells me not going along to along"? Are you trying to say something along the lines of "That tells me he was not going to get along with the Republican establishment"?

that are will stand castrate the opposition in order to stand for the Constitution and therefor the people.
"That are will stand castrate the opposition"? Look, I'm not1 going to bash you for not speaking English as a first language, but please try to proofread your posts before publishing them.

And finally:
Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?
Sig'd. That was too good.


1 - lol joke's on you I'm definitely going to bash you
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on May 12, 2016, 03:40:08 PM
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar...

I'm sorry, are you really implying that Trump is a paragon of honesty? ???
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on May 12, 2016, 04:32:16 PM
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar...

I'm sorry, are you really implying that Trump is a paragon of honesty? ???

And the 2016 Strawman award goes to... ROUNDY! Do you have anything to say to your family and friends after winning this prestigious award?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on May 12, 2016, 04:50:09 PM
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar...

I'm sorry, are you really implying that Trump is a paragon of honesty? ???

And the 2016 Strawman award goes to... ROUNDY! Do you have anything to say to your family and friends after winning this prestigious award?

That is a direct response to Round Fact's statement. I didn't imply any kind of refutation of any argument, merely asked a question. Please learn what a straw man is before throwing around accusations.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on May 12, 2016, 09:48:54 PM
Trump is better than Hilary The Serial Liar...

I'm sorry, are you really implying that Trump is a paragon of honesty? ???

And the 2016 Strawman award goes to... ROUNDY! Do you have anything to say to your family and friends after winning this prestigious award?

That is a direct response to Round Fact's statement. I didn't imply any kind of refutation of any argument, merely asked a question. Please learn what a straw man is before throwing around accusations.

Pongo is right. You made an irrelevant strawman. A very bad one, nonetheless. Hardly deserving of "strawman of 2016" award.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on May 13, 2016, 03:27:04 AM
Comparing Trump favorably to someone described as a "serial liar" does carry the implication that Trump isn't a liar.  That being said, Hillary has been accused of lying about matters far more serious than whether or not Trump was mocking a disabled journalist or if he knew who David Duke was, so I understand where the comparison is coming from.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on May 13, 2016, 01:55:36 PM
Quote
"Can Count Sanders"? What can he count? Why is that an insult

Sanders believes he can provide “free” heath care and other free services.

Never mind that raising taxes means it is not free. How he says he can pay for this “Free” service is mathematically impossible. At a rally, he told a questioner that he could raise everyone’s taxes $500, and that would pay for everyone’s health care.

The IRS says there are 216 million taxpayers. The US Census says there are 320 million citizens.  That works out to $28.12 per person covered, per month.  Even before the massive increases ObamaCare inflicted (and is not done doing so) my coverage is more than 8 times that high for each member of this house hold. So far the promised $2,500 in "savings" has seen an increase of 1,238% to date. “Free” is going to skyrocket that at an unbelievable rate.

Hence, Sanders cannot count.


Quote
What? "That tells me not going along to along"? Are you trying to say something along the lines of "That tells me he was not going to get along with the Republican establishment"

It means he is not Dem lite, as is most of the rest of GOP. That is a good thing in my book. He is more interested in serving the people, and is not afraid to stand up the establishment GOP.


Quote
Where live, do the offer adult reading classes?

He who has never fat fingered a post is free to cast the first stone. I was not aware this site was edited by Simon and Shuster.  However, I’ll edit the post for spelling. Got to keep the spelling and grammar Nazis happy.


Quote
I'm sorry, are you really implying that Trump is a paragon of honesty?

Where in my post did I imply such a thing? What I DID say, was Trump was preferable to Clinton.  ::)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on May 27, 2016, 09:31:59 PM
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/281556-trump-decides-he-wont-debate-bernie-sanders

It's a shame he back-tracked but such is life.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on May 27, 2016, 10:37:44 PM
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/281556-trump-decides-he-wont-debate-bernie-sanders

It's a shame he back-tracked but such is life.

That's disappointing, but I don't blame him. Debating a candidate that lost three months ago isn't the best use of time.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on May 27, 2016, 10:44:40 PM
Not a good move by the Don. Probably the first real blunder in his campaign.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on May 27, 2016, 11:01:04 PM
Not a good move by the Don. Probably the first real blunder in his campaign.

Nearly everything he does is a theoretical political blunder. Somehow it ends up working in his favor. We'll see if this goes the same way.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on May 28, 2016, 03:05:14 AM
Gotta love how Berniebots are taking this though. The debate would have been an unprecedented event in US political history and yet they act like they were entitled to it. So Trump is respectful if he extends an olive branch, but a coward if he doesn't? They're so disingenuous it's unreal.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on June 01, 2016, 09:53:08 AM
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/north-korean-newspaper-endorses-wise-donald-trump-dull/story?id=39500755

It's only an editorial so take that as you will, but it IS on the state run newspaper so it must have been allowed.

But it makes sense.  Trump apparently feels that South Korea should pay the US more protection money and North Korea feels that's a great idea.  Mostly because it might mean the US will stop protecting the South Koreans.

If that happens, President Trump would be a hero to all of North Korea!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 01, 2016, 01:16:17 PM
Or maybe south Korea will actually start paying more for their own protection.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on June 01, 2016, 02:29:11 PM
Or maybe south Korea will actually start paying more for their own protection.
Maybe!

Maybe that's trump's economic plan: protection racket?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 01, 2016, 02:45:02 PM
trump: "south korea pays us nothing for our troops presence."

not-retarded people: "um, they pick up about 30% of the tab, to the tune of ~$800 million dollars, and that percentage has been increasing over time."

trump: "whoops, i meant to say that we don't get any benefit from the money we spend."

nrp: "protecting our national security interests, as well as those of our allies, is a direct benefit to the us."

trump: "whoops, i meant to say that we don't get very much benefit from the money we spend."

nrp: "um...ok...hit us up when you have something of substance to say about anything at all."
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 01, 2016, 05:18:30 PM
Pay 30% to protect 100% of their country. Jokes on US
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on June 01, 2016, 05:37:06 PM
Of course ignoring that the USA should bear some of the cost since they hold an interest in keeping North Korea in check, this is nothing more than capitalism at work.  If the USA did not want to pay that much, then they wouldn't.  South Korea certainly has no negotiating power in this instance.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 01, 2016, 05:38:09 PM
If the USA did not want to pay that much, then they wouldn't.  South Korea certainly has no negotiating power in this instance.
Which is exactly what Trump is proposing. Are you saying you're agreeing with him now?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on June 01, 2016, 05:47:01 PM
If the USA did not want to pay that much, then they wouldn't.  South Korea certainly has no negotiating power in this instance.
Which is exactly what Trump is proposing. Are you saying you're agreeing with him now?

Are you asking if I think the USA should withdraw from South Korea?  If so, then not really, I would rather they get more stakeholders in the region to take lead on it though.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 01, 2016, 07:28:40 PM
Pay 30% to protect 100% of their country. Jokes on US

if us foreign policy ever becomes this shortsighted, then the joke will definitely be on us
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 01, 2016, 11:01:14 PM
If the USA did not want to pay that much, then they wouldn't.  South Korea certainly has no negotiating power in this instance.
Which is exactly what Trump is proposing. Are you saying you're agreeing with him now?

Are you asking if I think the USA should withdraw from South Korea?  If so, then not really, I would rather they get more stakeholders in the region to take lead on it though.

There are many reasons to pull the installations from South Korea. One being that they're an absolute mess to begin with and can't protect South Korea from a North Korean invasion even if they wanted to. The facilities there are atrocious and a waste of human resources.

Pay 30% to protect 100% of their country. Jokes on US

if us foreign policy ever becomes this shortsighted, then the joke will definitely be on us

Are you agreeing now that China is an enemy of the US? North Korea is a joke, no one could possibly support the argument "we should stay in South Korea because of North Korean threats!" The world has gone so upside down that the FES leftists are now arguing for unadulterated military spending.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 02, 2016, 02:26:49 AM
In other news, merely attempting to speak about Trump causes the gears in President Obama's head to seize up entirely:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSxo9-Z5Ki0
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on June 02, 2016, 02:30:18 AM
Obama can't talk at all without a teleprompter. Sad!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 03, 2016, 12:59:53 AM
Are you agreeing now that China is an enemy of the US? North Korea is a joke, no one could possibly support the argument "we should stay in South Korea because of North Korean threats!" The world has gone so upside down that the FES leftists are now arguing for unadulterated military spending.

lol "leftist."  adorable.

forgive me if i'm unwilling to take your word for it that north korea is no threat to seoul.  honestly, you can't possibly be claiming to know what north korea is capable of, or possibly think you can predict the future of relations on the peninsula for the next 10, 20, 30, 50 years, etc.

seoul is an invaluable financial and political asset for the us.  guaranteeing its security is a no-brainer.  there's probably an interesting conversation to be had about the best way to go about that, but that conversation will never involve trump, a candidate serially committed to not being even remotely interested in whether or not the things he's saying are true.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 03, 2016, 01:34:47 AM
The facilities are pointless if you're thinking about defending South Korea from North Korea. They brief you as soon as you get there that you will likely die in an invasion scenario and that Seoul would be destroyed within a day regardless of military intervention.

The installation is for China, not Korea, and you told me China isn't a US enemy, so what's the big deal with removing the installations or, *gasp*, forcing South Korea to foot the entire bill?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 03, 2016, 02:31:09 PM
North Korea is a joke, no one could possibly support the argument "we should stay in South Korea because of North Korean threats!"

The facilities are pointless if you're thinking about defending South Korea from North Korea. They brief you as soon as you get there that you will likely die in an invasion scenario and that Seoul would be destroyed within a day regardless of military intervention.

ruminate on this one for a bit.

so what's the big deal with removing the installations or, *gasp*, forcing South Korea to foot the entire bill?

the big deal is that we stand to gain very little and lose a great deal.  at best we recoup maybe $2 billion.  the us spends like $3,000 billion/year.  also how are we going to force seoul to 'foot the entire bill'?  what if they say no?  we bail?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 03, 2016, 02:54:28 PM
North Korea is a joke, no one could possibly support the argument "we should stay in South Korea because of North Korean threats!"

The facilities are pointless if you're thinking about defending South Korea from North Korea. They brief you as soon as you get there that you will likely die in an invasion scenario and that Seoul would be destroyed within a day regardless of military intervention.

ruminate on this one for a bit.

so what's the big deal with removing the installations or, *gasp*, forcing South Korea to foot the entire bill?

the big deal is that we stand to gain very little and lose a great deal.  at best we recoup maybe $2 billion.  the us spends like $3,000 billion/year.  also how are we going to force seoul to 'foot the entire bill'?  what if they say no?  we bail?

Hmm, your argument is that we shouldn't attempt to save money anywhere because we spend lots of money everywhere. Good one.

Also, you might want to further explain your points. If you want just quote me and say "ruminate on this" I'm going to assume you have no worthwhile argument.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on June 03, 2016, 03:26:59 PM
Thinking about it, I think its brilliant.

We pull funding.  NK invades.  We claim protection and attack NK, wiping them out and claiming the land as New America.  Tons of cheap labor.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 03, 2016, 03:51:03 PM
Hmm, your argument is that we shouldn't attempt to save money anywhere because we spend lots of money everywhere. Good one.

keep misconstruing my argument if you like.  you are manufacturing some good zingers.  my argument was that the opportunity-cost to abandoning the korean peninsula is probably greater than saving 0.06% of yearly spending.  i know you're smart enough to understand fractions.

"seoul is an invaluable financial and political asset for the us.  guaranteeing its security is a no-brainer.  there's probably an interesting conversation to be had about the best way to go about that, but that conversation will never involve trump, a candidate serially committed to not being even remotely interested in whether or not the things he's saying are true."

i don't really give a shit that he wants to change our foreign policy toward south korea.  i care that he has any clue at all what our foreign policy toward south korea currently is, and i care that he's completely willing to pretend that he does without any apparent self-motivation to fill those gaps in his knowledge.  he just says a bunch of shit that isn't true, gets corrected, says a bunch of new shit that isn't true, gets corrected again, and on and on and on.  but whatever as long as it's super populist and angry then that's cool.

Also, you might want to further explain your points. If you want just quote me and say "ruminate on this" I'm going to assume you have no worthwhile argument.

you started by saying that north korea is a joke, and no one could support the argument that we stay because north korea is a threat, and then ended by saying that north korea is an existential threat to seoul.  i dunno how to reconcile those two things. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 04, 2016, 08:39:22 PM
keep misconstruing my argument if you like.  you are manufacturing some good zingers.  my argument was that the opportunity-cost to abandoning the korean peninsula is probably greater than saving 0.06% of yearly spending.  i know you're smart enough to understand fractions.

"It's just a few billion dollars, man, no big deal." If we look at every budget constraint and say "well, gee, it's only 0.06% of the budget" then surprise! The budget never changes and we go into debt.

"seoul is an invaluable financial and political asset for the us.  guaranteeing its security is a no-brainer.  there's probably an interesting conversation to be had about the best way to go about that, but that conversation will never involve trump, a candidate serially committed to not being even remotely interested in whether or not the things he's saying are true."

Guaranteeing security for whom against what? Are we trying to intimidate someone into doing or not doing something?

i don't really give a shit that he wants to change our foreign policy toward south korea.  i care that he has any clue at all what our foreign policy toward south korea currently is, and i care that he's completely willing to pretend that he does without any apparent self-motivation to fill those gaps in his knowledge.  he just says a bunch of shit that isn't true, gets corrected, says a bunch of new shit that isn't true, gets corrected again, and on and on and on.  but whatever as long as it's super populist and angry then that's cool.

It's pretty clear you don't know anything about what's going on in Korea, either, which is why you're confused about:

you started by saying that north korea is a joke, and no one could support the argument that we stay because north korea is a threat, and then ended by saying that North Korea is an existential threat to Seoul.  i dunno how to reconcile those two things.

North Korea is theoretically an existential threat, yes, in the same way that China, Pakistan, India, Israel, Russia, UK, etc. are also existential threats to the world. North Korea could vaporize all of its neighbors. However, the DPRK is not verging on a murder-suicide, no matter how many times you read about it on whatever garbage it is you get your news from. They are a joke and do not warrant the absolute waste of human and materiel resources in the country.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 07, 2016, 03:34:57 AM
"It's just a few billion dollars, man, no big deal." If we look at every budget constraint and say "well, gee, it's only 0.06% of the budget" then surprise! The budget never changes and we go into debt.

you're still misunderstanding my argument.  i'm not saying that any amount of spending on anything is fine.  i'm saying that the net value of this spending is positive because it secures our access to an economic asset that is worth more to our budget than we spend to secure it.

North Korea is theoretically an existential threat, yes, in the same way that China, Pakistan, India, Israel, Russia, UK, etc. are also existential threats to the world. North Korea could vaporize all of its neighbors. However, the DPRK is not verging on a murder-suicide, no matter how many times you read about it on whatever garbage it is you get your news from. They are a joke and do not warrant the absolute waste of human and materiel resources in the country.

lol if you insist.  sounds like you've got it all worked out.  tbh you read more and more like trump everyday.  i'm incompetent, whatever i read is written by incompetent people (personal fav), the dprk is incompetent, everyone involved in us foreign policy toward korea since the war is incompetent, etc.  yawn.

like i said, i do not share your confidence in your ability to predict the future of relations on the peninsula over the next 10, 20, 30, etc. years.  that the dprk does not have a death wish is hardly sufficient in an of itself to prevent conflict.  see: world history.

also, the dprk is not china, pakistan, india, israel, russia, or the uk.  i'm surprised you made the comparison.  among the virtually endless supply of differences is that those nations are allies, and we cooperate with them on not blowing each other up, both diplomatically and materially.  if the dprk ever decides to behave toward us in a manner even remotely resembling those allies, then yeah, i'll probably agree that we don't need to house our own reaction forces on the peninsula anymore. 

or whatever russia != threat therefore dprk != threat that's probably right
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 07, 2016, 11:44:05 PM
you're still misunderstanding my argument.  i'm not saying that any amount of spending on anything is fine.  i'm saying that the net value of this spending is positive because it secures our access to an economic asset that is worth more to our budget than we spend to secure it.

The net impact of the actual money being sent to South Korea is extremely small (going in line with you noting it's only a few billion!) North Korea isn't staying out of South Korea just because the US has people there, since they could easily kill all of those people. North Korea is staying out of South Korea because North Korea knows North Korea will stop existing if they ever do happen to invade South Korea.

The world avoids North Korea because it is a political disaster, not a military threat.

russia != threat therefore dprk != threat that's probably right

Russia is much more of a threat than DPRK is. Russia could theoretically strike out at other nations and still remain a stable nation. You seem to have swallowed some fantastical "North Korean bogeyman" garbage.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 08, 2016, 06:36:18 PM
North Korea is the bad guy because they aren't involved or in bed with any central zionist controlled banking infrastructure. Same way Gidaffi was a bad guy all of a sudden and got nixed. Assad is a bad guy for the same reasons.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on June 08, 2016, 07:50:01 PM
TheThorkIsOnHere

Gaddafi was only "all of a sudden" a bad guy to people who were weren't paying to world affairs and/or didn't know their history.  He was very bad news and had been for many years.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 08, 2016, 08:45:27 PM
TheThorkIsOnHere

Gaddafi was only "all of a sudden" a bad guy to people who were weren't paying to world affairs and/or didn't know their history.  He was very bad news and had been for many years.

Was it the gold backed currency (http://www.thedailybell.com/editorials/anthony-wile-gaddafi-planned-gold-dinar-now-under-attack/) he proposed for the African Union? Or the Man Made river project (that nato bombed (https://humanrightsinvestigations.org/2011/07/27/great-man-made-river-nato-bombs/))which was so nefarious?

I don't get the thork reference
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on June 08, 2016, 09:05:23 PM
Yeah, he was not the axe-wielding mad man the US made him out to be. A dictator, yes, but one that did a lot of good things with his power.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 08, 2016, 09:31:14 PM
Most middle eastern dictators were the direct result of populations that could only be kept in check by totalitarianism. Their culture is accustomed to brutal, rigid structures. Just walking in, deposing the dictator and saying "be free, people, be free!" has proven time and time again to be a terrible idea.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on June 08, 2016, 09:55:19 PM
Look in the dictionary at spring, arab
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 08, 2016, 10:12:39 PM
Look in the dictionary at spring, arab

Hm, yes, protests always accurately reflect the majority of a population and never involve a small yet vocal out-group.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on June 08, 2016, 10:21:45 PM
Look in the dictionary at spring, arab

Hm, yes, protests always accurately reflect the majority of a population and never involve a small yet vocal out-group.

I was agreeing with you, retart.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 08, 2016, 11:00:38 PM
Look in the dictionary at spring, arab

Hm, yes, protests always accurately reflect the majority of a population and never involve a small yet vocal out-group.

I was agreeing with you, retart.

Oh. muh bad
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 09, 2016, 03:32:22 PM
Look in the dictionary at spring, arab

Hm, yes, protests always accurately reflect the majority of a population and never involve a small yet vocal out-group.

I was agreeing with you, retart.

Oh. muh bad

There's actually a lot of people who believe the Arab Springs were a direct result of covert American influence. Basically a destabilization of the region, because it doesn't really matter to US Policy who is in control, as long as there is civil war and unrest intermittently.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on June 09, 2016, 03:43:09 PM
Look in the dictionary at spring, arab

Hm, yes, protests always accurately reflect the majority of a population and never involve a small yet vocal out-group.

I was agreeing with you, retart.

Oh. muh bad

There's actually a lot of people who believe the Arab Springs were a direct result of covert American influence. Basically a destabilization of the region, because it doesn't really matter to US Policy who is in control, as long as there is civil war and unrest intermittently.

Helps drive up oil prices.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 09, 2016, 05:30:38 PM
The net impact of the actual money being sent to South Korea is extremely small (going in line with you noting it's only a few billion!) North Korea isn't staying out of South Korea just because the US has people there, since they could easily kill all of those people. North Korea is staying out of South Korea because North Korea knows North Korea will stop existing if they ever do happen to invade South Korea.

The world avoids North Korea because it is a political disaster, not a military threat.

let's hope that the dprk always assesses the situation exactly as you do from your armchair in tennessee or whatever.  i can't think of any conflicts that ignited over miscalculations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Course_of_the_war), or the ideological obsessions of dictators (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II), or random and unpredictable events (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#Sarajevo_assassination), or some other nonsense altogether (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait)...can you?

Russia is much more of a threat than DPRK is. Russia could theoretically strike out at other nations and still remain a stable nation. You seem to have swallowed some fantastical "North Korean bogeyman" garbage.

so now we're on to russia = threat therefore dprk != threat?  awesome.  hey dummy: there two things aren't related.  our foreign policy toward russia doesn't have to be the same as our foreign policy toward north korea.  they probably shouldn't be, since, again, russia is an ally.

south korea is also an ally, and a valuable one at that.  we probably shouldn't follow trump's advice to extort them to save a measly 0.06% of our budget.  that's dumb. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/with-trump-the-united-states-would-be-a-weaker-power/article29959459/)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 09, 2016, 08:58:55 PM
russia is an ally.

Well, besides that whole pesky proxy war thing in Syria and Ukraine.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 09, 2016, 10:17:12 PM
let's hope that the dprk always assesses the situation exactly as you do from your armchair in tennessee or whatever.  i can't think of any conflicts that ignited over miscalculations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_War#Course_of_the_war), or the ideological obsessions of dictators (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II), or random and unpredictable events (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I#Sarajevo_assassination), or some other nonsense altogether (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait)...can you?

All of those events were perpetrated by countries that had reasonable chances of winning the war. If the DPRK attack South Korea, everyone loses, regardless of how many billions or even trillions of dollars we put into South Korea.

What is your argument at this point? Do you believe that an American base in South Korea makes a crazy, unpredictable DPRK less likely to nuke Seoul? We already have nuclear retaliation treaties with South Korea. If they nuke South Korea we nuke them right back. No amount of American troops in South Korea would affect Korean War 2: Electric Boogaloo.

so now we're on to russia = threat therefore dprk != threat?  awesome.  hey dummy: there two things aren't related.  our foreign policy toward russia doesn't have to be the same as our foreign policy toward north korea.  they probably shouldn't be, since, again, russia is an ally.

south korea is also an ally, and a valuable one at that.  we probably shouldn't follow trump's advice to extort them to save a measly 0.06% of our budget.  that's dumb. (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/with-trump-the-united-states-would-be-a-weaker-power/article29959459/)

China is our ally... Russia is our ally... but DPRK is a multi-billion dollar threat and we can't afford to not have troops stationed on its border 24/7!

Good god, man, at least tell me you're just trolling.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 09, 2016, 10:22:53 PM
Okay, so garygreen got me in my own thread. Haha. Good one guys.

We all know its Trump vs Hillary now. Bernie is setting himself up to tear the DNC convention apart. I give it a 80% chance of having violent riots.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 10, 2016, 12:02:16 AM
All of those events were perpetrated by countries that had reasonable chances of winning the war. If the DPRK attack South Korea, everyone loses, regardless of how many billions or even trillions of dollars we put into South Korea.

right.  events that were beyond their control motivated them to start wars they thought they could win, even though at least 2 of those conflicts (both germanys) were almost certainly completely un-winnable by the instigators and lacked internal consensus that war was the appropriate course of action.

your whole argument rests on the bizarre premise that kim jong un and the dprk are always going to assess things the way you do and could never be motivated by irrationality or external forces.  that's asinine.

What is your argument at this point? Do you believe that an American base in South Korea makes a crazy, unpredictable DPRK less likely to nuke Seoul?

my argument is that trump is a retard with a retard proposal to extort our allies our of some petty cash, and no one should take seriously the inane ramblings of someone who isn't even really interested in learning who pays for what, or what we get in return, or any other fact that will impede on his bloviating on what an idiot everyone else is.  it's actually kinda beautiful in its way.

i think it's exceedingly unlikely that north korea will ever nuke anyone.  but yeah, nuking us soldiers is obviously going to elicit a stronger response from the us than nuking south korean soldiers.  it's more about deterring conventional conflict.  we deter north korea, but also we exert control over south korean forces that are also capable of starting a conflict.  as a bonus, we get to deter north korea from conflicts with other neighbors besides south korea simply by having a strong presence in the region and establishing those neighbors as us interests.

china and russia and the dprk

i'm loving this.  keep going.  i only want to hear more about how comparable our relationships with russia and china are to the dprk.

fair enough, china and russia aren't technically allies.  if you actually think that the level of cooperation we have with russia and china is an any way indicative of our level of cooperation with the dprk, even confined solely to the subject of "let's not war with each other," then you're hopeless. 

i don't even get why we're talking about russia and china since i don't think i ever said anything like "anyone with a strong military force or nuclear weapons requires a us military presence as close to them as possible no matter what the cost."  i mean, you keep pretending that i do, but i've not actually said anything like that.

oh and add "north korea is the most terrifying and powerful hegemon on the planet" to the list of shit i haven't said at all.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 10, 2016, 02:21:59 AM
right.  events that were beyond their control motivated them to start wars they thought they could win, even though at least 2 of those conflicts (both germanys) were almost certainly completely un-winnable by the instigators and lacked internal consensus that war was the appropriate course of action.

your whole argument rests on the bizarre premise that kim jong un and the dprk are always going to assess things the way you do and could never be motivated by irrationality or external forces.  that's asinine.

A rational actor would not attack South Korea at all. An irrational actor would attack South Korea regardless of US presence. Tell me, what exactly is the US presence supposed to be doing if Kim Jong-un is just a nutter who is willing to get himself and his country destroyed regardless of the consequences?

my argument is that trump is a retard with a retard proposal to extort our allies our of some petty cash, and no one should take seriously the inane ramblings of someone who isn't even really interested in learning who pays for what, or what we get in return, or any other fact that will impede on his bloviating on what an idiot everyone else is.  it's actually kinda beautiful in its way.

i think it's exceedingly unlikely that north korea will ever nuke anyone.  but yeah, nuking us soldiers is obviously going to elicit a stronger response from the us than nuking south korean soldiers.  it's more about deterring conventional conflict.  we deter north korea, but also we exert control over south korean forces that are also capable of starting a conflict.  as a bonus, we get to deter north korea from conflicts with other neighbors besides south korea simply by having a strong presence in the region and establishing those neighbors as us interests.

Asking people to pay for a service provided isn't extortion. Other countries can afford extravagant social and education programs because a completely different country is absorbing their defense costs. It's time they pay up a few billion dollars at a time. I mean, it's just "petty cash," right?

i'm loving this.  keep going.  i only want to hear more about how comparable our relationships with russia and china are to the dprk.

Oh, please. This is just embarrassing.

fair enough, china and russia aren't technically allies.  if you actually think that the level of cooperation we have with russia and china is an any way indicative of our level of cooperation with the dprk, even confined solely to the subject of "let's not war with each other," then you're hopeless. 

We'd "cooperate" with North Korea too, if they actually had anything worth having.

i don't even get why we're talking about russia and china since i don't think i ever said anything like "anyone with a strong military force or nuclear weapons requires a us military presence as close to them as possible no matter what the cost."  i mean, you keep pretending that i do, but i've not actually said anything like that.

(http://sli.mg/GkCqWm.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 10, 2016, 03:07:36 PM
which do you think is more likely to elicit a military response from the united states: dead south korean soldiers, or dead american soldiers?

A rational actor would not attack South Korea at all.
if you would take the time to actually read the content of my posts, you'd find that this is the statement i've been disagreeing with for 2 pages now.  rational people can disagree about things.  rational people can make miscalculations.  rational people can be influenced by emotions, ideology, appeals to concepts like justice/retaliation/whatever, etc.  your argument rests on the idea that all rational people see the the same way: the way you see them.  that's not an argument; it's just ego.

please stop pretending that all rational people always agree with each other about what is most rational.  how do you not realize that the implication of that belief is that everyone who disagrees with you is either crazy or just trying to annoy you?

An irrational actor would attack South Korea regardless of US presence. Tell me, what exactly is the US presence supposed to be doing if Kim Jong-un is just a nutter who is willing to get himself and his country destroyed regardless of the consequences?
here's a scenario: without a us presence on the peninsula, the dprk could be more emboldened to attack more south korean ships with sub attacks, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking) or plant more landmines on the sk side of the border (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/world/asia/north-korea-placed-mines-that-maimed-2-south-korean-soldiers-at-dmz-seoul-says.html), or whatever.  i mean i know a rational actor would not attack south korea at all lol, but setting that aside, suppose south korea gets all pissy and finally decides to hulk out on north korea.  so they get into a bunch of shit, and north korea goes all guerrilla war, and then maybe china or russia or both decide to start materially aiding the dprk and the peninsula is now up to its dick in a new korean war.  or something along those lines.

to be clear, i'm not saying that absolutely 100% would definitely happen in exactly that manner, but it's obviously not hard to think of some scenarios in which a us military presence would be a useful means of de-escalating south korea from going to war.  sunk warships are exactly the kind of event that causes otherwise "rational actors" to make less-than-optimal decisions.

Asking people to pay for a service provided isn't extortion. Other countries can afford extravagant social and education programs because a completely different country is absorbing their defense costs. It's time they pay up a few billion dollars at a time. I mean, it's just "petty cash," right?
right.  compared to our budget, it's small change.  sk isn't fueling their university system by saving $2bln on military expenses, and our healthcare system isn't $2bln away from being top of its class.  so imagine the audacity of actually phoning up an ally and saying, "give us $2bln or we're going to take our security forces and go home."  forget about the utility of the troops: it's just a fucked up thing to do to a nation we call friends.  we've promised to guarantee their security, and keeping us troops there is as much about the gesture as it is anything else.  it signals to both koreas that we are serious about protecting these allies, a signal that probably could have prevented the first korean war.  that was a HUGE contributing factor of the first korean war: sung incorrectly perceived the us to be uninterested in supporting the south because of ambiguous and often downright misleading signaling by the us.

if anything, suddenly bailing from the peninsula makes such miscalculations more likely.

Oh, please. This is just embarrassing.

We'd "cooperate" with North Korea too, if they actually had anything worth having.

i'm not sure why i should be embarrassed to say that russia and the dprk are qualitatively different and do not require identical foreign policies.  i still don't get what russia has to do with whether or not the dprk is a threat to seoul.  ffs the dprk doesn't even have a 'let's try not to nuke each other hotline.' (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/world/asia/north-korea-shuts-last-remaining-hotline-to-south.html)  they don't cooperate on arms control at all.  they regularly threaten to destroy south korea and the us.  they semi-regularly attack and kill south korean military personnel.  we don't trade with them and we actively try to stop them from trading with others.  they're ruled by a dictator with nearly absolute authority.  the list goes on and on...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 10, 2016, 04:37:01 PM
You guys are arguing over US foreign policy like ANY of it makes sense to begin with. We have done little with our foreign "aid" packages, military presence, covert and overt influences, regime change etc than alienate ourselves from the rest of the World.

By projecting the idea that we know what's good for each and every country and unique culture better than they do, actively undermining sovereignty on a global scale, we've made begrudged allies who would be enemies if they weren't basically reliant on our money. Look at Saudi Arabia... our so called biggest ally in the middle east, let's pretend 911 wasn't a conspiracy, the so called hijackers were Saudi nationals. There is literally no difference between Saudi ideology and ISIS ideology. We pay Islamic Rebels to fight Syria, while simultaneously fighting Islamic Rebels in Iraq. We overthrow Giddafi and let extremists fight over control of Libya. We are allies with Turkey who are actively fighting our main ally in the fight for Iraq, the Kurds.

Please tell me what aspects of US Foreign Policy make any fucking sense to begin with. Until you can you guys are going to argue in circles trying to make heads or tails of it when it is INHERENTLY, by design or due to incompetence, FUBAR to begin with.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 11, 2016, 03:26:27 PM
if you would take the time to actually read the content of my posts, you'd find that this is the statement i've been disagreeing with for 2 pages now.  rational people can disagree about things.  rational people can make miscalculations.  rational people can be influenced by emotions, ideology, appeals to concepts like justice/retaliation/whatever, etc.  your argument rests on the idea that all rational people see the the same way: the way you see them.  that's not an argument; it's just ego.

please stop pretending that all rational people always agree with each other about what is most rational.  how do you not realize that the implication of that belief is that everyone who disagrees with you is either crazy or just trying to annoy you?

I don't believe someone who can truly be described as "rational" actually exists, but that's beside the point. I'm pointing out that both cases, the US loses and the US forces stationed in South Korea don't affect the outcome. Either DPRK attacks the South or they don't. If Kim Jong-Un is apparently crazy enough to attack at all, then the US forces there won't make a difference. They'll be nuked out of existence and thousands of American men and women would have died for nothing.

here's a scenario: without a us presence on the peninsula, the dprk could be more emboldened to attack more south korean ships with sub attacks, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ROKS_Cheonan_sinking) or plant more landmines on the sk side of the border (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/world/asia/north-korea-placed-mines-that-maimed-2-south-korean-soldiers-at-dmz-seoul-says.html), or whatever.  i mean i know a rational actor would not attack south korea at all lol, but setting that aside, suppose south korea gets all pissy and finally decides to hulk out on north korea.  so they get into a bunch of shit, and north korea goes all guerrilla war, and then maybe china or russia or both decide to start materially aiding the dprk and the peninsula is now up to its dick in a new korean war.  or something along those lines.

to be clear, i'm not saying that absolutely 100% would definitely happen in exactly that manner, but it's obviously not hard to think of some scenarios in which a us military presence would be a useful means of de-escalating south korea from going to war.  sunk warships are exactly the kind of event that causes otherwise "rational actors" to make less-than-optimal decisions.

If the South Koreans value that US presence, then they'll pay for it. Regardless, the escalation scenarios you link are just news outlets grasping for attention. DPRK 'escalates tensions' on a yearly basis and nothing ever happens. The bases don't even go on alert.

if anything, suddenly bailing from the peninsula makes such miscalculations more likely.

That you believe any of these changes would happen 'suddenly' is disturbing.

I'm not sure why i should be embarrassed to say that russia and the dprk are qualitatively different and do not require identical foreign policies.  i still don't get what russia has to do with whether or not the dprk is a threat to seoul.  ffs the dprk doesn't even have a 'let's try not to nuke each other hotline.' (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/28/world/asia/north-korea-shuts-last-remaining-hotline-to-south.html)  they don't cooperate on arms control at all.  they regularly threaten to destroy south korea and the us.  they semi-regularly attack and kill south korean military personnel.  we don't trade with them and we actively try to stop them from trading with others.  they're ruled by a dictator with nearly absolute authority.  the list goes on and on...

If you don't understand why foreign policies are interconnected then I don't know what to say. These countries are all on the same planet, they don't live in their own bubble worlds.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on June 14, 2016, 09:04:07 PM
You guys are arguing over US foreign policy like ANY of it makes sense to begin with. We have done little with our foreign "aid" packages, military presence, covert and overt influences, regime change etc than alienate ourselves from the rest of the World.

By projecting the idea that we know what's good for each and every country and unique culture better than they do, actively undermining sovereignty on a global scale, we've made begrudged allies who would be enemies if they weren't basically reliant on our money. Look at Saudi Arabia... our so called biggest ally in the middle east, let's pretend 911 wasn't a conspiracy, the so called hijackers were Saudi nationals. There is literally no difference between Saudi ideology and ISIS ideology. We pay Islamic Rebels to fight Syria, while simultaneously fighting Islamic Rebels in Iraq. We overthrow Giddafi and let extremists fight over control of Libya. We are allies with Turkey who are actively fighting our main ally in the fight for Iraq, the Kurds.

Please tell me what aspects of US Foreign Policy make any fucking sense to begin with. Until you can you guys are going to argue in circles trying to make heads or tails of it when it is INHERENTLY, by design or due to incompetence, FUBAR to begin with.

Now here is a thing, Truthy; I agree with every word you say through the whole post, never thought that would happen, damn!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 14, 2016, 09:12:45 PM
I'm not too upset about the endless wars in the Middle East. If all of those Islamic countries managed to stop fighting each other then they would aggressively attack everyone else. Better that Muslims stay busy killing other Muslims than turning their attention to the infidels.

Once the region is sucked dry of oil, pretty much every first world nation will vacate the area. Saudi Arabia will turn back into a poor stretch of sand that only a hardcore anthropologist or archaeologist could love.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on June 15, 2016, 01:29:57 PM
Quote
Please tell me what aspects of US Foreign Policy make any fucking sense to begin with. Until you can you guys are going to argue in circles trying to make heads or tails of it when it is INHERENTLY, by design or due to incompetence, FUBAR to begin with.

Quote from: Yes, Minister
Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?

Simply replace 'Europe' with 'World' and 'Britain' with 'America'
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 15, 2016, 02:23:16 PM
russia is an ally
Whose? ???

(The correct answer is India, China, Belarus, Iran, Syria)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 15, 2016, 02:58:16 PM
russia is an ally
Whose? ???

(The correct answer is India, China, Belarus, Iran, Syria)

and then in my very next post, i said, "fair enough, china and russia aren't technically allies.  if you actually think that the level of cooperation we have with russia and china is an any way indicative of our level of cooperation with the dprk..."

good 1 tho.  very witty.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 15, 2016, 07:07:21 PM
You guys are arguing over US foreign policy like ANY of it makes sense to begin with. We have done little with our foreign "aid" packages, military presence, covert and overt influences, regime change etc than alienate ourselves from the rest of the World.

By projecting the idea that we know what's good for each and every country and unique culture better than they do, actively undermining sovereignty on a global scale, we've made begrudged allies who would be enemies if they weren't basically reliant on our money. Look at Saudi Arabia... our so called biggest ally in the middle east, let's pretend 911 wasn't a conspiracy, the so called hijackers were Saudi nationals. There is literally no difference between Saudi ideology and ISIS ideology. We pay Islamic Rebels to fight Syria, while simultaneously fighting Islamic Rebels in Iraq. We overthrow Giddafi and let extremists fight over control of Libya. We are allies with Turkey who are actively fighting our main ally in the fight for Iraq, the Kurds.

Please tell me what aspects of US Foreign Policy make any fucking sense to begin with. Until you can you guys are going to argue in circles trying to make heads or tails of it when it is INHERENTLY, by design or due to incompetence, FUBAR to begin with.

Now here is a thing, Truthy; I agree with every word you say through the whole post, never thought that would happen, damn!

I knew you'd come around  ;)

Quote from: Yes, Minister
Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?

Simply replace 'Europe' with 'World' and 'Britain' with 'America'

Ordo Ad Chao
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 17, 2016, 04:34:09 PM
and then in my very next post, i said, "fair enough, china and russia aren't technically allies.  if you actually think that the level of cooperation we have with russia and china is an any way indicative of our level of cooperation with the dprk..."
Oh, hey, I missed that bit. Then again, it's just as wrong as your original claim so I'm not sure what the point is.

Referring to your homeland's biggest adversaries as "not technically allies" is not strictly inaccurate, but it's a choice of words even Fox News would approach with caution.

Countries which actively oppose and try to destabilise the west can be compared. Just because some of them are strong enough to actually be taken seriously doesn't mean that's no longer true.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 19, 2016, 02:21:10 PM
and then in my very next post, i said, "fair enough, china and russia aren't technically allies.  if you actually think that the level of cooperation we have with russia and china is an any way indicative of our level of cooperation with the dprk..."
Oh, hey, I missed that bit. Then again, it's just as wrong as your original claim so I'm not sure what the point is.

Referring to your homeland's biggest adversaries as "not technically allies" is not strictly inaccurate, but it's a choice of words even Fox News would approach with caution.

Countries which actively oppose and try to destabilise the west can be compared. Just because some of them are strong enough to actually be taken seriously doesn't mean that's no longer true.

what you're saying would make perfect sense in 1985
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 20, 2016, 10:58:07 PM
Some fool tried to grab the pistol out of a cop's hip holster and assassinate Trump. Even better, he had a UK license on him, so he might have flown all the way over here just to make a fool out of himself.

Instances of this happening might increase because Trump's opposition are generally violent nutjobs (see: every protest at his rallies). Hillary's and the media's "Trump is Hitler!" rhetoric certainly isn't helping. Just last week Stephen Colbert drew a "Trump chart" that was quite literally a giant swastika. See Scott Adams' thoughts:

Quote from: Scott Adams
If Clinton successfully pairs Trump with Hitler in your mind – as she is doing – and loses anyway, about a quarter of the country will think it is morally justified to assassinate their own leader. I too would feel that way if an actual Hitler came to power in this country. I would join the resistance and try to take out the Hitler-like leader. You should do the same. No one wants an actual President Hitler.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on June 21, 2016, 02:45:04 AM
That's insane, Trump is nothing like Hitler!  Hitler came into power by playing on the nationalistic fears and prejudices of his country's people, while completely ostracizing and even targeting multiple specific demographics within his own population...

Umm.  :-\

Oh wait...  :(

Well we can always hope he doesn't win the presidency, anyway.  Then there would be no need to assassinate him.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 21, 2016, 03:46:01 AM
Trump's opposition are generally violent nutjobs

i genuinely love how strongly trump's rhetorical tactics have influenced your own.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on June 21, 2016, 03:50:55 AM
Also, Trump bears no responsibility for any violence at his rallies, despite his repeated calls for his followers to use force against people who shouldn't be there and his promise that he'll pay any legal bills they accrue; however, it's totally the fault of Hillary and the media when some guy tries to assassinate Trump.  Very consistent.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 21, 2016, 01:02:12 PM
Trump's opposition are generally violent nutjobs

i genuinely love how strongly trump's rhetorical tactics have influenced your own.

Hmm, or maybe it's possible that they're violent nutjobs. Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do.

Name a Bernie or Hillary rally shut down by violent Republicans. Trump has accrued five shutdowns so far. "Trump says we're violent, dangerous, and should be deported. Let's show him who's boss by being violent and dangerous!"

Also, Trump bears no responsibility for any violence at his rallies, despite his repeated calls for his followers to use force against people who shouldn't be there and his promise that he'll pay any legal bills they accrue; however, it's totally the fault of Hillary and the media when some guy tries to assassinate Trump.  Very consistent.

"You're making me do this! I HAVE to be this violent!"
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on June 21, 2016, 02:03:15 PM
Trump's opposition are generally violent nutjobs

i genuinely love how strongly trump's rhetorical tactics have influenced your own.

Hmm, or maybe it's possible that they're violent nutjobs. Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do.

Maybe Republicans are bigger assholes?

Quote
Name a Bernie or Hillary rally shut down by violent Republicans. Trump has accrued five shutdowns so far. "Trump says we're violent, dangerous, and should be deported. Let's show him who's boss by being violent and dangerous!"

Not all of Trump's rallies were shutdown by violence, some of them were shutdown because he was scared there would be violence (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4846.msg99216#msg99216).  Is a leader who is scared of breaking a few eggs really going to make America great again?

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 21, 2016, 02:05:21 PM
Not all of Trump's rallies were shutdown by violence, some of them were shutdown because he was scared there would be violence (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4846.msg99216#msg99216).  Is a leader who is scared of breaking a few eggs really going to make America great again?

"Not all of them were shutdown by violence, some were shut down just by the threat of violence!"

Am I in some kind of parody universe?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on June 21, 2016, 02:30:48 PM
Not all of Trump's rallies were shutdown by violence, some of them were shutdown because he was scared there would be violence (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=4846.msg99216#msg99216).  Is a leader who is scared of breaking a few eggs really going to make America great again?

"Not all of them were shutdown by violence, some were shut down just by the threat of violence!"

Am I in some kind of parody universe?

Sorry I wasn't aware they were the same thing.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on June 21, 2016, 02:35:48 PM
Weird how leftists think a presidential candidate shouldn't be concerned about the safety of his supporters
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 21, 2016, 02:36:44 PM
Hmm, or maybe it's possible that they're violent nutjobs.

hey maybe it's possible that they're generally from mars, too.  good argument.

Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do.

lol maybe do a single google search (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots) before carrying trump's flag of "i'll just say whatever and not worry about whether or not it's true."

srsly tho please feed me more inductive weak inductive reasoning.  it's compelling.

Name a Bernie or Hillary rally shut down by violent Republicans.

it took me <30 seconds to find an article about trump supporters going out of their way to spray protestors with pepper spray. (http://gawker.com/photographs-show-trump-supporters-pepper-spraying-prote-1780399845) 

nb4 it doesn't count for some hilariously asinine reason.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Woody on June 21, 2016, 03:13:09 PM
It is a good indication of how US foreign and domestic policy will be run if he wins.  More military actions and violence. 

He is the first US political figure in my life time that I have not just dismissed comments comparing them to Hitler as being an outlandish statement.

Just seeing his support he gives for violent actions against people who protest him is enough for me to worry what might happen.  That is the same tactic Hitler used and would support violence being committed against any group or person that did not support him.

Supporting and stating he will not rule out special IDs and requiring a group of people to register with the government based on their religion.

I think just how much neo-nazi/white supremace support him is a good indication of what we can expect if he is elected.  I could be wrong, but I never noticed any other candidate have them support them so energetically.

It saddens me that Trump can use the tactics he is using so openly and has a chance of becoming President. 

I have been thinking of sailing to another country to live for a couple of years.  Maybe it is time to push up my plans and think about extending my stay.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on June 21, 2016, 03:28:22 PM
Weird how leftists think a presidential candidate shouldn't be concerned about the safety of his supporters

Weird how you are putting words in my mouth.  All I am saying is that the assertion that Rushy was making was not factually correct.

That's ok right?  RIGHT???
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 21, 2016, 04:29:41 PM
Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do.

lol maybe do a single google search (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots) before carrying trump's flag of "i'll just say whatever and not worry about whether or not it's true."

Did you even read that article? It looks like you linked it hoping it'd just happen to agree with you. Take Obama, for example, Trump as a presidential candidate has already had two people directly try to kill him at a rally. Obama, as POTUS or candidate, has never had anyone get even close to him. Saying "yeah, but they wanted to kill him" would be illogical, because then we'd have to start counting Facebook comments as assassination attempts. Good one.

Why don't Hillary or Bernie face repeated assassination attempts? Ah, that's right, they're the ones that are violent.

Name a Bernie or Hillary rally shut down by violent Republicans.

it took me <30 seconds to find an article about trump supporters going out of their way to spray protestors with pepper spray. (http://gawker.com/photographs-show-trump-supporters-pepper-spraying-prote-1780399845) 

nb4 it doesn't count for some hilariously asinine reason.

Can anyone say straaaaawmaaaaan? I ask for a Hillary or Bernie rally shut down by violent protesters and you give me protesters trying to shut down a Trump rally getting pepper sprayed. Again, am I in some kind of parody universe? Where did that become remotely applicable to the argument?

This is the Trump effect in action. Trump is so, almost unnaturally, correct, that instead of just conceding and saying "Yes, Rushy, Bernie or Hillary have never had a right-wing group shut down their rally by threatening violence or actually assaulting attendees" you pick the strawman route and say "but look! look these Trump supporters were pepper spraying protesters that were yelling in their face and assaulting other people!"

In fact, the only rally Bernie ever had shut down was done so in response to BLM, a left-wing hate group. The left is so violent, it's attacking itself.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on June 21, 2016, 05:42:41 PM
Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do.

lol maybe do a single google search (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_assassination_attempts_and_plots) before carrying trump's flag of "i'll just say whatever and not worry about whether or not it's true."

Did you even read that article? It looks like you linked it hoping it'd just happen to agree with you. Take Obama, for example, Trump as a presidential candidate has already had two people directly try to kill him at a rally. Obama, as POTUS or candidate, has never had anyone get even close to him. Saying "yeah, but they wanted to kill him" would be illogical, because then we'd have to start counting Facebook comments as assassination attempts. Good one.

I know right? It's like counting the threat of violence as violence!  LOL that would be dumb.

Quote
Why don't Hillary or Bernie face repeated assassination attempts? Ah, that's right, they're the ones that are violent.

Hillary and Bernie are encouraging democrats to assassinate Trump?  Man, this campaign is getting dir-tay.

Name a Bernie or Hillary rally shut down by violent Republicans.

it took me <30 seconds to find an article about trump supporters going out of their way to spray protestors with pepper spray. (http://gawker.com/photographs-show-trump-supporters-pepper-spraying-prote-1780399845) 

nb4 it doesn't count for some hilariously asinine reason.

Can anyone say straaaaawmaaaaan? I ask for a Hillary or Bernie rally shut down by violent protesters and you give me protesters trying to shut down a Trump rally getting pepper sprayed. Again, am I in some kind of parody universe? Where did that become remotely applicable to the argument?[/quote]

So wait, Trump supporters are pepper-spraying democrats, yet its only the democrats you are violent?  Yes, you are living in a parody universe, and are starring in the show.

Quote
This is the Trump effect in action. Trump is so, almost unnaturally, correct, that instead of just conceding and saying "Yes, Rushy, Bernie or Hillary have never had a right-wing group shut down their rally by threatening violence or actually assaulting attendees" you pick the strawman route and say "but look! look these Trump supporters were pepper spraying protesters that were yelling in their face

NOT YELLING IN THEIR FACE!  THOSE ANIMALS!

Quote
and assaulting other people!"

If you read the entire article you would notice that in this case, the Trump supporters were clearly the instigators in this case.  Can you get off your high horse, or is too far to fall?



In fact, the only rally Bernie ever had shut down was done so in response to BLM, a left-wing hate group. The left is so violent, it's attacking itself.
[/quote]
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 21, 2016, 05:49:26 PM
I know right? It's like counting the threat of violence as violence!  LOL that would be dumb.

What are you even talking about? I mentioned that Trump rallies have been shut down by violence and you stated that is addition to being shut down by violence some were also shut down by the threat of violence. You seem to think that you've somehow proven me wrong somewhere.

Hillary and Bernie are encouraging democrats to assassinate Trump?  Man, this campaign is getting dir-tay.

You don't constantly compare your opponent to Hitler whilst expecting everyone to be okay with it. People want to kill Trump because they literally, and I mean literally in the most literal possible way, think Trump is Hitler. Just look at this thread. The left has gone fucking nuts.

Hitler won because his brownshirts violently shutdown the opponent's political rallies and disrupted any possible peaceful discourse available. Hillary/Bernie are closer to Hitler/Stalin/Mao than Trump is.

So wait, Trump supporters are pepper-spraying democrats, yet its only the democrats you are violent?  Yes, you are living in a parody universe, and are starring in the show.

The Trump supporters pepper sprayed protesters that were attacking them. Christ, did you even bother reading about the incident?

NOT YELLING IN THEIR FACE!  THOSE ANIMALS!

Oh no, there's consequences to me getting in someone's face and yelling at the top of my lungs! Generally, yes, that's pretty animal-like to do. You're not going to convince someone how right you are by YELLING AS LOUDLY AS POSSIBLE.

If you read the entire article you would notice that in this case, the Trump supporters were clearly the instigators in this case.  Can you get off your high horse, or is too far to fall?

You should read a lot more about the incident than what Gawker, a literally bankrupt 'journalism' source has given you. The protesters were pepper spraying them in self-defense, hence why they were never charged with assault.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on June 21, 2016, 05:56:03 PM
So you do blame Hillary and the media for people trying to assassinate Trump, while simultaneously insisting that Trump bears zero responsibility for the violence at his rallies that he openly calls for and encourages?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 21, 2016, 06:45:05 PM
Did you even read that article? It looks like you linked it hoping it'd just happen to agree with you. Take Obama, for example, Trump as a presidential candidate has already had two people directly try to kill him at a rally. Obama, as POTUS or candidate, has never had anyone get even close to him.

- A plot in Tennessee involved two white supremacists, Paul Schlesselman and Daniel Cowart, who planned to drive their car toward the Democratic nominee Obama and open fire with guns. They were arrested on October 22, 2008, before taking any action. Schlesselman and Cowart pleaded guilty to federal charges related to the threat in 2010 and were sentenced to 10 and 14 years in prison, respectively.

- In November 2011, Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, a man who believed he was Jesus and that Obama was the Antichrist, hit the White House with several rounds fired from a semi-automatic rifle. No one was injured. However, a window was broken.

- Another attempt was made in April 2013 when a letter laced with ricin, a deadly poison, was sent to President Obama.

this is literally exactly what trump does.  you say something absurd, like, "Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do," don't back it up with any evidence, and then when presented with evidence to the contrary, you just define your way out of the argument.  you're about to do it again right now by coming up with some convoluted reasons why the attempts on obama and clinton, for instance, don't count.


Can anyone say straaaaawmaaaaan? I ask for a Hillary or Bernie rally shut down by violent protesters and you give me protesters trying to shut down a Trump rally getting pepper sprayed. Again, am I in some kind of parody universe? Where did that become remotely applicable to the argument?

protip: combining shitty inductive reasoning with confirmation bias makes your argument worse, not better.

so just to be clear, "Trump's opposition are generally violent nutjobs," and trump supporters are not, but only if we count the times that someone decided to cancel a rally?  if your argument is that trump's opposition are "generally violent" nutjobs, in apparent contrast to trump supporters, then i feel like examples of trump supporters being violent are pretty apropos.  but, again, if you want to just define yourself as correct without regard to reality, then i certainly can't stop you.

hey dummy: if it's only the times that a rally gets canceled that count, then you now have five total examples of 'trump's opposition' being violent.  wow how general.  shitty inductive reasoning is shitty.

This is the Trump effect in action. Trump is so, almost unnaturally, correct

lol.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431755/donald-trumps-huge-lies
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/chronicling-donald-trumps-lies/
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/11/24/Donald-Trump-s-8-Most-Recent-Blatant-Lies
http://www.ibtimes.com/list-donald-trump-lies-10-claims-gop-front-runner-immigration-muslims-kkk-dont-hold-2330265
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/22/all-of-donald-trumps-four-pinocchio-ratings-in-one-place/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

Quote from: national review
Trump’s entire personal and professional history is Obama-esque: When it serves his interests, Trump lies. He has lied to business associates, employees, friends, spouses, and now to millions of prospective voters. Anyone who thinks that Trump will not lie to them, or that he will at least tell the truth about “important things” — immigration or ISIS or whatever — is deluding himself. When it becomes expedient for Trump to lie, he will.

(http://i.imgur.com/VBRUR43.png?2)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 21, 2016, 09:16:09 PM
So you do blame Hillary and the media for people trying to assassinate Trump, while simultaneously insisting that Trump bears zero responsibility for the violence at his rallies that he openly calls for and encourages?

Yes, I do blame Hillary and the media for the attempts. When you tell people that someone is literally Hitler (and you have popular shows like Stephen Colbert drawing "Trump is Hitler" swastika charts) then you're subtlety encouraging someone to try to take him out. Afterall, what kind of monster wouldn't want to kill Hitler?

Trump has only ever encouraged a response to violence happening at his rallies. Protesters constantly interrupt and he wanted the violently punished. Maybe they'd stop interrupting private events if that were the case. If you want to protest Trump, do it at the voting booth. It serves no purpose at all to show up and harass people at Trump's rallies. If anything, you've just reassured them they made the right choice.

- A plot in Tennessee involved two white supremacists, Paul Schlesselman and Daniel Cowart, who planned to drive their car toward the Democratic nominee Obama and open fire with guns. They were arrested on October 22, 2008, before taking any action. Schlesselman and Cowart pleaded guilty to federal charges related to the threat in 2010 and were sentenced to 10 and 14 years in prison, respectively.

- In November 2011, Oscar Ramiro Ortega-Hernandez, a man who believed he was Jesus and that Obama was the Antichrist, hit the White House with several rounds fired from a semi-automatic rifle. No one was injured. However, a window was broken.

- Another attempt was made in April 2013 when a letter laced with ricin, a deadly poison, was sent to President Obama.

this is literally exactly what trump does.  you say something absurd, like, "Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do," don't back it up with any evidence, and then when presented with evidence to the contrary, you just define your way out of the argument.  you're about to do it again right now by coming up with some convoluted reasons why the attempts on obama and clinton, for instance, don't count.

It's funny that you've now managed to make this about Obama without investigating my base statement that Republicans face more assassination attempts than Democrats. I'm waiting for you to count them up.


protip: combining shitty inductive reasoning with confirmation bias makes your argument worse, not better.

so just to be clear, "Trump's opposition are generally violent nutjobs," and trump supporters are not, but only if we count the times that someone decided to cancel a rally?  if your argument is that trump's opposition are "generally violent" nutjobs, in apparent contrast to trump supporters, then i feel like examples of trump supporters being violent are pretty apropos.  but, again, if you want to just define yourself as correct without regard to reality, then i certainly can't stop you.

hey dummy: if it's only the times that a rally gets canceled that count, then you now have five total examples of 'trump's opposition' being violent.  wow how general.  shitty inductive reasoning is shitty.

Once again you can't even manage to admit basic truths, then you turn around and complain about me and making personal attacks. I can see you may very well be one of those violent people I mentioned.

If you don't understand the difference between hundreds to thousands of people attacking and shutting down rallies versus "yeah, but that one Trump supporter used pepper spray!" then I have bad news. I'll even bet you think La Raza isn't a big deal.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/431755/donald-trumps-huge-lies
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/chronicling-donald-trumps-lies/
http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/11/24/Donald-Trump-s-8-Most-Recent-Blatant-Lies
http://www.ibtimes.com/list-donald-trump-lies-10-claims-gop-front-runner-immigration-muslims-kkk-dont-hold-2330265
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/22/all-of-donald-trumps-four-pinocchio-ratings-in-one-place/
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

Oh boy, a long string of anti-Trump sites culminated with Politifact, a site that endorsed Hillary. You're also using some other RINO conservative sites that I could almost guarantee you wouldn't normally agree with. Even, laughably, The Blaze.

This is the Internet. You could find countless links saying anything you want them to. I could find you five or so links talking about military chemtrails. Media sites are pretty useless when they're all trying to peddle lies.



Edit:
In other news, Trump is now asking for donations and will be matching any donation made for the next two days after donating $50 million directly to the campaign. A donation to Trump goes a long way. One Trump dollar is worth at least four Bernie Bucks. Donate today!

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on June 21, 2016, 10:31:45 PM
Yes, I do blame Hillary and the media for the attempts. When you tell people that someone is literally Hitler (and you have popular shows like Stephen Colbert drawing "Trump is Hitler" swastika charts) then you're subtlety encouraging someone to try to take him out. Afterall, what kind of monster wouldn't want to kill Hitler?

"You're making me do this! I HAVE to be this violent!"

lol

And just calling the websites that fact-check Trump liars isn't much of a defense when they provide the facts and explain their reasoning alongside their judgments.  I'll grant that Politifact does have a tendency to use weasel words and make some very subjective calls, but there's no doubt that Trump has told some absolutely outrageous lies.  Claims like this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/03/donald-trump/donald-trumps-ridiculous-claim-linking-ted-cruzs-f/), this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/02/donald-trump/trumps-absurd-claim-he-knows-nothing-about-former-/), this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/22/donald-trump/fact-checking-trumps-claim-thousands-new-jersey-ch/), this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-unemployment-rate-may-be-42-perc/), and this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/06/donald-trump/trump-mexican-government-they-send-bad-ones-over/) are jaw-dropping in their audacity, and go far beyond whatever fibs about which emails were sent from where that Hillary may have been telling.  If Trump is willing to lie so blatantly - and stick to his story even when the rest of the world contradicts him - who knows what fabrications he'll come up with once he's in the Oval Office?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 21, 2016, 10:57:02 PM
Yes, I do blame Hillary and the media for the attempts. When you tell people that someone is literally Hitler (and you have popular shows like Stephen Colbert drawing "Trump is Hitler" swastika charts) then you're subtlety encouraging someone to try to take him out. Afterall, what kind of monster wouldn't want to kill Hitler?

"You're making me do this! I HAVE to be this violent!"

lol

And just calling the websites that fact-check Trump liars isn't much of a defense when they provide the facts and explain their reasoning alongside their judgments.  I'll grant that Politifact does have a tendency to use weasel words and make some very subjective calls, but there's no doubt that Trump has told some absolutely outrageous lies.  Claims like this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/may/03/donald-trump/donald-trumps-ridiculous-claim-linking-ted-cruzs-f/), this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/mar/02/donald-trump/trumps-absurd-claim-he-knows-nothing-about-former-/), this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/nov/22/donald-trump/fact-checking-trumps-claim-thousands-new-jersey-ch/), this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/30/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-unemployment-rate-may-be-42-perc/), and this (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/06/donald-trump/trump-mexican-government-they-send-bad-ones-over/) are jaw-dropping in their audacity, and go far beyond whatever fibs about which emails were sent from where that Hillary may have been telling.  If Trump is willing to lie so blatantly - and stick to his story even when the rest of the world contradicts him - who knows what fabrications he'll come up with once he's in the Oval Office?

Defending yourself from someone violently attacking you is different from my quote, which you blatantly took from the context. Protesters showing up to Trump's rallies and being violent, then coincidentally being met with violent retaliation, is not the same as Hillary and the media constantly provoking this madness. People are convinced Trump is an evil racist that must be stopped, which is a false narrative that is strung on by the media who are never punished. The media needs to be reprimanded for constantly instigating this madness.

And yes, attacking the source is valid when the source is riddled with lies and bias. The Washington Post, for example, is no more accurate than Above Top Secret as a news source.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 21, 2016, 11:25:23 PM
It's funny that you've now managed to make this about Obama without investigating my base statement that Republicans face more assassination attempts than Democrats. I'm waiting for you to count them up.
you said, "Take Obama, for example...", so i did.  your original statement was, "Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do."  but it turns out that "Assassination attempts and plots on Presidents of the United States have been numerous: more than 20 attempts to kill sitting and former presidents, as well as the Presidents-elect, are known," and that, "With the exception of Lyndon Johnson, every president's life since John F. Kennedy has been threatened with assassination."

but by all means, you probably have a special way of counting that excludes the attempts on democratic politicians, so do some counting for me.

Once again you can't even manage to admit basic truths, then you turn around and complain about me and making personal attacks. I can see you may very well be one of those violent people I mentioned.  If you don't understand the difference between hundreds to thousands of people attacking and shutting down rallies versus "yeah, but that one Trump supporter used pepper spray!" then I have bad news.
i think your reasoning is shitty and asinine, so i may very well be violent?  what?

if it wasn't obvious, i don't think that i just magically happened to find the one trump supporter who was ever violent with a protestor at a rally.  not really sure what i'm supposed to admit to since i'm not the one suggesting that violence is a tendency reserved only to one political party.  that's your asinine position.  i think it all counts.

this is the fucked up position you put yourself in by getting drawn into 'good guy v bad guys' political demagoguery.  this will shock you to hear, but awareness of the basic fact that there are definitely violent and provocative trump supporters doesn't preclude me from awareness of violent trump protestors.

Media sites are pretty useless when they're all trying to peddle lies.
so the liberal sources are unreliable because they're liberal, regardless of the actual content, and conservative sources are unreliable because i personally sometimes disagree with other material they've written on other topics.  oh, and the centrist outlets are unreliable in general because they're news outlets.  lol.

so you're officially on the side of 'everyone else is a liar.'  srsly you're like a little trump acolyte or something.  it's almost adorable.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 22, 2016, 12:30:23 AM
you said, "Take Obama, for example...", so i did.  your original statement was, "Republican candidates undergo assassination attempts much more often than democratic ones do."  but it turns out that "Assassination attempts and plots on Presidents of the United States have been numerous: more than 20 attempts to kill sitting and former presidents, as well as the Presidents-elect, are known," and that, "With the exception of Lyndon Johnson, every president's life since John F. Kennedy has been threatened with assassination."

but by all means, you probably have a special way of counting that excludes the attempts on democratic politicians, so do some counting for me.

Hmm, I get that feeling you still haven't counted, though.

i think your reasoning is shitty and asinine, so i may very well be violent?  what?

if it wasn't obvious, i don't think that i just magically happened to find the one trump supporter who was ever violent with a protestor at a rally.  not really sure what i'm supposed to admit to since i'm not the one suggesting that violence is a tendency reserved only to one political party.  that's your asinine position.  i think it all counts.

this is the fucked up position you put yourself in by getting drawn into 'good guy v bad guys' political demagoguery.  this will shock you to hear, but awareness of the basic fact that there are definitely violent and provocative trump supporters doesn't preclude me from awareness of violent trump protestors.

One side is overwhelmingly using violent suppression tactics against the other. It isn't even a contest. This is as bad as when people bring up Islamic terrorism and others say "yeah, but remember that one guy that bombed an abortion clinic? like a year ago?? both sides are violent!!" Both sides are violent, yes, but one is exponentially more violent than the other one. I never once said all Trump supporters are peaceful monks and all anti-Trump's are violent, but anti-Trumps do tend to generally be more violent. An awful lot of people thought that assassination attempt was praise worthy.

so the liberal sources are unreliable because they're liberal, regardless of the actual content, and conservative sources are unreliable because i personally sometimes disagree with other material they've written on other topics.  oh, and the centrist outlets are unreliable in general because they're news outlets.  lol.

so you're officially on the side of 'everyone else is a liar.'  srsly you're like a little trump acolyte or something.  it's almost adorable.

The vast majority of media pushes an outright false narrative and outright lies right in their articles. They even go as far as using ridiculous images to prove their point (but the videos those images are from never make it to the article, how convenient!). You should be examining yourself, for example, since you've been driven to post links to The Blaze of all places. That doesn't strike you as the least bit strange?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 22, 2016, 02:57:16 PM
Hmm, I get that feeling you still haven't counted, though.
"With the exception of Lyndon Johnson, every president's life since John F. Kennedy has been threatened with assassination."

do you want me to count for you the number of republicans and democrats who have been in office sine john f kennedy?  is that going to be helpful in some way?  ok.  including jfk i count 4 democrats and 5 republicans.  oh wow, the disparity...

I never once said all Trump supporters are peaceful monks and all anti-Trump's are violent, but anti-Trumps do tend to generally be more violent. An awful lot of people thought that assassination attempt was praise worthy.

i think one of the places where trump supporters spend time not being peaceful monks is at political rallies.  again, maybe i just happened to find the sole example of a trump supporter instigating violence at a political rally, but i kinda doubt it.  i think it's more likely that trump supporters at rallies are also agitated and instigative.  you can keep asserting that no no no they really are generally more violent, but just saying a thing doesn't make it so.

The vast majority of media pushes an outright false narrative and outright lies right in their articles. They even go as far as using ridiculous images to prove their point (but the videos those images are from never make it to the article, how convenient!). You should be examining yourself, for example, since you've been driven to post links to The Blaze of all places. That doesn't strike you as the least bit strange?

right,  everyone's a liar but you and your buddy.  i mean, the facts and sources to support those claims are laid out right in front of you, but those are all probably lies, too, right?  very sophisticated reasoning.  everyone's a dumb liar but you.  how convenient.

no, it doesn't strike me as strange to substantiate my argument with literature from both sides of the political isle.  it was intentional.  i think that makes my position stronger and more credible, not less.  that was the whole point of collecting sources from the left, right, and center.

the national review already said it best for me: "Anyone who thinks that Trump will not lie to them, or that he will at least tell the truth about “important things” — immigration or ISIS or whatever — is deluding himself."  i would add to that list anyone who thinks trump hasn't lied to them already.  a lot.  as a matter of course.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 22, 2016, 04:41:55 PM
Hmm, I get that feeling you still haven't counted, though.
"With the exception of Lyndon Johnson, every president's life since John F. Kennedy has been threatened with assassination."

do you want me to count for you the number of republicans and democrats who have been in office sine john f kennedy?  is that going to be helpful in some way?  ok.  including jfk i count 4 democrats and 5 republicans.  oh wow, the disparity...
A death threat and an assassination attempt are two entirely different things...

i think one of the places where trump supporters spend time not being peaceful monks is at political rallies.  again, maybe i just happened to find the sole example of a trump supporter instigating violence at a political rally, but i kinda doubt it.  i think it's more likely that trump supporters at rallies are also agitated and instigative.  you can keep asserting that no no no they really are generally more violent, but just saying a thing doesn't make it so.
You've obviously ignoring the exact same thing that happens when a Trump supporter gets anywhere near any kind of "progressive (repressive)" rally. They get attacked and their sign gets torn up. Let's just admit, through intentional divisiveness, the American political process has created a bunch of crazed violent idiots who are incapable of reacting to a different opinion with anything but anger.

The vast majority of media pushes an outright false narrative and outright lies right in their articles. They even go as far as using ridiculous images to prove their point (but the videos those images are from never make it to the article, how convenient!). You should be examining yourself, for example, since you've been driven to post links to The Blaze of all places. That doesn't strike you as the least bit strange?

right,  everyone's a liar but you and your buddy.  i mean, the facts and sources to support those claims are laid out right in front of you, but those are all probably lies, too, right?  very sophisticated reasoning.  everyone's a dumb liar but you.  how convenient.

no, it doesn't strike me as strange to substantiate my argument with literature from both sides of the political isle.  it was intentional.  i think that makes my position stronger and more credible, not less.  that was the whole point of collecting sources from the left, right, and center.

the national review already said it best for me: "Anyone who thinks that Trump will not lie to them, or that he will at least tell the truth about “important things” — immigration or ISIS or whatever — is deluding himself."  i would add to that list anyone who thinks trump hasn't lied to them already.  a lot.  as a matter of course.

Breaking News: Politicians LIE!

Also just in: The media can twist the truth to whatever narrative they want to!

I believe you are allowing your personal feelings get invested entirely too much into this debate. It's obvious you are coming from an emotional point of view and Rushy seems to be coming from a logical point of view. I have to admit, I mentioned earlier in this thread about how Trump was a racist, narcissist etc, and since I have realized that I actually allowed the media to influence this opinion, and upon further inspection determined it is not much more than false narratives supported by 5-10 second sound bytes meant to undermine an independent bid for the presidency. Yes, he's still an out of touch asshole. But he isn't Hitler. Hillary no doubt has about infinity % more blood on her hands than Trump does, and considerably less credibility than he does, and that's not up for debate.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 22, 2016, 05:49:51 PM
do you want me to count for you the number of republicans and democrats who have been in office sine john f kennedy?  is that going to be helpful in some way?  ok.  including jfk i count 4 democrats and 5 republicans.  oh wow, the disparity...

Wow, you made this entire argument against a point that was already correct, so instead of going straight for saying "well, that's correct, but..." you argued that it wasn't correct. This makes it pretty obvious that you didn't even bother checking whether or not you were correct in the first place.

i think one of the places where trump supporters spend time not being peaceful monks is at political rallies.  again, maybe i just happened to find the sole example of a trump supporter instigating violence at a political rally, but i kinda doubt it.  i think it's more likely that trump supporters at rallies are also agitated and instigative.  you can keep asserting that no no no they really are generally more violent, but just saying a thing doesn't make it so.

Hmm, it's almost like having a bunch of protesters show up punching people in the face, you get people who retaliate. Find me violence at a Trump rally that doesn't involve an anti-Trump. I'll save you the trouble and let you know that such an event doesn't exist. Your argument is bogus and you know it. You don't get to claim Trump supporters are violent and mean by citing all the incidents of Trump supporters defending themselves against the anti-Trumps.

right,  everyone's a liar but you and your buddy.  i mean, the facts and sources to support those claims are laid out right in front of you, but those are all probably lies, too, right?  very sophisticated reasoning.  everyone's a dumb liar but you.  how convenient.

no, it doesn't strike me as strange to substantiate my argument with literature from both sides of the political isle.  it was intentional.  i think that makes my position stronger and more credible, not less.  that was the whole point of collecting sources from the left, right, and center.

the national review already said it best for me: "Anyone who thinks that Trump will not lie to them, or that he will at least tell the truth about “important things” — immigration or ISIS or whatever — is deluding himself."  i would add to that list anyone who thinks trump hasn't lied to them already.  a lot.  as a matter of course.

Or, the more likely case, you've entrenched yourself in media lies (and even lies inside you own head). You've twisted my position repeatedly in this thread alone and you'll gladly link any source whatsoever that just happens to agree with your assessment. You'll judge the how trustworthy something is by what side its on (e.g. your "both sides of the isle" comment). Your conclusion is that because The Blaze is well known for lying --but-- its a well known right-wing source of lying, that they couldn't possibly do something like spin lies around Trump. That's hilarious.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 22, 2016, 06:15:03 PM
and then in my very next post, i said, "fair enough, china and russia aren't technically allies.  if you actually think that the level of cooperation we have with russia and china is an any way indicative of our level of cooperation with the dprk..."
Oh, hey, I missed that bit. Then again, it's just as wrong as your original claim so I'm not sure what the point is.

Referring to your homeland's biggest adversaries as "not technically allies" is not strictly inaccurate, but it's a choice of words even Fox News would approach with caution.

Countries which actively oppose and try to destabilise the west can be compared. Just because some of them are strong enough to actually be taken seriously doesn't mean that's no longer true.

what you're saying would make perfect sense in 1985
If you have a response, please feel free to formulate it. Since you haven't made an argument, I can't even pick a Current Year(tm) for your statement to work.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 23, 2016, 03:12:44 AM
You've obviously ignoring the exact same thing that happens when a Trump supporter gets anywhere near any kind of "progressive (repressive)" rally. They get attacked and their sign gets torn up. Let's just admit, through intentional divisiveness, the American political process has created a bunch of crazed violent idiots who are incapable of reacting to a different opinion with anything but anger.

i'm ignoring none of it.  i think there are lots of angry and violent folks on both sides of the isle.

Breaking News: Politicians LIE!

Also just in: The media can twist the truth to whatever narrative they want to!

I believe you are allowing your personal feelings get invested entirely too much into this debate. It's obvious you are coming from an emotional point of view and Rushy seems to be coming from a logical point of view. I have to admit, I mentioned earlier in this thread about how Trump was a racist, narcissist etc, and since I have realized that I actually allowed the media to influence this opinion, and upon further inspection determined it is not much more than false narratives supported by 5-10 second sound bytes meant to undermine an independent bid for the presidency. Yes, he's still an out of touch asshole. But he isn't Hitler. Hillary no doubt has about infinity % more blood on her hands than Trump does, and considerably less credibility than he does, and that's not up for debate.

my emotional attachment extends no further than my sarcasm and bad slams.  i have nothing to be personally or emotionally invested in here.  i don't have a dog in this fight, contra rushy who refers to trump as "god-emperor."  i only think it's dumb to talk about politics as if one side is the good guys and the other are the bad guys.

i also don't think trump is hitler.  my criticism of trump isn't even that i think he's a liar; it's that i think it genuinely doesn't concern him if what he's saying is true or not.  i don't think he considers it at all.  i don't think he's skeptical of his own opinions.  i hate that quality in any person.

Wow, you made this entire argument against a point that was already correct, so instead of going straight for saying "well, that's correct, but..." you argued that it wasn't correct. This makes it pretty obvious that you didn't even bother checking whether or not you were correct in the first place.

every president faces assassination threats and plots.  that makes you wrong, not right.

Hmm, it's almost like having a bunch of protesters show up punching people in the face, you get people who retaliate. Find me violence at a Trump rally that doesn't involve an anti-Trump. I'll save you the trouble and let you know that such an event doesn't exist. Your argument is bogus and you know it. You don't get to claim Trump supporters are violent and mean by citing all the incidents of Trump supporters defending themselves against the anti-Trumps.

lol you obviously didn't actually read the link i posted.  i get it, though, it came from a news outlet so it was probably bullshit anyway.  yeah these guys smiling and spraying the pepper spray and taking photos of it look super terrified and assaulted:
(http://i.imgur.com/1bnW7zy.jpg?1)



You'll judge the how trustworthy something is by what side its on (e.g. your "both sides of the isle" comment). Your conclusion is that because The Blaze is well known for lying --but-- its a well known right-wing source of lying, that they couldn't possibly do something like spin lies around Trump. That's hilarious.

i genuinely don't understand what you mean by this.  i do not judge the trustworthiness of a news source according to its politics.  you seem to, and that's why i included sources from left, right, and center; i haven't said anything at all about the blaze being well-known for lying.  i haven't said anything at all about the blaze before, i don't think.  don't like the blaze?  read the other sources, then.  i'm partial to the national review article and the washington post thing, myself.

[If you have a response, please feel free to formulate it. Since you haven't made an argument, I can't even pick a Current Year(tm) for your statement to work.

actually fair enough, 1985 was mostly denouement, but the point is that i wildly disagree with your description of us-russian relations, and the comparison you and rushy draw between russia and the dprk would only maybe make sense if we were living in the height of the cold war.  but we're not, so it isn't.

there are significant qualitative differences, the most obvious of which are things like red phones, arms control agreements, lots of trade, neither being run by a dictator with absolute control over a brainwashed and isolated population, a lack of ideological predisposition toward annihilate the other, etc.

either way, what difference does it make?  let's suppose you're right and russia is a huge threat.  what does one have to do with the other?  i'm not making any argument about what foreign policy toward russia is or isn't good.  my argument was that 1) i don't think trump should have anything to do with directing foreign policy toward the peninsula, and 2) our current foreign policy there is reasonably sound. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 23, 2016, 09:30:46 PM
every president faces assassination threats and plots.  that makes you wrong, not right.

I never said otherwise? Continually building strawmen doesn't change my point. More violent people exist on the left than the right. A lot more. This is why people like Hitler, Stalin and Mao get away with using easily malleable students to their advantage. They use the left-wing students to attack or outright kill (in the case of Mao) their political opponents, then they turn around, note that they're "useful idiots" and shoot them in the streets.

Anytime a madman politician has gained power, it was the violent left that propelled them to that position. If Trump turns out to be "literally Hitler 2.0" and gets into office then there will be no one to blame but the left for once again instigating violence and affecting the vote. When will the left learn that attacking people at rallies and conventions means you're on the wrong side?

lol you obviously didn't actually read the link i posted.  i get it, though, it came from a news outlet so it was probably bullshit anyway.  yeah these guys smiling and spraying the pepper spray and taking photos of it look super terrified and assaulted:

It's impossible for the media to take an out of context image from a video and use that to support an almost entirely false narrative.

Maybe you should dig a little deeper than the first hitpiece that google spits out at you. You have a chronic condition of assuming it something is stated by enough people in enough places (e.g. look at all these links I have!!) that it suddenly becomes true. How curious that these articles avoid context and describe almost fairytale images of evil Trump supporters attacking poor unsuspecting minorities.

i genuinely don't understand what you mean by this.  i do not judge the trustworthiness of a news source according to its politics.  you seem to, and that's why i included sources from left, right, and center; i haven't said anything at all about the blaze being well-known for lying.  i haven't said anything at all about the blaze before, i don't think.  don't like the blaze?  read the other sources, then.  i'm partial to the national review article and the washington post thing, myself.

When both sides of the media are trying to take someone down with almost the exact same hitpieces, it should raise a red flag. The illusion of media competition starts to fade just a little.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 24, 2016, 01:40:03 AM
Also, here's some video evidence that Hillary is definitely a lizard person: https://vine.co/v/5BDdXUbetld

Or just someone that doesn't teleprompter very well. One of the two. I'm going with lizard.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Snupes on June 24, 2016, 03:59:17 AM
w0w or someone who can attempt humour
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on June 24, 2016, 04:15:13 AM
Trump on the other hand took some good advice and started using a tele-prompter.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on June 25, 2016, 03:44:11 PM
actually fair enough, 1985 was mostly denouement, but the point is that i wildly disagree with your description of us-russian relations, and the comparison you and rushy draw between russia and the dprk would only maybe make sense if we were living in the height of the cold war.  but we're not, so it isn't.
Okay, so your argument is "no u". 10/10

there are significant qualitative differences, the most obvious of which are things like red phones, arms control agreements, lots of trade, neither being run by a dictator with absolute control over a brainwashed and isolated population, a lack of ideological predisposition toward annihilate the other, etc.
Oh, okay, so you don't know much about President Prime Minister President Putin. Why didn't you just say so?

If I assume the absolute maximum of good faith on your part, your argument boils down to "Russia big, North Korea no big. Ha, difference!!!" - Yes, good job, the US is acting much less macho towards Russia than it is towards North Korea. That's because they don't want to get their teeth kicked in. No surprise there.

either way, what difference does it make?  let's suppose you're right and russia is a huge threat.  what does one have to do with the other?  i'm not making any argument about what foreign policy toward russia is or isn't good.  my argument was that 1) i don't think trump should have anything to do with directing foreign policy toward the peninsula, and 2) our current foreign policy there is reasonably sound.
Yes, and we were explaining to you why you're wrong using examples which we (or, well, I) had hoped would be more familiar to you. It's difficult because you're apparently in denial not only about the situation between the US and North Korea, but also about the situation between the US and Russia - what with your frantic jumping between calling them ALLIES (I'm honestly not over that), calling them uhh-not-enemies-I-guess, randomly and incorrectly invoking history, etc.; all that just to avoid responding to an argument. I guess we could try again with, oh, I dunno, ISIS, but that'd probably end up going the same way. "History ain't history and current events ain't current events so ha!!!!!"

What a waste of time. I'll leave you with this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oEylpSsOsQ
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on June 26, 2016, 02:20:56 PM
http://www.npr.org/2016/06/22/483085166/donald-trump-clinton-is-the-most-corrupt-person-ever-to-run-for-president

Quote
"No secretary of state has been more wrong, more often, in more places, than Hillary Clinton," he said. "Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched."

Trump is trying to get people to assassinate Hillary.  How dare he.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on June 26, 2016, 03:46:25 PM
Yes, and we were explaining to you why you're wrong using examples which we (or, well, I) had hoped would be more familiar to you. It's difficult because you're apparently in denial not only about the situation between the US and North Korea, but also about the situation between the US and Russia
rushy asserted that since i think the dprk is a threat then i must think russia is a threat.  let's assume you're both right that russia is a threat.  what does that have to with the net-benefits of maintaining a military base in south korea? 

how is russia an example of why i'm wrong that we should maintain a military base in south korea?  ELI5.

what with your frantic jumping between calling them ALLIES (I'm honestly not over that), calling them uhh-not-enemies-I-guess, randomly and incorrectly invoking history, etc.; all that just to avoid responding to an argument.
indeed, allies was the wrong word, and although i wouldn't call immediately admitting that i was incorrect "frantic," i agree, again, that it is the wrong word to use to describe our relationship with russia.  feel free to strike that sentence from my reasoning, because it is incorrect.

that said, you're just beating a dead horse over a relatively superficial error.  an error, absolutely, but not one that really has anything to do with the substance of my argument or the warrants supporting it: the differences between russia and the dprk, and their respective relations with the us, are qualitative, not quantitative.  i am not suggesting that the us and russia are never adversaries; i'm suggesting that the things over which we cooperate make our relationship fundamentally different than the one we have with the dprk.  'don't you know you're wrong?' isn't an argument that can be responded to.

putin is not a dictator, and the russian state operates in a fundamentally different manner than the dprk (https://app.box.com/s/62vqkvpvxylyjoz5qvbm7yre6uustwg7)
Quote
So if the Russian state were nothing more than an extension of Putin, how would one explain the reckless decision to invade and annex Crimea in 2014 or the risky military intervention in Syria that Russia launched last year? If Russia were a pure autocracy, such actions would suggest a leader with a personality like Stalin’s or Mussolini’s. But there are no evil geniuses in the Kremlin today. Rather, powerful figures such as Sergei Ivanov, Putin’s chief of staff; Vladislav Surkov, Putin’s chief adviser on political strategy; and even Putin himself are more akin to experienced, competent bureaucrats, generally able to exercise administrative control, even if they act mostly in their own interest.

The reality, as attested by the past two years of chaos, is that despite his image as an all-powerful tsar, Putin has never managed to build a bureaucratically successful authoritarian state. Instead, he has merely crafted his own version of sistema, a complex practice of decision-making and power management that has long defined Russian politics and society and that will outlast Putin himself. Putin has mastered sistema, but he has not replaced it with “Putinism” or a “Putin system.” Someday, Putin will go. But sistema will stay.

russia is fundamentally uninterested in conflict with nato and nato allies (https://app.box.com/s/ql7rf0db25z8n4mggy3wenhjlmubjewo)
Quote
Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland are safe, however, even if they do not feel that way: the Kremlin has no interest in risking nuclear war by attacking a nato member state, and the sphere of Russian control to which Putin aspires certainly excludes these countries. At the same time that Russia is rebuilding its military, nato is ramping up its own military presence in eastern Europe. The result will likely be a new and open-ended military standoff. Unlike during the Cold War, however, there is little prospect for arms control agreements between Russia and the West anytime soon because of the many disparities in their conventional military capabilities. Indeed, the Russian armed forces are unlikely to become as powerful as the U.S. military or threaten a nato member state with a massive invasion even in the long term. Although Moscow seeks to remain a major player
on the international stage, Russian leaders have abandoned Soviet-era ambitions of global domination and retain bad memories of the Cold War–
era arms race, which fatally weakened the Soviet Union.

What is more, Russia’s resources are far more limited than those of the United States: its struggling economy is nowhere near the size of the U.S. economy, and its aging population is less than half as large as the U.S. population. The Russian defense industry, having barely survived two decades of neglect and decay, faces a shrinking work force, weaknesses in key areas such as electronics, and the loss of traditional suppliers such as Ukraine.
Although Russia’s military expenditures equaled 4.2 percent of gdp in 2015, the country cannot bear such high costs much longer without cutting back on essential domestic needs, particularly in the absence of robust economic growth. For now, even under the constraints of low energy prices and Western sanctions, Russian officials have pledged to continue the military modernization, albeit at a slightly slower pace than was originally planned.

Putin and other Russian officials understand that Russia’s future, and their own, depends mostly on how ordinary citizens feel. Just as the annexation of Crimea was an exercise in historic justice for most of the Russian public, high defense spending will be popular so long as Russian citizens believe that it is warranted by their country’s international position. So far, that seems to be the case. The modernization program could become a problem, however, if it demands major cuts to social spending and produces a sharp drop in living standards. The Russian people are famously resilient, but unless the Kremlin finds a way to rebuild the economy and provide better governance in the next four or five years, the social contract at the foundation of the country’s political system could unravel. Public sentiment is not a trivial matter in this respect: Russia is an autocracy, but it is an autocracy with the consent of the governed.

our relationship with the kremlin is troubled, but we definitely cooperate on significant global events and have shared interests.  'technically not allies' isn't *terribly* far off the mark. (https://app.box.com/s/bohllhnfyith35sx1g7pr1pitwwau5ky)
Quote
The cease-fire represents the second time that the Russians and the Americans have unexpectedly and successful cooperated in Syria, where the civil war has pitted Moscow (which acts as the primary protector and patron of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad) against Washington (which has called for an end to Assad’s rule). In 2013, Russia and the United States agreed on a plan to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons, with the Assad regime’s assent. Few believed that arrangement would work either, but it did.

These moments of cooperation highlight the fact that, although the world order has changed beyond recognition during the past 25 years and is no longer defined by a rivalry between two competing superpowers, it remains the case that when an acute international crisis breaks out, Russia and the United States are often the only actors able to resolve it. Rising powers, international institutions, and regional organizations frequently cannot do anything—or don’t want to. What is more, despite Moscow’s and Washington’s expressions of hostility and contempt for each other, when it comes to shared interests and common threats, the two powers are still able to work reasonably well together.

And yet, it’s important to note that these types of constructive interactions on discrete issues have not changed the overall relationship, which remains troubled[...]

apologies for the wall of text, but it's better than an assertion debate.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on June 26, 2016, 04:20:23 PM
http://www.npr.org/2016/06/22/483085166/donald-trump-clinton-is-the-most-corrupt-person-ever-to-run-for-president

Quote
"No secretary of state has been more wrong, more often, in more places, than Hillary Clinton," he said. "Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched."

Trump is trying to get people to assassinate Hillary.  How dare he.

Might as well call her Hitlery Clinton, amirite?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 27, 2016, 04:16:33 PM
http://www.npr.org/2016/06/22/483085166/donald-trump-clinton-is-the-most-corrupt-person-ever-to-run-for-president

Quote
"No secretary of state has been more wrong, more often, in more places, than Hillary Clinton," he said. "Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched."

Trump is trying to get people to assassinate Hillary.  How dare he.

Might as well call her Hitlery Clinton, amirite?

Calling a politician corrupt is kind of like calling a dog furry or water wet. Labeling someone the consensus all-time leader in evil incarnate is a little more dangerous.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on June 27, 2016, 10:18:50 PM
He didn't simply call her corrupt, as the article makes clear.  He's blaming her for the creation of ISIS and the deaths of thousands worldwide.  The obvious takeaway is that she would be even more dangerous if she were to win the election.  Gee, how many tens, or hundreds of thousands of innocent lives are on the line if she becomes the president?  If she were to be killed now, all those people would be saved!  It sure seems like it's morally justified to kill her now and stop this genocide before it happens, doesn't it?

If Hillary and the media are subtly calling for Trump's assassination, than Trump is calling for Hillary's, and far more blatantly.  I say if because this whole scenario is ridiculous to begin with, but it's interesting to see yet another double standard among Trump fans.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 28, 2016, 01:06:57 AM
He didn't simply call her corrupt, as the article makes clear.  He's blaming her for the creation of ISIS and the deaths of thousands worldwide.  The obvious takeaway is that she would be even more dangerous if she were to win the election.  Gee, how many tens, or hundreds of thousands of innocent lives are on the line if she becomes the president?  If she were to be killed now, all those people would be saved!  It sure seems like it's morally justified to kill her now and stop this genocide before it happens, doesn't it?

If Hillary and the media are subtly calling for Trump's assassination, than Trump is calling for Hillary's, and far more blatantly.  I say if because this whole scenario is ridiculous to begin with, but it's interesting to see yet another double standard among Trump fans.

When one candidate is saying "He'll use boxcars or something to ship them out of the country" and the other is just saying "She is a corrupt warmongerer" I think the difference stands pretty clear.

Quote from: Hillary Clinton
Well, I'm glad you asked me that, because some on the other side who are already advocating to deport 11, 12 million people

[...]round them up and, I don't know, put them in buses or boxcars, in order to take them across the border.

Hmm, how many people were estimated to be killed in the Holocaust again? And what was the main method of transportation?

It's true, Hillary has never straight said "Trump is Hitler!" but the theme is there. You even have popular media talkshows such as Colbert accidentally making Trump->Nazi Graphs:

(http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/BORpMjd91J3gm80R_RbcUQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTc1O3c9NjAw/http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/en_us/Finance/US_AFTP_SILICONALLEY_H_LIVE/Stephen_Colbert_used_a_Nazi-055890cb040129953c7f8c74875919b7.cf.png)

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on June 28, 2016, 02:20:25 AM
When one candidate is saying "He'll use boxcars or something to ship them out of the country" and the other is just saying "Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched" I think the difference stands pretty clear.

Fixed to reflect what Trump actually said, and yes, the difference is pretty clear.  Trump's language is far more extreme, as it always is, because the man lives and breathes hyperbole.  That's arguably been one of his key strengths of his campaign.  There's no sense in downplaying it.  And Hillary's quote is from almost a year ago (for an extra dose of irony, the same Washington Post you allege is part of the anti-Trump/call-Trump-Hitler conspiracy called Hillary out for that line and defended Trump (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sorry-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-is-no-nazi/2015/08/31/2cee0bda-4fdc-11e5-8c19-0b6825aa4a3a_story.html)).  Don't you have anything more recent?

Quote
It's true, Hillary has never straight said "Trump is Hitler!" but the theme is there.

Now, why does this sound familiar?  Oh yeah, a few of us have tried to argue along these lines when discussing Trump's alleged racism:

What [Trump] is doing, however, is nudging and winking at the bigots out there that make up his base, hinting to them that he shares their concerns about these people, while always leaving himself enough wiggle room to deny any racist intention if called out on it publicly.  But I think any reasonable person can connect the dots and figure out what the subtext is.

You rejected this, of course.  No, Trump has never said "Whites > blacks" and therefore any sign of racism from him is in the eye of the beholder.  Hillary is responsible for everything she implies and insinuates, but how dare you read anything into Trump's words no you're the real racist.  Oh, and here's a gem from the very entertaining response (I want to say it's half-capeshit villain, half-Bond villain) you wrote to that post:

But ultimately the point is, Saddam, I don't care if you call me or Trump or his supporters racist or xenophobes or whatever you want because you can't tell me why. You think about the morality of a policy, not its actual impact, and so therefore your thoughts on the subject are irrelevant. You live in a 'reality has a liberal bias' world. A feels>reals world. So feel free to move to Canada with the rest of the feels peoples while their economy burns to ashes.

And yet here you are complaining about morality and feels.  Getting soft on us, Rushy?  This is the real world, and hard, logical effects are what's important, not your romantic sentimentalism.  Having Trump killed is the surest way of guaranteeing that he'll never sit in the Oval Office, so why bother criticizing Hillary for sending assassins after him?  She's just trying to get shit done!  And wouldn't it be hilarious (Hillarious?) if Trump really was assassinated?  Talk about a yuge, yuge cucking for his fans!  You've talked before about watching the spiraling despair of Bernie's fans on reddit as it became more and more obvious that he had lost.  I bet that would be nothing compared to the mass suicides being planned on r/TheDonald.

Quote
You even have popular media talkshows such as Colbert accidentally making Trump->Nazi Graphs:

(http://l.yimg.com/bt/api/res/1.2/BORpMjd91J3gm80R_RbcUQ--/YXBwaWQ9eW5ld3NfbGVnbztxPTc1O3c9NjAw/http://globalfinance.zenfs.com/en_us/Finance/US_AFTP_SILICONALLEY_H_LIVE/Stephen_Colbert_used_a_Nazi-055890cb040129953c7f8c74875919b7.cf.png)

That was a fucking joke, Rushy.  Did you seriously think it was "accidental"?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on June 28, 2016, 06:22:43 PM
When one candidate is saying "He'll use boxcars or something to ship them out of the country" and the other is just saying "Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched" I think the difference stands pretty clear.

Fixed to reflect what Trump actually said

Umm... is he wrong?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on June 28, 2016, 07:45:43 PM
When one candidate is saying "He'll use boxcars or something to ship them out of the country" and the other is just saying "Her decisions spread death, destruction and terrorism everywhere she touched" I think the difference stands pretty clear.

Fixed to reflect what Trump actually said

Umm... is he wrong?
She's not a plague carrier.  Nor is the US currently at war with anyone who was an ally before she was secretary of state.  Nor is her husband dead.

So... no. 
Also, Trump was very clear that she was a terrific asset.  That was before he was running for president but he said it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 28, 2016, 08:39:35 PM
Fixed to reflect what Trump actually said, and yes, the difference is pretty clear.  Trump's language is far more extreme, as it always is, because the man lives and breathes hyperbole.  That's arguably been one of his key strengths of his campaign.  There's no sense in downplaying it.  And Hillary's quote is from almost a year ago (for an extra dose of irony, the same Washington Post you allege is part of the anti-Trump/call-Trump-Hitler conspiracy called Hillary out for that line and defended Trump (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/sorry-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-is-no-nazi/2015/08/31/2cee0bda-4fdc-11e5-8c19-0b6825aa4a3a_story.html)).  Don't you have anything more recent?

Trump isn't actively trying to compare Hillary to Hitler. There's only one man on the planet that killed 11 million people primarily using boxcars to shuffle them around, Saddam. I'll let you take a few minutes to think on who that man is.

Trump is saying Hillary is dangerous, corrupt, warmongering, etc. That's bad, yes, but it's a far cry from making comparisons between her and what is possibly the most evil man to have ever lived.

You rejected this, of course.  No, Trump has never said "Whites > blacks" and therefore any sign of racism from him is in the eye of the beholder.  Hillary is responsible for everything she implies and insinuates, but how dare you read anything into Trump's words no you're the real racist.  Oh, and here's a gem from the very entertaining response (I want to say it's half-capeshit villain, half-Bond villain) you wrote to that post:

"You said my [completely different] argument earlier was nonsense, therefore you're being a hypocrite when you say my argument is nonsense now!"

Saddam, even if this were true, arguing that I'm a hypocrite isn't an argument at all. If a smoker tells someone "don't smoke, it's bad for you" does that now mean smoking must be good for you?

And yet here you are complaining about morality and feels.  Getting soft on us, Rushy?  This is the real world, and hard, logical effects are what's important, not your romantic sentimentalism.  Having Trump killed is the surest way of guaranteeing that he'll never sit in the Oval Office, so why bother criticizing Hillary for sending assassins after him?  She's just trying to get shit done!  And wouldn't it be hilarious (Hillarious?) if Trump really was assassinated?  Talk about a yuge, yuge cucking for his fans!  You've talked before about watching the spiraling despair of Bernie's fans on reddit as it became more and more obvious that he had lost.  I bet that would be nothing compared to the mass suicides being planned on r/TheDonald.

This is probably one of the most cringeworthy things you've ever posted.

That was a fucking joke, Rushy.  Did you seriously think it was "accidental"?

Propaganda under the guise of comedy is still propaganda. Jon Stewart, John Oliver, Stephen Colbert, etc. spend their entire lives peddling propaganda to their audience. There have been many, many studies to the effect (e.g. this sociology paper (https://www.jstor.org/stable/2786391?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents)) showing that humor is extremely effective as a persuasion technique. The combination of humor and "news" contributes to thousands of people who genuinely believe these comedians are good sources of information.

Colbert hilariously compared Trump to Hitler. Now when you think of Hitler/Swastikas, your mind brings up Trump. That's not an accident. These are men who educate themselves in the psychology of an audience. They do what they do very much on purpose, much as anyone else does. Make people laugh, trust you, and then slip in some manipulation along the line. No big deal, right?

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on June 28, 2016, 10:32:58 PM
You're still downplaying what Trump says on a daily basis while exaggerating the impact of what Hillary once said a year ago, still insisting on double standards where Trump means no more than what he literally says as a rule, but Hillary can be blamed for any meaning you wring out of her words, and still backtracking on your previous "I am above your silly morals" edgelord stance to feign outrage now.  I'm focusing on the hypocrisy of your reasoning because it's not atypical of much of Trump's support, especially on the Internet - a quickly slapped-together set of flimsy, inconsistent principles meant to disguise the fact that this election is all just a big joke to you.  Yeah, I know that this is kind of like the George Scott fallacy (I wonder how many people here will get that reference), but it needs to be said.  You don't support Trump the politician; you support Trump the meme.  You, along with God knows how many of Trump's fans, just want him to be elected because you think it would be hilarious to see the President of the United States tell journalists he doesn't like to fuck off at press conferences, to see him grab his crotch and roll his eyes while a rival politician gives a speech opposing his latest plan, to hear about diplomatic meetings that were broken off in anger because he kept leering at the women in attendance, etc.  You're obviously entitled to vote for whomever you want for whatever reason you want, but there's no sense in pretending it's about anything more than entertainment value to you.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on June 28, 2016, 10:45:37 PM
ITT: Saddam knows other people better than they know themselves
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on June 28, 2016, 11:32:09 PM
If I felt like putting more effort into my reply to that fabulous Saddam meltdown, then I'd go find the IRC log where Saddam said something to the tune of "If I want a serious argument I'll make posts on the forum."

ITT: Saddam knows other people better than they know themselves

Saddam is just mad that his argument blew up in his face and he knows it.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on June 29, 2016, 07:19:44 AM
You're still downplaying what Trump says on a daily basis while exaggerating the impact of what Hillary once said a year ago, still insisting on double standards where Trump means no more than what he literally says as a rule, but Hillary can be blamed for any meaning you wring out of her words, and still backtracking on your previous "I am above your silly morals" edgelord stance to feign outrage now.  I'm focusing on the hypocrisy of your reasoning because it's not atypical of much of Trump's support, especially on the Internet - a quickly slapped-together set of flimsy, inconsistent principles meant to disguise the fact that this election is all just a big joke to you.  Yeah, I know that this is kind of like the George Scott fallacy (I wonder how many people here will get that reference), but it needs to be said.  You don't support Trump the politician; you support Trump the meme.  You, along with God knows how many of Trump's fans, just want him to be elected because you think it would be hilarious to see the President of the United States tell journalists he doesn't like to fuck off at press conferences, to see him grab his crotch and roll his eyes while a rival politician gives a speech opposing his latest plan, to hear about diplomatic meetings that were broken off in anger because he kept leering at the women in attendance, etc.  You're obviously entitled to vote for whomever you want for whatever reason you want, but there's no sense in pretending it's about anything more than entertainment value to you.

That's really all I have to say about this.  I mean that sincerely - I'm not saying that I've won the argument and this is the final word on the subject or anything, just that my argument has reached its conclusion, and to say anything more would be repeating myself.  You may have a fantastic response to this, but I won't have one for you.

Spot on.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: İntikam on June 30, 2016, 07:32:27 AM
As a Turk from Turkey i want Trumps win. Because recently almost of American presidents was bad, liar and killers . This man will not change anything. America currently supporting the terrorism, ISIS, al qaida and Boko haram. What will Trump do? Probably creates a new terror organisation as MISIS.  8)

Trump like a thread for otherside of the world. We know that to hold a thread is more effective from to realize the thread. So i want to Donald's winning the election. Then we can fight against all of American interests on the Middle East. Maybe this election can safe the world.

Trump should to win. Then  we see what can he do? Can he do what did say? yeah man choose him.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on July 05, 2016, 06:02:14 PM
Oh good, Hill dog gets to skate on federal charges. It was funny to see the FBI Director call her a retard though.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on July 05, 2016, 08:30:00 PM
Of course Hillary won't be charged.  If she were, then she'd have the right to respond to the charges, and she'd have to go in front of a judge, both of which could very easily lead to the whole charade coming to a very sudden halt.  This was never about actually prosecuting her and letting the system handle things; it was about creating an air of perpetual scandal hovering over Hillary's head.  I imagine the Republicans will be upset that the FBI ended things a few months too early, though.  Maybe they'll take the Benghazi approach and launch a congressional "investigation" of what happened, begin a new one when they find nothing seriously incriminating, and so on.  Gotta keep the neverending scandal narrative going.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 05, 2016, 09:17:53 PM
Quote from: James Comey
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

He is verbatim telling us that Hillary won't be charged or punished in any manner because she is Hillary.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on July 05, 2016, 09:29:35 PM
Gotta keep the neverending scandal narrative going.

Maybe she is the never ending scandal?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Snupes on July 05, 2016, 09:38:19 PM
https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/4rd6ou/fbi_recommends_no_charges_against_hillary_clinton/

A lot of people bitched about it, taking that way, too, and a bunch of e-lawyers explained why they're wrong
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 05, 2016, 10:01:37 PM
Quote from: James Comey
there was no evidence that Clinton or her staff deleted emails with the intention to hide contents

(https://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/64093389.jpg)

Ayy lmao

I guess we better release everyone from prison that mishandled classified data but had no intent to harm the US. Good news, Snowden! Good news, Bradley Manning! You're free! It turns out you can't be convicted of this crime!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 05, 2016, 11:01:05 PM
Quote from: James Comey
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

He is verbatim telling us that Hillary won't be charged or punished in any manner because she is Hillary.

lol not even close.  your reading comprehension is genuinely terrible.

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences [at all]. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions [even when criminal sanctions are not warranted]. But that is not what we are [tasked with deciding]."
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 06, 2016, 12:02:34 AM
Quote from: James Comey
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

He is verbatim telling us that Hillary won't be charged or punished in any manner because she is Hillary.

lol not even close.  your reading comprehension is genuinely terrible.

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences [at all]. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions [even when criminal sanctions are not warranted]. But that is not what we are [tasked with deciding]."

Hmm, so what you're saying is:

He is verbatim telling us that Hillary won't be charged or punished in any manner because she is Hillary.

Sounds to me like she won't be charged or punished in any manner, but she would in [similar circumstances]. She illegally transmitted at least 113 emails and possibly thousands more (who knows? they got wiped with a cloth!) with several emails ordering that the classification headers be stripped. This case is so blatantly corrupt I'm almost laughing.

(https://sli.mg/gHT80S.jpg)

Please send me those classified documents to my personal server and make sure you mark them as unclassified! Don't worry, I don't intend to do anything with it. It's not like the Russians would be interested in monitoring the State department! haha!



Additionally, in other news, with primary season over, the voter turnout has been Republican +62%, Democrat -21%, compared to 2012. There were so many additional Republican voters that R votes in total outnumbered D votes (extremely unusual). Not all of those votes were Trump/Hillary votes, however. There's no telling if those same voters will show up for the GE on the R or D side.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on July 06, 2016, 02:50:39 AM
"Hillary Clinton is extremely careless"
-FBI, 2016

Totally corrupt, but makes for a nice campaign slogan I suppose.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on July 06, 2016, 02:52:27 AM
Quote from: James Comey
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

He is verbatim telling us that Hillary won't be charged or punished in any manner because she is Hillary.

That's not what he's saying at all.  "Security or administrative sanctions" refers to people getting in trouble in work, as in getting fired, getting demoted, having their security clearances removed, etc. - none of which, of course, is the FBI's job.  In any case, it wouldn't be much use trying to impose those sanctions on someone who doesn't even work in that department anymore.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on July 06, 2016, 03:04:35 AM
This is also effectively the killing blow for Bernie's campaign. He's only been holding out for this long for a possible indictment, and now it's clear that's not happening, leaving behind millions of disenfranchised fanatics. Meanwhile Trump is now guaranteed to face an opponent whom the FBI characterizes as completely negligent of national security.

Could be worse.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2016, 03:25:40 AM
This may be the least palatable election in US history. It's hard to imagine a situation where you could make a case that Trump is the better choice, yet here we are. Good luck America and may God have mercy on your souls. Please stay the fuck away from us.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on July 06, 2016, 03:34:56 AM
Trump is still the far worse choice.  He'd probably shitpost classified information on Twitter.  "The CIA says that domestic terrorists are a bigger threat right now than ISIS.  They expect me to believe this crap.  Sad!"
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on July 06, 2016, 03:43:03 AM
Hillary is confirmed to have leaked classified information to foreign governments, making her a liability to national security as president. Trump has done no such thing, so how is he worse again?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2016, 03:45:53 AM
He wants to alienate or already has alienated some key foreign partners and large segments of the American population.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on July 06, 2016, 04:46:12 PM
He wants to alienate or already has alienated some key foreign partners and large segments of the American population.

And you think Hillary hasn't?

I'm willing to be a fair amount of those thousands of emails she deleted might have alienated a couple foreign "partners" had the contents been disclosed. She was pretty much ordering regime change via hotmail.

US elections are designed to alienate large segments of the American population, that's why it is so neatly organized into Left and Right, Blue and Red. It is a polarized nation by design. BTW if you don't live here than you don't have a clue what it's like, so keep you uninformed opinions to your damn self.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2016, 06:33:42 PM
He wants to alienate or already has alienated some key foreign partners and large segments of the American population.

And you think Hillary hasn't?

She wasn't censured by the British Parliament, I know that much.

Quote
I'm willing to be a fair amount of those thousands of emails she deleted might have alienated a couple foreign "partners" had the contents been disclosed.

But they weren't, so who they didn't.

Quote
She was pretty much ordering regime change via hotmail.

If people were alienated by the US ordering regime changes (which she did where exactly?) the US would have lost their partners a while ago.

Quote
US elections are designed to alienate large segments of the American population, that's why it is so neatly organized into Left and Right, Blue and Red. It is a polarized nation by design. BTW if you don't live here than you don't have a clue what it's like, so keep you uninformed opinions to your damn self.

Sorry I forgot America is a special snowflake. I will give you your space before you get triggered. I hope you don't feel raped.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 06, 2016, 09:20:46 PM
He wants to alienate or already has alienated some key foreign partners and large segments of the American population.

Can you be more specific about these "key foreign partners"? Also, about what alienated them? I don't honestly think that Trump could say anything that would alienate any foreign entity. You don't stop working with someone because they said mean things about you.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2016, 09:41:59 PM
Can you be more specific about these "key foreign partners"? Also, about what alienated them?


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/british-parliament-set-to-debate-banning-donald-trump/2016/01/18/7351d87a-ba14-11e5-85cd-5ad59bc19432_story.html

Quote
I don't honestly think that Trump could say anything that would alienate any foreign entity. You don't stop working with someone because they said mean things about you.

But you maybe do not give them the credence that a more reasonable person might receive.  There have been numerous instances in Canada-US relations that have been impeded because the PM didn't like POTUS and vice versa.  Also, see how Mexico feels after Trumpadump builds a wall along their border.


Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 06, 2016, 09:51:52 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/british-parliament-set-to-debate-banning-donald-trump/2016/01/18/7351d87a-ba14-11e5-85cd-5ad59bc19432_story.html

They did that because a petition was signed that forced parliament to debate the topic. The debate lasted all of what, thirty minutes? A few MPs laughed about it and moved on. It's funny you'd even bother linking this.

But you maybe do not give them the credence that a more reasonable person might receive.  There have been numerous instances in Canada-US relations that have been impeded because the PM didn't like POTUS and vice versa.  Also, see how Mexico feels after Trumpadump builds a wall along their border.

Trump wants to squash TPP and repeal NAFTA. Those two things are going to piss on Canada and Mexico any way you look at it. Bernie wanted to do the same thing, but no one sat around claiming he was "alienating key foreign partners."
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2016, 09:58:29 PM
That doesn't mean he wasn't. Besides, you get a bit more scrutiny when you have a chance of winning your nomination.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 06, 2016, 10:01:02 PM
That doesn't mean he wasn't. Besides, you get a bit more scrutiny when you have a chance of winning your nomination.

Keeping an Act and looking at implementing another that actively hurts your own nation in lieu of alienating what you call "key foreign partners" is not what I would expect from a leader. I'd rather have a Bernie than a Hillary. At least I know Bernie believes what he says.

Keep in mind Hillary's stance suddenly changed to being against TPP after Bernie's popularity surged. I doubt she would actually veto it given the chance.
Title: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on July 06, 2016, 10:05:44 PM
Even MSNBC crushed Hillary (and the FBI). That was a bit unexpected, but good to see even left leaning outlets calling out her blatant lies.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 06, 2016, 10:09:01 PM
Even MSNBC crushed Hillary (and the FBI). That was a bit unexpected, but good to see even left leaning outlets calling out her blatant lies.

The problem is that James Comey confirmed she mishandled over a hundred emails and was "extremely careless" then went on to say we won't do anything but someone else in a similar situation would face consequences. Would she necessarily go to jail? Maybe, maybe not, but any normal person who did this would at the very least be barred from security clearances and get a hefty fine.

Also, this!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbkS26PX4rc
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on July 06, 2016, 10:36:34 PM
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Hillary Clinton is not fit to sit as POTUS. This whole election has turned in to a gong show.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on July 07, 2016, 01:43:08 AM
James Comey...went on to say we won't do anything but someone else in a similar situation would face consequences.

Again, that's not true.  The distinction that Comey was making wasn't between Hillary and someone else, but between legal consequences and "security or administrative sanctions."  The former is something that the FBI, being a law enforcement agency, would be involved in.  The latter has nothing to do with criminal law or the justice system, and so the FBI would have no involvement in imposing those penalties on anyone.  There are plenty of reasons to criticize this decision, but this misunderstanding of Comey's words isn't one of them.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 07, 2016, 07:46:23 PM
James Comey...went on to say we won't do anything but someone else in a similar situation would face consequences.

Again, that's not true.  The distinction that Comey was making wasn't between Hillary and someone else, but between legal consequences and "security or administrative sanctions."  The former is something that the FBI, being a law enforcement agency, would be involved in.  The latter has nothing to do with criminal law or the justice system, and so the FBI would have no involvement in imposing those penalties on anyone.  There are plenty of reasons to criticize this decision, but this misunderstanding of Comey's words isn't one of them.

I didn't say otherwise, Saddam. I even said she would likely not go to jail. What you've posted here is quite literally a straw man. You've misidentified my argument from "she should be punished" to "she must be charged."
Title: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on July 08, 2016, 01:27:42 AM
And the probe is re-opened. Wouldn't it be great if it's proven that she committed perjury (even if it is just a congressional inquiry)?

Sorry, hill-dog.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 08, 2016, 02:25:18 AM
But junker, she didn't intend to lie.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on July 08, 2016, 03:02:30 AM
I didn't say otherwise, Saddam. I even said she would likely not go to jail. What you've posted here is quite literally a straw man. You've misidentified my argument from "she should be punished" to "she must be charged."

But then why bother bringing up the FBI at all, when they have nothing to do with imposing security or administrative sanctions?  It seems to me like you think Comey said that Hillary won't be getting any security or administrative sanctions for this, but someone else totally would be.  He didn't say either, as the subject is completely out of his hands.  The State Department has only just begun its own investigation of this incident:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/state-department-reopens-probe-into-clinton-emails/

If Hillary does end up with any security or administrative sanctions, this is where she'll be getting them from.  Not the FBI.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on July 08, 2016, 05:01:02 AM
What is this discussion even? Of course the bureau of investigation doesn't directly impose punishments, but what they can do, and are expected to, is recommend a course of action to the DoJ based on their findings. The recommendation here is clearly to do nothing, hence the outrage.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on July 08, 2016, 09:43:08 AM
Okay, so at this point I'm clearly going with the lesser of two evils.

It appears that both candidates are corrupt, and both candidates are liars.  All too common, sadly.

My primary issue at this point is actually Trump's antisemitism.  As a Jew, I just can't bring myself to vote for someone so blatantly antisemitic.  Even if I didn't think Trump was a smug and pathological liar who would drive this country into the mud if he was made president, the antisemitism would be a breaking point.

Please note that you might have your own reasons for wanting Trump; maybe you're antisemitic yourself for example (heh heh, just kidding, that's a little of that famous Jewish humor for you, you're welcome).  I'm perfectly fine with that, because obviously Hillary is not an ideal choice.  Unfortunately for me she's the only choice.  And this is probably the worst thing she will face, because she's smart enough to not constantly put her foot in her mouth, while Trump will likely (almost certainly at the rate he's going) just fuck up over and over and over again.  He won't be able to skate by on his base of supporters.  He will need some of those on-the-fence moderates.  He won't get them if he keeps making himself look like an idiot and an asshole and a bigot.  So Hillary's almost certainly going to win, Benghazi and deleted emails and all.

I suppose I could vote for a 3rd party candidate and throw my vote away in protest of the two leading nominees, as a friend of mine says she plans to do, but assuming I go with a liberal-leaning candidate (I almost certainly would), that would ultimately be tantamount to supporting Trump (indeed, this very scenario is probably Trump's best shot at sneaking into the White House), a known antisemite.  So that's not happening.  :(

Go Hillary 2016.  Sigh.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on July 08, 2016, 09:58:21 AM
Is this pasta
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 08, 2016, 11:10:08 AM
We should take a lesson from brexit:
Vote for a 3rd party thinking it won't win because it might.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 08, 2016, 11:15:25 AM
But then why bother bringing up the FBI at all, when they have nothing to do with imposing security or administrative sanctions?  It seems to me like you think Comey said that Hillary won't be getting any security or administrative sanctions for this, but someone else totally would be.  He didn't say either, as the subject is completely out of his hands.  The State Department has only just begun its own investigation of this incident:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/state-department-reopens-probe-into-clinton-emails/

If Hillary does end up with any security or administrative sanctions, this is where she'll be getting them from.  Not the FBI.

What do you mean 'why bother'? Should I just pretend James Comey and his statements don't exist because he can't actually press charges against anyone?

Also, Roundy, lol
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on July 08, 2016, 12:26:53 PM
And the probe is re-opened. Wouldn't it be great if it's proven that she committed perjury (even if it is just a congressional inquiry)?

Sorry, hill-dog.
Trey Gowdy's questioning of Director Comey proves the FBI knew she lied to them and did so under oath. But Comey will STILL not act. He is addicted the breathing, and AG Lynch has been promised a seat on the SCOTUS
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on July 08, 2016, 03:49:45 PM
Please note that you might have your own reasons for wanting Trump; maybe you're antisemitic yourself for example (heh heh, just kidding, that's a little of that famous Jewish humor for you, you're welcome).  I'm perfectly fine with that, because obviously Hillary is not an ideal choice. 

Go Hillary 2016.  Sigh.

For a Jew, you're not very funny. lol

But really, can you show me something showing Trump is a known antisemite? Do you honestly think a known antisemite could make it in the business world having to deal with a fair amount of his colleagues (lawyers, bankers) being Jewish?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on July 08, 2016, 04:14:04 PM
He tweeted a picture that used a default MS Paint shape, so he's obviously an antisemite, duh

Hillary "fucking Jew bastard" Clinton is perfectly clean, though :^)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on July 08, 2016, 04:16:42 PM
He tweeted a picture that used a default MS Paint shape, so he's obviously an antisemite, duh

Hillary "fucking Jew bastard" Clinton is perfectly clean, though :^)

And the Star is used by EVERY SO in Indiana and more that a few other states.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 08, 2016, 04:51:39 PM
Roundy is trolling you dolts. Stop feeding him.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on July 08, 2016, 05:26:34 PM
He tweeted a picture that used a default MS Paint shape, so he's obviously an antisemite, duh

What does it being a default have to do with the context and message he coupled it with?  Maybe he isn't an anti-semite, maybe he is just retarded.  But if he didn't do anything wrong, why did he change it?  After all, Trump stands up for what he believes in mirite?

Quote
Hillary "fucking Jew bastard" Clinton is perfectly clean, though :^)

Is anyone claiming this? 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on July 08, 2016, 05:37:19 PM
What does it being a default have to do with the context and message he coupled it with?  Maybe he isn't an anti-semite, maybe he is just retarded.  But if he didn't do anything wrong, why did he change it?  After all, Trump stands up for what he believes in mirite?

Did I say he didn't do anything wrong? Surely, if anything, changing the tweet means it was an honest mistake and he's not actually antisemitic.

Quote
Is anyone claiming this?

Well, if you're voting based on antisemitism, it seems strange to support the candidate with a history of making antisemitic slurs.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on July 08, 2016, 05:38:48 PM

Did I say he didn't do anything wrong? Surely, if anything, changing the tweet means it was an honest mistake and he's not actually antisemitic.

Why "surely"?

Quote
Well, if you're voting based on antisemitism, it seems strange to support the candidate with a history of making antisemitic slurs.

+1.  This election is the perfect time for Bob Dole to make his run.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on July 08, 2016, 05:44:12 PM

Did I say he didn't do anything wrong? Surely, if anything, changing the tweet means it was an honest mistake and he's not actually antisemitic.

Why "surely"?

Why else would he change the tweet?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on July 08, 2016, 05:59:08 PM

Did I say he didn't do anything wrong? Surely, if anything, changing the tweet means it was an honest mistake and he's not actually antisemitic.

Why "surely"?

Why else would he change the tweet?

Well I suppose the "honest mistake" could be that he was mistaken about how pissed off he would be at a tweet that tries to put Hilary in league with money-grubbing Jews.  Or is it money-grubbing sheriffs?  Oh, yeah, Hilary and Sheriff's offices have a long standing alliance built on corruption  ::)

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 08, 2016, 05:59:37 PM
I'm so confused as to how that picture was anti-Semitic. Can someone explain in plain words how it was deemed to be that way?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on July 08, 2016, 06:06:44 PM
This "fucking Jew bastard" thing is a he-said-she-said story coming from a pretty fringey source.  Even if it is true, it was forty years ago.  I don't think there's any comparison between that and Trump's repeated "accidental" postings of racist memes.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on July 08, 2016, 06:06:58 PM

Did I say he didn't do anything wrong? Surely, if anything, changing the tweet means it was an honest mistake and he's not actually antisemitic.

Why "surely"?

Why else would he change the tweet?

Well I suppose the "honest mistake" could be that he was mistaken about how pissed off he would be at a tweet that tries to put Hilary in league with money-grubbing Jews.  Or is it money-grubbing sheriffs?  Oh, yeah, Hilary and Sheriff's offices have a long standing alliance built on corruption  ::)

Or, you know, maybe it's just a star.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on July 08, 2016, 06:16:19 PM
Or, you know, maybe it's just a star.

Hey, if you think that is the case, go to.  In this case, I have a really hard time believing that this image, taken from a board frequented by white supremacists and neo-nazis no less, was not scrutinized for its context and implications and that his campaign was not comfortable with all of those implications.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on July 08, 2016, 06:50:26 PM
Or, you know, maybe it's just a star.

Hey, if you think that is the case, go to.  In this case, I have a really hard time believing that this image, taken from a board frequented by white supremacists and neo-nazis no less, was not scrutinized for its context and implications and that his campaign was not comfortable with all of those implications.

Do you think Trump has a team of people around him at all times while he is on his phone retweeting images? No, he is actually a real person that has actual actions that aren't 100% calculated, deliberate, preplanned, passed through committee, sent to a focus group for review prior to doing them, unlike certain other robotic cybernetic reptilians he is running against.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on July 08, 2016, 06:58:58 PM
This "fucking Jew bastard" thing is a he-said-she-said story coming from a pretty fringey source.  Even if it is true, it was forty years ago.  I don't think there's any comparison between that and Trump's repeated "accidental" postings of racist memes.

You're right, Hillary has gotten pretty good at hiding her antisemitism in the past 40 years.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on July 08, 2016, 07:38:23 PM
Do you think Trump has a team of people around him at all times while he is on his phone retweeting images? No, he is actually a real person that has actual actions that aren't 100% calculated, deliberate, preplanned, passed through committee, sent to a focus group for review prior to doing them, unlike certain other robotic cybernetic reptilians he is running against.

He has a director of new media on his staff who helps Trump create social media strategies designed to do exactly what is happening here: engage the public and drive conversation.  When he called Hillary the "Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!" he was working from a teleprompter.  This was not a retweet either, it was something he composed and do you think it was him that pulled the image down and edited it to change the star of david to a circle?  Get off it, this guy is smart, despite what dems wish were true, and knows exactly what he is doing.  If he isn't anti-semitic, then it was probably a ploy designed to appeal to anti-semites and/or to those on the right who love piling on the failings of the left, seen in full force after the back lash came out.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 08, 2016, 08:16:02 PM
I'm so confused as to how that picture was anti-Semitic. Can someone explain in plain words how it was deemed to be that way?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on July 08, 2016, 08:32:45 PM
This "fucking Jew bastard" thing is a he-said-she-said story coming from a pretty fringey source.  Even if it is true, it was forty years ago.  I don't think there's any comparison between that and Trump's repeated "accidental" postings of racist memes.

You're right, Hillary has gotten pretty good at hiding her antisemitism in the past 40 years.

Just like it was cool that she was hugging and kissing former KKK leader Robert Byrd. (http://"http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan")

(http://www.snopes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/clinton-byrd.png)

Cus he was like, the KKK leader so long ago, ya know?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on July 08, 2016, 08:34:44 PM
Or, you know, maybe it's just a star.

Hey, if you think that is the case, go to.  In this case, I have a really hard time believing that this image, taken from a board frequented by white supremacists and neo-nazis no less, was not scrutinized for its context and implications and that his campaign was not comfortable with all of those implications.

So in your view the flag of Israel is anti-semitic, because it has the Star of David on it. All Sherif and Police Departments with with 6 sided star are also anti-semitic. Never mind that Trump's grand kids are Jewish.

You sir ARE the problem. You see hate where none exists, except for the hate YOU feel toward someone you disagree with.

I'm not surprised.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on July 08, 2016, 08:39:59 PM
So in your view the flag of Israel is anti-semitic, because it has the Star of David on it. All Sherif and Police Departments with with 6 sided star are also anti-semitic. Never mind that Trump's grand kids are Jewish.

No, why would you say that?

Quote
You sir ARE the problem. You see hate where none exists, except for the hate YOU feel toward someone you disagree with.

I'm not surprised.
[/quote]

You're right.  Calling someone the most "corrupt candidate ever" is an act of love and acceptance. I don't hate Trump, I think he is a terrible candidate for president.  Stop being so dramatic.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on July 08, 2016, 08:51:50 PM
So in your view the flag of Israel is anti-semitic, because it has the Star of David on it. All Sherif and Police Departments with with 6 sided star are also anti-semitic. Never mind that Trump's grand kids are Jewish.

No, why would you say that?

Quote
You sir ARE the problem. You see hate where none exists, except for the hate YOU feel toward someone you disagree with.

I'm not surprised.

You're right.  Calling someone the most "corrupt candidate ever" is an act of love and acceptance. I don't hate Trump, I think he is a terrible candidate for president.  Stop being so dramatic.
[/quote]

Are you seriously saying Clinton is not corrupt?


Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on July 08, 2016, 08:52:54 PM

Are you seriously saying Clinton is not corrupt?

No, I have actually said she is incredibly corrupt.  Why?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on July 08, 2016, 08:53:53 PM

Are you seriously saying Clinton is not corrupt?

No, I have actually said she is incredibly corrupt.  Why?

Because it appears as though you support her.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on July 08, 2016, 08:56:21 PM

Are you seriously saying Clinton is not corrupt?

No, I have actually said she is incredibly corrupt.  Why?

Because it appears as though you support her.

That is only because you haven't read anything I have said.  If you had, you would have seen:

This may be the least palatable election in US history. It's hard to imagine a situation where you could make a case that Trump is the better choice, yet here we are. Good luck America and may God have mercy on your souls. Please stay the fuck away from us.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on July 08, 2016, 11:44:24 PM
I'm so confused as to how that picture was anti-Semitic. Can someone explain in plain words how it was deemed to be that way?

Well, it comes from /pol/ apparently, so that doesn't do it any favors. But it's the combination of the star-shaped thingy over a bunch of money to insinuate that Clinton is corrupt from Jewish money. The shape alone is not the issue. It stems from a long-standing form of anti-semitism.

This is really just the straw that broke the camel's back. Trump has retweeted or spread messages that originate from white supremacist or neo-nazi sources before, and this is just one more example. His team needs to exercise to message discipline and vet the stuff they put out on his Twitter account.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on July 09, 2016, 12:13:41 AM
This "fucking Jew bastard" thing is a he-said-she-said story coming from a pretty fringey source.  Even if it is true, it was forty years ago.  I don't think there's any comparison between that and Trump's repeated "accidental" postings of racist memes.

You're right, Hillary has gotten pretty good at hiding her antisemitism in the past 40 years.

Just like it was cool that she was hugging and kissing former KKK leader Robert Byrd. (http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan)

(http://www.snopes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/clinton-byrd.png)

Cus he was like, the KKK leader so long ago, ya know?

The Snopes article does an excellent job of explaining why that's a pretty weak argument to use against Hillary.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 09, 2016, 01:05:17 AM
I'm so confused as to how that picture was anti-Semitic. Can someone explain in plain words how it was deemed to be that way?

Well, it comes from /pol/ apparently, so that doesn't do it any favors. But it's the combination of the star-shaped thingy over a bunch of money to insinuate that Clinton is corrupt from Jewish money. The shape alone is not the issue. It stems from a long-standing form of anti-semitism.

This is really just the straw that broke the camel's back. Trump has retweeted or spread messages that originate from white supremacist or neo-nazi sources before, and this is just one more example. His team needs to exercise to message discipline and vet the stuff they put out on his Twitter account.

Seems to me that this is grasping at straws to break the camel's back. It feels like another weak attempt to make Trump literally Hitler. I'm pretty sure Hitler wouldn't have had an hour long speech at AIPAC.

I also doubt Trump is anti-semitic, considering his daughter, son-in-law and grandchild are Jewish.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on July 09, 2016, 01:12:03 AM

Seems to me that this is grasping at straws to break the camel's back. It feels like another weak attempt to make Trump literally Hitler. I'm pretty sure Hitler wouldn't have had an hour long speech at AIPAC.

I also doubt Trump is anti-semitic, considering his daughter, son-in-law and grandchild are Jewish.

You are talking about a guy that said he would date his daughter with her standing right there.  Awareness is not his strong suit.

I don't think he is anti-semitic either, but in this case, I don't the complaints against this message are unfounded, and definitely not weak.  It appears at best, that this is a communications tactic to stir controversy and a) keep people talking about him and b) keep fuelling the ever widening divide between the left and right.

For me its about as blatant as someone with a picture of them self with fried chicken, watermelon and a heineken with a caption reading, "I support black people."  Yes, you can claim, "I really do love those things!", but to lack awareness of how those symbols appear in context is not an excuse for someone running for POTUS.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 09, 2016, 04:00:48 AM
You are talking about a guy that said he would date his daughter with her standing right there.  Awareness is not his strong suit.

Who wouldn't date his daughter? Anyway, he voiced his opinion of her attractiveness in a weird way. Listening to him say it doesn't sound at all like he meant he literally wants to date his daughter.

I don't think he is anti-semitic either, but in this case, I don't the complaints against this message are unfounded, and definitely not weak.  It appears at best, that this is a communications tactic to stir controversy and a) keep people talking about him and b) keep fuelling the ever widening divide between the left and right.

For me its about as blatant as someone with a picture of them self with fried chicken, watermelon and a heineken with a caption reading, "I support black people."  Yes, you can claim, "I really do love those things!", but to lack awareness of how those symbols appear in context is not an excuse for someone running for POTUS.

I don't think it's that blatant at all. It's a common marketing shape. The Star of David is a six pointed star, but not all six pointed stars are a Star of David. It just seems like desperate grasping to me, and it helps me feel better about Trump because desperation from the opposition means they're not doing very well. It's just more "Trump is literally Hitler!" nonsense taking shape in the form of conspiratard level straw grasping.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on July 09, 2016, 04:26:40 AM

The Snopes article does an excellent job of explaining why that's a pretty weak argument to use against Hillary.

Can you provide some additional context to this? A quick search on google and Snopes didn't yield anything for me, but maybe I'm not using the right search words.

Also, do you have an actual opinion on any of this? You are well known for having opinions, as well as writing fairly long reflections. However in this case it seems you've been reduced to short quips, and essentially parroting the narrative for Hillary, which is essentially, "even if she's done shady shit, she's still better than Trump." I think that is a sad position to take, but if I am off base then correct me.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 09, 2016, 08:03:07 AM
You are talking about a guy that said he would date his daughter with her standing right there.  Awareness is not his strong suit.

Who wouldn't date his daughter? Anyway, he voiced his opinion of her attractiveness in a weird way. Listening to him say it doesn't sound at all like he meant he literally wants to date his daughter.

To be fair, do we want a president who can so easily say things taken the wrong way?  Just imagine if he says something that is innocent but in a weird way to say.... the Chinese government representative?  They may just take it as an insult.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 09, 2016, 12:43:42 PM
dudes it's obviously just a sheriff's badge.  he was only trying to imply visually that clinton is corrupt, like a sheriff.

that's why it was changed less than 2 hours after it was posted; he realized how offensive that imagery is to sheriffs.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on July 09, 2016, 12:57:04 PM
dudes it's obviously just a sheriff's badge.  he was only trying to imply visually that clinton is corrupt, like a sheriff.

that's why it was changed less than 2 hours after it was posted; he realized how offensive that imagery is to sheriffs.

This isn't disingenuous at all
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 09, 2016, 01:25:23 PM
dudes it's obviously just a sheriff's badge.  he was only trying to imply visually that clinton is corrupt, like a sheriff.

that's why it was changed less than 2 hours after it was posted; he realized how offensive that imagery is to sheriffs.

This isn't disingenuous at all

hey, i'm on your side here.  can you imagine if, after the events in the us this week, he were associated with the proliferation of anti-sheriff imagery?  egg on his face.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 09, 2016, 01:46:33 PM
This is the kind of desperation I mentioned I am glad to see.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 09, 2016, 01:49:35 PM
Quote
These false attacks by Hillary Clinton trying to link the Star of David with a basic star, often used by sheriffs who deal with criminals and criminal behavior, showing an inscription that says “Crooked Hillary is the most corrupt candidate ever” with anti-Semitism is ridiculous.

Quote
The social media graphic used this weekend was not created by the campaign nor was it sourced from an anti-Semitic site [LOL]. It was lifted from an anti-Hillary Twitter user where countless images appear.

The sheriff’s badge – which is available under Microsoft’s “shapes” – fit with the theme of corrupt Hillary and that is why I selected it.

totally disingenuous.  lol added for lols.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on July 10, 2016, 04:59:28 AM
Can you provide some additional context to this? A quick search on google and Snopes didn't yield anything for me, but maybe I'm not using the right search words.

The link was in the post I quoted, albeit broken, and I fixed it in my post.  Here it is, just to be clear:

http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan

Quote
Also, do you have an actual opinion on any of this? You are well known for having opinions, as well as writing fairly long reflections. However in this case it seems you've been reduced to short quips, and essentially parroting the narrative for Hillary, which is essentially, "even if she's done shady shit, she's still better than Trump." I think that is a sad position to take, but if I am off base then correct me.

Regarding the email issue, it is genuinely shitty.  However, I do feel that the issue is receiving something of a, how best to put it, disproportionate response from the Republicans in Congress who are apparently trying to make this out to be the worst political scandal in American history.  Hillary did something stupid, and then she tried to cover it up in a stupid way.  That's certainly not something I want our leaders to be doing.  But it pales in comparison to some of the shit that politicians and/or the government in general have done in recent years and continue to do today.  I don't see this huge, months-spanning investigation being a priority for any other reason other than political ones - that is to say, trying to sink Hillary's presidential campaign, something that I find very frustrating.  To put it another way, corrupt politicians should be investigated and brought down for the sake of justice, not so their equally-corrupt rivals can benefit from their absence.

The latest Trump thing is hardly worth arguing about.  Of course the picture was made by racists, and of course the star was meant to refer to Jews.  Everyone here knows it, and so does Trump, as indicated by his removal of the image when the backlash got too strong.  As his supporters here so often remind us, Trump is a smart guy and a savvy politician.  He knows he has a strong following among racists, and he's doing his best to take advantage of it as much as he can without alienating mainstream America.  Bringing up Trump's family or arguing about what he truly feels in his heart is beside the point.  This is a political tactic of his; nothing more, nothing less.

And while I won't be voting for her myself, yes, Hillary is still preferable to Trump.  I fully agree that it's a sad position to take.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on July 10, 2016, 08:13:18 AM
What image are you all talking about?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on July 10, 2016, 10:57:43 AM
Can you provide some additional context to this? A quick search on google and Snopes didn't yield anything for me, but maybe I'm not using the right search words.

The link was in the post I quoted, albeit broken, and I fixed it in my post.  Here it is, just to be clear:

http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan]

Regarding the email issue, it is genuinely shitty.  However, I do feel that the issue is receiving something of a, how best to put it, disproportionate response from the Republicans in Congress who are apparently trying to make this out to be the worst political scandal in American history.  Hillary did something stupid, and then she tried to cover it up in a stupid way.  That's certainly not something I want our leaders to be doing.  But it pales in comparison to some of the shit that politicians and/or the government in general have done in recent years and continue to do today.  I don't see this huge, months-spanning investigation being a priority for any other reason other than political ones - that is to say, trying to sink Hillary's presidential campaign, something that I find very frustrating.  To put it another way, corrupt politicians should be investigated and brought down for the sake of justice, not so their equally-corrupt rivals can benefit from their absence.

Nixon was going to be impeached, WITH the GOP backing impeachment, for far less than what hillary did, and with the protection of the Dem party. Sad.

but then the Dems covered for her husband too. "A blow job is not sex" sure thing. Right.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 10, 2016, 11:07:25 AM
Can you provide some additional context to this? A quick search on google and Snopes didn't yield anything for me, but maybe I'm not using the right search words.

The link was in the post I quoted, albeit broken, and I fixed it in my post.  Here it is, just to be clear:

http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan]

Regarding the email issue, it is genuinely shitty.  However, I do feel that the issue is receiving something of a, how best to put it, disproportionate response from the Republicans in Congress who are apparently trying to make this out to be the worst political scandal in American history.  Hillary did something stupid, and then she tried to cover it up in a stupid way.  That's certainly not something I want our leaders to be doing.  But it pales in comparison to some of the shit that politicians and/or the government in general have done in recent years and continue to do today.  I don't see this huge, months-spanning investigation being a priority for any other reason other than political ones - that is to say, trying to sink Hillary's presidential campaign, something that I find very frustrating.  To put it another way, corrupt politicians should be investigated and brought down for the sake of justice, not so their equally-corrupt rivals can benefit from their absence.

Nixon was going to be impeached, WITH the GOP backing impeachment, for far less than what hillary did, and with the protection of the Dem party. Sad.

but then the Dems covered for her husband too. "A blow job is not sex" sure thing. Right.
The world we live in sucks, don't it?
Good thing you voted.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on July 10, 2016, 02:44:55 PM
Lord Dave. I always vote. IF I don't then I have right to complain about the crap congress and POTUS does.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on July 10, 2016, 03:32:04 PM
What image are you all talking about?

(http://i.imgur.com/TNrn9nd.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 10, 2016, 05:05:43 PM
Regarding the email issue, it is genuinely shitty.  However, I do feel that the issue is receiving something of a, how best to put it, disproportionate response from the Republicans in Congress who are apparently trying to make this out to be the worst political scandal in American history.  Hillary did something stupid, and then she tried to cover it up in a stupid way.  That's certainly not something I want our leaders to be doing.  But it pales in comparison to some of the shit that politicians and/or the government in general have done in recent years and continue to do today.  I don't see this huge, months-spanning investigation being a priority for any other reason other than political ones - that is to say, trying to sink Hillary's presidential campaign, something that I find very frustrating.  To put it another way, corrupt politicians should be investigated and brought down for the sake of justice, not so their equally-corrupt rivals can benefit from their absence.

This is a "tu quoque" fallacy. You can't claim that it's unfair to want punishment for corrupt politicians because the politicians that want to punish her are also corrupt. You constantly try to argue from hypocrisy and I have to be here telling you that's not an argument. Mishandling classified information in Hillary's position gets people killed, and to no surprise, that's exactly what she's done. It's asinine to excuse her corruption because "other politicians are corrupt too!"

The latest Trump thing is hardly worth arguing about.  Of course the picture was made by racists, and of course the star was meant to refer to Jews.  Everyone here knows it, and so does Trump, as indicated by his removal of the image when the backlash got too strong.  As his supporters here so often remind us, Trump is a smart guy and a savvy politician.  He knows he has a strong following among racists, and he's doing his best to take advantage of it as much as he can without alienating mainstream America.  Bringing up Trump's family or arguing about what he truly feels in his heart is beside the point.  This is a political tactic of his; nothing more, nothing less.

Stating things as a matter of fact doesn't make them any more factual, Saddam. As I said before, this is desperate grabbing for straws. "Trump has never outright said anything racist or anti-semitic, so I guess we'll just have to stretch whatever we can find to fit our narrative." - MSM

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/07/07/Trump-trending-large_trans++Adw0VrjqLWSqJHfZ45Ae0UPhGu3d8eCxEbnX1CfWC0c.jpg)

Of course this picture was made by racists and of course it was meant to refer to Jews. It's claiming that Jews have a cold frozen heart. This is just one of countless examples of a six pointed star shape being used in advertising.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 10, 2016, 05:40:45 PM
lol so just to be clear, you're comparing the cover of disney's frozen to /pol/ memes...

adorable
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on July 10, 2016, 05:46:56 PM
lol so just to be clear, you're comparing the cover of disney's frozen to /pol/ memes...

adorable

It's the same shape, no?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 10, 2016, 06:00:06 PM
lol so just to be clear, you're comparing the cover of disney's frozen to /pol/ memes...

adorable

It's the same shape, no?

it is the shame shape, yes.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on July 10, 2016, 06:17:28 PM
This is a "tu quoque" fallacy. You can't claim that it's unfair to want punishment for corrupt politicians because the politicians that want to punish her are also corrupt. You constantly try to argue from hypocrisy and I have to be here telling you that's not an argument. Mishandling classified information in Hillary's position gets people killed, and to no surprise, that's exactly what she's done. It's asinine to excuse her corruption because "other politicians are corrupt too!"

I'm not excusing anyone's corruption; I'm just disappointed by such selective enforcement of the law for the sake of a partisan agenda.  I'd be delighted if this was the beginning of a new era of zero tolerance and cracking down on all misbehavior from politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike, but it's not, and that overshadows the whole thing for me.

Quote
Stating things as a matter of fact doesn't make them any more factual, Saddam. As I said before, this is desperate grabbing for straws. "Trump has never outright said anything racist or anti-semitic, so I guess we'll just have to stretch whatever we can find to fit our narrative." - MSM

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/07/07/Trump-trending-large_trans++Adw0VrjqLWSqJHfZ45Ae0UPhGu3d8eCxEbnX1CfWC0c.jpg)

Of course this picture was made by racists and of course it was meant to refer to Jews. It's claiming that Jews have a cold frozen heart. This is just one of countless examples of a six pointed star shape being used in advertising.

You may be right here.  Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing any non-white people in Frozen beyond one or two anonymous faces in a crowd.  The racist tension.  I bet Disney is secretly backing Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on July 10, 2016, 06:22:45 PM
I'm not excusing anyone's corruption; I'm just disappointed by such selective enforcement of the law for the sake of a partisan agenda.  I'd be delighted if this was the beginning of a new era of zero tolerance and cracking down on all misbehavior from politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike, but it's not, and that overshadows the whole thing for me.

Who are these politicians that are currently getting overlooked by law enforcement?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on July 10, 2016, 08:24:27 PM
I'm not excusing anyone's corruption; I'm just disappointed by such selective enforcement of the law for the sake of a partisan agenda.  I'd be delighted if this was the beginning of a new era of zero tolerance and cracking down on all misbehavior from politicians, Republicans and Democrats alike, but it's not, and that overshadows the whole thing for me.

Who are these politicians that are currently getting overlooked by law enforcement?

Clinton, Kennedy, Jackson, and the tax evader, who's name I cannot seem to recall at the moment. Just of starters.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 10, 2016, 09:07:21 PM
lol so just to be clear, you're comparing the cover of disney's frozen to /pol/ memes...

adorable

Clearly the same people who make /pol/ memes are making Disney book covers. The vast right-wing conspiracy never stops! Nazis everywhere! Walt Disney was a Nazi; coincidence? I think not!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on July 10, 2016, 10:23:16 PM
lol so just to be clear, you're comparing the cover of disney's frozen to /pol/ memes...

adorable

It's the same shape, no?

It's the combination of the star, the wording, the money, and the source. If he had found this:

(http://i.imgur.com/JF0VF0i.png)

You might have a point.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 10, 2016, 11:27:16 PM
is there a point to this whole "similar shapes are similar" line of thought? 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 11, 2016, 12:31:23 AM
It's the combination of the star, the wording, the money, and the source.

Your ideas of what the ad is represents your own preconceptions about Jews. The only people who think this ad is inherently anti-semitic are either already anti-semitic themselves or trying to virtue signal by calling others out on innocuous ideas. You and others are falling for the very same stereotypes that anti-semites proliferated in the first place.

is there a point to this whole "similar shapes are similar" line of thought? 

The point is that it's a common shape used in ads. "But this time it means Jews!" is conspiratard level nonsense. I assume at any moment this thread will devolve how some Egyption heiroglyphs look like flying saucers so therefore aliens built the pyramids.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on July 11, 2016, 12:57:58 AM
If the star wasn't racist when Frozen used it, then it can't be racist when /pol/ used it.  By the same logic, if Squidward from SpongeBob SquarePants having a big nose wasn't racist:

(http://i.imgur.com/oWaTM0l.png)

...then it can't be racist for a character like this to be drawn with a big nose:

(http://i.imgur.com/h7WK1nI.jpg)

Or maybe symbols mean different things in different contexts.  Who knows?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 11, 2016, 01:36:01 AM
If the star wasn't racist when Frozen used it, then it can't be racist when /pol/ used it.  By the same logic, if Squidward from SpongeBob SquarePants having a big nose wasn't racist:

...then it can't be racist for a character like this to be drawn with a big nose:

Or maybe symbols mean different things in different contexts.  Who knows?

You're right, Saddam. Both of those noses are polygons of exactly the same shape.

It'd be more like saying "Squidward has a big nose, and Jews stereotypically have big noses, therefore Squidward represents Jews. Spongebob is anti-semitic." I guess I'm better at uncovering the vast right wing conspiracy than you are, Saddam. I've already proven both Disney and Nickelodeon are anti-semitic. How deep does the rabbit hole go? Who will we find out is a Nazi next?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on July 11, 2016, 01:54:52 AM
The point is that it's a common shape used in ads.

You think /pol/ used that shape cuz it's common in ads? lol k.

Plus it isn't. It's not like this shape pops up all over the place. If it did, that'd be a different story.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 11, 2016, 02:03:56 AM
You think /pol/ used that shape cuz it's common in ads? lol k.

What does it matter what /pol/ did? Are you saying the image is only anti-semitic if you happen to know who made it? Oh golly gee this is just nuts.

Plus it isn't. It's not like this shape pops up all over the place. If it did, that'd be a different story.

It actually is, it's even a default shape in most picture modification programs. The six pointed star has been around for millenia, it doesn't belong to Judaism. Take Microsoft Paint for example. It doesn't have a default cross, a default crescent, a default scimitar. Oh, but it has a six pointed star. I guess that means Microsoft is Jewish!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on July 11, 2016, 02:17:27 AM
You think /pol/ used that shape cuz it's common in ads? lol k.

What does it matter what /pol/ did? Are you saying the image is only anti-semitic if you happen to know who made it? Oh golly gee this is just nuts.

What I'm saying is that, even if it isn't meant to be anti-semitic (which I doubt), presidential campaigns should have the foresight and wisdom to properly vet the pictures they post on social media so they don't waste a news cycle that should be dominated by E-mail stories defending their use of a six-pointed star on an image of their opponent on a field of money being called corrupt. No other candidate is having issues sourcing material from racist sources. At a point you have to wonder why the Trump campaign has this unique issue.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 11, 2016, 02:18:32 AM
that two symbols can have identical shapes and different meanings is such a ubiquitous phenomenon that it has its own name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym).  pretending to be unaware of this doesn't make one's argument better, only worse and more confusing.

The point is that it's a common shape used in ads. "But this time it means Jews!" is conspiratard level nonsense.

if /pol/ ever becomes an advertising agency, then i'll concede the point.  until then, you're comparing apples and white nationalist oranges.  there are no centuries-old stereotypes/conspiracies of jewish people hoarding ice princesses and exerting unseen control over winter castles, so i just don't see what frozen has to do with anything.  literally no one is saying that it's anti-semetic just because the star is six-sided.  it seems like you want to have a discussion with an entirely different group of people saying entirely different things.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on July 11, 2016, 05:11:48 AM
that two symbols can have identical shapes and different meanings is such a ubiquitous phenomenon that it has its own name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym).  pretending to be unaware of this doesn't make one's argument better, only worse and more confusing.

This is only relevant if the shapes do have different meanings, which is clearly not what Rushy is arguing. Bad bait.

Quote
if /pol/ ever becomes an advertising agency, then i'll concede the point.  until then, you're comparing apples and white nationalist oranges.  there are no centuries-old stereotypes/conspiracies of jewish people hoarding ice princesses and exerting unseen control over winter castles, so i just don't see what frozen has to do with anything.  literally no one is saying that it's anti-semetic just because the star is six-sided.  it seems like you want to have a discussion with an entirely different group of people saying entirely different things.

It's pretty funny how deeply you can get leftists to think about anti-semitic stereotypes in order to craft a conspiracy theory like this. The point here is that if Disney were implicated in anti-semitic activity, I'm sure you could craft a similar narrative for Frozen as well. And if you can't - well, maybe you're not using your imagination well enough. But up until that happens, there's plenty reason to believe that you're only willing to apply a ridiculous amount of conjecture to one thing but not the other.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 11, 2016, 08:11:49 AM
Lord Dave. I always vote. IF I don't then I have right to complain about the crap congress and POTUS does.
I never said you didn't.

Just saying "good job for voting these people in.  Hows it working for ya?"
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on July 11, 2016, 09:38:25 AM
Lord Dave. I always vote. IF I don't then I have right to complain about the crap congress and POTUS does.
I never said you didn't.

Just saying "good job for voting these people in.  Hows it working for ya?"

Well I didn't vote for Obama, and I will NOT vote for Clinton. So for now, at least for POTUS my vote hasn't done much. For the House, my vote has worked. For Senate it is 50/50 and looks to remain so.

The issue of the subject of this thread, is just so much left wing bull shit deflection, in order to avoid the clear violations of the laws and regulations of Clinton's handling of classified materials and documents. And the fact that the DOJ, via the FBI is NOT doing its job by not prosecuting her. Or at the very least revoking her clearance.

The Star is just a star. Those that are doing mental gymnastics to see anti-semitic messages, are the ones that are anti-semitic, by assuming the star and money are greedy Jews. They see it, because they buy into it. They see it, because the race card is all they have in  their arsenal against Trump. They see it, because the race card is the last refuge of a bankrupt mind.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 11, 2016, 11:21:21 AM
Lord Dave. I always vote. IF I don't then I have right to complain about the crap congress and POTUS does.
I never said you didn't.

Just saying "good job for voting these people in.  Hows it working for ya?"

Well I didn't vote for Obama, and I will NOT vote for Clinton. So for now, at least for POTUS my vote hasn't done much. For the House, my vote has worked. For Senate it is 50/50 and looks to remain so.

The issue of the subject of this thread, is just so much left wing bull shit deflection, in order to avoid the clear violations of the laws and regulations of Clinton's handling of classified materials and documents. And the fact that the DOJ, via the FBI is NOT doing its job by not prosecuting her. Or at the very least revoking her clearance.

The Star is just a star. Those that are doing mental gymnastics to see anti-semitic messages, are the ones that are anti-semitic, by assuming the star and money are greedy Jews. They see it, because they buy into it. They see it, because the race card is all they have in  their arsenal against Trump. They see it, because the race card is the last refuge of a bankrupt mind.

And yet things are not better.  So your vote has not made anything better.

As for clinton: I agree.  But its likely there isn't enough evidence to actually convict.  And lets say they revoke her security, so what?  If she's president, she gets full clearance instantly.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on July 11, 2016, 12:35:20 PM
Your ideas of what the ad is represents your own preconceptions about Jews. The only people who think this ad is inherently anti-semitic are either already anti-semitic themselves or trying to virtue signal by calling others out on innocuous ideas. You and others are falling for the very same stereotypes that anti-semites proliferated in the first place.

It's pretty funny how deeply you can get leftists to think about anti-semitic stereotypes in order to craft a conspiracy theory like this.

The Star is just a star. Those that are doing mental gymnastics to see anti-semitic messages, are the ones that are anti-semitic, by assuming the star and money are greedy Jews. They see it, because they buy into it.

Great new tactic, guys.  "No, you're the real racist!"  As if the stereotype of Jews being greedy and obsessed with money is some kind of obscure notion that requires all sorts of stretching and racist assumptions to arrive at.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on July 11, 2016, 12:49:18 PM
Great new tactic, guys.  "No, you're the real racist!"  As if the stereotype of Jews being greedy and obsessed with money is some kind of obscure notion that requires all sorts of stretching and racist assumptions to arrive at.

The Hillary picture doesn't depict either of those things
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 11, 2016, 02:56:15 PM
that two symbols can have identical shapes and different meanings is such a ubiquitous phenomenon that it has its own name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym).  pretending to be unaware of this doesn't make one's argument better, only worse and more confusing.

This is only relevant if the shapes do have different meanings, which is clearly not what Rushy is arguing. Bad bait.

indeed.  i am saying that the shapes do have different meanings.  meaning is always contextual.  as i see it, you and rushy are arguing a reductio ad absurdum: the view that the hillary meme is anti-semetic necessarily leads to the absurd conclusion that the cover of frozen must also be anti-semetic.  the problem is that not one person is claiming that any use of a six-sided star is anti-semetic.

in other words, we're saying that it's reasonable for someone to believe that this particular use of these symbols, in this particular context (esp. its origin), reeks of long-standing and well-understood anti-semetic stereotypes and conspiracies.

"but someone else used one of these symbols in a completely different context for a completely different purpose!" doesn't actually address the criticism of this use of these symbols in this context.

It's pretty funny how deeply you can get leftists to think about anti-semitic stereotypes in order to craft a conspiracy theory like this. The point here is that if Disney were implicated in anti-semitic activity, I'm sure you could craft a similar narrative for Frozen as well. And if you can't - well, maybe you're not using your imagination well enough. But up until that happens, there's plenty reason to believe that you're only willing to apply a ridiculous amount of conjecture to one thing but not the other.

the hillary image isn't anti-semetic because what if under different circumstances i made a bad argument suggesting that the cover of frozen is anti-semetic?  what?

so this image can't be anti-semetic because you believe i would make different arguments about different things under different circumstances...i dunno how to respond to that...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on July 11, 2016, 03:03:47 PM
the hillary image isn't anti-semetic because what if under different circumstances i made a bad argument suggesting that the cover of frozen is anti-semetic?  what?

so this image can't be anti-semetic because you believe i would make different arguments about different things under different circumstances...i dunno how to respond to that...

I'm not saying it can't be anti-semitic, I'm saying it's pure conjecture on your part to think it is. And a little bit paranoid.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on July 11, 2016, 03:33:05 PM
Lord Dave. I always vote. IF I don't then I have right to complain about the crap congress and POTUS does.

Voting is just a method for the establishment to shift the blame for our shitty circumstances to the general public, when it's pretty damn obvious to me that we are constantly sold down the river by politicians on both sides of the isle.

At least with tyrants we had someone to hate, now they want to say "You see what you did?!? You should've voted for John Jackson instead of Jack Johnson, you fucked everything up!"
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on July 11, 2016, 03:54:02 PM
that two symbols can have identical shapes and different meanings is such a ubiquitous phenomenon that it has its own name (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homonym).  pretending to be unaware of this doesn't make one's argument better, only worse and more confusing.

This is only relevant if the shapes do have different meanings, which is clearly not what Rushy is arguing. Bad bait.

indeed.  i am saying that the shapes do have different meanings.  meaning is always contextual.  as i see it, you and rushy are arguing a reductio ad absurdum: the view that the hillary meme is anti-semetic necessarily leads to the absurd conclusion that the cover of frozen must also be anti-semetic.  the problem is that not one person is claiming that any use of a six-sided star is anti-semetic.

in other words, we're saying that it's reasonable for someone to believe that this particular use of these symbols, in this particular context (esp. its origin), reeks of long-standing and well-understood anti-semetic stereotypes and conspiracies.

"but someone else used one of these symbols in a completely different context for a completely different purpose!" doesn't actually address the criticism of this use of these symbols in this context.

It's pretty funny how deeply you can get leftists to think about anti-semitic stereotypes in order to craft a conspiracy theory like this. The point here is that if Disney were implicated in anti-semitic activity, I'm sure you could craft a similar narrative for Frozen as well. And if you can't - well, maybe you're not using your imagination well enough. But up until that happens, there's plenty reason to believe that you're only willing to apply a ridiculous amount of conjecture to one thing but not the other.

the hillary image isn't anti-semetic because what if under different circumstances i made a bad argument suggesting that the cover of frozen is anti-semetic?  what?

so this image can't be anti-semetic because you believe i would make different arguments about different things under different circumstances...i dunno how to respond to that...

Hillary Clinton is NOT Jewish. Never claimed she is and as far as I know, no one else is saying she is. So, anyone making the claim that the image used is referring to Jews, now needs to connect the dots showing that a Jewish symbol with her picture, a person NOT Jewish is in fact anti-semitic.

Good look with that mental gymnastics.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on July 11, 2016, 03:55:07 PM
Lord Dave. I always vote. IF I don't then I have right to complain about the crap congress and POTUS does.

Voting is just a method for the establishment to shift the blame for our shitty circumstances to the general public, when it's pretty damn obvious to me that we are constantly sold down the river by politicians on both sides of the isle.

At least with tyrants we had someone to hate, now they want to say "You see what you did?!? You should've voted for John Jackson instead of Jack Johnson, you fucked everything up!"

????????????????????????
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on July 11, 2016, 04:43:47 PM
Lord Dave. I always vote. IF I don't then I have right to complain about the crap congress and POTUS does.

Voting is just a method for the establishment to shift the blame for our shitty circumstances to the general public, when it's pretty damn obvious to me that we are constantly sold down the river by politicians on both sides of the isle.

At least with tyrants we had someone to hate, now they want to say "You see what you did?!? You should've voted for John Jackson instead of Jack Johnson, you fucked everything up!"

????????????????????????

What didn't you understand? The kings and queens of old realized to stop the people from chopping their heads off they had better create this shell entity called democracy where you pretend to give the people a say in the things that affect their lives.

Was a simple way to shift blame from themselves yet still retain control. If you think the world has evolved past that kind of power structure imagine how many major western countries are still commonwealth countries with allegiance to the Queen of England.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on July 11, 2016, 04:51:33 PM
Lord Dave. I always vote. IF I don't then I have right to complain about the crap congress and POTUS does.

Voting is just a method for the establishment to shift the blame for our shitty circumstances to the general public, when it's pretty damn obvious to me that we are constantly sold down the river by politicians on both sides of the isle.

At least with tyrants we had someone to hate, now they want to say "You see what you did?!? You should've voted for John Jackson instead of Jack Johnson, you fucked everything up!"

????????????????????????

What didn't you understand? The kings and queens of old realized to stop the people from chopping their heads off they had better create this shell entity called democracy where you pretend to give the people a say in the things that affect their lives.

Was a simple way to shift blame from themselves yet still retain control. If you think the world has evolved past that kind of power structure imagine how many major western countries are still commonwealth countries with allegiance to the Queen of England.


Ah, I see the problem. You think the US is a democracy.  News flash it is not, nor has it ever been. What the US IS, is  a Constitutional REPUBLIC.  With one major constitutional flaw, that could be fixed with one simple amendment. Term limits.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on July 11, 2016, 05:19:43 PM
Hillary Clinton is NOT Jewish. Never claimed she is and as far as I know, no one else is saying she is. So, anyone making the claim that the image used is referring to Jews, now needs to connect the dots showing that a Jewish symbol with her picture, a person NOT Jewish is in fact anti-semitic.

Good look with that mental gymnastics.


The claim is that Hillary is influenced by corrupt Jewish money, as seen here. (http://davidduke.com/hillarys-sleezy-seven-top-donors-hillarys-superpacs-jewish/) Given how much trouble David Duke was for Trump's campaign in the news cycle last time, you'd think he'd want to steer clear of anything associated with him this time.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on July 11, 2016, 09:13:17 PM
Hillary Clinton is NOT Jewish. Never claimed she is and as far as I know, no one else is saying she is. So, anyone making the claim that the image used is referring to Jews, now needs to connect the dots showing that a Jewish symbol with her picture, a person NOT Jewish is in fact anti-semitic.

Good look with that mental gymnastics.


The claim is that Hillary is influenced by corrupt Jewish money, as seen here. (http://davidduke.com/hillarys-sleezy-seven-top-donors-hillarys-superpacs-jewish/) Given how much trouble David Duke was for Trump's campaign in the news cycle last time, you'd think he'd want to steer clear of anything associated with him this time.

NOPE not even close. Saudi money yes, and proven.

But keep trying, this is fun to watch
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on July 11, 2016, 10:14:22 PM
The claim is that Hillary is influenced by corrupt Jewish money, as seen here. (http://davidduke.com/hillarys-sleezy-seven-top-donors-hillarys-superpacs-jewish/) Given how much trouble David Duke was for Trump's campaign in the news cycle last time, you'd think he'd want to steer clear of anything associated with him this time.

NOPE not even close. Saudi money yes, and proven.

But keep trying, this is fun to watch

I was not commenting on the veracity of the claim, dummy. I was saying that it exists, and is the mindset from which the antisemitic Hillary picture came from.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on July 11, 2016, 10:32:29 PM
The claim is that Hillary is influenced by corrupt Jewish money, as seen here. (http://davidduke.com/hillarys-sleezy-seven-top-donors-hillarys-superpacs-jewish/) Given how much trouble David Duke was for Trump's campaign in the news cycle last time, you'd think he'd want to steer clear of anything associated with him this time.

NOPE not even close. Saudi money yes, and proven.

But keep trying, this is fun to watch

I was not commenting on the veracity of the claim, dummy. I was saying that it exists, and is the mindset from which the antisemitic Hillary picture came from.

It exists because that is all the left has. Playing the race card is the last refuge of bankrupt mind. IE 99.99% of the left
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 12, 2016, 06:16:53 AM
The claim is that Hillary is influenced by corrupt Jewish money, as seen here. (http://davidduke.com/hillarys-sleezy-seven-top-donors-hillarys-superpacs-jewish/) Given how much trouble David Duke was for Trump's campaign in the news cycle last time, you'd think he'd want to steer clear of anything associated with him this time.

NOPE not even close. Saudi money yes, and proven.

But keep trying, this is fun to watch

I was not commenting on the veracity of the claim, dummy. I was saying that it exists, and is the mindset from which the antisemitic Hillary picture came from.

It exists because that is all the left has. Playing the race card is the last refuge of bankrupt mind. IE 99.99% of the left

Ok seriously, all this ad hominim is annoying.  You're being an ass so stop it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on July 12, 2016, 12:11:40 PM
The claim is that Hillary is influenced by corrupt Jewish money, as seen here. (http://davidduke.com/hillarys-sleezy-seven-top-donors-hillarys-superpacs-jewish/) Given how much trouble David Duke was for Trump's campaign in the news cycle last time, you'd think he'd want to steer clear of anything associated with him this time.

Who attacked you?


NOPE not even close. Saudi money yes, and proven.

But keep trying, this is fun to watch

I was not commenting on the veracity of the claim, dummy. I was saying that it exists, and is the mindset from which the antisemitic Hillary picture came from.

It exists because that is all the left has. Playing the race card is the last refuge of bankrupt mind. IE 99.99% of the left

Ok seriously, all this ad hominim is annoying.  You're being an ass so stop it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on July 12, 2016, 03:31:14 PM
The United States was founded by the brightest people in the country,
and we haven't seen them since.

Gore Vidal


The rules committee meets on Wednesday and on Thursday: they may have the votes to add new rules.


Since Trump wants good relationships with Russia, to print one's own money (in effect, getting rid of the Fed), to make America great again, let us take a look at the possible scenarios.

1. Romney/Ryan ticket (convention takeover) - from the point of view of secret societies, a Romney nomination is as good as a Cruz nomination.

2. Trump falls victim to a false flag assassination attempt (he is allowed to live, the public never hears from him again) - least likely.

3. Trump defeats Hillary, and then has to face countrywide riots/revolution, a civil war (especially if Deutsche Bank is allowed to implode).

4. Trump joins Sanders to face both Hillary and Romney.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Round fact on July 12, 2016, 05:35:45 PM
The United States was founded by the brightest people in the country,
and we haven't seen them since.

Gore Vidal


The rules committee meets on Wednesday and on Thursday: they may have the votes to add new rules.


Since Trump wants good relationships with Russia, to print one's own money (in effect, getting rid of the Fed), to make America great again, let us take a look at the possible scenarios.

1. Romney/Ryan ticket (convention takeover) - from the point of view of secret societies, a Romney nomination is as good as a Cruz nomination.

2. Trump falls victim to a false flag assassination attempt (he is allowed to live, the public never hears from him again) - least likely.

3. Trump defeats Hillary, and then has to face countrywide riots/revolution, a civil war (especially if Deutsche Bank is allowed to implode).

4. Trump joins Sanders to face both Hillary and Romney.

Romney, no matter who his running mate is cannot win. He's too weak and ball-less

Trump sitting back in hiding?  Better chance of HRC telling the truth under oath in from of God.

Civil war, for winning? remember the left hates guns. One lefty wuss reporter shot an AR-15 in 223/5.56 NATO and almost had to be hospitalized for mental and physical trauma. So what are they going to fight with, spitballs? What would happen is the Flyover States, those producing the food, would just sit back and let the left starve and freeze to death. 

Trump/Sanders. Put the crack pipe down. A 110% Capitalist and 1000% Marxist on the same ticket. Yeah right. Sure thing.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on July 12, 2016, 05:59:26 PM
1. Romney/Ryan ticket (convention takeover) - from the point of view of secret societies, a Romney nomination is as good as a Cruz nomination.

2. Trump falls victim to a false flag assassination attempt (he is allowed to live, the public never hears from him again) - least likely.

3. Trump defeats Hillary, and then has to face countrywide riots/revolution, a civil war (especially if Deutsche Bank is allowed to implode).

4. Trump joins Sanders to face both Hillary and Romney.

Did you roll your random events dice to get those?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on July 12, 2016, 06:58:19 PM
"Since World War II, America has been following a course of passive drifting. It has drifted from crisis to crisis, at home and abroad, without policy, leadership, or any large-scale political initiative. For decades now, despite the public's growing restiveness, the United States has moved but not acted. It has moved by the power of inertia and in the direction of disintegration.

The result is the growth of national bewilderment or despair, the atmosphere of chronic crisis and the kinds of controls, inherent in an advanced mixed economy, and of the governmental apparatus necessary for dictatorship.

The philosophy that shapes a nation's culture and institutions tends, other things being equal, to become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

No one can predict the form or timing of the catastrophe that will befall this country if our direction is not changed. No one can know what concatenation of crises, in what progression of steps and across what interval of years, would finally break the nation's spirit and system of government.

What one can know is only this much: the end result of the country's present course is some kind of dictatorship; and the cultural-political signs for many years now have been pointing increasingly to one kind in particular. The signs have been pointing to an American form of Nazism."

L. Peikoff (1982)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on July 12, 2016, 08:43:31 PM
http://www.theonion.com/article/secretary-clinton-different-person-donald-trump-sa-53201
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 13, 2016, 01:57:57 AM
For all the new people here, please keep in mind Levee (Sandohkn) will ramble endlessly. Please don't bait him or purposely delve into a discussion about the knights Templar, Masons, and other irrelevant garbage or I will remove it from this thread and I will punish YOU not him. Thank you.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on July 13, 2016, 07:23:43 AM
"From the beginning of the nineteenth century, American intellectuals, succumbing docilely to the European lead, turned increasingly against every one of America's founding ideas and ideals. While the people, taking the American system for granted, were working to build a magnificient industrial structure, the intellectuals were working to undermine the system, to discredit its root premises, to sap its self-confidence, to erode its institutions, to remake the United States in the image of the succesive waves of European irrationalism.

The result is America today: a nation with the remnants of its distinctive meaning and institutions buried under more than a century and a half of intellectual wreckage; a nation which has kept some imperishable part of its original soul, but surrendered its mind to the alien ideas of the anti-Enlightment; a country intellectually prostrate, haunted by a pervasive, undefined sense of uneasiness, of ominous forebodding, of national self-betrayal; a country torn by a profound conflict, without guidance or coherent direction, unable to follow its Founding Fathers or to renounce them."

(L. Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels)


Let us not forget that I was able to pick out the finalists of the Republican primaries from the very start, strictly based on the hand signs they made in public; then something happened along the way, which constituted a change of plans: the unexpected death of A. Scalia, the fact that Cruz did not receive any kind of help in the NE primaries as he was supposed to... we will see what is going to happen at the convention.

There is plenty of space here available for everyone to express their opinions, isn't there?

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg82666#msg82666
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 13, 2016, 07:41:40 AM

Every now and then the blind madman with a gun will get the pigeon. (Confucius IX)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on July 13, 2016, 07:56:03 AM
You must have misplaced your quotes.


Never approach a bull from the front, a horse from the rear or a fool from any direction.

Confucius
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on July 13, 2016, 10:45:14 AM
(https://theuglytruth.files.wordpress.com/2016/03/trump7.jpg)


http://www.dailywire.com/news/7337/exclusive-dump-trump-rnc-delegate-leader-we-have-daily-wire

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7246/effort-unbind-delegates-rnc-getting-closer-drawing-hank-berrien
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 13, 2016, 12:16:21 PM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/elections/

Looks like Hillary's week is getting worse.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on July 13, 2016, 12:19:50 PM
I am seriously excited for the first debate.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 13, 2016, 11:06:25 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vr-Dxfikwc

CNN suddenly loses connection with a reporter that started spilling the beans about her support of the Crime Control Act of 1994. We definitely can't afford to accidentally inform people as to why the US incarceration rates are so high!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on July 14, 2016, 12:03:33 AM
Holy shit
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 14, 2016, 01:13:03 AM
it definitely makes sense that anyone at cnn would think that cutting off a reporter, during one interview, after the interviewer already mentions the thing she's apparently not supposed to mention, is going to keep anyone from becoming aware of one of bill clinton's most significant pieces of legislation.  a ton of sense.

(http://i.imgur.com/6rnueeO.png?1)

hey can you think of anything that happened around 1970 that may have contributed to the increase in incarceration rates?  haha yeah me neither.

NINJA EDIT: clinton's crime act is a giant piece of dogshit legislation.  it's awful, and they should both be ashamed to have supported it.  but it probably wasn't so terrible that it caused an increase in incarceration rates 25 years before its passage. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on July 14, 2016, 01:36:51 AM
If that isn't "conspiratard-level nonsense," I don't know what is.  Also, they must not have clued in their colleagues running CNN's online news.  Here they are spilling the beans:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/bill-clinton-1994-crime-bill/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 14, 2016, 01:57:39 AM
it definitely makes sense that anyone at cnn would think that cutting off a reporter, during one interview, after the interviewer already mentions the thing she's apparently not supposed to mention, is going to keep anyone from becoming aware of one of bill clinton's most significant pieces of legislation.  a ton of sense.

hey can you think of anything that happened around 1970 that may have contributed to the increase in incarceration rates?  haha yeah me neither.

NINJA EDIT: clinton's crime act is a giant piece of dogshit legislation.  it's awful, and they should both be ashamed to have supported it.  but it probably wasn't so terrible that it caused an increase in incarceration rates 25 years before its passage.

You seemed to be under the inclination that I said the 1994 crime act is the only thing that increased incarceration rates, friendo.



In other news: Trump will announce his VP pick on Friday, July 15 @11AM Eastern time. I hope it's Sarah Palin! Love you, gurl!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on July 14, 2016, 07:40:53 AM
(http://www.mintpressnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/donald-trump-hillary-clinton.jpg)

It always helps to be able to pick a VP from one's next of kin.

Both Christie and Gingrich are Trump's cousins (Christie, 6th cousin of Donald Trump through the paternal line of his Scottish born great-grandfather, James H. Christie; Newt Gingrich's real name is Newton McPherson).

Even better, now we have two cousins having been nominated by their own respective parties:

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/25/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-are-related-genealogy/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3210778/Donald-Trump-Hillary-Clinton-revealed-distant-cousins-family-trees-share-set-royal-ancestors.html
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on July 14, 2016, 04:41:26 PM
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2016/01/21/22/3071172400000578-3410609-image-m-67_1453414182761.jpg)

The latest news from the Rules Committee meeting:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437848/priebus-meets-privately-mike-lee-never-trump-leaders-discuss-procedural-compromise
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on July 15, 2016, 05:14:15 AM
(https://c.o0bg.com/rf/image_371w/Boston/2011-2020/2016/04/13/BostonGlobe.com/National/Images/IMG_2106AA-2179.jpg)

Minute by minute account of what happened in the Rules Committee:

https://twitter.com/@TimAlberta


As evidenced by the images above, what the public will get is another set of staged debates, everything has been planned long ahead of time.

Someone tell me how Priebus still has a job. The entire primary and selection process was an absolute cluster with absolutely no leadership or strategic thought behind it. Romney ran a campaign destined to lose, Priebus was the party lead and yet Priebus still remains. This speaks volumes about the absolute lack of any leadership in the Republican party. Its frankly mind boggling that the Dems were nominating such a flawed candidate and yet the Republican leadership and establishment has no forethought into how to manage the nomination process. It's ironic that the very people like Priebus whose negligence lead to Trump's ascension may be plotting an even more disastrous coup for the convention. I do not blame Trump, he did what he needed to do.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 15, 2016, 12:08:11 PM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/politics/ct-republican-convention-rules-20160714-story.html

The "never Trump" movement is once again dead on arrival.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on July 15, 2016, 01:36:53 PM
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/9/8622/27651624954_fff9212a51_b.jpg)

http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=43292 (Anyone trashing Bernie today needs to wake up and respect the masterful chess move he just made)

Priebus & co. were able to defeat the "free the delegates" movement, not the nevertrump faction.

There will be one last chance for this faction on Monday, when the amendments passed late Thursday will be voted upon by all the delegates.


In Paris, a truck loaded with explosives was stopped at the last moment by the DGSI before it had a chance to reach the Eiffel Tower.

http://stateofthenation2012.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/zzzzScreen-Shot-2016-07-14-at-5.03.22-PM-696x450.png
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on July 15, 2016, 07:45:08 PM
(https://rncleveland.files.wordpress.com/2016/02/12715672_10205656025945232_4278185153041998539_n.jpg?w=590)

http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2016/07/15/senator-mike-lee-warns-revolt-following-rncs-defeat-free-delegates-movement/

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 16, 2016, 02:23:34 PM
And Trump has selected his running mate: Mike Pence.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 17, 2016, 06:04:28 AM
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/07/16/trumps-logo-failed-so-miserably-he-removed-all-trace-of-it-after-only-one-day-of-mockery/


That didn't last long.  Kinda funny though that it got through.  Bet someone was fired for that blunder.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 17, 2016, 02:42:55 PM
Aww I thought it was pretty funny.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on July 18, 2016, 02:52:35 PM
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-oiTEH5mnrgs/VcgKrQATL0I/AAAAAAAAA3M/jnszOlawhtg/s1600/donald%2Btrump%2B1.jpg)

The best analysis of the entire 2016 presidential election process:

http://thesaker.is/inside-the-secret-super-majority-that-decide-election-2016-war-with-russia/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 18, 2016, 07:01:46 PM
So, apparently Steven Colbert has done something silly at the convention, which started today.

I'm not shocked he did it, but shocked they took so long to take him off stage.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on July 18, 2016, 07:12:08 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diaCHYO7haY

Trump supporters are such triggered, oversensitive cucks.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on July 18, 2016, 08:08:23 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=diaCHYO7haY

Trump supporters are such triggered, oversensitive cucks.

Where in that video do you get that impression?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on July 18, 2016, 10:41:32 PM
Not the video, the angry comments.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 19, 2016, 01:44:51 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/18/rep-steve-king-wonders-what-sub-groups-besides-whites-made-contributions-to-civilization/

neat
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 19, 2016, 02:11:37 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/18/rep-steve-king-wonders-what-sub-groups-besides-whites-made-contributions-to-civilization/

neat

He's not wrong.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on July 19, 2016, 05:42:55 AM
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/09/01/19/2BE239E800000578-3218742-image-a-28_1441132045362.jpg)

So, it finally came down to the roll call vote: here is what happened.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/never-trump-delegates-have-support-needed-to-force-rules-vote-225716

Alaska delegate Fred Brown told POLITICO he did get the required signatures. “I had secured more than enough signatures from Alaska delegates, but the convention secretary was not at the designated location where I was told to submit them,” he said. “Some said she was hiding. Others said she was protected by guards. Regardless, I was told I could also present the signatures from the floor. Nevertheless, when the vote occurred, my mic was not turned on. When I attempted to present these signatures at the stage, my effort was ignored by the chair, and the security guard turned me away.“

When Womack announced the result from the stage, the rebellious delegates went ballistic, swamping the continuing proceedings with screams and still demanding a vote. Colorado’s Unruh convinced her state’s delegates to walk out and screamed for nearby Texas’ to do the same, though they declined. Morton Blackwell, a conservative Virginia delegate told POLITICO that the process was “crooked.” Blackwell, a veteran RNC member of 32 years, guessed that several of the delegations that withdrew from the effort were plants by the RNC to convince insurgents they had reached their goal. He wondered whether the bitterness they felt would linger.

Iowa delegate Marlys Popma, who helped lead the state’s effort to support the roll call vote, rejected that suggestion. “People knew exactly what they were signing,” she said.
“This is about the full assault on the delegates,” Waters said in an interview, while aides frantically bounced back and forth collecting signatures from friendly delegations. At one point Monday, 11 jurisdictions had signed on: Maine, North Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Alaska, Colorado, Washington, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Minnesota and Virginia.

"You will see more insurgency, because, and I have nothing to do with the fact that people now know that their voices were squelched," said anti-Trump Colorado delegate Kendal Unruh, the founder of the Free the Delegates movement, in a live interview on C-SPAN where she accused party leadership of using "strong-armed tactics."

"I have never in all my life, certainly in six years in the United States Senate, prior to that as a lifelong Republican, never seen anything like this," said Utah Sen. Mike Lee, one of the most prominent signatories to the push for a roll call vote. "There is no precedent for this in parliamentary procedure. There is no precedent for this in the rules of the Republican National Convention. We are now in uncharted territory. Somebody owes us an explanation. I have never seen the chair abandoned like that. They vacated the stage entirely."

New Hampshire Sen. Gordon Humphrey personally filed the signatures to the convention secretary — an exchange that followed after a frantic search to find the secretary before the deadline to submit the signatures. At the time, Never Trump leaders raised concerns that the secretary, Susie Hudson of Vermont, might intentionally avoid them to ensure the effort was defeated.
After the vote, he was livid: "The very unpleasant scene that unfolded here just a moment ago I think is a glimpse into the future of a trump presidency,” Humphrey told POLITICO. "We have seen the trump presidency and prototype many of his supporters if they are not fascists, act very much like fascists, shouting down the opposition, treating them roughly.”
“My first act after Mr. Trump’s nomination if that occurs will be to get up, walk out and go home,” he continued. “And after that I will resign from the Republican Party if that is the case."


So, there were enough delegates votes to vote down the amendments passed by the Rules Committee, but they were simply ignored by the RNC leadership.

Simply put: had the proper votes been taken into consideration, had the correct number of votes been counted, it would have been all over for Trump, no way that he could get a majority of votes on the first ballot vote.


More here: http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2016/07/18/mark-levin-tears-reince-priebus-new-one-power-grab/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Snupes on July 19, 2016, 10:48:12 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEvVMV9aUbE

wew
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 19, 2016, 04:33:23 PM
Sandokhan, I am no longer allowing the copy/paste of articles in this thread. You can post links and videos, but copy and pasting an entire article is unnecessary.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on July 19, 2016, 04:46:28 PM
It is very important to understand what occurred yesterday at the convention: eleven states had the necessary number of signatures required for a roll call vote. Had the rules not been broken by the RNC, Trump's candidacy would have been over right at that moment, this is what we are talking about here.

I included in my previous post only the most significant paragraphs, not the entire article; from now on I will refrain from doing so.

Here are further developments:

http://www.redstate.com/diary/blbennett/2016/07/18/report-meeting-going-including-lawyers-re-roll-call-petition/

It was “the most disgusting display of parliamentary abuse that I’ve ever seen in the 14 conventions that I have attended starting in 1964,” longtime Virginia conservative activist Morton Blackwell told NBC.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 19, 2016, 05:23:15 PM
Who has been chosen by the elites to lead America?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 19, 2016, 05:58:15 PM
Who has been chosen by the elites to lead America?

For all the new people here, please keep in mind Levee (Sandohkn) will ramble endlessly. Please don't bait him or purposely delve into a discussion about the knights Templar, Masons, and other irrelevant garbage or I will remove it from this thread and I will punish YOU not him. Thank you.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on July 19, 2016, 06:03:42 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqOTxl3Bsbw
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 19, 2016, 07:11:05 PM
Who has been chosen by the elites to lead America?

For all the new people here, please keep in mind Levee (Sandohkn) will ramble endlessly. Please don't bait him or purposely delve into a discussion about the knights Templar, Masons, and other irrelevant garbage or I will remove it from this thread and I will punish YOU not him. Thank you.

It's just an innocent question. :^)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 20, 2016, 12:51:10 AM
The official Republican Party nominee of 2016 for President of the United States of America is Donald J. Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 20, 2016, 04:57:58 AM
You know, with all the things levee has said, it occurs to me that Trump has gotten by far easier than one might expect.  The RNC's attempt to stop him failed multiple times.  I think, if there is a co spiracy and secret society, its Trump whose their choice.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 20, 2016, 01:15:08 PM
You know, with all the things levee has said, it occurs to me that Trump has gotten by far easier than one might expect.  The RNC's attempt to stop him failed multiple times.  I think, if there is a co spiracy and secret society, its Trump whose their choice.

The "never Trump" movement's numbers are a very small minority. If they managed to get anything done, that in and of itself would be conspiracy material.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 20, 2016, 01:44:41 PM
You know, with all the things levee has said, it occurs to me that Trump has gotten by far easier than one might expect.  The RNC's attempt to stop him failed multiple times.  I think, if there is a co spiracy and secret society, its Trump whose their choice.

The "never Trump" movement's numbers are a very small minority. If they managed to get anything done, that in and of itself would be conspiracy material.
Sure, the movement, but there was a lot of push against him when he began to rise.  Nevertrump was the leftovers of those who didn't bow to the popularity of Trump.  I suspect that most of the party leaders were against Trump for months until they gave in to pressure.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on July 21, 2016, 05:38:39 AM
(https://i.imgflip.com/vziiy.jpg)

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/2016-trump-putin-russia-gop-platform-214074

For those who support Donald Trump, this should be extremely worrisome.

Now there is no way out for Trump.

Either he has been lying all along to the American people, and he will attack Russia as soon as he is declared President, or the elites will take him out (at the ballot box, of course) come November, since they have been planning for a war with Russia for the past 40 years.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on July 21, 2016, 08:33:13 AM
How is he going to rule Holy Terra if he doesn't conquer Russia?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 21, 2016, 09:38:16 AM
But who can conquer Russia?  Many have tried.  All have failed.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on July 21, 2016, 09:51:01 AM
The God-Emperor, duh
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 21, 2016, 09:56:44 AM
I don't know if he's tough enough to take on bear wrestler Putin.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on July 21, 2016, 10:58:45 AM
He will deploy his golden armada.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 21, 2016, 12:24:52 PM
But Putin is like diamond, which can break gold.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on July 21, 2016, 01:00:35 PM
What's he gonna do? Launch diamonds into orbit?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 21, 2016, 01:19:10 PM
No, Putin will challenge Trump to a one on one.  Trump would lose his hair.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on July 21, 2016, 01:31:33 PM
Can't stump the Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 21, 2016, 02:50:18 PM
Don't need to stump, just throw in the dump.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 21, 2016, 05:29:01 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?_r=0

let's make america great again by turning our foreign policy apparatus into an extortion racket.  that'll work.  hey maybe we can squeeze a few extra bucks out of estonia.

ffs.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 21, 2016, 05:48:48 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?_r=0)

let's make america great again by turning our foreign policy apparatus into an extortion racket.  that'll work.  hey maybe we can squeeze a few extra bucks out of estonia.

ffs.

....

Ok, in fairness, this may actually be a good idea to reduce American hatred.  Yes, it's going to cause millions to suffer in the long run but getting America out of sticking it's nose into other countries business is the first step in making them not hate us as much.

Of course, I doubt this would apply to oil rich nations.  Trump is a businessman, after all.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 21, 2016, 08:23:20 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/21/us/politics/donald-trump-issues.html?_r=0)

let's make america great again by turning our foreign policy apparatus into an extortion racket.  that'll work.  hey maybe we can squeeze a few extra bucks out of estonia.

ffs.

....

Ok, in fairness, this may actually be a good idea to reduce American hatred.  Yes, it's going to cause millions to suffer in the long run but getting America out of sticking it's nose into other countries business is the first step in making them not hate us as much.

Of course, I doubt this would apply to oil rich nations.  Trump is a businessman, after all.

if anything i think such a policy would only add to the list of people irritated with us, and it kinda puts our noses right in the middle of foreign budgets.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 21, 2016, 09:19:27 PM
(https://i.sli.mg/TIAoq1.png)

It stands to reason that these nations shouldn't get to benefit from NATO and not actually have to shoulder any burdens. It's a defense treaty, not a welfare club.

Quote from: Donald Trump
Our allies must contribute toward the financial, political and human costs of our tremendous security burden. But many of them are simply not doing so. They look at the United States as weak and forgiving and feel no obligation to honor their agreements with us.

In NATO, for instance, only 4 of 28 other member countries, besides America, are spending the minimum required 2% of GDP on defense.

We have spent trillions of dollars over time – on planes, missiles, ships, equipment – building up our military to provide a strong defense for Europe and Asia. The countries we are defending must pay for the cost of this defense – and, if not, the U.S. must be prepared to let these countries defend themselves.

The whole world will be safer if our allies do their part to support our common defense and security.

Note he said 4 of 28 as Estonia's numbers sometimes vary. They are pretty much at the minimum threshold, so the number may instead be 5.

He said 4 besides America; I am a big dumb.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 22, 2016, 03:03:53 AM
It stands to reason that these nations shouldn't get to benefit from NATO and not actually have to shoulder any burdens. It's a defense treaty, not a welfare club.

this is a very shortsighted and naive view of nato specifically and defense treaties in general; but, even if i accept the premise, then trump's rhetoric is still counterproductive at best and dangerous at worst.  if the us is interested in reducing those expenses, then it should negotiate to those ends in future cost-share agreements.  it shouldn't retroactively decide that it isn't happy with the cost-share agreement that it already negotiated and use the threat of violence of extract concessions from our allies (real allies this time for realsies).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 22, 2016, 09:59:54 PM
negotiate to those ends in future cost-share agreements

The cost-sharing has already been negotiated and it has been ignored. What you're calling for is forgiving these nations for not living up to the treaty, exactly what Trump is pointing out. These countries know that much of the current government doesn't mind that they don't pay their fair share. People like yourself don't mind. You consider their non-payment to be worth their supposed alliance. I don't. If a country can't defend itself and instead wants us to defend them instead, we should just annex their country or abandon it entirely. Clearly they don't consider their country to be in danger, right?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 23, 2016, 03:29:40 AM
negotiate to those ends in future cost-share agreements

The cost-sharing has already been negotiated and it has been ignored. What you're calling for is forgiving these nations for not living up to the treaty, exactly what Trump is pointing out. These countries know that much of the current government doesn't mind that they don't pay their fair share. People like yourself don't mind. You consider their non-payment to be worth their supposed alliance. I don't. If a country can't defend itself and instead wants us to defend them instead, we should just annex their country or abandon it entirely. Clearly they don't consider their country to be in danger, right?

none of what you're saying is very congruent with how nato funding works.  the nato common fund (the one to which member states contribute directly) is small.  the total us contribution to the common fund is ~$750 million, so there's virtually nothing to recoup there.

the 2% figure that your graphic cites is individual member nation defense spending as a percent of gdp.  that means there's nothing to recoup.  we're not gong to cut our own defense budget because albania or whatever decided to spend more.  trump is categorically wrong that we "[spend] trillions of dollars over time – on planes, missiles, ships, equipment – building up our military to provide a strong defense for Europe and Asia."  we spend trillions of dollars on our military to support our own national interests.  we support nato because it's in our national interest.  defending europeans is incidental.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 23, 2016, 05:34:19 AM
If Trump wants to cut military spending, he should just say so.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on July 23, 2016, 06:29:51 AM
Leave him alone, he knows what he's doing. :(
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Woody on July 23, 2016, 06:30:04 AM
I can think of one good way to start a war with Russia. 

Say you might not live up to obligations agreed to by NATO.

Putin then wondering how the US will respond decides to take a little more of the Ukraine.  To test the waters.

If the US does not initially respond, he goes for more.  Then looks at other countries Russia can take.

If the US responds tension rises and relations worsen. Russia refuses to back down and return the land grabbed. Egos on both sides led to force being used.

Saying the US will live up to its obligation to members of NATO, answers Putin's question without the need to see what he can get away with.

It is disconcerting to me that a candidate for POTUS  has very little understanding of NATO.  It is not that they owe money, as others have already pointed out.  There is no obligation not being met. Just not meeting what some people came up with what they thought would be ideal on military spending.  The US will still spend what we think is needed on the military, just as other countries do.

 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 23, 2016, 09:09:07 AM
we're not gong to cut our own defense budget because albania or whatever decided to spend more.
Please back this claim up. Otherwise, we'll be looking at an endless "no u" fest between you two. Right now it's "Yah huh, if our allies contribute more to our collective strength then we can contribute less without losing said collective strength" vs "NUH HUH THAT WOULDN'T HAPPEN BECAUSE I PICKED A SMALL COUNTRY LIKE ALBANIA AND THAT'S FUNNY".

I can think of one good way to start a war with Russia.
But they're our ally!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 23, 2016, 03:06:47 PM
negotiate to those ends in future cost-share agreements

The cost-sharing has already been negotiated and it has been ignored. What you're calling for is forgiving these nations for not living up to the treaty, exactly what Trump is pointing out. These countries know that much of the current government doesn't mind that they don't pay their fair share. People like yourself don't mind. You consider their non-payment to be worth their supposed alliance. I don't. If a country can't defend itself and instead wants us to defend them instead, we should just annex their country or abandon it entirely. Clearly they don't consider their country to be in danger, right?

none of what you're saying is very congruent with how nato funding works.  the nato common fund (the one to which member states contribute directly) is small.  the total us contribution to the common fund is ~$750 million, so there's virtually nothing to recoup there.

the 2% figure that your graphic cites is individual member nation defense spending as a percent of gdp.  that means there's nothing to recoup.  we're not gong to cut our own defense budget because albania or whatever decided to spend more.  trump is categorically wrong that we "[spend] trillions of dollars over time – on planes, missiles, ships, equipment – building up our military to provide a strong defense for Europe and Asia."  we spend trillions of dollars on our military to support our own national interests.  we support nato because it's in our national interest.  defending europeans is incidental.

By not spending the appropriate amount of funding on their military, they're opening themselves up to being attacked by outside forces, which then we have to intervene. An analogy would be you have car insurance and the insurance company says you must change your oil at least every 10,000 miles or your insurance claim might not be approved. You've chosen to change your oil every 25,000 miles instead, putting your engine and car at higher risk of damage. Assuming the company knows you did this, they'd dismiss any insurance claims you make because you neglected to handle your own risk profile.

These countries believe that since the US is backing them up, then they don't need to put forward an expected amount of their own people, equipment, or infrastructure to fight off enemies. Again, why should the US defend someone not even interested in defending themselves? If this is all about the US' best interest, then clearly we can do whatever we want without NATO since the other countries in NATO have an almost nonexistent military regardless.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 23, 2016, 03:22:42 PM
negotiate to those ends in future cost-share agreements

The cost-sharing has already been negotiated and it has been ignored. What you're calling for is forgiving these nations for not living up to the treaty, exactly what Trump is pointing out. These countries know that much of the current government doesn't mind that they don't pay their fair share. People like yourself don't mind. You consider their non-payment to be worth their supposed alliance. I don't. If a country can't defend itself and instead wants us to defend them instead, we should just annex their country or abandon it entirely. Clearly they don't consider their country to be in danger, right?

none of what you're saying is very congruent with how nato funding works.  the nato common fund (the one to which member states contribute directly) is small.  the total us contribution to the common fund is ~$750 million, so there's virtually nothing to recoup there.

the 2% figure that your graphic cites is individual member nation defense spending as a percent of gdp.  that means there's nothing to recoup.  we're not gong to cut our own defense budget because albania or whatever decided to spend more.  trump is categorically wrong that we "[spend] trillions of dollars over time – on planes, missiles, ships, equipment – building up our military to provide a strong defense for Europe and Asia."  we spend trillions of dollars on our military to support our own national interests.  we support nato because it's in our national interest.  defending europeans is incidental.

By not spending the appropriate amount of funding on their military, they're opening themselves up to being attacked by outside forces, which then we have to intervene. An analogy would be you have car insurance and the insurance company says you must change your oil at least every 10,000 miles or your insurance claim might not be approved. You've chosen to change your oil every 25,000 miles instead, putting your engine and car at higher risk of damage. Assuming the company knows you did this, they'd dismiss any insurance claims you make because you neglected to handle your own risk profile.

These countries believe that since the US is backing them up, then they don't need to put forward an expected amount of their own people, equipment, or infrastructure to fight off enemies. Again, why should the US defend someone not even interested in defending themselves? If this is all about the US' best interest, then clearly we can do whatever we want without NATO since the other countries in NATO have an almost nonexistent military regardless.
Not a whole lot of enemies to fend off.  Hell, the last time a nation in Europe was attacked by a foreign agent, it was a NATO member who was the aggressor.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 23, 2016, 03:43:16 PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/433320/trump-non-us-nato-budget-300-billion-almost-nothing
Quote
There’s a fair argument that European NATO allies need to spend more on defense. They set up a goal of getting each country to spend 2 percent of their gross domestic product on defense, and so far, only five of the 28 members meet that threshold — the U.S., Britain, Estonia, Poland and Greece.

But the hyperbolic portrayal of our closest allies as “ripping us off” and their collective $300 billion per year on defense spending as “almost nothing” is typical ill-informed, insulting Trumpism.

The world’s third-largest defense budget is . . . the United Kingdom, at $66 billion. France is fifth at $52 billion. Germany ninth $43 billion. Italy, Canada, and Turkey rank 13th, 14th, and 15th. And these are countries with much smaller populations and economies than the United States.

Overall, non-U.S. NATO countries make up nine of the 25 largest defense budgets on Earth.

it's worth noting that only 4 members spend less than 1% (fuck you, iceland!), which means that most nations are under their requirement by only fractions of a percent of gdp.

we're not gong to cut our own defense budget because albania or whatever decided to spend more.
Please back this claim up. Otherwise, we'll be looking at an endless "no u" fest between you two. Right now it's "Yah huh, if our allies contribute more to our collective strength then we can contribute less without losing said collective strength" vs "trump is categorically wrong that we "[spend] trillions of dollars over time – on planes, missiles, ships, equipment – building up our military to provide a strong defense for Europe and Asia."  we spend trillions of dollars on our military to support our own national interests.  we support nato because it's in our national interest.  defending europeans is incidental.".

fixed.  although i genuinely did have a difficult time deciding on which nato member state has the funniest sounding name.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11936179/What-are-the-biggest-defence-budgets-in-the-world.html
(http://i.imgur.com/YVrOzZq.jpg?1)
we're not the largest military spender on the planet because it's necessary to deter russia from invading europe.  that's nonsense.  we spend what we spend because we believe it supports our own national interests across the globe.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/apr/19/bernie-s/sanders-oversimplifies-us-share-NATO/
Quote
Laicie Heeley, a military budget expert at the Stimson Center, a defense policy think tank, sees things otherwise.

"Sanders' claim is a commonly quoted misperception, or misleading quote, however you choose to see it," Heeley said. "The stat says nothing about the U.S. relationship to NATO. It simply states that the United States is the world's greatest military spender."

Lisa Samp, a fellow with the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, also describes Sanders’ words as a "common misunderstanding."

"There is a difference between what nations contribute to NATO and what they spend on their own defense," Samp said. "More accurate would be to say the United States contributes 22 percent of NATO’s common funding."

it's also just not how budgets are created.  budgets are a political process, not an ultra-rationalist balancing act.

I can think of one good way to start a war with Russia.
But they're our ally!

how petty.

By not spending the appropriate amount of funding on their military, they're opening themselves up to being attacked by outside forces, which then we have to intervene. An analogy would be you have car insurance and the insurance company says you must change your oil at least every 10,000 miles or your insurance claim might not be approved. You've chosen to change your oil every 25,000 miles instead, putting your engine and car at higher risk of damage. Assuming the company knows you did this, they'd dismiss any insurance claims you make because you neglected to handle your own risk profile.

These countries believe that since the US is backing them up, then they don't need to put forward an expected amount of their own people, equipment, or infrastructure to fight off enemies. Again, why should the US defend someone not even interested in defending themselves? If this is all about the US' best interest, then clearly we can do whatever we want without NATO since the other countries in NATO have an almost nonexistent military regardless.

this is answered above: the other countries in nato do not comprise "an almost nonexistent military force."  that's nonsense. 

also international relations aren't like oil changes or car insurance or whatever.  the shortsightedness it takes to reduce this issue to a mere accounting of dollars and cents is precisely the quality i don't want in a president.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 23, 2016, 04:23:46 PM
it's worth noting that only 4 members spend less than 1% (fuck you, iceland!), which means that most nations are under their requirement by only fractions of a percent of gdp.
That's an interesting way to frame it, but ultimately a misleading one. A country spending 1.8% of their GDP would only be meeting 90% of the target. "Fractions of a percent of GDP", in this case, are rather quite significant.

fixed.  although i genuinely did have a difficult time deciding on which nato member state has the funniest sounding name.
Well, you did manage to pick the least relevant country here, I'll give you credit for that. Indeed, the country with the smallest military spending in all of NATO would probably not matter much even if they did double their spending to meet expectations.

we're not the largest military spender on the planet because it's necessary to deter russia from invading europe.  that's nonsense.
Has anyone claimed otherwise, or are you just building a strawman here?

how petty.
Of all people in this thread, you're easily the least justified in being upset about someone making petty remarks about the silly things you said. Half of the time you just call people's arguments "nonsense" with no substantiation, or you mock them by implying that they think Albania's defence budget would somehow impact that of the USA (protip: swap in Germany for Albania and the claim becomes much more nuanced)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 23, 2016, 04:51:50 PM
it's worth noting that only 4 members spend less than 1% (fuck you, iceland!), which means that most nations are under their requirement by only fractions of a percent of gdp.

It's also worth noting that only 4 members other than the US spend above the 2% target. Thanks for once again noting that they are in fact not meeting their target. Now, instead of moving the goal post to 1%, let's talk about why they're not meeting their actual goal.

we're not the largest military spender on the planet because it's necessary to deter russia from invading europe.  that's nonsense.  we spend what we spend because we believe it supports our own national interests across the globe.

What does that have to do with the current discussion, though? This is about how much the rest of NATO spends, not how much we spend.

how petty.

Is it really so petty to just reverberate your own argument? I have to wonder if you still think Russia and China are our allies, and if you do still think so, why you would think NATO should even exist.


this is answered above: the other countries in nato do not comprise "an almost nonexistent military force."  that's nonsense.

Really? One of the largest militaries in Europe, Germany, actually does have an almost nonexistent military force. Take their Luftwaffe, for example. It reportedly has 406 aircraft, half of which are incapable of flight. This is what happens when you don't meet your military budget target. You get an aging fleet of Tornados and have a hard time even completing basic military joint operations.

also international relations aren't like oil changes or car insurance or whatever.  the shortsightedness it takes to reduce this issue to a mere accounting of dollars and cents is precisely the quality i don't want in a president.

"This is not literally that, therefore your analogy was meaningless." Sigh.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 24, 2016, 04:43:42 PM
http://www.npr.org/2016/07/24/487242426/bernie-sanders-dnc-emails-outrageous-but-not-a-shock

So you all hear?
The conspiracy theory that Bernie Sanders was being marginalized by the DNC?   Totally true.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 24, 2016, 05:40:47 PM
http://www.npr.org/2016/07/24/487242426/bernie-sanders-dnc-emails-outrageous-but-not-a-shock

So you all hear?
The conspiracy theory that Bernie Sanders was being marginalized by the DNC?   Totally true.

Bernie has already said on MSNBC that this changes nothing and he supports Hillary. He's probably known for months and took people's donations anyway just to give them to Hillary. What an absolute shill of a man.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on July 24, 2016, 05:42:17 PM
>supporting a criminal
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 24, 2016, 07:59:23 PM
http://www.npr.org/2016/07/24/487242426/bernie-sanders-dnc-emails-outrageous-but-not-a-shock (http://www.npr.org/2016/07/24/487242426/bernie-sanders-dnc-emails-outrageous-but-not-a-shock)

So you all hear?
The conspiracy theory that Bernie Sanders was being marginalized by the DNC?   Totally true.

Bernie has already said on MSNBC that this changes nothing and he supports Hillary. He's probably known for months and took people's donations anyway just to give them to Hillary. What an absolute shill of a man.
Total agreement.
Or the DNC has basically blackmailed him.

Either way: I'm at the "fuck America.  Let it burn" stage of life.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 25, 2016, 01:33:16 AM
just to be clear, my criticism of trump here is not that he suggested that nato members should spend more on defense.  i'm critical of his methodology.

we're not the largest military spender on the planet because it's necessary to deter russia from invading europe.  that's nonsense.
Has anyone claimed otherwise, or are you just building a strawman here?

i take it to be an implicit justification for the argument that defense spending by nato nations somehow trades-off with us defense spending.  in other words, if our defense spending is motivated by own our priorities, objectives, and interests, then there's no necessary, causal link between what germany spends on defense and what we spend on defense.

i get that you're saying that defending europe is one of those priorities, but i think in most ways that priority is incidental to the fact that we want to have a strong military presence in europe for a whole host of other reasons that are entirely self-serving.  if any nato nation, albania, germany, england, whatever, decides to spend more on defense, then i don't think we're going to pocket that cash.

Of all people in this thread, you're easily the least justified in being upset about someone making petty remarks about the silly things you said. Half of the time you just call people's arguments "nonsense" with no substantiation, or you mock them by implying that they think Albania's defence budget would somehow impact that of the USA (protip: swap in Germany for Albania and the claim becomes much more nuanced)

i don't find it petty because it's a jab at me.  lol i took the exact same jab at myself in my prior post.  keep making it if you like, it's hardly upsetting.

fwiw, i find it petty because you're so elated at such a trivial mistake.  i called russia an ally and said we cooperate on a whole bunch of foreign affairs shit, like arms control and syria and whatnot.  i was wrong to call russia an ally.  i was not wrong that we cooperate with russia on a whole bunch of foreign affairs shit, and that was the actual crux of my argument.  you well know that i didn't mean it like "russia is a nato member and soon to become the 51st state," because that wouldn't make sense in the context of anything else i said.  that's why it's petty.

which "that's nonsense" did you find unwarranted?  you appear to agree with the first one, and the second one is supported by the national review article i posted.

Is it really so petty to just reverberate your own argument? I have to wonder if you still think Russia and China are our allies, and if you do still think so, why you would think NATO should even exist.

i don't think russia or china are significant threats to us hegemony or sovereignty, and i don't think that nato's usefulness is at all constrained to deterring russia from europe.

let me ask you this: to the best of your knowledge/reasoning, why do you think nato pursues members like albania, croatia, latvia, et al.?  i mean it's obvious why we'd want members like germany, france, and the uk; but, in your opinion, why does nato pursue these smaller states at all?  or, if you like, why do we allow these other 24 states to pay under their "fair share"?  why haven't we kicked them out already?

"nato and car insurance aren't even remotely relatable.  your analogy captures exactly none of salient issues and relationships between the actors involved." Sigh.

srsly that really isn't even close to analogous.  i honestly am not sure i even get who the players are supposed to be.  we're the insurer, and europe is the insured, and the oil change is defense budgets, and mechanical failure is war?  is that how it goes?

geico isn't a state with budgets set by political parties with constituents and all the other shit that makes up nations.  europe isn't a single consumer running a household budget.  insurance companies don't have their own interests and motivations for insuring your car even if you can't pay your bills.  the list goes on...

this is precisely the issue i have with the way you and trump see things.  you actually do think it's all as simple as a single consumer making a decision about purchasing car insurance.  as if the effect it has on our budget is the only effect that matters.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 25, 2016, 04:36:14 AM
just to be clear, my criticism of trump here is not that he suggested that nato members should spend more on defense.  i'm critical of his methodology.

Ah yes, another case of "I agree with Trump, but I don't like Trump. He's too 'extreme'"

let me ask you this: to the best of your knowledge/reasoning, why do you think nato pursues members like albania, croatia, latvia, et al.?  i mean it's obvious why we'd want members like germany, france, and the uk; but, in your opinion, why does nato pursue these smaller states at all?  or, if you like, why do we allow these other 24 states to pay under their "fair share"?  why haven't we kicked them out already?

NATO, the EU, the EEA, Schengen, etc. these are all efforts to solidify countries under strong alliance banners. The current political manifesto is to control countries through alliances and treaties. They haven't been kicked out of NATO because having the US leech their defense capabilities is the primary purpose of the treaty. Once these nations have a military that is verging on falling apart entirely, they'll have to subsume and allow foreign control of their nation. The only nukes in Germany belong to the US. The only nukes in Turkey belong to the US. An ungodly percentage of Europe's entire military belongs to the US. We've been effectively invading and occupying 'allies' for decades.

Trump, despite media claims otherwise, isn't particularly interested in world domination. I doubt he considers NATO as a method of political control and would instead like to see it drawn down. After all, there's nothing a nationalist understands more than the desire for sovereignty, both at home and abroad. NATO is a relic from the Cold War and it has no modern purpose aside from political manipulation of member nations.

srsly that really isn't even close to analogous.  i honestly am not sure i even get who the players are supposed to be.  we're the insurer, and europe is the insured, and the oil change is defense budgets, and mechanical failure is war?  is that how it goes?

geico isn't a state with budgets set by political parties with constituents and all the other shit that makes up nations.  europe isn't a single consumer running a household budget.  insurance companies don't have their own interests and motivations for insuring your car even if you can't pay your bills.  the list goes on...

this is precisely the issue i have with the way you and trump see things.  you actually do think it's all as simple as a single consumer making a decision about purchasing car insurance.  as if the effect it has on our budget is the only effect that matters.

This isn't about our budget. I never even once complained that we spend too much yet you continually bring up this straw man.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 25, 2016, 08:09:38 AM
i take it to be an implicit justification for the argument that defense spending by nato nations somehow trades-off with us defense spending.  in other words, if our defense spending is motivated by own our priorities, objectives, and interests, then there's no necessary, causal link between what germany spends on defense and what we spend on defense.

i get that you're saying that defending europe is one of those priorities, but i think in most ways that priority is incidental to the fact that we want to have a strong military presence in europe for a whole host of other reasons that are entirely self-serving.  if any nato nation, albania, germany, england, whatever, decides to spend more on defense, then i don't think we're going to pocket that cash.[/quote]You're making a huge leap of logic. You seem to rely on the claim that nations remain militarised because of some concrete, immediate threat (in this case, you named Russia, but I understand that you probably didn't mean for that to be taken super-literally).

NATO, as a whole, needs to maintain a reasonable degree of hard power so that if an immediate threat appears, they don't suddenly scramble to assemble a force. If other nations aren't playing their part in the agreement, the USA has the option of playing World Police and overspending to make up for others' failures (currently the status quo). It also has the option of exerting pressure on other NATO members and demanding that they contribute fairly. Should it choose to do so, and should NATO listen, the option of reducing US military spending is then somewhat more available (although that doesn't mean it would be pursued - I can't read Trump's mind).

fwiw, i find it petty because you're so elated at such a trivial mistake.  i called russia an ally and said we cooperate on a whole bunch of foreign affairs shit, like arms control and syria and whatnot.
"Friend or foe?" is one of the few things you really shouldn't get wrong when discussing military operations. Unless it's WW1. Fuck WW1.

let me ask you this: to the best of your knowledge/reasoning, why do you think nato pursues members like albania, croatia, latvia, et al.?  i mean it's obvious why we'd want members like germany, france, and the uk; but, in your opinion, why does nato pursue these smaller states at all?  or, if you like, why do we allow these other 24 states to pay under their "fair share"?  why haven't we kicked them out already?
Might it be because we value peace quite a lot? There's nothing wrong in having alliances where a smaller nation benefits more than a large world power. Again, I very strongly doubt that Trump's issue lies with Albania, and I very strongly suspect that it has much more to do with Germany. But to target Germany without targeting Albania would be kinda discriminatory - if we agreed that 2% of GDP is the goal for everyone, then 2% it shall be for everyone.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Fortuna on July 25, 2016, 10:44:46 PM
This election is shaping up to be a complete clown show. I'm especially sick of the liberal camp that proclaims to be a bastion of tolerance when they are just as bigoted as conservatives.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on July 25, 2016, 11:49:22 PM
This election is shaping up to be a complete clown show. I'm especially sick of the liberal camp that proclaims to be a bastion of tolerance when they are just as bigoted as conservatives.

I'm as sick of this as I am of conservatives acting like assholes and then acting high and mighty when people call them assholes.

This whole election can be summed up with this video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-42A37zxM

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 26, 2016, 12:48:59 AM
Ah yes, Alex Jones and The Young Turks. They were meant for each other. Also, this:

[07:50] <Rushy> I listened to that illegal immigrant's speech [at the DNC]
[07:50] <Rushy> poor girl was so confused, she was under the impression that Trump would deport her parents and split up their family :(
[07:51] <Rushy> someone should have corrected her and told her that Trump will deport her entire family, not just her parents
[07:51] <Rushy> that way they can be together! :D
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on July 26, 2016, 08:06:04 AM
https://stanstasblog.wordpress.com/2016/07/25/trump-checkmates-hillary-was-the-election-over-before-it-began-also-can-sanders-still-win-as-part-of-a-3rd-party/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on July 26, 2016, 12:41:59 PM
Quote
I can't read Trump's mind

Trump can't read Trump's mind.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on July 26, 2016, 01:00:46 PM
Losers read. When you are a successful businessman, who owns a very successful business, you make decisions.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 26, 2016, 02:01:51 PM
This whole election can be summed up with this video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-42A37zxM
Holy shit, do these people not understand how microphones work?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on July 26, 2016, 02:13:34 PM
I like to play "guess what drug they are on!" With this video.

Alex Jones: Obviously cocaine.

Cenk: Either pcp or maybe just anbuterol.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on July 26, 2016, 02:45:48 PM
This election is shaping up to be a complete clown show. I'm especially sick of the liberal camp that proclaims to be a bastion of tolerance when they are just as bigoted as conservatives.

I'm as sick of this as I am of conservatives acting like assholes and then acting high and mighty when people call them assholes.

This whole election can be summed up with this video:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_m-42A37zxM

Extremist on both sides are hypocrites and bigots. It blows my mind to see them trying to call each other out on it, it takes a special kind of ego to completely not even get a whiff of your own bullshit.

Also, I'm guessing Alex Jones was drunk in this clip, I never seen him act like that before.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on July 26, 2016, 02:51:47 PM
Check out his jaw gnashing. Definitely cocaine. Maybe booze too, you just never know.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 26, 2016, 04:38:06 PM
Hillary is a plant to get Trump elected.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 27, 2016, 07:19:14 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-clinton-emails.html?_r=0

You know what?  Fuck America.  Y'all deserve the shit you're in.  You all deserve to have no real choices because the people YOU put in charge want to keep it that way.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on July 27, 2016, 07:47:40 PM
Who are you even talking about?  The Democratic National Committee?  Trump?  The hackers?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on July 27, 2016, 08:33:26 PM
Check out his jaw gnashing. Definitely cocaine. Maybe booze too, you just never know.

Jimson weed and PCP!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on July 27, 2016, 09:14:03 PM
Who are you even talking about?  The Democratic National Committee?  Trump?  The hackers?

Can't it be all of them?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 27, 2016, 10:50:26 PM
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4uxdbn/im_donald_j_trump_and_im_your_next_president_of/

For anyone interested or that didn't know. This is an "ask me anything" on Reddit for Donald Trump, who will be answering questions in about fifteen minutes. If you're new to Reddit, don't bother making an account. Any account less than thirty days old will be automatically deleted in the comments in order to prevent brigading (which is basically just astroturfing).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on July 28, 2016, 07:09:21 AM
http://halturnershow.com/index.php/news/world-news/113-was-bernie-sanders-physically-beaten-up-at-democrat-convention
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 28, 2016, 04:23:02 PM
You're making a huge leap of logic. You seem to rely on the claim that nations remain militarised because of some concrete, immediate threat (in this case, you named Russia, but I understand that you probably didn't mean for that to be taken super-literally).

i named russia as an immediate threat to whom?  my thoughts on this are the opposite, that "i don't think russia or china are significant threats to us hegemony or sovereignty, and i don't think that nato's usefulness is at all constrained to deterring russia from europe."  are you conflating me with this post (http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg101403#msg101403)?

NATO, as a whole, needs to maintain a reasonable degree of hard power so that if an immediate threat appears, they don't suddenly scramble to assemble a force. If other nations aren't playing their part in the agreement, the USA has the option of playing World Police and overspending to make up for others' failures (currently the status quo). It also has the option of exerting pressure on other NATO members and demanding that they contribute fairly. Should it choose to do so, and should NATO listen, the option of reducing US military spending is then somewhat more available (although that doesn't mean it would be pursued - I can't read Trump's mind).

i generally agree, and therein lies my issue with what trump said.  the biggest risks are that nato members leave or contribute less (speaking of germany: we don't want them to leave nato.  like, at all.), that we significantly damage our ability to negotiate future agreements in good faith, and that we encourage potential adversaries to adopt a more aggressive posture.  the biggest upside is that maybe some other legislatures will adjust their budgets accordingly, and then maybe when the next budget is passed we can save a few bucks on our own defense spending.  i want a president who is better at risk/reward than that. 

https://www.c-span.org/video/?322386-1/discussion-future-us-military
at 26:50, perkins basically describes that our military's strategic doctrine is premised on making it clear to all potential adversaries that us victory is necessarily guaranteed, and that while doing so prevents/deters conflict, it is obviously much more expensive.  this is the sort of thing that informs my opinion that our military budget is set by our own national priorities, isn't going to change due to nato member spending, and, most importantly, that both hard power and soft power are integral to our operations abroad.

i see things from a slightly different perspective: we have the option to field any size military force we want to and leave any alliances we don't want to support.  we field the largest military force on the planet because it's in our best interest.  we secure europe though the nato alliance because it's in our best interest; and, as rushy rightly points out, this is as much about being in command of the entire military situation in europe as it is about combining arms.  all of that money we spend is money we want to spend because it buys us the things we want.  now, if we can get nato allies to spend some of their cash buying us the shit we want, then that's just gravy.

"Friend or foe?" is one of the few things you really shouldn't get wrong when discussing military operations. Unless it's WW1. Fuck WW1.
again, excluding that one word in that one sentence, i do not think i've described russia as entirely one or the other.  i described our relationship with russia (in comparison with our relations with the dprk) in much more detail than "we're allies," and i even provided quality sources echoing some of the distinctions i made.  if you want me to pick one side or the other, then i think they're more friend than foe.

NATO, the EU, the EEA, Schengen, etc. these are all efforts to solidify countries under strong alliance banners. The current political manifesto is to control countries through alliances and treaties. They haven't been kicked out of NATO because having the US leech their defense capabilities is the primary purpose of the treaty. Once these nations have a military that is verging on falling apart entirely, they'll have to subsume and allow foreign control of their nation. The only nukes in Germany belong to the US. The only nukes in Turkey belong to the US. An ungodly percentage of Europe's entire military belongs to the US. We've been effectively invading and occupying 'allies' for decades.

a little hyperbolic, but otherwise i basically agree.  we have a significant stake in maintaining as much authority as possible over member state militaries.  europe being under a single military and diplomatic roof is good for america. 

This isn't about our budget. I never even once complained that we spend too much yet you continually bring up this straw man.

well, you're on about how shitty it is that these other nations aren't paying their "fair" share.  if it's not about the money, then what is it about?  fairness?

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on July 28, 2016, 05:45:22 PM
Who are you even talking about?  The Democratic National Committee?  Trump?  The hackers?

Can't it be all of them?

None of them make any sense, though.  We haven't put Trump in charge of anything, we haven't put the hackers in charge of anything, and we haven't put the DNC in charge of anything.  It's ridiculous to look at this clusterfuck and say "haha America you deserve this because you voted for it."
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 28, 2016, 06:05:33 PM
Who are you even talking about?  The Democratic National Committee?  Trump?  The hackers?

Can't it be all of them?

None of them make any sense, though.  We haven't put Trump in charge of anything, we haven't put the hackers in charge of anything, and we haven't put the DNC in charge of anything.  It's ridiculous to look at this clusterfuck and say "haha America you deserve this because you voted for it."
They did though.  All of them.
It's not JUST this election.  It's not JUST elections in general.  Every survey, every facebook post, every tweet sends a message.  It's datamined and analyzed.  Every vote for an extreme from last year means more of the same next year. 

When the extremes seem like the majority by sheer voice alone, who else do you cater to?
When people complain and speak their minds on issues they know little about, thinking of solutions that are too simple to work, they voice their opinions and with that, those who speak the same thing get their vote.


Politics is just a giant marketing bid and you give out your info all too easy.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on July 29, 2016, 12:48:11 AM
I bought a MAGA button at the county fair today. Then I made SU wear it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Crudblud on July 29, 2016, 01:36:50 PM
I bought a MAGA button at the county fair today. Then I made SU wear it.
The white cisgender heterosexual male patriarchy in action, folks.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 30, 2016, 03:27:25 PM
a little hyperbolic, but otherwise i basically agree.  we have a significant stake in maintaining as much authority as possible over member state militaries.  europe being under a single military and diplomatic roof is good for america.

"Good for America" depends quite a lot on what you consider the "good" is. If by good you mean America consolidates an iron fist over the Western world, then yes that's good for America. If by good you mean we protect countries who can't or don't want to do the same for us, then no, it isn't good at all. I'm not a big fan of this new-age colonialism we've invented.

well, you're on about how shitty it is that these other nations aren't paying their "fair" share.  if it's not about the money, then what is it about?  fairness?

This is about not succumbing to the false song of globalism.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 30, 2016, 03:42:21 PM
So the DNC got hacked.

Days after Trump asked Russia to "find hillary's e-mails".

Russia likes Trump alot.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on July 30, 2016, 03:47:39 PM
So the DNC got hacked.

Days after Trump asked Russia to "find hillary's e-mails".

Russia likes Trump alot.
Yes, I bet it was Russia and not a bunch of neckbeards from a *chan who got bored.

Chill with the conspiracy theories, we already know Hillary doesn't know how to use email, it's hardly surprising that some script kiddie would get her.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 30, 2016, 04:28:38 PM
So the DNC got hacked.

Days after Trump asked Russia to "find hillary's e-mails".

Russia likes Trump alot.
Yes, I bet it was Russia and not a bunch of neckbeards from a *chan who got bored.

Chill with the conspiracy theories, we already know Hillary doesn't know how to use email, it's hardly surprising that some script kiddie would get her.
Meh.  It's certainly possible but the timing is convenient.  *shrug* But whatever.  We'll never know anyway.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on July 30, 2016, 04:31:19 PM
I think you have your timeline mixed up, the DNC hack happened well before Trump's comments on Hillary's deleted emails.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 30, 2016, 05:16:03 PM
I think you have your timeline mixed up, the DNC hack happened well before Trump's comments on Hillary's deleted emails.
Oh.

Then nevermind.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on July 30, 2016, 05:53:25 PM
I think you have your timeline mixed up, the DNC hack happened well before Trump's comments on Hillary's deleted emails.

Yeah, Trump asked that after it was reported Russia was likely responsible.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 30, 2016, 06:35:14 PM
I think you have your timeline mixed up, the DNC hack happened well before Trump's comments on Hillary's deleted emails.

Yeah, Trump asked that after it was reported Russia was likely responsible.
Even the latest one?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on July 31, 2016, 03:36:45 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/us/politics/donald-trump-khizr-khan-wife-ghazala.html

:-\
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Fortuna on July 31, 2016, 03:56:02 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/us/politics/donald-trump-khizr-khan-wife-ghazala.html

:-\

What? It looks like Trump was calling out the Democrats for using a dead soldier as political ammo. Because that's exactly what they were doing. The pragmatism of Trump is kind of fun to watch sometimes.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Snupes on July 31, 2016, 07:31:22 AM
Interviewer: What do you say to the man saying you don't understand true sacrifice?
Trump: i've made a lot of sacrifices, for example, i have a lot of money and jobs
Interviewer: ...those are sacrifices?
Trump: yes they are i am rich and i make a lot of money

Amazing. He's not even president and he's already as much of a goldmine as George W. Bush was.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: xasop on July 31, 2016, 12:40:01 PM
Interviewer: What do you say to the man saying you don't understand true sacrifice?
Trump: i've made a lot of sacrifices, for example, i have a lot of money and jobs
Interviewer: ...those are sacrifices?
Trump: yes they are i am rich and i make a lot of money

Amazing. He's not even president and he's already as much of a goldmine as George W. Bush was.

While his answer wasn't great, I don't think that's a fair way to paraphrase it. He wasn't talking about the money he makes personally, but the number of Americans he employs and pays money to.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 31, 2016, 01:05:57 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/us/politics/donald-trump-khizr-khan-wife-ghazala.html

:-\

People like Hillary are the reason their son is dead. That they support her for some reason is strange when Trump is the anti-war candidate.

This also happens to be why personally I can't vote for Hillary. She is a woman who has made a living by dragging more and more nations into bloody conflicts.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on July 31, 2016, 01:52:51 PM
trump supporters: how do you feel about trump's encouragement to russia to release stolen/hacked documents?  does it trouble you at all?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on July 31, 2016, 01:55:57 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/us/politics/donald-trump-khizr-khan-wife-ghazala.html

:-\

People like Hillary are the reason their son is dead. That they support her for some reason is strange when Trump is the anti-war candidate.

This also happens to be why personally I can't vote for Hillary. She is a woman who has made a living by dragging more and more nations into bloody conflicts.

That's a good response.  Trump should have said something like that, instead of speculating that the mother wasn't allowed to speak.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on July 31, 2016, 03:24:49 PM
trump supporters: how do you feel about trump's encouragement to russia to release stolen/hacked documents?  does it trouble you at all?

I don't condone hacking, but if Russia already has Hillary's emails (and I'm like 99% sure they do, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if every country other than the US had them), then it would only be in US intelligence's best interest to have them as well. Why would the US want Russia to know what's in those documents without knowing themselves?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 31, 2016, 03:36:41 PM
trump supporters: how do you feel about trump's encouragement to russia to release stolen/hacked documents?  does it trouble you at all?

I don't condone hacking, but if Russia already has Hillary's emails (and I'm like 99% sure they do, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if every country other than the US had them), then it would only be in US intelligence's best interest to have them as well. Why would the US want Russia to know what's in those documents without knowing themselves?
If Russia has them and the US does not, the US has a shitty intelligence agency.  Just saying.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on July 31, 2016, 03:40:45 PM
trump supporters: how do you feel about trump's encouragement to russia to release stolen/hacked documents?  does it trouble you at all?

I don't condone hacking, but if Russia already has Hillary's emails (and I'm like 99% sure they do, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if every country other than the US had them), then it would only be in US intelligence's best interest to have them as well. Why would the US want Russia to know what's in those documents without knowing themselves?
If Russia has them and the US does not, the US has a shitty intelligence agency.  Just saying.

This was already evident from Comey's conclusion.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 31, 2016, 03:45:42 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/us/politics/donald-trump-khizr-khan-wife-ghazala.html

:-\

People like Hillary are the reason their son is dead. That they support her for some reason is strange when Trump is the anti-war candidate.

This also happens to be why personally I can't vote for Hillary. She is a woman who has made a living by dragging more and more nations into bloody conflicts.

That's a good response.  Trump should have said something like that, instead of speculating that the mother wasn't allowed to speak.

Apparently Trump did think this was a good response:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/759743648573435905

Interesting, I didn't read this before I made that reply.

trump supporters: how do you feel about trump's encouragement to russia to release stolen/hacked documents?  does it trouble you at all?

If Russia has Hillary's emails, they got them a long time ago; definitely before Trump announced his presidential candidacy. That private server has been air-gapped and sitting in Quantico for about two years.

Trump brought this up because Hillary claimed not only could people not have those emails, but that the emails were of no significance to the government and were all about yoga and shopping. Hillary is now admitting that the emails were of importance to national security and that Trump should be ashamed of talking about Russia hacking national security assets. Trump once again forced his opponent to reveal their own weakness. Should we really blame Trump for pointing to the consequences of Hillary's choice to have that private server?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on July 31, 2016, 03:51:30 PM
My problem is that Trump encouraged Russia to sell them to the media. Seems like a conflict of interest for a presidential front-runner to encourage private business to profit off of the governments likely corruption.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 31, 2016, 03:57:20 PM
If Russia has Hillary's emails, they got them a long time ago; definitely before Trump announced his presidential candidacy. That private server has been air-gapped and sitting in Quantico for about two years.

Trump brought this up because Hillary claimed not only could people not have those emails, but that the emails were of no significance to the government and were all about yoga and shopping. Hillary is now admitting that the emails were of importance to national security and that Trump should be ashamed of talking about Russia hacking national security assets. Trump once again forced his opponent to reveal their own weakness. Should we really blame Trump for pointing to the consequences of Hillary's choice to have that private server?

Where does Hillary say that the missing e-mails are of national security?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 31, 2016, 05:18:49 PM
If Russia has Hillary's emails, they got them a long time ago; definitely before Trump announced his presidential candidacy. That private server has been air-gapped and sitting in Quantico for about two years.

Trump brought this up because Hillary claimed not only could people not have those emails, but that the emails were of no significance to the government and were all about yoga and shopping. Hillary is now admitting that the emails were of importance to national security and that Trump should be ashamed of talking about Russia hacking national security assets. Trump once again forced his opponent to reveal their own weakness. Should we really blame Trump for pointing to the consequences of Hillary's choice to have that private server?

Where does Hillary say that the missing e-mails are of national security?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoYqFARXgAEYT-N.jpg:large)

I suppose a more accurate statement would be "Hillary's campaign" now admits to the emails being a national security issue. I'm sure Hillary still holds this opinion:

Quote from: Hillary Clinton
I chose not to keep my private personal emails -- emails about planning Chelsea's wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.

The 33,000 deleted emails that weren't handed over to the FBI were just emails about Chelsea's wedding and yoga routines. Why would it be a big deal for Russia to have those emails?

The Russia nonsense, regardless, is a red herring built up so that people ignore the leaks because of who might have released them. Assange claims the leaks came from a DNC insider, not Russians. I'd believe Assange before I believe Hillary shills.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 31, 2016, 05:27:51 PM
If Russia has Hillary's emails, they got them a long time ago; definitely before Trump announced his presidential candidacy. That private server has been air-gapped and sitting in Quantico for about two years.

Trump brought this up because Hillary claimed not only could people not have those emails, but that the emails were of no significance to the government and were all about yoga and shopping. Hillary is now admitting that the emails were of importance to national security and that Trump should be ashamed of talking about Russia hacking national security assets. Trump once again forced his opponent to reveal their own weakness. Should we really blame Trump for pointing to the consequences of Hillary's choice to have that private server?

Where does Hillary say that the missing e-mails are of national security?

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CoYqFARXgAEYT-N.jpg:large)

I suppose a more accurate statement would be "Hillary's campaign" now admits to the emails being a national security issue. I'm sure Hillary still holds this opinion:

Quote from: Hillary Clinton
I chose not to keep my private personal emails -- emails about planning Chelsea's wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements, condolence notes to friends as well as yoga routines, family vacations, the other things you typically find in inboxes.

The 33,000 deleted emails that weren't handed over to the FBI were just emails about Chelsea's wedding and yoga routines. Why would it be a big deal for Russia to have those emails?

The Russia nonsense, regardless, is a red herring built up so that people ignore the leaks because of who might have released them. Assange claims the leaks came from a DNC insider, not Russians. I'd believe Assange before I believe Hillary shills.
Nothing in that statement says those deleted emails were of national security, merely that a political opponent encouraging foreign espionage against his opponent is a matter of national security.
The statement would hold true for anyone.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 31, 2016, 05:40:26 PM
Nothing in that statement says those deleted emails were of national security, merely that a political opponent encouraging foreign espionage against his opponent is a matter of national security.
The statement would hold true for anyone.

Trump wanted the emails, and the emails were either a national security concern or they weren't. Hillary claims they weren't and someone in her campaign claims they are. That's a pretty interesting rift in opinion.

Also, we have a treaty with Russia that makes them legally obligated to release information to us that shows illegal activity. If they do have the emails, they're legally obligated to release them to the DoJ at the very least. Since the emails aren't a national security concern, no big deal.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on July 31, 2016, 06:37:08 PM
Nothing in that statement says those deleted emails were of national security, merely that a political opponent encouraging foreign espionage against his opponent is a matter of national security.
The statement would hold true for anyone.

Trump wanted the emails, and the emails were either a national security concern or they weren't. Hillary claims they weren't and someone in her campaign claims they are. That's a pretty interesting rift in opinion.

Also, we have a treaty with Russia that makes them legally obligated to release information to us that shows illegal activity. If they do have the emails, they're legally obligated to release them to the DoJ at the very least. Since the emails aren't a national security concern, no big deal.
But your statement link doesn't specify the emails are a national security issue, just that asking for a foreign power to hack anyone in the US is a national security risk.  If you have another statement I'm interested.

As for the second part.  Absolutely.  If they have them I hope they do share them. 

Though if Hilary was smart (and she's not) she'd have a bunch of people in India or Taiwan typing out 30,000 personal e-mails about Yoga or to her children.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on July 31, 2016, 11:16:40 PM
But your statement link doesn't specify the emails are a national security issue, just that asking for a foreign power to hack anyone in the US is a national security risk.  If you have another statement I'm interested.

As for the second part.  Absolutely.  If they have them I hope they do share them. 

Though if Hilary was smart (and she's not) she'd have a bunch of people in India or Taiwan typing out 30,000 personal e-mails about Yoga or to her children.

That link was a campaign statement in direct response to Trump's email request from the Russians. If the link is referring to something else, then what is it referring to?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 01, 2016, 05:37:27 AM
But your statement link doesn't specify the emails are a national security issue, just that asking for a foreign power to hack anyone in the US is a national security risk.  If you have another statement I'm interested.

As for the second part.  Absolutely.  If they have them I hope they do share them. 

Though if Hilary was smart (and she's not) she'd have a bunch of people in India or Taiwan typing out 30,000 personal e-mails about Yoga or to her children.

That link was a campaign statement in direct response to Trump's email request from the Russians. If the link is referring to something else, then what is it referring to?

Yes.
And it is the act of asking a foreign power to do something illegal that is a national security, not the subject of emails.
It would still apply if Trump asked Russia to find Chelsea Clinton's baby pictures or to find evidence of corruption in Obama's cabinet.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on August 01, 2016, 11:08:18 AM
But your statement link doesn't specify the emails are a national security issue, just that asking for a foreign power to hack anyone in the US is a national security risk.  If you have another statement I'm interested.

As for the second part.  Absolutely.  If they have them I hope they do share them. 

Though if Hilary was smart (and she's not) she'd have a bunch of people in India or Taiwan typing out 30,000 personal e-mails about Yoga or to her children.

That link was a campaign statement in direct response to Trump's email request from the Russians. If the link is referring to something else, then what is it referring to?

Yes.
And it is the act of asking a foreign power to do something illegal that is a national security, not the subject of emails.
It would still apply if Trump asked Russia to find Chelsea Clinton's baby pictures or to find evidence of corruption in Obama's cabinet.

Where did Trump ask a foreign power to do something illegal? In fact, if Russia has these emails, they're obligated by treaty to release them to the DoJ.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 01, 2016, 12:15:33 PM
But your statement link doesn't specify the emails are a national security issue, just that asking for a foreign power to hack anyone in the US is a national security risk.  If you have another statement I'm interested.

As for the second part.  Absolutely.  If they have them I hope they do share them. 

Though if Hilary was smart (and she's not) she'd have a bunch of people in India or Taiwan typing out 30,000 personal e-mails about Yoga or to her children.

That link was a campaign statement in direct response to Trump's email request from the Russians. If the link is referring to something else, then what is it referring to?

Yes.
And it is the act of asking a foreign power to do something illegal that is a national security, not the subject of emails.
It would still apply if Trump asked Russia to find Chelsea Clinton's baby pictures or to find evidence of corruption in Obama's cabinet.

Where did Trump ask a foreign power to do something illegal? In fact, if Russia has these emails, they're obligated by treaty to release them to the DoJ.
He asked them to find them.
So unless he knows they have them in a data archive, where else would they get them?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on August 01, 2016, 12:27:01 PM
But your statement link doesn't specify the emails are a national security issue, just that asking for a foreign power to hack anyone in the US is a national security risk.  If you have another statement I'm interested.

As for the second part.  Absolutely.  If they have them I hope they do share them. 

Though if Hilary was smart (and she's not) she'd have a bunch of people in India or Taiwan typing out 30,000 personal e-mails about Yoga or to her children.

That link was a campaign statement in direct response to Trump's email request from the Russians. If the link is referring to something else, then what is it referring to?

Yes.
And it is the act of asking a foreign power to do something illegal that is a national security, not the subject of emails.
It would still apply if Trump asked Russia to find Chelsea Clinton's baby pictures or to find evidence of corruption in Obama's cabinet.

Where did Trump ask a foreign power to do something illegal? In fact, if Russia has these emails, they're obligated by treaty to release them to the DoJ.
He asked them to find them.
So unless he knows they have them in a data archive, where else would they get them?

You believe the Russians can hack a server that's been offline for at least two years?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 01, 2016, 12:37:16 PM
But your statement link doesn't specify the emails are a national security issue, just that asking for a foreign power to hack anyone in the US is a national security risk.  If you have another statement I'm interested.

As for the second part.  Absolutely.  If they have them I hope they do share them. 

Though if Hilary was smart (and she's not) she'd have a bunch of people in India or Taiwan typing out 30,000 personal e-mails about Yoga or to her children.

That link was a campaign statement in direct response to Trump's email request from the Russians. If the link is referring to something else, then what is it referring to?

Yes.
And it is the act of asking a foreign power to do something illegal that is a national security, not the subject of emails.
It would still apply if Trump asked Russia to find Chelsea Clinton's baby pictures or to find evidence of corruption in Obama's cabinet.

Where did Trump ask a foreign power to do something illegal? In fact, if Russia has these emails, they're obligated by treaty to release them to the DoJ.
He asked them to find them.
So unless he knows they have them in a data archive, where else would they get them?

You believe the Russians can hack a server that's been offline for at least two years?
Absolutely not.  Why would you think that?
Even IF they could get to it and comb through it, the data is gone and probably has been long before the server went offline.  Trump knows that too.  He knows that locked away server doesn't have the emails.

So where else could they be?
How about everyone Clinton contacted with it?  Everyone who e-mailed her?  How about Obama's e-mail account?  the DoJ's email server?  The DNC's email server?  Various military generals e-mail accounts?  Heads of states in other nations e-mail servers?  Chelsea and Bill's e-mail accounts?  The e-mail account of whatever yoga class Clinton used?

Basically, everyone Hilary Clinton has ever contacted or received information from via e-mail.  Alot?  Sure.  But unless the e-mails were kept safe somewhere for some stupid reason, that's the only spot that they'd find it.

Unless you have another idea on where Russia can look for them if they don't have it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on August 01, 2016, 01:28:15 PM
trump supporters: how do you feel about trump's encouragement to russia to release stolen/hacked documents?  does it trouble you at all?

I don't condone hacking, but if Russia already has Hillary's emails (and I'm like 99% sure they do, in fact I wouldn't be surprised if every country other than the US had them), then it would only be in US intelligence's best interest to have them as well. Why would the US want Russia to know what's in those documents without knowing themselves?

If Russia has Hillary's emails, they got them a long time ago; definitely before Trump announced his presidential candidacy. That private server has been air-gapped and sitting in Quantico for about two years.

Trump brought this up because Hillary claimed not only could people not have those emails, but that the emails were of no significance to the government and were all about yoga and shopping. Hillary is now admitting that the emails were of importance to national security and that Trump should be ashamed of talking about Russia hacking national security assets. Trump once again forced his opponent to reveal their own weakness. Should we really blame Trump for pointing to the consequences of Hillary's choice to have that private server?

but how do you feel about trump's particular encouragement to russia to release the stolen/hacked documents?  does it not trouble you at all?  forgive me, but this all seems like a lot of equivocation.  i have a hard time believing that you'd be this magnanimous toward clinton if in an interview she'd said anything at all like "and hey russia, if you have any dirt on trump that you've illegally stolen, now would be a good time to get some coin on that."

is this what we can expect from president trump?  foreign intelligence services are free to hack us so long as the info makes trump's enemies look bad?  that just sounds...crooked.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: xasop on August 01, 2016, 01:53:02 PM
While his answer wasn't great, I don't think that's a fair way to paraphrase it. He wasn't talking about the money he makes personally, but the number of Americans he employs and pays money to.

That's how he makes his money though. It's just what a business owner does.

I'm aware, which is why I conceded that his answer wasn't great. There's still a large difference between saying "I make lots of money" and "I've helped lots of Americans with their education and health cover", so paraphrasing him as the former cuts out what little fragmentary points he did make.

A better answer would have been to focus on how he goes above and beyond what other employers do, or failing that, what the bare minimum legal requirements are (but this is America, so the latter wouldn't be saying very much). I don't know enough about his so-called "empire" to know if that is the case.

Ultimately, I can see what point he might have been trying to make, he just didn't make it very well. I think pretending he didn't go any way to making a point at all is intellectually dishonest. But hey, that's how the left operates in 2016.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on August 01, 2016, 02:18:37 PM
Without granting Trump a lot of things he didn't say, which is also intellectually dishonest, he said nothing about the sacrifices he has made. Saying he employed a lot of people is neutral on the topic, and he has shown himself to have enough command of the English language and enough of a desire to answer directly that it is fairer to assume that he was intentionally avoiding the question. After all, he wades right in to hit-button issues with an admirable transparency, it's why he is on the ballot today, yet this straightforward line of questioning eludes him?  I find it hard to believe, it seems much more likely that he is an egoist concerned with profiting from others than sacrificing for others.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on August 01, 2016, 02:28:42 PM
Well, at least he's not a criminal.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on August 01, 2016, 02:48:02 PM
i don't get how employing someone is a sacrifice.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on August 01, 2016, 03:15:38 PM
i don't get how employing someone is a sacrifice.

Like Parsifal said, you could start doing mental gymnastics and posit things like: he paid 100% over the industry standard, or some such to say he sacrificed some of his profit. It takes a lot of tap-dancing though.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: xasop on August 01, 2016, 04:29:21 PM
Without granting Trump a lot of things he didn't say, which is also intellectually dishonest

Good thing nobody has done that.

he said nothing about the sacrifices he has made. Saying he employed a lot of people is neutral on the topic, and he has shown himself to have enough command of the English language and enough of a desire to answer directly that it is fairer to assume that he was intentionally avoiding the question. After all, he wades right in to hit-button issues with an admirable transparency, it's why he is on the ballot today, yet this straightforward line of questioning eludes him?  I find it hard to believe, it seems much more likely that he is an egoist concerned with profiting from others than sacrificing for others.

Sure. As I said, it wasn't a great answer. It just wasn't as hilariously terrible of an answer as Snupes's paraphrasing made it sound.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on August 01, 2016, 05:00:25 PM
Without granting Trump a lot of things he didn't say, which is also intellectually dishonest

Good thing nobody has done that.

Unless you start granting him things he did not say, he did not answer the question about what he had sacrificed.

Quote
he said nothing about the sacrifices he has made. Saying he employed a lot of people is neutral on the topic, and he has shown himself to have enough command of the English language and enough of a desire to answer directly that it is fairer to assume that he was intentionally avoiding the question. After all, he wades right in to hit-button issues with an admirable transparency, it's why he is on the ballot today, yet this straightforward line of questioning eludes him?  I find it hard to believe, it seems much more likely that he is an egoist concerned with profiting from others than sacrificing for others.

Sure. As I said, it wasn't a great answer. It just wasn't as hilariously terrible of an answer as Snupes's paraphrasing made it sound.
[/quote]

Agreed, but Snupes interpretation seems plausible. More context should have been given, but then it would not have been funny.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: xasop on August 01, 2016, 06:23:55 PM
Unless you start granting him things he did not say, he did not answer the question about what he had sacrificed.

Correct. He didn't.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 01, 2016, 07:14:28 PM
Unless you start granting him things he did not say, he did not answer the question about what he had sacrificed.

Correct. He didn't.
Wouldn't that strongly imply that he has no answer?  Which means he either does not sacrifice or can't remember the last time?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on August 01, 2016, 07:23:45 PM
Or he thinks that "having a lot of success" is a sacrifice somehow.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: xasop on August 01, 2016, 07:32:38 PM
Wouldn't that strongly imply that he has no answer?  Which means he either does not sacrifice or can't remember the last time?

It might simply imply that he couldn't bring an answer to mind at the time. The impression I got from watching the interview was that the question took him by surprise.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on August 01, 2016, 11:49:09 PM
but how do you feel about trump's particular encouragement to russia to release the stolen/hacked documents?  does it not trouble you at all?  forgive me, but this all seems like a lot of equivocation.  i have a hard time believing that you'd be this magnanimous toward clinton if in an interview she'd said anything at all like "and hey russia, if you have any dirt on trump that you've illegally stolen, now would be a good time to get some coin on that."

is this what we can expect from president trump?  foreign intelligence services are free to hack us so long as the info makes trump's enemies look bad?  that just sounds...crooked.

Actually, this is exactly what the problem with Hillary's server was about. Her documents were easily seen by every foreign power with an internet connection.

I don't feel that Trump is encouraging Russia to hack her. Rather, he's encouraging them to release the emails if they have them (they would in fact be legally obligated to do this, though they would need to disclose them to the DoJ, not the public).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on August 02, 2016, 01:45:38 AM
DO NOT QUESTION THE GOD-EMPEROR!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 02, 2016, 05:17:38 AM
but how do you feel about trump's particular encouragement to russia to release the stolen/hacked documents?  does it not trouble you at all?  forgive me, but this all seems like a lot of equivocation.  i have a hard time believing that you'd be this magnanimous toward clinton if in an interview she'd said anything at all like "and hey russia, if you have any dirt on trump that you've illegally stolen, now would be a good time to get some coin on that."

is this what we can expect from president trump?  foreign intelligence services are free to hack us so long as the info makes trump's enemies look bad?  that just sounds...crooked.

Actually, this is exactly what the problem with Hillary's server was about. Her documents were easily seen by every foreign power with an internet connection.

I don't feel that Trump is encouraging Russia to hack her. Rather, he's encouraging them to release the emails if they have them (they would in fact be legally obligated to do this, though they would need to disclose them to the DoJ, not the public).

Do you have proof of this rather bold claim that every foreign power could see it?

And why would Russia admit to breaking international law?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on August 02, 2016, 05:26:14 AM
http://buchanan.org/blog/trump-peace-candidate-125499
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Snupes on August 02, 2016, 07:41:17 AM
Ultimately, I can see what point he might have been trying to make, he just didn't make it very well. I think pretending he didn't go any way to making a point at all is intellectually dishonest. But hey, that's how the left operates in 2016.

>mfw making fun of a thing is being an intellectually dishonest leftist

I can't tell if this weird alt-right movement/meme now has literally everyone memeing dead-serious demeanours and the forgoing of humour and hyperbole while spouting ironic generalizations, if it's not memeing, or if it's always been this way and I just haven't noticed.

For clarity: I don't actually think he literally said what I wrote down, I actually modified his answers for the sake of comedy. Regardless, I find the actual exchange pretty dayum funny.

I'm probably taking this far too personally, but I wouldn't be bothered at all if it weren't for the "intellectual dishonesty" bit and the bizarrely condescending blanket-statement of "but o well that's just how this group i've (seemingly) lumped you in with works". Maybe I didn't make it clear I was going for humour (I thought it was obvious but hey I'm socially retarded), but (seemingly) assuming malicious intent is annoying.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on August 02, 2016, 12:23:53 PM
Well no one has called Trump Hitler, but he has now literally called Hillary the devil. #MAGA
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on August 02, 2016, 03:34:06 PM
Well no one has called Trump Hitler

No offense but I don't think that's true.............................................................
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on August 02, 2016, 05:22:59 PM
Well no one has called Trump Hitler

No offense but I don't think that's true.............................................................
...........................oh.................has anyone in the Clinton campaign?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on August 02, 2016, 10:52:13 PM
Hillary drew a thinly-veiled parallel between them a year ago by saying that Trump wanted to round up illegal immigrants and put them in boxcars to take them out of the country.

In other news, Trump has made a new enemy (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/03/us/politics/donald-trump-baby.html).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on August 03, 2016, 01:33:09 AM
Do you have proof of this rather bold claim that every foreign power could see it?

And why would Russia admit to breaking international law?

Russia invaded and annexed a portion of a neighboring country. I really doubt they care about releasing hacked emails in regards to international law.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 03, 2016, 05:13:39 AM
Do you have proof of this rather bold claim that every foreign power could see it?

And why would Russia admit to breaking international law?

Russia invaded and annexed a portion of a neighboring country. I really doubt they care about releasing hacked emails in regards to international law.
And note the number of fucks America gave.

Now imagine how President Tump (or even candidate Trump) would feel if Russia hacked his e-mail?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on August 03, 2016, 09:48:38 AM
(http://static1.squarespace.com/static/56af517876d99c5d80401959/56bddab6d9fd56c29a9e70cc/56eb3aa1859fd0e27281f277/1458574747775/TrumpGetAlongwithRussia.jpg?format=1000w)

The market performance in the three months leading up to a Presidential Election has displayed an uncanny ability to forecast who will win the White House…the incumbent party or the challenger. Since 1928, there have been 22 Presidential Elections. In 14 of them, the S&P 500 climbed during the three months preceding election day. The incumbent President or party won in 12 of those 14 instances. However, in 7 of the 8 elections where the S&P 500 fell over that three month period, the incumbent party lost.

(http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2016/01-overflow/presidential%20election.jpg)

There are only three exceptions to this correlation: 1956, 1968, and 1980. Statistically, the market has an 86.4% success rate in forecasting the election.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on August 03, 2016, 03:15:45 PM
The astute reader must have noticed the link posted in one of my earlier messages:

http://thesaker.is/inside-the-secret-super-majority-that-decide-election-2016-war-with-russia/

This explains why there was an exception in 1980.

It is this super majority block of voters that will decide the outcome of this election again, especially if the S&P performs poorly until October.

Unless... the GOP decides to speed things up:

http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2016/08/03/panic-stricken-gop-bosses-exploring-trump-exit-strategy/

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 03, 2016, 03:31:28 PM
The astute reader must have noticed the link posted in one of my earlier messages:

http://thesaker.is/inside-the-secret-super-majority-that-decide-election-2016-war-with-russia/ (http://thesaker.is/inside-the-secret-super-majority-that-decide-election-2016-war-with-russia/)

This explains why there was an exception in 1980.

It is this super majority block of voters that will decide the outcome of this election again, especially if the S&P performs poorly until October.

Unless... the GOP decides to speed things up:

http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2016/08/03/panic-stricken-gop-bosses-exploring-trump-exit-strategy/ (http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2016/08/03/panic-stricken-gop-bosses-exploring-trump-exit-strategy/)
Those who wanted it tried and failed.

Therefore, the GOP will move forward.  Yes they're probably panicking because of all the political no-nos Donald is throwing out but since that's how he got the votes in the first place, they should just let it go, let him yell and scream and speak down on whoever he wants.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on August 03, 2016, 06:38:42 PM
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/08/03/developing.-donald-trump-campaign-freefall.-gop-leaders-planning-trump-exit-video/

An exit would mean that the nomination would go to the second place candidate, and not the VP (it is of interest to note that not only Cruz already picked a VP, the only other candidate to do so, but also failed to endorse Trump).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 03, 2016, 06:41:08 PM
http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/08/03/developing.-donald-trump-campaign-freefall.-gop-leaders-planning-trump-exit-video/ (http://www.redstate.com/streiff/2016/08/03/developing.-donald-trump-campaign-freefall.-gop-leaders-planning-trump-exit-video/)

An exit would mean that the nomination would go to the second place candidate, and not the VP (it is of interest to note that not only Cruz already picked a VP, the only other candidate to do so, but also failed to endorse Trump).
You'll forgive me if I don't trust what looks like a blog.


http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-allies-plot-candidate-intervention-after-disastrous-48-hours-n622216

THAT, however, is a reliable (ish) news site.

Fuck... what has Trump been doing cause I haven't seen much aside from insulting the father of a fallen soldier and not understanding the first amendment.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on August 03, 2016, 07:21:37 PM
He also did this (http://gawker.com/donald-trump-holds-press-conference-to-mock-fire-marsha-1784670059).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on August 03, 2016, 08:10:39 PM
Unfortunately, it might be too late for the GOP to undertake any action.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/03/the-rnc-can-legally-dump-donald-trump-but-it-has-to-act-fast.html
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 03, 2016, 08:14:01 PM
He also did this (http://gawker.com/donald-trump-holds-press-conference-to-mock-fire-marsha-1784670059).
Wow...

I heard about the baby too.  Well... anyone else wanna troll Trump Support here?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on August 04, 2016, 12:40:17 PM
Latest polls:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

http://www.redstate.com/saragonzales/2016/08/04/breaking-three-new-swing-state-polls-released-morning-worse-trump-national-polls/

http://www.redstate.com/saragonzales/2016/08/03/breaking-another-new-national-poll-shows-clinton-huge-lead/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on August 04, 2016, 03:26:09 PM
Looks like America wants a criminal for president.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 04, 2016, 03:29:19 PM
Looks like America wants a criminal for president.
America thinks all politicians are criminals.

They'd just rather have someone who isn't an asshole to random people too.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on August 04, 2016, 03:36:43 PM
>voting for criminals
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 04, 2016, 03:49:57 PM
>voting for criminals
It's the American Way.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on August 04, 2016, 05:44:41 PM
Looks like America wants a criminal for president.

What crime was she charged with? ???
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on August 04, 2016, 06:32:11 PM
https://consortiumnews.com/2016/08/04/the-danger-of-excessive-trump-bashing/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on August 04, 2016, 07:10:22 PM
Looks like America wants a criminal for president.

What crime was she charged with? ???
You don't need to have been charged with a crime in order to be a criminal.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on August 04, 2016, 10:49:45 PM
Looks like America wants a criminal for president.

What crime was she charged with? ???
You don't need to have been charged with a crime in order to be a criminal.
[/quote
Oh no!  She must have committed a crime. Which one?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on August 05, 2016, 01:32:18 AM
Looks like America wants a criminal for president.

What crime was she charged with? ???
You don't need to have been charged with a crime in order to be a criminal.

Well, I know that I live in the greatest country in the world and you don't, but over here we have this nifty rule that someone is considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on August 05, 2016, 02:09:18 AM
If a you steal something without getting caught and charged with the crime, you're still a criminal.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on August 05, 2016, 02:22:43 AM
If a you steal something without getting caught and charged with the crime, you're still a criminal.

Oh cool, what did she steal? Your trust?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on August 05, 2016, 05:34:42 AM
Maybe it's his heart.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 05, 2016, 06:44:26 AM
Amusing if True.

https://www.thestreet.com/story/13665021/1/donald-trump-s-presidential-campaign-has-been-bad-for-his-business.html?puc=msnwin8&cm_ven=MSNWIN8
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on August 05, 2016, 08:54:38 AM
http://www.roguemoney.net/stories/2016/8/3/5q32r3i3tz93bxida02caq7acgfqib
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on August 05, 2016, 09:21:16 AM
If a you steal something without getting caught and charged with the crime, you're still a criminal.

Oh cool, what did she steal? Your trust?
I never said she stole anything. I was just trying to demonstrate that it's possible for a person to have commited crimes without having been charged with one.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on August 05, 2016, 11:33:25 AM
If a you steal something without getting caught and charged with the crime, you're still a criminal.

Oh cool, what did she steal? Your trust?
I never said she stole anything. I was just trying to demonstrate that it's possible for a person to have commited crimes without having been charged with one.

So why is she a criminal?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on August 05, 2016, 01:43:52 PM
Did CTR infiltrate FES as well? Hillary's law-breaking is not up to question, as per FBI's own findings and Comey's admission. She's violated, at the very least, the following statutes:

18 USC §793
18 USC §1924
18 USC §798
18 USC §2071
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on August 05, 2016, 02:44:34 PM
Did CTR infiltrate FES as well? Hillary's law-breaking is not up to question, as per FBI's own findings and Comey's admission. She's violated, at the very least, the following statutes:

18 USC §793
18 USC §1924
18 USC §798
18 USC §2071

The same FBI found no criminality to her behavior.  If anyone can say she is not a criminal it is them.  I don't agree with her behavior, but these are the official findings.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 05, 2016, 02:48:53 PM
It is not the FBI's job to tell prosecutors whether they should or should not prosecute someone. The fact that they did only suggests that they might be interested in covering her ass. It is not an indication of anything good, by any measure.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 05, 2016, 03:10:54 PM
Did CTR infiltrate FES as well? Hillary's law-breaking is not up to question, as per FBI's own findings and Comey's admission. She's violated, at the very least, the following statutes:

18 USC §793
18 USC §1924
18 USC §798
18 USC §2071

The same FBI found no criminality to her behavior.  If anyone can say she is not a criminal it is them.  I don't agree with her behavior, but these are the official findings.
Didn't they simply say that they didn't recommend filing charges?  Not the same as saying there's no criminality, just that there isn't any point in filing charges.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on August 05, 2016, 04:25:15 PM
It is not the FBI's job to tell prosecutors whether they should or should not prosecute someone. The fact that they did only suggests that they might be interested in covering her ass. It is not an indication of anything good, by any measure.

The FBI did not tell the DoJ to do anything.  A recommendation is something different, and it is not uncommon for the law enforcement to provide feedback in these cases.

Didn't they simply say that they didn't recommend filing charges?  Not the same as saying there's no criminality, just that there isn't any point in filing charges.

They also said that cases similar to hers usually were not prosecuted because, "All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here." (https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system)

To me it appears that she was careless, and that she should have taken greater care, but considering the recommendations of the FBI, the rationale given for the recommendation and the lack of charges brought against her, to call her a criminal is assuming quite a lot and is an opinion rather than any sort of substantial fact.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 05, 2016, 04:51:28 PM
to call her a criminal is assuming quite a lot and is an opinion rather than any sort of substantial fact.
Well, yes, she's never gonna get prosecuted because she's Hillary Clinton and the USA is an oligarchy (I mean that quite literally (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746), too). Opinions are all we'll ever get on this matter, unless Berniebots/BLM/Alex Jones unite and start a revolution to overthrow the system.

I would also argue that saying "no reasonable prosecutor would do <x>" is a bit more than a recommendation. Obviously it's not a command or anything of the sort, but it's an inappropriately strong statement coming from someone who was in no position to make it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on August 06, 2016, 12:59:43 AM
I wonder if the sexual assault lawsuit against Trump is going to gain any traction in the media.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 07, 2016, 10:20:59 AM
So Julian Assange spoke to the Green Party last night.

Nothing interesting or new, despite rumors to the contrary. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on August 08, 2016, 02:30:28 PM
https://youtu.be/kSE-XoVKaXg

delightful
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on August 08, 2016, 02:42:06 PM
>opinions can't change
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on August 08, 2016, 03:20:56 PM
i mean he was extolling hillary as recently as 2012
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on August 08, 2016, 04:12:31 PM
>opinions can't change

Hey guys look!  Beardo didn't watch the video!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on August 08, 2016, 08:00:39 PM
i mean he was extolling hillary as recently as 2012
Maybe he didn't know she was crooked back then, or maybe she wasn't crooked back then.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on August 08, 2016, 11:49:31 PM
It'd be stupid a talk down to a politician you actively donate money to in order to support legislation and deals relevant to your company.

Ultimately, this is just the name of the game. You talk good about people you want something from and you talk bad about people you want to defeat. e.g. Bernie said Hillary was unfit to be POTUS and then endorsed her a few months later. Arguing from a stance of "well that's hypocritical" is nonsense. Bernie wanted Hillary to lose and now he wants her to win. It's no different for Trump.
Title: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on August 10, 2016, 04:41:57 PM
> Trump says something vague enough for news outlets to allege a suggestion to assassinate. People here are literally calling it terrorism.

> Multiple people around the Hillary campaign die mysteriously, appearing to benefit her. Nothing to see here.

Seems to be par for the course these days.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on August 10, 2016, 05:25:26 PM
> Trump says something vague enough for news outlets to allege a suggestion to assassinate. People here are literally calling it terrorism.

> Multiple people around the Hillary campaign die mysteriously, appearing to benefit her. Nothing to see here.

Seems to be par for the course these days.

Why are their deaths "mysterious"?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on August 10, 2016, 07:38:02 PM
> Multiple people around the Hillary campaign die mysteriously, appearing to benefit her. Nothing to see here.

Oh, come on, you can't say something like this and not back it up.  Who died, how were their deaths mysterious, and how did they benefit Hillary?
Title: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on August 10, 2016, 07:49:26 PM
> Multiple people around the Hillary campaign die mysteriously, appearing to benefit her. Nothing to see here.

Oh, come on, you can't say something like this and not back it up.  Who died, how were their deaths mysterious, and how did they benefit Hillary?

Should I post links, or will you just dismiss them because you don't like or agree with the source? A 5 minute search online will yield a ton of results, and I have a feeling you're aware of at least some of them. If I am wrong in my assumption, I'm happy to have a discussion. I'm not even saying I support any of it, but it is sure more tangible, even if all are giant coincidences,  than the current accusation of Trump saying to assassinate Hillary and implying he's being a terrorist.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on August 10, 2016, 10:10:45 PM
> Multiple people around the Hillary campaign die mysteriously, appearing to benefit her. Nothing to see here.

Oh, come on, you can't say something like this and not back it up.  Who died, how were their deaths mysterious, and how did they benefit Hillary?

The DNC's IT director was killed on the street in an apparent mugging, but nothing was stolen:

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-Shot-Killed-in-Northwest-DC-386316391.html

Julian Assange later indicated that this is the man who leaked the DNC emails to him.

This is the most prominent one. There are five other staffers who were killed in various other ways, but this one is the most interesting because the suspect tied Seth Rich up and shot him in the back multiple times.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on August 11, 2016, 01:49:54 AM
He didn't say it directly, but it's certainly implied.

As I say, not as a serious suggestion, more like the kind of stupid joke you'd make between mates, but when it's a part of a presidential candidates' speech, it should raise eyebrows about his judgement.

Precisely the point.  Obviously he was joking; he wasn't seriously suggesting somebody with a gun take out Hillary.  But when you have a rabid support base that takes everything you say seriously and cheers when you suggest that you could shoot someone in the middle of Times Square in broad daylight and still win the presidency, you have to be a bit more careful about what you say publicly.

Only the most diehard trolls and the lunatic fringe are trying to spin this in a way that doesn't make Trump look like an incompetent and dangerous boob at this point.  Fortunately I do think it's safe to say that Trump will not be voted president in November by now.  Prominent members of his own fucking party are jumping ship.  It's a beautiful thing.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Roundy on August 11, 2016, 02:37:14 AM
Actually I do have to say that there's something scary about those stories; if it's true that Hillary is behind the deaths, we either have a cold-blooded killer or a raving maniac coming into the White House in January.  Good times!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 11, 2016, 05:08:03 AM
> Multiple people around the Hillary campaign die mysteriously, appearing to benefit her. Nothing to see here.

Oh, come on, you can't say something like this and not back it up.  Who died, how were their deaths mysterious, and how did they benefit Hillary?

The DNC's IT director was killed on the street in an apparent mugging, but nothing was stolen:

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-Shot-Killed-in-Northwest-DC-386316391.html

Julian Assange later indicated that this is the man who leaked the DNC emails to him.

This is the most prominent one. There are five other staffers who were killed in various other ways, but this one is the most interesting because the suspect tied Seth Rich up and shot him in the back multiple times.
Nothing in the article said he was tied up.  Or did I miss something?

Also, why have him killed?
And why do a poor job at attempted robbery assassination?

Basically:
If Clinton found out and had him killed, it was out of vengence and warning for others, not to protect secrets.
If Clinton had him killed, why did the hitman not follow through with the robbery to make it look legit?  And why give him the chance to fight back?  You're a hitman, you kill people.  You don't want to make it a scuffle.


The damage was done.  Killing him only causes more issues.  Better to smear his name instead, discredit him and thus have a rationale to discredit any emails that surface.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 11, 2016, 10:41:55 AM
> Multiple people around the Hillary campaign die mysteriously, appearing to benefit her. Nothing to see here.

Oh, come on, you can't say something like this and not back it up.  Who died, how were their deaths mysterious, and how did they benefit Hillary?

The DNC's IT director was killed on the street in an apparent mugging, but nothing was stolen:

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-Shot-Killed-in-Northwest-DC-386316391.html (http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Man-Shot-Killed-in-Northwest-DC-386316391.html)

Julian Assange later indicated that this is the man who leaked the DNC emails to him.

This is the most prominent one. There are five other staffers who were killed in various other ways, but this one is the most interesting because the suspect tied Seth Rich up and shot him in the back multiple times.

Wait a sec...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7FkLBRpKg

He has NOT indicated that that is who leaked it.  He implied it like hell but has not said anything of the sort.  I can tell you this:  If he had said that, it would be far, far worse for Clinton.  Because then there's be legitimate probable cause.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on August 11, 2016, 01:48:54 PM
"He's the founder of ISIS. He's the founder of ISIS. He's the founder. He founded ISIS."

nb4 someone explains to me that trump wasn't saying obama founded isis and that's just the leftist media twisting his words to make him sound bad
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 11, 2016, 02:01:49 PM
"He's the founder of ISIS. He's the founder of ISIS. He's the founder. He founded ISIS."

nb4 someone explains to me that trump wasn't saying obama founded isis and that's just the leftist media twisting his words to make him sound bad

What he MEANT was...

"Obama's actions in the middle east allowed ISIS to rise in power by creating a power vacuum when the US left"
But the moment Trump starts talking like that, the morons who vote for him won't understand shit so he just simplifies it.  It loses a lot in translation.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on August 11, 2016, 04:33:05 PM
"He's the founder of ISIS. He's the founder of ISIS. He's the founder. He founded ISIS."

nb4 someone explains to me that trump wasn't saying obama founded isis and that's just the leftist media twisting his words to make him sound bad

What he MEANT was...

"Obama's actions in the middle east allowed ISIS to rise in power by creating a power vacuum when the US left"
But the moment Trump starts talking like that, the morons who vote for him won't understand shit so he just simplifies it.  It loses a lot in translation.

plus it wouldn't connect as well with his 'obama is a kenyan muslim' nonsense.

in other news: whoops.

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis-2016-8

what a piece of shit.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 11, 2016, 04:45:27 PM
"He's the founder of ISIS. He's the founder of ISIS. He's the founder. He founded ISIS."

nb4 someone explains to me that trump wasn't saying obama founded isis and that's just the leftist media twisting his words to make him sound bad

What he MEANT was...

"Obama's actions in the middle east allowed ISIS to rise in power by creating a power vacuum when the US left"
But the moment Trump starts talking like that, the morons who vote for him won't understand shit so he just simplifies it.  It loses a lot in translation.

plus it wouldn't connect as well with his 'obama is a kenyan muslim' nonsense.

in other news: whoops.

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis-2016-8 (http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-hugh-hewitt-obama-founder-isis-2016-8)

what a piece of shit.
The man just does not know how to form an argument.  Whenever he's challenged he tries to argue against it, bails mid-sentence, and says "look, he's evil, ok?  I'm good, he's evil.  Just shut up and accept it."
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on August 12, 2016, 01:25:08 AM
While I doubt Obama literally founded ISIS, both Obama and Hillary have been busy arming "moderate rebels" in Libya and Syria that also happen to have joined ISIS at a later date. While that may not have been the intention, arming those rebels later became equivalent to funding and arming ISIS fighters. Hillary managed to topple two whole governments and started working on a third while she was only a secretary. Imagine the toppling she could do with even more power!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2NkjNvwuaU&feature=youtu.be

He must have accidentally said ISIL instead of "moderate rebels".
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Woody on August 12, 2016, 02:29:03 AM
To be fair the US has been arming and training factions that turn out to be enemies for awhile now.

Currently the US is sending money to potential enemies all across the globe.  I think the reasoning if we supply them with enough weapons and money they will not eventually use them against us or our allies.

It is well known the US trained and funded Al-Queda and the Taliban.  That was happening when Regan was in office and continued to happen after.  US foreign policy really seems destructive and great at creating enemies for the future.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on August 12, 2016, 04:02:36 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2NkjNvwuaU&feature=youtu.be

He must have accidentally said ISIL instead of "moderate rebels".

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/07/06/remarks-president-progress-fight-against-isil

here's the full quote: "Meanwhile, we continue to ramp up our training and support of local forces that are fighting ISIL on the ground.  As I’ve said before, this aspect of our strategy was moving too slowly.  But the fall of Ramadi has galvanized the Iraqi government.  So, with the additional steps I ordered last month, we’re speeding up training of ISIL [Iraqi] forces, including volunteers from Sunni tribes in Anbar Province."

he accidentally said isil instead of iraq.  he mentions isil 46 times in the course of these remarks, including sentences like this: "And that includes the work that brings me here today -- our mission to degrade and ultimately destroy the terrorist group ISIL.  This is a cause, a coalition, that’s united countries across the globe -- some 60 nations, including Arab partners.  Our comprehensive strategy against ISIL is harnessing all elements of American power, across our government -- military, intelligence, diplomatic, economic, development and perhaps most importantly, the power of our values."

good quote mining tho.  top notch.

i like how gen. hayden says it best: (starting at 8:07 in case the time stamp link thing doesn't work)

https://youtu.be/Dzhoqzn5gpk?t=8m7s
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 12, 2016, 03:43:08 PM
I would feel more safe knowing that Trump will wildly attack our enemies without regards to political issues or civilians than one who will be cautious and take into account complicated matters. - Chris Tobak (sp?)


What that boils down to is ISIL(ISIS) is going to get a SHIT ton of new followers.  Just think, the American Devils who you don't like to begin with, just blew up your entire town to find one guy.  Why wouldn't I join the fight against them?  I have nothing to lose now anyway.

President Trump would have invaded Pakistan at the mere suggestion that Bin Laden was there.  While that may have produced results, it would have made everyone else attack us out of principal.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on August 12, 2016, 08:22:10 PM
I would feel more safe knowing that Trump will wildly attack our enemies without regards to political issues or civilians than one who will be cautious and take into account complicated matters. - Chris Tobak (sp?)


What that boils down to is ISIL(ISIS) is going to get a SHIT ton of new followers.  Just think, the American Devils who you don't like to begin with, just blew up your entire town to find one guy.  Why wouldn't I join the fight against them?  I have nothing to lose now anyway.

President Trump would have invaded Pakistan at the mere suggestion that Bin Laden was there.  While that may have produced results, it would have made everyone else attack us out of principal.

Actually, the hilarious thing is that this is basically what the US already does. We've personally torn the middle east apart for several decades. ISIL is simply a result of us doing that. The idea that Trump will somehow make the situation worse is laughable, especially when his only competition for POTUS is the very woman who helped tear apart the middle east for at least twenty years.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 13, 2016, 07:06:29 AM
I would feel more safe knowing that Trump will wildly attack our enemies without regards to political issues or civilians than one who will be cautious and take into account complicated matters. - Chris Tobak (sp?)


What that boils down to is ISIL(ISIS) is going to get a SHIT ton of new followers.  Just think, the American Devils who you don't like to begin with, just blew up your entire town to find one guy.  Why wouldn't I join the fight against them?  I have nothing to lose now anyway.

President Trump would have invaded Pakistan at the mere suggestion that Bin Laden was there.  While that may have produced results, it would have made everyone else attack us out of principal.

Actually, the hilarious thing is that this is basically what the US already does. We've personally torn the middle east apart for several decades. ISIL is simply a result of us doing that. The idea that Trump will somehow make the situation worse is laughable, especially when his only competition for POTUS is the very woman who helped tear apart the middle east for at least twenty years.
I think he could.  Iran isn't at war with us, after all.

We tore the Middle East to big pieces.  I fear Trump would tear them into smaller ones, stomp on them, then burn them.  All because the fallen bits spelled "tiny hands".
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on August 13, 2016, 03:54:46 PM
I would feel more safe knowing that Trump will wildly attack our enemies without regards to political issues or civilians than one who will be cautious and take into account complicated matters. - Chris Tobak (sp?)


What that boils down to is ISIL(ISIS) is going to get a SHIT ton of new followers.  Just think, the American Devils who you don't like to begin with, just blew up your entire town to find one guy.  Why wouldn't I join the fight against them?  I have nothing to lose now anyway.

President Trump would have invaded Pakistan at the mere suggestion that Bin Laden was there.  While that may have produced results, it would have made everyone else attack us out of principal.

Actually, the hilarious thing is that this is basically what the US already does. We've personally torn the middle east apart for several decades. ISIL is simply a result of us doing that. The idea that Trump will somehow make the situation worse is laughable, especially when his only competition for POTUS is the very woman who helped tear apart the middle east for at least twenty years.
I think he could.  Iran isn't at war with us, after all.

We tore the Middle East to big pieces.  I fear Trump would tear them into smaller ones, stomp on them, then burn them.  All because the fallen bits spelled "tiny hands".

I wouldn't be unhappy if that were to happen. None of the countries in the Middle East, aside from Israel, bear any remarkable resemblance to a first world nation when it comes to human rights.

However, Hillary would likely worsen the situation, not Trump. Her extreme necessity to please the Saudis seems to result in decimating the Saudi's enemies, which includes Iran.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 13, 2016, 04:06:46 PM
I would feel more safe knowing that Trump will wildly attack our enemies without regards to political issues or civilians than one who will be cautious and take into account complicated matters. - Chris Tobak (sp?)


What that boils down to is ISIL(ISIS) is going to get a SHIT ton of new followers.  Just think, the American Devils who you don't like to begin with, just blew up your entire town to find one guy.  Why wouldn't I join the fight against them?  I have nothing to lose now anyway.

President Trump would have invaded Pakistan at the mere suggestion that Bin Laden was there.  While that may have produced results, it would have made everyone else attack us out of principal.

Actually, the hilarious thing is that this is basically what the US already does. We've personally torn the middle east apart for several decades. ISIL is simply a result of us doing that. The idea that Trump will somehow make the situation worse is laughable, especially when his only competition for POTUS is the very woman who helped tear apart the middle east for at least twenty years.
I think he could.  Iran isn't at war with us, after all.

We tore the Middle East to big pieces.  I fear Trump would tear them into smaller ones, stomp on them, then burn them.  All because the fallen bits spelled "tiny hands".

I wouldn't be unhappy if that were to happen. None of the countries in the Middle East, aside from Israel, bear any remarkable resemblance to a first world nation when it comes to human rights.

However, Hillary would likely worsen the situation, not Trump. Her extreme necessity to please the Saudis seems to result in decimating the Saudi's enemies, which includes Iran.
Yeah but how long do you think it would be before Trump demands Israel pay protection money?  Israel is pretty tough but at the end of the day, if the US said they wouldn't assist them, they'd get far worse than mortars and rocks across the wall.

As for decimating the Saudi's enemies, why is that bad?  You said it yourself, most of them have horrible human rights.  So why not destroy them?  It's what Trump would do.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on August 13, 2016, 06:46:47 PM
Yeah but how long do you think it would be before Trump demands Israel pay protection money?  Israel is pretty tough but at the end of the day, if the US said they wouldn't assist them, they'd get far worse than mortars and rocks across the wall.

Israel should be expected to pay their fair share. And regardless, it wouldn't matter, if anything I think we pay Israel to not devastate the area rather than paying them to protect themselves. They have nuclear weapons. Iran, Egypt and Jordan know better than to start shit again.

Also, between Iron Beam and Iron Dome, Israel is functionally invulnerable to air and missile attacks. The nearest country that can saturate those two systems is Russia.

As for decimating the Saudi's enemies, why is that bad?  You said it yourself, most of them have horrible human rights.  So why not destroy them?  It's what Trump would do.

The problem is that the Saudis are much worse than Iran when it comes to human rights. If anything, we should side with Iran and decimate the Saudis instead. Then again, attacking the holiest Islam nation on the planet probably isn't a fantastic idea.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on August 14, 2016, 05:38:09 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/08/13/app-maker---trump-win-election/88640044/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on August 14, 2016, 06:40:40 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/08/13/app-maker---trump-win-election/88640044/

Yes, I definitely trust some random app's poll numbers versus major polling outlets.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 14, 2016, 07:29:11 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/08/13/app-maker---trump-win-election/88640044/ (http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2016/08/13/app-maker---trump-win-election/88640044/)

Yes, I definitely trust some random app's poll numbers versus major polling outlets.
Major polling outlets run by the liberal media and Putin.
Follow the money, man.  That app guy?  Totally didn't get money from anyone.  Or advertise his app.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on August 15, 2016, 10:50:43 AM
Quote
I wouldn't be unhappy if that were to happen. None of the countries in the Middle East, aside from Israel, bear any remarkable resemblance to a first world nation when it comes to human rights.

You know, one of those human rights you talk of is 'the right to life' killing a load of civilians in order to tear apart a country with poor human rights is somewhat hypocritical.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on August 15, 2016, 11:48:14 AM
Quote
I wouldn't be unhappy if that were to happen. None of the countries in the Middle East, aside from Israel, bear any remarkable resemblance to a first world nation when it comes to human rights.

You know, one of those human rights you talk of is 'the right to life' killing a load of civilians in order to tear apart a country with poor human rights is somewhat hypocritical.

You're right.

All things considered, if I really wanted the middle east torn apart bit by bit I'd vote for Hillary.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 15, 2016, 09:09:59 PM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/764870785634799617?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/764870785634799617?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

Trump literally has no idea what the first amendment is.

Of course, slander isn't legal so he can easily get a retraction or something done if he takes it to court.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on August 15, 2016, 09:33:01 PM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/764870785634799617?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/764870785634799617?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

Trump literally has no idea what the first amendment is.

Of course, slander isn't legal so he can easily get a retraction or something done if he takes it to court.

Hmm, but he is right. The media doesn't have the legal ability to spread written or spoken lies. The problem is that punishing media outlets for spreading false information is nearly impossible. A long and arduous court battle will maybe get them a slap on the hand and by then the damage is already done.

The effect of this massive propaganda platform is plain to see. Just say "Al Gore thinks he invented the internet" and suddenly half of the country thinks it's true. Even more than a decade later, a lie about Gore has stuck around. That's real power. The ability to warp the very fabric of reality through mass media.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 15, 2016, 09:45:50 PM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/764870785634799617?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/764870785634799617?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw)

Trump literally has no idea what the first amendment is.

Of course, slander isn't legal so he can easily get a retraction or something done if he takes it to court.

Hmm, but he is right. The media doesn't have the legal ability to spread written or spoken lies. The problem is that punishing media outlets for spreading false information is nearly impossible. A long and arduous court battle will maybe get them a slap on the hand and by then the damage is already done.

The effect of this massive propaganda platform is plain to see. Just say "Al Gore thinks he invented the internet" and suddenly half of the country thinks it's true. Even more than a decade later, a lie about Gore has stuck around. That's real power. The ability to warp the very fabric of reality through mass media.
True but ya gotta prove its a lie. 

As for the power: I see that less as the media lies and more people are fucking stupid.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on August 15, 2016, 10:24:41 PM
as i understand it (not a lawyer), everyone is allowed to lie (first-amendment-wise), but no one is allowed to slander or libel.  could be wrong tho.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on August 15, 2016, 11:05:50 PM
I think you're right Gary. As long as the lie can not be proven to be damaging or harmful in some way, it is not prohibited. At least in Canada it's like that. Hence why people aren't prosecuted for saying Santa Claus is real.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on August 16, 2016, 01:20:05 AM
Instead of just "lying" I did mean more specifically libel and slander. Lies targeted at specific people in order to discredit them. Even then, it's virtually impossible to punish media outlets for doing this and as I said before, even if you do manage to prove it in court (which is exceedingly rare) the punishment is lenient and the damage will already be done. Essentially this means that the media can slander or libel whomever they wish without reasonable repercussion. This is obviously a problem for everyone and muddies an already complex political environment.

In other news, Trump loves Putin and Stalin, but will also start world war 3 by nuking Russia. This makes sense because I'm Joe Biden.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on August 16, 2016, 01:41:33 AM
This sounds like tough love and like all things Trump does, he tries to do it in the most ostentatious fashion. Joe Biden is the man.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on August 16, 2016, 02:36:32 AM
i would've voted for joe biden, but only the onion's version of joe biden.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 16, 2016, 03:57:50 PM
Can we just all vote Zoltan Istvan and get this shit over with?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 16, 2016, 04:18:28 PM
https://cthulhuforamerica.com/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on August 17, 2016, 04:10:21 AM
Trump's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on August 17, 2016, 04:36:23 AM
At least do the whole thing to pay proper tribute to Billy S and Macbeth.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on August 17, 2016, 09:38:36 PM
Trump's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.

And you sound like a hater
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on August 18, 2016, 01:47:59 PM
Trump is winning by a landslide.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/07/18/donald_trump_doesn_t_care_about_mike_pence_s_vote_for_the_iraq_war.html
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on August 18, 2016, 03:28:36 PM
Them dang Poles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd_GOEMz3og
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on August 18, 2016, 03:32:01 PM
Nice. I couldn't find it on YouTube.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 18, 2016, 04:41:01 PM
Them dang Poles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd_GOEMz3og

Its a lie perpetuated by the liberal, clinton owning media.
Even Fox.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on August 18, 2016, 06:42:11 PM
Its a lie perpetuated by the liberal, clinton owning media.
Even Fox.

Even Breitbart. (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/08/14/breitbartgravis-poll-hillary-clinton-leads-donald-trump-42-to-37/)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on August 18, 2016, 10:37:49 PM
Polls are all lies.
Polls were invented by Jews to manipulate people.
You know who else had good polls? Hitler.


There, that just about covers it.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on August 19, 2016, 02:58:45 AM
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/490558406/watch-donald-trump-expresses-regret-for-sometimes-saying-the-wrong-thing

What is this nonsense, what is going on?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 19, 2016, 09:30:20 AM
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/490558406/watch-donald-trump-expresses-regret-for-sometimes-saying-the-wrong-thing (http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/490558406/watch-donald-trump-expresses-regret-for-sometimes-saying-the-wrong-thing)

What is this nonsense, what is going on?

Well, Trump is so two and goes back on what he says so often, it was bound to happen: He went back on his claim that he never goes back on what he says.

He is literally the worst candidate to ever be nominated.  America is fucked up.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on August 19, 2016, 09:33:40 AM
Careful. That's heresy.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 19, 2016, 10:05:12 AM
Careful. That's heresy.
I am far from your borders.  I shall speak and dance in heresy until the sun goes nova around me.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on August 19, 2016, 10:08:38 AM
Might happen sooner than you think.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pongo on August 19, 2016, 12:05:37 PM
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/18/490558406/watch-donald-trump-expresses-regret-for-sometimes-saying-the-wrong-thing

What is this nonsense, what is going on?

Is there nothing this man can't do?! Truly a paragon of people.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on August 19, 2016, 08:20:18 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/politics/paul-manafort-resigns-donald-trump.html
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 19, 2016, 10:54:34 PM
https://blog.chibicode.com/you-can-submit-a-pull-request-to-inject-arbitrary-js-code-into-donald-trumps-site-here-s-how-782aa6a17a56#.g0yzhqz52


Trump is hiring shit people.  Clearly he does not know the best people.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on August 19, 2016, 11:29:43 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/politics/paul-manafort-resigns-donald-trump.html

Serious campaign chaos and still makes time to go help in Louisiana. Impressive.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Snupes on August 20, 2016, 12:28:55 AM
What'd he help with? Serious question.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on August 20, 2016, 12:59:31 AM
What'd he help with? Serious question.

Donating a semi-truck full of food and supplies, and helping distribute supplies from said truck. Also raising awareness to a catastrophe that the media couldn't be bothered to report on, so much so that the NYT issued a "we are super sorry we blew it" article regarding the lack of coverage.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on August 20, 2016, 01:33:18 AM
a catastrophe that the media couldn't be bothered to report on

you mean the historical flooding that literally every news outlet that outlets news is reporting?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on August 20, 2016, 01:52:17 AM
a catastrophe that the media couldn't be bothered to report on

you mean the historical flooding that literally every news outlet that outlets news is reporting?

Maybe now because of huge backlash. It was a footnote on the ticker for way too long. I guess the NYT doesn't "outlet news" though and published this just for fun:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/public-editor/louisiana-flooding-the-times-late-public-editor-liz-spayd.html?_r=0

Quote
The Times is not the only news organization being criticized for doing too little too late on the floods. Even so, from my scanning of the media’s reaction, The Times’s performance seems particularly weak.

But yeah, let's pretend like there wasn't an issue. I'm sure something Trump said or some swimmers lying about a story in Rio is way more important to cover than the thousands suffering.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on August 20, 2016, 02:35:38 AM
the flooding started on the friday the 11th.  the first nyt piece appeared on sunday the 13th.  oh wow two whole weekend days that this one outlet didn't cover the flood.
Title: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on August 20, 2016, 02:58:19 AM
the flooding started on the friday the 11th.  the first nyt piece appeared on sunday the 13th.  oh wow two whole weekend days that this one outlet didn't cover the flood.

Cool story, bro. It isn't like there's a 24 hour news cycle or anything... I'm definitely going to take your opinion of the NYT on this matter over an actual editor of the NYT (I'm not).

I'm sure you've looked into all of the outlets that did and didn't provide coverage. You're going to have to try harder.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on August 20, 2016, 03:10:57 AM
i agree with the opinion of the nyt that they did not cover the flood for two days.  gasp.  anyone who didn't know about the louisiana flood until trump visited today probably isn't super into the news.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on August 20, 2016, 03:31:06 AM
i agree with the opinion of the nyt that they did not cover the flood for two days.  gasp.  anyone who didn't know about the louisiana flood until trump visited today probably isn't super into the news.

I feel like you're intentionally dismissing and minimizing what the crux of the issue is. No one is saying that there was no coverage at all, but rather minimal coverage from news outlets until an uproar occurred. The NYT is one of the most prevalent news sources we have in the US; they admit their fault in the coverage and allude to other outlets that didn't provide adequate coverage as well. The theme here is that this event should've had a lot more coverage than other, less-impactful topics.

Regardless of that. Trump still showed up and helped a lot of people. I think it's at least one positive thing to come from this tragedy. I'm more interested in the helping part at this point, as opposed to the already admitted failure of the news media.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on August 20, 2016, 10:13:56 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/politics/paul-manafort-resigns-donald-trump.html

Serious campaign chaos and still makes time to go help in Louisiana. Impressive.

The making time to help is part of righting the ship on his campaign. I'm not saying it's not a good thing to do, but you make it seem like this is a huge sacrifice for him. One semi-truck of supplies is nothing to this guy.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 20, 2016, 10:56:49 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/us/politics/paul-manafort-resigns-donald-trump.html

Serious campaign chaos and still makes time to go help in Louisiana. Impressive.

The making time to help is part of righting the ship on his campaign. I'm not saying it's not a good thing to do, but you make it seem like this is a huge sacrifice for him. One semi-truck of supplies is nothing to this guy.
Well, donald is direct.  Others get donations in the millions for victims.  Donald gives them Trump Steaks.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on August 20, 2016, 01:15:47 PM

...you make it seem like this is a huge sacrifice for him.
No, I didn't. It was something worth pointing out. You're the one who wants to reduce it to making up for campaign issues.

Quote
One semi-truck of supplies is nothing to this guy.
Ah, there it is. I was waiting for someone to minimize it. How many trucks worth should he have personally provided?



Well, donald is direct.  Others get donations in the millions for victims.  Donald gives them Trump Steaks.

Do you have a source to support any of these claims?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 20, 2016, 01:21:37 PM
Also, the semi was full of water and diapers and stopped for 15 min. At a time.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on August 20, 2016, 01:52:28 PM
Also, the semi was full of water and diapers and stopped for 15 min. At a time.

So I'll assume you have no source for your previous claims, then.

As far as your current claim goes, I'm sure there were water and diapers on the truck, as those things are very important to people who have lost everything. If you watched the video for two seconds, you can see there's obviously more than just water and diapers on the truck, though.

If you read or listen to the accounts of people who actually live there, you'll see they're very grateful for the help. That's all that really matters at this point, people getting help.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on August 20, 2016, 02:10:21 PM
No, I didn't. It was something worth pointing out. You're the one who wants to reduce it to making up for campaign issues.

Donald Trump's track record on human compassion is pretty bad, so this just stinks to high hell. I hope there wasn't any babies crying while he was handing out supplies. Why are you impressed that Donald Trump is helping out?

Quote
Ah, there it is. I was waiting for someone to minimize it. How many trucks worth should he have personally provided?

Like I said, I am happy he helped, but one truck of supplies will not go a long way and he has the capacity to do more. I applaud his effort but let's not pretend it's a huge deal. I am personally not impressed, but am happy he did something.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on August 20, 2016, 02:33:42 PM
Bah, I fucked up my reply on mobile. I'll post again when I'm done moving, not that anyone cares.

Basically yelled at Rama for saying I thought it was impressive when I didn't. Although I did use the word impressive in an earlier post so I can see how that was taken.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 20, 2016, 02:55:23 PM
Well, donald is direct.  Others get donations in the millions for victims.  Donald gives them Trump Steaks.

Do you have a source to support any of these claims?
Not really, no.  But generally, politicians campaign and ask for donations to X organization to aid in Y disaster if they wanna look good.

Also, the semi was full of water and diapers and stopped for 15 min. At a time.

So I'll assume you have no source for your previous claims, then.

As far as your current claim goes, I'm sure there were water and diapers on the truck, as those things are very important to people who have lost everything. If you watched the video for two seconds, you can see there's obviously more than just water and diapers on the truck, though.

If you read or listen to the accounts of people who actually live there, you'll see they're very grateful for the help. That's all that really matters at this point, people getting help.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/19/donald-trump-louisiana-floods-supplies
Though it seems another video says blanket and cleaning supplies.

Great.
His new campaign manager knows his stuff.

Wonder if he did that during Superstorm Sandy..
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/christie-misspoke-trump-gift-hurricane-sandy-charity-article-1.2716184

Nope.

So this was a publicity stunt.  Great that it helped people, but it's all for his PR, not for any humanitarian reason.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on August 20, 2016, 02:56:33 PM
Bah, I fucked up my reply on mobile. I'll post again when I'm done moving, not that anyone cares.

Basically yelled at Rama for saying I thought it was impressive when I didn't. Although I did use the word impressive in an earlier post so I can see how that was taken.

Me using the word "sacrifice" was really hyperbolic too.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 20, 2016, 08:55:15 PM
https://blog.chibicode.com/you-can-submit-a-pull-request-to-inject-arbitrary-js-code-into-donald-trumps-site-here-s-how-782aa6a17a56#.g0yzhqz52


Trump is hiring shit people.  Clearly he does not know the best people.
Politics aside, purely on a technological level, this is just about the dumbest drivel I've ever read in my life.

"hey guys did you know that if you edit a public library to say 'trump is a dum-dum' and the maintainer of said public library accepts it, stuff will happen?????"

No fucking shit. That's why no self-respecting library maintainer would ever do that, unless they wanted to jettison their software to obscurity. It's like saying that you could add "lol the erth is round!!!" to this website and it would only take one click of a button from Parsifal, Blanko or myself to accept it. It's true on a technicality, but definitely not worth an article in its own right. This is nothing but pandering to the non-technical anti-Trump crowd who will see this article as "Trump did something bad/stupid!" and share it with all their friends.

Yes, sure, there is a mild risk of the maintainer deciding to troll Trump, and I guess it's kinda-sorta mitigated by using a local copy of the library rather than an upstream link (assuming you don't update it regularly, or that you rigorously scrutinise your libraries before updating them). There are some stability and compatibility concerns. But to say that you can arbitrarily inject JS code into his website is a yuuuge stretch.

God damn it I hate people who pretend to understand how shit works.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 20, 2016, 09:45:42 PM
https://blog.chibicode.com/you-can-submit-a-pull-request-to-inject-arbitrary-js-code-into-donald-trumps-site-here-s-how-782aa6a17a56#.g0yzhqz52


Trump is hiring shit people.  Clearly he does not know the best people.
Politics aside, purely on a technological level, this is just about the dumbest drivel I've ever read in my life.

"hey guys did you know that if you edit a public library to say 'trump is a dum-dum' and the maintainer of said public library accepts it, stuff will happen?????"

No fucking shit. That's why no self-respecting library maintainer would ever do that, unless they wanted to jettison their software to obscurity. It's like saying that you could add "lol the erth is round!!!" to this website and it would only take one click of a button from Parsifal, Blanko or myself to accept it. It's true on a technicality, but definitely not worth an article in its own right. This is nothing but pandering to the non-technical anti-Trump crowd who will see this article as "Trump did something bad/stupid!" and share it with all their friends.

Yes, sure, there is a mild risk of the maintainer deciding to troll Trump, and I guess it's kinda-sorta mitigated by using a local copy of the library rather than an upstream link (assuming you don't update it regularly, or that you rigorously scrutinise your libraries before updating them). There are some stability and compatibility concerns. But to say that you can arbitrarily inject JS code into his website is a yuuuge stretch.

God damn it I hate people who pretend to understand how shit works.

Well, yeah.  If code is checked, its pointless. 
Doesn't mean its not impossible to put in a back door vulnerability in that's hard to spot.
Heck, the guy in charge of checking could do it.

Point is, it was a foolish thing to do.  Not for some small business or low risk site but for a major political candidate who has drawn a ton of criticism, right or wrong. 

Plus, sucking bandwidth from gitbub is a shit move, even if its only a few kb per visit.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 20, 2016, 11:28:24 PM
Doesn't mean its not impossible to put in a back door vulnerability in that's hard to spot.
Heck, the guy in charge of checking could do it.
I feel like you haven't read what I said. Yes, he could do it, if he wanted to spell the end of his career. It's a safe assumption that he wouldn't do it.

Point is, it was a foolish thing to do.  Not for some small business or low risk site but for a major political candidate who has drawn a ton of criticism, right or wrong.
If anything, a big business or political candidate is probably in a better position, since they could easily get the guy sued.

But even then, you've got nothing. It's common practice. Heck, some libraries encourage linking directly to their upstream as an easy way to get yourself set up. Is it super-duper secure? No. Is it secure enough? Yes, in most cases. Your reputation as a professional is probably worth more than the 30 minutes of lol-funnies you might get before the site gets fixed and your ass gets in trouble.

Plus, sucking bandwidth from gitbub is a shit move, even if its only a few kb per visit.
I don't know what gives you that impression. There is nothing in GitHub's terms and conditions that would suggest they're even mildly opposed to people hotlinking their resources. And if they were, I'm sure they would take action to address it long before "tech bloggers" of this guy's calibre would get involved.

So far, you're confirming my suspicion:

This is nothing but pandering to the non-technical anti-Trump crowd who will see this article as "Trump did something bad/stupid!" and share it with all their friends.

It really seems like you have no reason to find it relevant, other than someone telling you that someone related to Trump supposedly did something incompetent. It doesn't matter if it's true so long as it attacks the politician you don't like, right?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on August 21, 2016, 12:08:10 AM
I love SexWarrior
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on August 21, 2016, 02:49:19 AM
In less stupid news, here's a shameless hit piece from the (failing) New York Times.  Sad!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-debt.html
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on August 21, 2016, 05:06:48 AM
In less stupid news, here's a shameless hit piece from the (failing) New York Times.  Sad!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-debt.html

Trump is good at debt, but he doesn't have shit on Obama. The trillions he's added to the national debt would make the Donald blush...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 21, 2016, 08:02:49 AM
Doesn't mean its not impossible to put in a back door vulnerability in that's hard to spot.
Heck, the guy in charge of checking could do it.
I feel like you haven't read what I said. Yes, he could do it, if he wanted to spell the end of his career. It's a safe assumption that he wouldn't do it.

Point is, it was a foolish thing to do.  Not for some small business or low risk site but for a major political candidate who has drawn a ton of criticism, right or wrong.
If anything, a big business or political candidate is probably in a better position, since they could easily get the guy sued.

But even then, you've got nothing. It's common practice. Heck, some libraries encourage linking directly to their upstream as an easy way to get yourself set up. Is it super-duper secure? No. Is it secure enough? Yes, in most cases. Your reputation as a professional is probably worth more than the 30 minutes of lol-funnies you might get before the site gets fixed and your ass gets in trouble.

I'd be more concerned with injecting some malicious code for the people who visit more so than lol-funnies. 

It's common?  I didn't know that.  I figured it was more common to have your own local copy.  I mean, I know a shit ton of sites use "off site" CSS files and what-not but I assumed they were bad choices on design or just where they kept their CSS files.


Quote
Plus, sucking bandwidth from gitbub is a shit move, even if its only a few kb per visit.
I don't know what gives you that impression. There is nothing in GitHub's terms and conditions that would suggest they're even mildly opposed to people hotlinking their resources. And if they were, I'm sure they would take action to address it long before "tech bloggers" of this guy's calibre would get involved.

So far, you're confirming my suspicion:

This is nothing but pandering to the non-technical anti-Trump crowd who will see this article as "Trump did something bad/stupid!" and share it with all their friends.

It really seems like you have no reason to find it relevant, other than someone telling you that someone related to Trump supposedly did something incompetent. It doesn't matter if it's true so long as it attacks the politician you don't like, right?
Eh, I'd think the same if it was on anyone's site.  Which, if it's common, probably is.

But considering it's common practice, then I have no argument and retract my statement, mostly.  I still think one should always have a local copy of files you use but maybe that's just old thinking.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on August 21, 2016, 11:46:10 AM
In less stupid news, here's a shameless hit piece from the (failing) New York Times.  Sad!

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-debt.html

Trump is good at debt, but he doesn't have shit on Obama. The trillions he's added to the national debt would make the Donald blush...

Obama has cut the deficit every year. It's not his fault he followed Bush.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on August 21, 2016, 02:47:56 PM
It's not his fault he followed Bush.
Ummm.. Actually it is. He chose to run while George was president.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on August 21, 2016, 03:45:39 PM
It's not his fault he followed Bush.

Or every other president before Bush, apparently, since he's practically accumulated more debt than all of his predecessors combined...

He gets a pass for FY '09, but saying he cut the deficit every year as a blanket statement is a bit disingenuous as it ignores how much debt was accumulated during his terms.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on August 21, 2016, 04:23:49 PM
It's not his fault he followed Bush.

Or every other president before Bush, apparently, since he's practically accumulated more debt than all of his predecessors combined...

He gets a pass for FY '09, but saying he cut the deficit every year as a blanket statement is a bit disingenuous as it ignores how much debt was accumulated during his terms.

It's a matter of fact that the deficit went down every year he was president. How much should he have cut the deficit, and how? 

Why does he only get a pass for 2009?  Does economic policy and events only have effects a year in to the future?  Or did the sub-prime crisis, Clinton's fault, have effects for multiple years?

EDIT: For clarity the deficit went from 1.5T in 2009 to 400B in 2015.

http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on August 21, 2016, 04:35:50 PM
dunno why it matters since trump has explicitly stated that the us should take on more debt
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on August 21, 2016, 05:45:05 PM
It's a matter of fact that the deficit went down every year he was president.
Agree. It's also a matter of fact that he's added more debt than nearly all of his predecessors combined.

Quote
How much should he have cut the deficit, and how? 
No idea, I'm not an economic advisor. Something less than a near 100% increase in debt seems better.

Quote
Why does he only get a pass for 2009?  Does economic policy and events only have effects a year in to the future?  Or did the sub-prime crisis, Clinton's fault, have effects for multiple years?
Because he had no control whatsoever coming into FY '09. He did after that. We both know it isn't like the president controls the purse anyway, but people associate spending with the president in $CURRENT_YEAR so that's what my earlier quip was about. Just because I throw silly one liners at Obama doesn't mean I don't like him. I voted for him twice.

Quote
EDIT: For clarity the deficit went from 1.5T in 2009 to 400B in 2015.

It was 438B, right near what Bush finished his last year on with 459B, although Bush's deficit before that was 161B. The deficit this year is estimated at over 600B though, so it looks like the little factoid won't hold up for his entire term. Bush added about half of the debt Obama has and he's seen as a war mongering pillar of the military industrial complex.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on August 22, 2016, 01:12:04 AM
It's a matter of fact that the deficit went down every year he was president.
Agree. It's also a matter of fact that he's added more debt than nearly all of his predecessors combined.

Quote
How much should he have cut the deficit, and how? 
No idea, I'm not an economic advisor. Something less than a near 100% increase in debt seems better.

Do you even know if he could have done better?  Thinking someone should do better because opinions is not very productive.

Quote
Quote
Why does he only get a pass for 2009?  Does economic policy and events only have effects a year in to the future?  Or did the sub-prime crisis, Clinton's fault, have effects for multiple years?
Because he had no control whatsoever coming into FY '09. He did after that. We both know it isn't like the president controls the purse anyway, but people associate spending with the president in $CURRENT_YEAR so that's what my earlier quip was about. Just because I throw silly one liners at Obama doesn't mean I don't like him. I voted for him twice.

So after he had control, he brought the deficit down every year.

Quote
Quote
EDIT: For clarity the deficit went from 1.5T in 2009 to 400B in 2015.

It was 438B, right near what Bush finished his last year on with 459B, although Bush's deficit before that was 161B. The deficit this year is estimated at over 600B though, so it looks like the little factoid won't hold up for his entire term. Bush added about half of the debt Obama has and he's seen as a war mongering pillar of the military industrial complex.

Bush also inherited record surpluses and didn't deal with globally reaching, catastrophic events in the financial markets. Anyway, since you admittedly don't know what he could have done better this doesn't particularly matter. Suffice it to say that "he doubled the debt" is a reductionist way of evaluating his performance.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on August 22, 2016, 02:42:46 AM
... a reductionist way of evaluating his performance.

About as reductionist as saying he decreased the deficit every year.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on August 22, 2016, 03:06:25 AM
... a reductionist way of evaluating his performance.

About as reductionist as saying he decreased the deficit every year.

You go girl. By the way, every president since Clinton has doubled the national debt and Reagan almost tripled it. It's what America does. Now tell me more about Obama...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on August 22, 2016, 04:05:29 AM
You go girl.

Aww, that's sweet. Thank you.

Quote
By the way, every president since Clinton has doubled the national debt and Reagan almost tripled it. It's what America does.
Cool story, bro.

Quote
Now tell me more about Obama...
Seems like a decent guy. What else do you want to be told more about?...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on August 22, 2016, 04:50:51 AM
Hey, guys, can we talk about the presidential election?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 22, 2016, 05:01:06 AM
Hey, guys, can we talk about the presidential election?

What's to talk about?

Trump yells angry words but now has a great PR guy.
Clinton dodges contraversies like Neo dodges bullets.
They both suck but the media is pro-clinton (cause Trump wants to restrict the media).

Clinton will win.
The status quo will be maintained.
A woman will be president following a black man.

Two social leaps will occur in one decade. 

Too bad the second one was engineered but whatever. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on August 22, 2016, 05:03:23 AM
Clinton will win.
lol
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 22, 2016, 05:20:07 AM
Clinton will win.
lol
I'll be sure to quote this again in November.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on August 22, 2016, 07:19:29 AM
Too bad the second one was engineered but whatever.
Oh, because the first one wasn't :^)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 22, 2016, 10:10:33 AM
Too bad the second one was engineered but whatever.
Oh, because the first one wasn't :^)
We've no evidence of it.  Maybe, but I'm not going to say it was if no one even hinted that it was.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on August 22, 2016, 07:31:01 PM
Too bad the second one was engineered but whatever.
Oh, because the first one wasn't :^)
We've no evidence of it.  Maybe, but I'm not going to say it was if no one even hinted that it was.

I'm inclined to believe most presidential elections from the 70's on has been manufactured. No more threat of having any Irish Catholic boys trying to stir things up.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on August 26, 2016, 03:13:36 PM
Well if we get both parties trying to engineer elections, pretty soon we get somewhat fair elections. 👍
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on August 26, 2016, 03:48:22 PM
If Hillary wins, America will remain a shithole and will probably only get worse.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 26, 2016, 08:06:24 PM
If Hillary wins, America will remain a shithole and will probably only get worse.

If Trump wins...
The same thing will happen.  Maybe an added war.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on August 27, 2016, 09:56:30 AM
Trump will make America Great Again
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 27, 2016, 10:21:02 AM
Trump will make America Great Again
Did Trump change his immigration stance?
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/26/heres-why-trump-flip-flopped-on-deportation-plan.html?__source=msn%7Cmoney%7Cheadline%7Cstory%7C&par=msn
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on August 29, 2016, 04:46:27 PM
(https://theuglytruth.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/trump-fa-1280-1.jpg?w=564&h=434)


http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.ro/2016/08/trump-by-landslide.html
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on August 29, 2016, 05:20:52 PM
If Hillary wins, America will remain a shithole and will probably only get worse.

If Trump wins...
The same thing will happen.  Maybe an added war.

What leads you to believe that Trump as opposed to Hillary would be more likely to start a war?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 29, 2016, 06:50:02 PM
If Hillary wins, America will remain a shithole and will probably only get worse.

If Trump wins...
The same thing will happen.  Maybe an added war.

What leads you to believe that Trump as opposed to Hillary would be more likely to start a war?
Quite simple:
Hillary Clinton chooses her words carefully when talking to foreign nations.
Donald Trump does not and has insulted people without even realizing it.  He's also gone on record as basically saying people misunderstood what he said.  Wars are started very easily on misunderstandings.
Hell, he went to Scotland (a country who has luke warm feelings for him) and didn't bother reading up on how they voted on Brexit, prompting him to congratulate them on a victory.  To which they were very unhappy about.  Now Scotland is far more forgiving then say... China or Iran.  All he needs to do is make one wrong word or social faux pa and war begins.  Donald Trump just doesn't seem like the kind of guy who does his cultural research prior to visiting another culture.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on August 29, 2016, 08:03:23 PM
Can you cite some examples of wars being caused because someone said something mean (aka hurt feelz).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on August 29, 2016, 08:18:12 PM
Can you cite some examples of wars being caused because someone said something mean (aka hurt feelz).
No.

But I can cite plenty of wars started by people who were assholes and believed that another group was unfair or had something they wanted. 

My point being: Donald Trump does not have a gentle touch nor does he go into diplomatic situations fully armed with the knowledge he should have.  He talks off the cuff and while that may sound great on the campaign trail, it's not good for diplomatic relations.

Sure, I'm probably exaggerating about one wrong word causing a war but I've no doubt that he could make relations very strained by his words.  Maybe not enough to start a war, but certainly enough to destroy trade opportunities.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on August 29, 2016, 08:34:28 PM
Can you cite some examples of wars being caused because someone said something mean (aka hurt feelz).
No.

But I can cite plenty of wars started by people who were assholes and believed that another group was unfair or had something they wanted. 

My point being: Donald Trump does not have a gentle touch nor does he go into diplomatic situations fully armed with the knowledge he should have.  He talks off the cuff and while that may sound great on the campaign trail, it's not good for diplomatic relations.

Sure, I'm probably exaggerating about one wrong word causing a war but I've no doubt that he could make relations very strained by his words.  Maybe not enough to start a war, but certainly enough to destroy trade opportunities.

Nothing he says will hurt anyone or anything.

Money talks. If he knows nothing else, he knows that.

But your assertion that there will be more war and bloodshed under Trump than Hillary is completely baseless. If anything Hillary has shown very limited restraint from overthrowing leaders of entire nations and continuing the war machine. Obama was elected on anti war pretenses, and showed relatively quickly that he had no intention of upholding any of the promises he made in that regard; his selection of Clinton as his secretary of state further showed that the establishment has no intention on dropping fewer bombs or causing civil war and unrest in sovereign countries.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 01, 2016, 07:06:04 AM
http://www.npr.org/2016/08/31/492096565/fact-check-donald-trumps-speech-on-immigration

Trump's immigration speech.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on September 02, 2016, 04:34:20 PM
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Beje4xclPKk/V8FYmdl_QzI/AAAAAAACYD8/OkhUd1nC8PkwYJC3OSCOeF8syCWix7rSwCLcB/s1600/trump%2Bfact%2Bae.png)

http://buchanan.org/blog/conquistador-trump-125591
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 02, 2016, 06:37:43 PM
See, right after the meeting, they had a nice speech, said nice things about each other, said that payment of a wall wasn't discussed, etc...

Then after Trump came home to do his speech in Arizona, not only did he say contradictory things about what was discussed at the meeting but President Enrique Pena Nieto did the same thing.  He bashed Trump and his wall, stating that Mexico paying for it was not going to happen.


So right now I'm just wondering which one is lying more.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on September 02, 2016, 07:36:49 PM
You actually have to wonder about that?  Of course Trump is the one who's lying.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 03, 2016, 02:48:10 AM
You actually have to wonder about that?  Of course Trump is the one who's lying.
No, they both lied.  Just not sure whose lying more.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on September 03, 2016, 01:57:41 PM
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WiDtfPrg1YE/V8FaOVIu7aI/AAAAAAACYGo/I1VfX914buIDrzlfdtAd5xwhT0HgSBi6QCLcB/s640/trump%2Breag%2Bs%2Bxt.jpg)


http://www.thedailysheeple.com/mike-adams-chaos-will-erupt-across-america-in-less-than-100-days-no-matter-who-wins-the-election_092016
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on September 03, 2016, 02:43:08 PM
The alt-media is always saying that things are at a breaking point, the economy is about to collapse, shit is about to hit to fan, martial law will soon be declared, etc.  I don't see any reason to take their word for it this time.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on September 03, 2016, 03:05:37 PM
Illuminati Card Game (1995)

(http://65.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m7252mSXkf1qf4nqeo1_500.jpg)

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/b9/eb/2f/b9eb2ff00190aa719115a34fead375bd.jpg)

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/7jJcQTheTLI/hqdefault.jpg)

(the clocktower is referred to in the Back to the Future movies, 1985 and 1989, as part of a double event: 9/11 + something which will occur at least 15 years into the future, involving a very large clocktower)

(https://reptiliandimension.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/enoughistrump.jpg?w=700&h=)

(https://41.media.tumblr.com/58c6737c995b3aad500522750c66389a/tumblr_o26wdsReYg1s65neno1_1280.png)

(http://allnewspipeline.com/images/who.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on September 03, 2016, 03:11:26 PM
The best case scenario for Trump is as follows: right before June 7, he will be some 100 delegates short, having to rely on winning in California to make up the difference.

He will have to release his tax returns very soon, and also he will have to testify in the university scam cases, not to mention that he will hit a roadblock at the convention.

Trump is still trying to run as an independent, while using the Republican party as a platform: this means that the GOP had this planned from the very start, a sure sign that they are not about to lose the general election to the Democrats, not to mention the House and Senate elections, by supporting a nominee who will have a hard time getting the needed Hispanic, Black and Catholic votes on his side; something else must be going on.

in retrospect this is kinda funny.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on September 03, 2016, 03:19:10 PM
You forgot to quote my other messages: at the Convention, the nevertrump group did have the votes to take him out, but was not allowed to change the rules.

My comments at that time were right on target: Trump has received protection at each and every step where he should have stumbled and gotten eliminated from the race for the nomination.

At each and every stage, I tried to point out the unbelievable power struggle between two rival groups: one wants Trump to win, the other wants Clinton to win.



More information on the Illuminati Card Game:

http://rense.com/general95/illum.htm

Likewise another card, issued well before 9-11, showed the twin towers being taken down is one of the most shocking of all, especially in light of the fact that this game first hit the specialty stores in 1995! How in the world did Steve Jackson know that the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center were going to be attacked?

In fact, this card accurately depicted the World Trade Center attack in great detail. This card accurately depicts several facts of 9/11 - on cards created all the way back in 1995! The picture accurately depicts:

* That one tower was going to be struck first; this picture accurately depicts the moments between the first tower strike and the second.

* The card accurately depicts that the place of impact is some distance from the top of the twin towers. The plane hit in this approximate area of the first tower. How in the world could Steve Jackson know this fact?

Take a look at what this image is actually depicting:

(http://allnewspipeline.com/images/who.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 03, 2016, 04:35:53 PM
The world trade center was bombed in 1993.
The image shows a bomb.


Not a hard connection.  He was illustrating the past.


The angry face is too generic to be matched to only trump. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on September 03, 2016, 05:39:09 PM
Here is someone who tried to warn America 22 years prior to 9/11.

(http://stateofthenation2012.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/51-Pb5T23L.jpg)

When you put this in a mirror, this is what you'll get:

(http://stateofthenation2012.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/original.jpg)

The waitress clearly has the look of ‘feigned’ distress on her face as she looks through an airplane window.  She is dressed in orange and holding her ‘torch’ in such a way so as to burn down the two targeted buildings.

The skies in the background are clear and deep blue just like they really were on Sept. 11th.  And, of course, the terror attacks occurred during what is regarded as breakfast time in the Big Apple.

The flip side of the album cover is also quite telling.  In the bottom right corner can be seen a jet flying over the Twin Towers and toward the same human Statue of Liberty.


(http://stateofthenation2012.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Screen-Shot-2016-05-21-at-3.07.33-PM.png)

It was a high ranking freemason from the Netherlands, who sponsored Supertramp for many years, Stanley August Miesegaes, that was the source behind the secret subliminal references to 9/11.

(http://dangerousminds.net/content/uploads/images/1035x1026-supertramp-1800-1399652851.jpg)

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on September 03, 2016, 06:00:47 PM
But Sandokhan, what are the secret society's motives for all this?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on September 03, 2016, 06:01:06 PM
haha remember when a glass of orange juice crashed into the twin towers on q 11?  yeah me neither.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on September 03, 2016, 06:18:25 PM
It has always been assumed that the WTC towers were rented out.

Not at all.

(http://truedemocracyparty.net/wp-content/uploads/WTC-empty-34c2d85c42aab2.jpg)

The orange color refers to this:

http://stateofthenation2012.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/therm6.jpg
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on September 04, 2016, 01:26:45 AM
Instead of retroactively pointing out evidence of past attacks maybe you should give us conspiracy evidence of future attacks. I mean, you predicted Trump's defeat in there primaries afterall.


Oh wait haha you're literally wrong about everything haha how does it feel knowing I know more about secret societies than you do
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on September 04, 2016, 03:31:41 AM
Instead of retroactively pointing out evidence of past attacks maybe you should give us conspiracy evidence of future attacks.

And then when they don't happen, he'll claim that he's prevented the attacks by scaring off the would-be perpetrators with his exposé.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 04, 2016, 04:50:19 AM
I'm shocked he hasn't mentioned the Simpson's ref. yet.


Instead of retroactively pointing out evidence of past attacks maybe you should give us conspiracy evidence of future attacks.

And then when they don't happen, he'll claim that he's prevented the attacks by scaring off the would-be perpetrators with his exposé.
Or how the wrong hand signals were given at the presidential speech.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on September 04, 2016, 06:36:33 AM
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Pxu-W2H9lis/VnbkHlEsgiI/AAAAAAAADb8/Nhrn_mlmrLk/s1600/Trump%2Band%2BPutin.jpg)

Had the votes been counted properly at the convention, Trump wouldn't have made it past the ruling committee.

At the crucial moment, Priebus maneuvered the entire situation very skillfully, eliminating the possibility of an embarrassing roll call vote.

This is the same establishment that is working towards a war with Russia, who created FEMA, and who is actively pursuing a new world order agenda.

And yet, they made sure Trump sailed smoothly all the way to the convention and beyond.

A new very interesting article about Rasputin:

http://www.events.orthodoxengland.org.uk/the-real-gregory-rasputin/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 04, 2016, 08:14:06 AM
Spinning your failures won't get anywhere here.


You know nothing.
You can predict nothing.
Everything you've predicted about this election has been wrong.  Trump is the nominee.  Cruz is not.  The NeverTrump movement failed.  I read the tweets, it didn't have enough votes to even be considered.  And even if it was, it would have failed. 


You think thr nwo wants a war with Russia?  You think they picked Trump, an ally of Russia, to do that?


Your reasoning is non-existent.  The motivation is whatever you think fits your pieces together. 


Just give it up.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on September 04, 2016, 08:40:02 AM
What I have said from the very start is this:

A civil war will occur concomitantly with an economic depression. The target population of Donald Trump's "I am your voice" speech is the same as the main purpose/designed goal of the destruction inflicted by the Civil War: the white protestants of the South (now together with the blue collar workers of the north-central states). It seems that they are being set up for some kind of a very disappointing event, which will spark outrage and revolt.


You think they picked Trump, an ally of Russia, to do that?

Think things through again: Trump's promises are just too good to be true, aren't they?


I read the tweets, it didn't have enough votes to even be considered.  And even if it was, it would have failed.

You haven't done your homework on this one: most members of the rules committee received very serious threats weeks prior to their meeting in July; the numbers in June were against Trump, somebody very powerful intervened and made sure that things would change.


Additionally, let me remind you of what actually happened.


So, it finally came down to the roll call vote: here is what happened.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/never-trump-delegates-have-support-needed-to-force-rules-vote-225716

Alaska delegate Fred Brown told POLITICO he did get the required signatures. “I had secured more than enough signatures from Alaska delegates, but the convention secretary was not at the designated location where I was told to submit them,” he said. “Some said she was hiding. Others said she was protected by guards. Regardless, I was told I could also present the signatures from the floor. Nevertheless, when the vote occurred, my mic was not turned on. When I attempted to present these signatures at the stage, my effort was ignored by the chair, and the security guard turned me away.“

When Womack announced the result from the stage, the rebellious delegates went ballistic, swamping the continuing proceedings with screams and still demanding a vote. Colorado’s Unruh convinced her state’s delegates to walk out and screamed for nearby Texas’ to do the same, though they declined. Morton Blackwell, a conservative Virginia delegate told POLITICO that the process was “crooked.” Blackwell, a veteran RNC member of 32 years, guessed that several of the delegations that withdrew from the effort were plants by the RNC to convince insurgents they had reached their goal. He wondered whether the bitterness they felt would linger.

Iowa delegate Marlys Popma, who helped lead the state’s effort to support the roll call vote, rejected that suggestion. “People knew exactly what they were signing,” she said.
“This is about the full assault on the delegates,” Waters said in an interview, while aides frantically bounced back and forth collecting signatures from friendly delegations. At one point Monday, 11 jurisdictions had signed on: Maine, North Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, Alaska, Colorado, Washington, the District of Columbia, Iowa, Minnesota and Virginia.

"You will see more insurgency, because, and I have nothing to do with the fact that people now know that their voices were squelched," said anti-Trump Colorado delegate Kendal Unruh, the founder of the Free the Delegates movement, in a live interview on C-SPAN where she accused party leadership of using "strong-armed tactics."

"I have never in all my life, certainly in six years in the United States Senate, prior to that as a lifelong Republican, never seen anything like this," said Utah Sen. Mike Lee, one of the most prominent signatories to the push for a roll call vote. "There is no precedent for this in parliamentary procedure. There is no precedent for this in the rules of the Republican National Convention. We are now in uncharted territory. Somebody owes us an explanation. I have never seen the chair abandoned like that. They vacated the stage entirely."

New Hampshire Sen. Gordon Humphrey personally filed the signatures to the convention secretary — an exchange that followed after a frantic search to find the secretary before the deadline to submit the signatures. At the time, Never Trump leaders raised concerns that the secretary, Susie Hudson of Vermont, might intentionally avoid them to ensure the effort was defeated.
After the vote, he was livid: "The very unpleasant scene that unfolded here just a moment ago I think is a glimpse into the future of a trump presidency,” Humphrey told POLITICO. "We have seen the trump presidency and prototype many of his supporters if they are not fascists, act very much like fascists, shouting down the opposition, treating them roughly.”
“My first act after Mr. Trump’s nomination if that occurs will be to get up, walk out and go home,” he continued. “And after that I will resign from the Republican Party if that is the case."


So, there were enough delegates votes to vote down the amendments passed by the Rules Committee, but they were simply ignored by the RNC leadership.

Simply put: had the proper votes been taken into consideration, had the correct number of votes been counted, it would have been all over for Trump, no way that he could get a majority of votes on the first ballot vote.


More here: http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2016/07/18/mark-levin-tears-reince-priebus-new-one-power-grab/

Had Priebus not intervened, Trump would have never made it past the floor roll call vote.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 04, 2016, 09:15:39 AM
No, you haven't.
And no, there won't be a civil war.  Riots, yes, but that's due to racism and cops killing blacks and not because Donald Trump won't get into office or whatever the rationale for you is.  The states, as they are, can't fight a civil war simply because they can't survive without the assistance of the federal government and other states.  Not only that but we live in a nation (well, two separate nations but same thing) where the quality of living is so high for most people that running off to fight someone in another state and possibly die is not on most people's list.  Life for a good portion of people is comfortable and not worth losing. 

Take Texas.  A lot of America wants it to secede.  A lot of Texas wants to secede.  The government of Texas knows that if it does, its economy will collapse very quickly.  The quality of living for it's people will drop to poverty, aside from a few groups, and life will be far worse.

Sorry but the US will not go into civil war anytime soon.  Not unless a very large portion of it's population is either going to be killed, enslaved, or otherwise lose everything(or most) that they have.



Trump's promises ARE too good to be true, just like most politicians.  I fail to see your point on that one.

And your story is... Well, shit.
1) email.
2) Alaskan delegate signatures aren't exactly all you need.
3) The guy's mic was turned off?  Does he know that HE controls that?  You know, with the little switch on the handle of the thing?  Did he never speak during the entire meeting to see if his mic worked?  Did he not bother to, I don't know, yell?

Look, there is no conspiracy as grand as what you suggest.
A rule vote that would have blocked a candidate would have sent the message of "WE choose your candidate, not you" and alienated a lot of republican voters.  It would have set a very dangerous precedent that any candidate can be eliminated for any reason if certain people in power don't like you, even if the people do. 

This is why the GOP had to accept Donald Trump.
This is why they had to force members of their party to support Trump after the nomination.
The Republican Party needs stability if it wishes to win (and it does want to win).  It must have the trust of people.  If it loses either, it could fall.  That's why they are trying very hard to make Donald Trump become more moderate, tone down his insults, and become more diplomatic.  They want him to win and to do that, they need the moderate voters. 



Now then...
Using secrets in the past 20 years, can you telll us what this "civil war" event will be?  Surely the clues are everywhere, yes?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on September 04, 2016, 09:30:13 AM
Against Hillary, any of the well-known Republican candidates would have won.

The question is: why did the RNC put up with Trump?

Why the smooth sailing when there should have been none?

Why did the other candidates not utter a word about the economy, allowing Trump to take the stage?

Let me remind you: we still are waiting to find out the real reason why Trump was allowed to get this far, we'll see if it matches what I believe to be true, that a certain segment of the American people is being set up for something very nasty.

Don't you understand what is going on?

Trump has explicitly said that the United States CAN PRINT ITS OWN MONEY, without the need to borrow from the banks, and that he wants to get rid of the Fed.

He also said this: "wouldn't it be wonderful if we got along well with Russia?"

He wants America to be great again.

He also suggested a very direct solution for the student loan problem.

And yet, those who are perfectly against these very proposals, are letting Trump sail so smoothly all the way to the ballot box in November.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 04, 2016, 04:48:36 PM
Against Hillary, any of the well-known Republican candidates would have won.
Which is why the GOP tried very hard to support Trump's opponents.

Quote
The question is: why did the RNC put up with Trump?

Why the smooth sailing when there should have been none?
As I answered, if they tanked Trump, they would be shooting themselves in the foot.  Trump is popular and despite their best efforts, they couldn't kill the campaign in the primaries.  And killing it at the convention would have turned MANY voters against them.  So their only option to winning the white house is unity.  Hence why they pushed for people like Paul Ryan to support Trump.

Trump did not have smooth sailing but beyond outright election fraud, they couldn't stop him without essentially telling their voters "You guys picked the wrong person."  How would THAT look?

Quote
Why did the other candidates not utter a word about the economy, allowing Trump to take the stage?
They... did.  I... I really don't know what your question is.  The other candidates talked about the economy.  Trump mostly just said "Everything sucks, I'm great, you're great, let's make illegals suffer!"

Quote
Let me remind you: we still are waiting to find out the real reason why Trump was allowed to get this far, we'll see if it matches what I believe to be true, that a certain segment of the American people is being set up for something very nasty.
You've been pointing to 9/11 predictions for the last 2 days so where are the clues as to what this "something very nasty" is?  And which segment?  If it's a voter bloc then not much that could affect them that won't hit everyone else. 

Quote
Trump has explicitly said that the United States CAN PRINT ITS OWN MONEY, without the need to borrow from the banks, and that he wants to get rid of the Fed.
Yes... the US Can print it's own money... It's kinda one of the many powers given to the federal government.   And what Fed?  The federal reserve, whose job it is to print the money?  Cause... that would be kinda... pointless.


Quote
He also said this: "wouldn't it be wonderful if we got along well with Russia?"

He wants America to be great again.

He also suggested a very direct solution for the student loan problem.

And yet, those who are perfectly against these very proposals, are letting Trump sail so smoothly all the way to the ballot box in November.
Because they have no choice.  It's either "Put up with Trump and TRY to make him behave" or "Piss off the voters who wanted him and definitely lose the white house."
They chose the control option as it had a better chance of succeeding.  Trump was popular enough that they felt he could beat Hillary, he just needs to tone down the message.  They thought they could fix him before November.
AND, even if they can't.  If Trump loses, then they retain their voters who would have left the GOP for betraying the popular votes AND have a chance in 4 years to win. 

But if they did subvert democracy and their own rules and somehow kicked Trump out not only would they lose voters (probably forever) but as you said, Trump may have run as an independent and Hillary would most likely have won.  AND in 4 years, if Hilary was terrible, another Democrat would have likely taken her place and the Republicans would still lose.


It's all about winning.  Trump is the best chance they have of winning the white house now and in the long term.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on September 05, 2016, 05:36:08 AM
Trump is popular and despite their best efforts, they couldn't kill the campaign in the primaries.

Trump became popular because of the free advertising he received unconditionally from the same people who could have killed the campaign in its very infancy: practically his every speech was televised.

You really think that his campaign couldn't have been derailed at the very start? Think again.

Why wait until now, eight years later (and eight more trillion dollars in debt), to have Trump run the country, when it could have been done just as easily (according to your own analysis) back in 2008?


The other candidates talked about the economy.

No, they did not. It is as if there was a tacit understanding that only Trump would have this privilege to tell the people what they wanted to hear about the free trade agreements, and the worsening economic situation.


Yes... the US Can print it's own money...

That is how the theory goes, that is what the law says.

Unfortunately, the US receives money from a consortium of banks which LEND this money to the government, which carries a very hefty interest with it.

To print one's own money means not to have to pay interest to anybody on it.

And the Fed is located in Washington DC, which is OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of the Congress (it is not a state) to do anything about it.


Because they have no choice.  It's either "Put up with Trump and TRY to make him behave" or "Piss off the voters who wanted him and definitely lose the white house."

You really think that the people who set Obama up to win back in 2008 and 2012, by having McCain and Romney run against him, couldn't have done the opposite thing to Trump right from the start?


If Trump loses, then they retain their voters who would have left the GOP for betraying the popular votes AND have a chance in 4 years to win. 

What you said doesn't make sense.

Why wait another 4 years, when things could have been done the right way at the present time? Again, had not Trump's speeches been televised during primetime, he would have received very little advertising; moreover, the other Republican candidates could have done themselves a favor, and could have mentioned the state of the economy, the terrible free trade deals, right from the start.

Why have Priebus act the way he did, by outrightly denying the delegations their right to a roll call vote, just to have the privilege to possibly wait four more years?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 05, 2016, 08:40:52 AM
*deletes post*

GOD DAMNIT DAVE!

WHAT WERE YOU TOLD?  Don't Feed the Levee!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on September 05, 2016, 08:49:52 AM
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-mtB40P0w44k/Vy-eoOad6oI/AAAAAAACTtE/McZENSli0O8UgtnpO5p3Bxb9EUrfv-EOQCLcB/s1600/titanic_headlines.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 05, 2016, 11:19:05 AM
Amusing.
It didn't happen but it's amusing.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 05, 2016, 01:10:59 PM
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-stock-market-has-already-picked-the-next-us-president-2016-08-29?mod=latestnews
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on September 05, 2016, 06:08:52 PM
Levee, you have it backwards, the Federal Reserve lends to banks, not the other way around. The Federal Reserve's interest rate is a basic component to economics in the US.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 05, 2016, 06:27:29 PM
Levee, you have it backwards, the Federal Reserve lends to banks, not the other way around. The Federal Reserve's interest rate is a basic component to economics in the US.
He's probably confusing the federal reserve with the various "loans" we've gotten from various nations.  Our "National Debt" as it were.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on September 05, 2016, 06:51:22 PM
One of the world's greatest experts on finances explains how the Fed gets its money:

http://www.schiffradio.com/the-trillion-dollar-trick/

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution states that Congress shall have the power to coin (create) money and regulate the value thereof.

"If our nation can issue a dollar bond (interest bearing) it can issue a dollar bill (interest-free). The element that makes the bond good makes a bill good also. The difference between the bond and the bill is that the bond lets money brokers collect twice the amount of the bond and an additional 20 percent, whereas the currency pays nobody but those who contribute directly in some useful way. It is absurd to say that our country can issue $30 million in bonds and not $30 million in currency. Both are promises to pay."

"Among the early experiences that were helpful to me that
I recollect with pleasure was one in working a few days for
a neighbour in digging potatoes—a very enterprising, thrifty
farmer, who could dig a great many potatoes. I was a boy of
perhaps thirteen or fourteen years of age, and It kept me very
busy from morning until night. It was a ten-hour day. And
as I was saving these little sums I soon learned that I could
get as much interest for fifty dollars loaned at seven per cent. —
the legal rate in the state of New York at that time for a year—as I
could earn by digging potatoes for 100 days. The impression was
gaining ground with me that it was a good thing to let the money
be my slave and not make myself a slave to money."


Of course, the Treasury Dept. has also a more mysterious department: the Exchange Stabilization Fund.


The understanding of how the financial International has gradually, right up to our epoch, become the master of money, this magical talisman, which has become for people that which God and the nation had been formerly, is something which exceeds in scientific interest even the art of revolutionary strategy, since this is also an art and also a revolution. I shall explain it to you. Historiographers and the masses, blinded by the shouts and the pomp of the French revolution, the people, intoxicated by the fact that it had succeeded in taking all power from the King and the privileged classes, did not notice how a small group of mysterious, careful and insignificant people had taken possession of the real Royal power, the magical power, almost divine, which it obtained almost without knowing it.

The masses did not notice that the power had been seized by others and that soon they had subjected them to a slavery more cruel than the King, since the latter, in view of his religious and moral prejudices, was incapable of taking advantage of such a power. So it came about that the supreme Royal power was taken over by persons, whose moral, intellectual and cosmopolitan qualities did allow them to use it. It is clear that this were people who had never been Christians, but cosmopolitans.

They had acquired for themselves the real privilege of coining money ... Do not smile, otherwise I shall have to believe that you do not know what moneys are ... I ask you to put yourself in my place. My position in relation to you is that of the assistant of a doctor, who would have to explain bacteriology to a resurrected medical man of the epoch before Pasteur. But I can explain your lack of knowledge to myself and can forgive it. Our language makes use of words which provoke incorrect thoughts about things and actions, thanks to the power of the inertia of thoughts, and which do not correspond to real and exact conceptions. I say: money. It is clear that in your imagination there immediately appeared pictures of real money of metal and paper. But that is not so. Money is now not that; real circulating coin is a true anachronism. If it still exists and circulates, then it is only thanks to atavism, only because it is convenient to maintain the illusion, a purely imaginary fiction for the present day.


If you like, this is perhaps brilliant, but it is not a paradox. I know - and that is why you smiled - that States still coin money on pieces of metal or paper with Royal busts or national crests; well, so what? A great part of the money circulating, money for big affairs, as representative of all national wealth, money, yes money - it was being issued by those few people about whom I had hinted. Titles, figures, cheques, promissory notes, endorsements, discount, quotations, figures without end flooded States like a waterfall. What are in comparison with these the metallic and paper moneys? ... Something devoid of influence, some kind of minimum in the face of the growing flood of the all-flooding financial money. They, being the most subtle psychologists, were able to gain even more without trouble, thanks to a lack of understanding. In addition to the immensely varied different forms of financial moneys, they created credit-money with a view to making its volume close to infinite. And to give it the speed of sound ... it is an abstraction, a being of thought, a figure, number, credit, faith ...

Do you understand already? ... Fraud; false moneys, given a legal standing ..., using other terminology, so that you should understand me. Banks, the stock exchanges and the whole world financial system - is a gigantic machine for the purpose of bringing about unnatural scandals, according to Aristotle's expression; to force money to produce money - that is something that if it is a crime in economics, then in relations to finances it is a crime against the criminal code, since it is usury. I do not know by what arguments all this is justified: by the proposition that they receive legal interest ...

Even accepting that, and even that admission is more than is necessary, we see that usury still exists, since even if the interest received is legal, then it invents and falsifies the non-existent capital. Banks have always by way of deposits or moneys in productive movement a certain quantity of money which is five or perhaps even a hundred times greater than there are physically coined moneys of metal or paper. I shall say nothing of those cases when the credit-moneys, i.e. false, fabricated ones, are greater than the quantity of moneys paid out as capital. Bearing in mind that lawful interest is fixed not on real capital but on non-existing capital, the interest is illegal by so many times as the fictional capital is greater than the real one.

Bear in mind that this system, which I am describing in detail, is one of the most innocent among those used for the fabrication of false money. Imagine to yourself, if you can, a small number of people, having unlimited power through the possession of real wealth, and you will see that they are the absolute dictators of the stock-exchange; and as a result of this also the dictators of production and distribution and also of work and consumption. If you have enough imagination then multiply this, by the global factor and you will see its anarchical, moral and social influence, i.e. a revolutionary one ... Do you now understand?

(C. Rakovsky, Red Symphony)


Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 05, 2016, 10:29:02 PM
Yeeeaaahhh....

No.  The power to print money is essential to any sovereign nation.  Your country's economy would literally fall apart if it could not print currency.  Well, unless you had a strictly barter system.

Now, printing money inflates it.  The more dollars the US has in physical currency, the less it's worth.  It's all about supply and demand.

As for why bonds are so great, it's simple:
You get money from someone else.  Money that was already in your economy (or someone else's I suppose) goes to you.  You don't have to decrease the value of your own currency to get more money.  So a bond is great.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on September 09, 2016, 01:57:30 AM
i'm p stoked that someone else agrees russia is an ally.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on September 09, 2016, 02:18:20 AM
It's interesting how many opponents of fractional-reserve banking limit their arguments against it to simply describing how it works and stop there, as if they've just blown the lid off of some horrible truth that's so self-evidently and obviously evil that no further discussion is required.  Sure, money multipliers and digital money exist.  So what?  Why is that such a deep moral transgression?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on September 11, 2016, 07:59:17 PM
https://mobile.twitter.com/zgazda66/status/774993814025011200/video/1

https://twitter.com/johncardillo/status/775000466304315393

Hillary "overheated" today during the 9/11 memorial ceremony.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 11, 2016, 08:04:55 PM
70s?
No.  That's not hot.

She felt weak.  But I won't hold it against her.  FDR couldn't walk at all.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on September 11, 2016, 08:12:32 PM
70s?
No.  That's not hot.

She felt weak.  But I won't hold it against her.  FDR couldn't walk at all.

FDR's condition was physical only, his mental state was mostly unaffected until his death.

Hillary's condition stems from complications of her head injury in 2012. The FBI interviews that were released have her admitting that her injury has caused significant ongoing issues, including poor memory. She couldn't even tell them what the (C) stood for in document headers.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 11, 2016, 08:43:26 PM
70s?
No.  That's not hot.

She felt weak.  But I won't hold it against her.  FDR couldn't walk at all.

FDR's condition was physical only, his mental state was mostly unaffected until his death.

Hillary's condition stems from complications of her head injury in 2012. The FBI interviews that were released have her admitting that her injury has caused significant ongoing issues, including poor memory. She couldn't even tell them what the (C) stood for in document headers.
Didn't't know she was injured.

Well shit.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on September 11, 2016, 10:23:33 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/12/us/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign-pneumonia.html

She has pneumonia, which is hardly a terminal illness.  It doesn't matter, anyway.  Even if all the memes about how Hillary's health and sanity are hanging by a thread ended up being true, she'd be succeeded by a VP equally qualified at not being Trump.

She couldn't even tell them what the (C) stood for in document headers.

You believed her when she said she didn't know?  I think it's far more likely that she was lying about it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Snupes on September 12, 2016, 01:35:07 AM
I don't know, I think we should all just make assumptions about things instead
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 12, 2016, 05:02:09 AM
I don't know, I think we should all just make assumptions about things instead

It's the American Way.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on September 12, 2016, 09:58:58 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdbmG_H2Phg&feature=youtu.be&list=UU2MjbM9bFzwIc0jLPvgxpuA
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 12, 2016, 11:17:22 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdbmG_H2Phg
And?
Most of the Republicans trashed Trump and now they support him.

It's politics.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on September 12, 2016, 11:19:34 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/12/us/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign-pneumonia.html

She has pneumonia, which is hardly a terminal illness.  It doesn't matter, anyway.  Even if all the memes about how Hillary's health and sanity are hanging by a thread ended up being true, she'd be succeeded by a VP equally qualified at not being Trump.

She couldn't even tell them what the (C) stood for in document headers.

You believed her when she said she didn't know?  I think it's far more likely that she was lying about it.

This is an interesting post you've made here, Saddam. You've managed to make the argument that I should believe Hillary and her campaign about her health while simultaneously arguing that she lied to the FBI about classification headers (why would she do that, I might add?).

Hillary's condition magically changes based on media coverage of her episodes. She's had erratic coughing fits for over a month but she's only had pneumonia since Friday, isn't that interesting? Furthermore, how does a presidential candidate catch pneumonia in the August/September time frame? Even worse, why would a presidential candidate with a contagious disease hug a little girl the same day that disease caused her to collapse to the ground?

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 12, 2016, 11:24:47 AM
I don't know if I'm going to buy the whole Pneumonia part.  What I would buy is simple exhaustion from the campaign trail.  She's not a young woman and the weakness of the knees (when she stumbled getting into the car) shows more fatigue than anything else.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on September 12, 2016, 01:19:05 PM
yeah i mean what are the odds of a 68 year old woman developing pneumonia

i think ill just believe whatever alex jones says it is that's probably smart
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 12, 2016, 01:30:26 PM
yeah i mean what are the odds of a 68 year old woman developing pneumonia

i think ill just believe whatever alex jones says it is that's probably smart
Oh it's not the lack of rarity, more like the symptoms she isn't displaying or wasn't displaying.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on September 12, 2016, 01:59:53 PM
yeah i mean what are the odds of a 68 year old woman developing pneumonia

i think ill just believe whatever alex jones says it is that's probably smart
Oh it's not the lack of rarity, more like the symptoms she isn't displaying or wasn't displaying.

whoops, didn't mean to make it seem like i was singling out your post about exhaustion.  meant to just be a general snide remark.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on September 12, 2016, 03:03:03 PM
yeah i mean what are the odds of a 68 year old woman developing pneumonia

i think ill just believe whatever alex jones says it is that's probably smart

I'm simply pointing out that whatever is wrong with her has been ailing her for months at the least and she admitted her head injury complications to the FBI. The only way out of such an obvious logic trap is to take the Saddam route and say Hillary lied to the FBI and that she's now telling the truth. How wonderful.

I don't listen to Alex Jones, and making the response "hurr durr vast right wing conspiracy!!" any time someone points out her ongoing health issues is childish at best and delusional at worst.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on September 12, 2016, 03:23:23 PM
This is an interesting post you've made here, Saddam. You've managed to make the argument that I should believe Hillary and her campaign about her health while simultaneously arguing that she lied to the FBI about classification headers (why would she do that, I might add?).

Because she fucked up in a major way with the emails and was trying to mitigate her culpability by playing dumb.

Quote
Hillary's condition magically changes based on media coverage of her episodes. She's had erratic coughing fits for over a month but she's only had pneumonia since Friday, isn't that interesting? Furthermore, how does a presidential candidate catch pneumonia in the August/September time frame? Even worse, why would a presidential candidate with a contagious disease hug a little girl the same day that disease caused her to collapse to the ground?

Listen to yourself.  What do you actually know about pneumonia?  You're not a doctor, and even if you were, you've never examined Hillary.  You literally have no idea what you're talking about.  These are just memes coming straight from Internet cranks who have no idea what they're talking about either, and the fact that you really want it all to be true is blinding you to the fact that it's all smoke and no fire.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on September 12, 2016, 03:25:25 PM
How is it possible to have this much cognitive dissonance within the same post
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on September 12, 2016, 03:26:32 PM
yeah i mean what are the odds of a 68 year old woman developing pneumonia

i think ill just believe whatever alex jones says it is that's probably smart

I'm simply pointing out that whatever is wrong with her has been ailing her for months at the least and she admitted her head injury complications to the FBI. The only way out of such an obvious logic trap is to take the Saddam route and say Hillary lied to the FBI and that she's now telling the truth. How wonderful.

I don't listen to Alex Jones, and making the response "hurr durr vast right wing conspiracy!!" any time someone points out her ongoing health issues is childish at best and delusional at worst.

i don't believe i've ever mentioned anything about a right wing conspiracy, vast or otherwise.  i think this is also the first time i've said anything about her health.  lol forgive me for throwing shade on your diagnosis dr. rushy md.

ninja edit: i'm not into the 'good guys vs bad guys of politics' nonsense, so it's actually not any sweat off my back to distrust both hillary clinton and the speculative diagnoses from a bunch of folks who aren't doctors and haven't met the patient.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on September 12, 2016, 03:34:04 PM
In the meantime, I'm going to trust the word (https://m.hrc.onl/secretary/10-documents/01-health-financial-records/2015-07-28_Statement_of_Health_-_LBardack.pdf) of Hillary's actual doctor, which, might I add, looks a lot more credible than the gushingly-sycophantic report (https://www.donaldjtrump.com/images/uploads/trump_health_record.pdf) of Trump's doctor.  I'm almost surprised there's nothing in there talking about how Trump has yuge hands and a yuge dick.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on September 12, 2016, 03:41:01 PM
This is an interesting post you've made here, Saddam. You've managed to make the argument that I should believe Hillary and her campaign about her health while simultaneously arguing that she lied to the FBI about classification headers (why would she do that, I might add?).

Because she fucked up in a major way with the emails and was trying to mitigate her culpability by playing dumb.

Quote
Hillary's condition magically changes based on media coverage of her episodes. She's had erratic coughing fits for over a month but she's only had pneumonia since Friday, isn't that interesting? Furthermore, how does a presidential candidate catch pneumonia in the August/September time frame? Even worse, why would a presidential candidate with a contagious disease hug a little girl the same day that disease caused her to collapse to the ground?

Listen to yourself.  What do you actually know about pneumonia?  You're not a doctor, and even if you were, you've never examined Hillary.  You literally have no idea what you're talking about.  These are just memes coming straight from Internet cranks who have no idea what they're talking about either, and the fact that you really want it all to be true is blinding you to the fact that it's all smoke and no fire.

So Hillary readily lies to reduce or evade consequences of factual information but simultaneously it's unthinkable that her health is suffering from a lot more than just a case of pneumonia because she said so?

This is really, truly something Saddam. You're a parody at this point.


[10:45] <George> I don't think Trump's doctor lied about his health
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on September 12, 2016, 03:50:14 PM
She probably just has TB or cancer. No big deal.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on September 12, 2016, 04:32:49 PM
I really like the SJWs claiming that people's concerns over her health as it relates to her ability to lead is SEXISMTM.  Please let this election come early.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on September 13, 2016, 12:33:43 AM
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/12/trump-challenges-clinton-to-debate-without-a-moderator.html

Trump is asking Hillary for a debate without moderators, claiming that moderators create bias in the debate. The most interesting thing is that Hillary asked for the same thing in 2008. I wonder how she'll respond. http://archive.is/cuSqP

Quote
I'm offering Sen. Obama a chance to debate me one-on-one, no moderators. ... Just the two of us going for 90 minutes, asking and answering questions; we'll set whatever rules seem fair


Edit: Trump's electability is in inversely related to Mexico's currency valuation: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-12/want-to-know-how-trump-s-doing-just-look-at-the-mexican-peso
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on September 13, 2016, 03:59:47 AM
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/

ayy lmao
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 13, 2016, 06:36:54 AM
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/12/trump-challenges-clinton-to-debate-without-a-moderator.html (http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/12/trump-challenges-clinton-to-debate-without-a-moderator.html)

Trump is asking Hillary for a debate without moderators, claiming that moderators create bias in the debate. The most interesting thing is that Hillary asked for the same thing in 2008. I wonder how she'll respond. http://archive.is/cuSqP (http://archive.is/cuSqP)

Quote
I'm offering Sen. Obama a chance to debate me one-on-one, no moderators. ... Just the two of us going for 90 minutes, asking and answering questions; we'll set whatever rules seem fair


Edit: Trump's electability is in inversely related to Mexico's currency valuation: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-12/want-to-know-how-trump-s-doing-just-look-at-the-mexican-peso (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-09-12/want-to-know-how-trump-s-doing-just-look-at-the-mexican-peso)
With Obama it would have been at least somewhat ordered.
With Trump, I fully expect it to be a rehash of one of his rallies.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Snupes on September 13, 2016, 07:10:04 AM
An unmoderated debate between those two would be a disaster. A nonstop clusterfuck of bullshit, made-up nonsense, and retardation.

I'm all for it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on September 13, 2016, 04:03:35 PM
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/

ayy lmao

They're just jelly cuz they don't have any rare Pepes for themselves.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 13, 2016, 04:06:52 PM
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/

ayy lmao
HACKERS ON STEROIDS MK. 2
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on September 14, 2016, 12:53:49 AM
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/

ayy lmao
HACKERS ON STEROIDS MK. 2

It's not, the campaign confirmed the legitimacy of the article and that the connection between frog memes and neo-nazis simply must be broadcasted as wide as possible. CNN even held an entire segment on it. Just who is this 4chan and why does he matter? Stay tuned.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on September 14, 2016, 01:54:04 AM
https://www.hillaryclinton.com/feed/donald-trump-pepe-the-frog-and-white-supremacists-an-explainer/

ayy lmao
HACKERS ON STEROIDS MK. 2

It's not, the campaign confirmed the legitimacy of the article and that the connection between frog memes and neo-nazis simply must be broadcasted as wide as possible. CNN even held an entire segment on it. Just who is this 4chan and why does he matter? Stay tuned.

But it was written by Elizabeth (4 syllables) Chan. Literally 4chan omg they found the hacker.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on September 16, 2016, 12:04:48 PM
http://buchanan.org/blog/bibi-backs-trump-putin-125707
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on September 17, 2016, 01:28:25 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFS5CSP5fRM
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on September 17, 2016, 06:03:55 AM
(https://theuglytruth.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/trump-card.png?w=620)

If the Fed raises the rates at least by a quarter point (09/21), then it will greatly help the Trump campaign.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on September 17, 2016, 07:09:45 PM
my favorite trump move, officially, is the one where he says he never said shit that anyone can find video of him saying multiple times.  good1
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on September 18, 2016, 02:00:16 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/18/obama-says-its-personal-insult-if-black-voters-dont-back-clinton.html

Polls are showing Trump has about 20% support from blacks. The result? President Obama engages full blown race baiting.

"Trump's a racist!" Roughly 35% of Hispanics and 20% of blacks don't believe you anymore, idiots. The Hillary Heresy will be destroyed.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on September 18, 2016, 03:05:27 PM
"Trump's a racist!"

That's not what he said.  In fact, I'm pretty sure that every time you've uttered that phrase in this thread, you were responding to an argument that was in reality far more nuanced.  In this case, what Obama was criticizing was Trump's opposition to "our progress," apparently represented by tolerance, democracy, justice, good schools, and ending mass incarceration.  That's so vague it could have been said by any politician.  Disagree with it all you want, but it's far from whatever cynical alt-right buzzword you're describing it as.

But hey, speaking of racism, it's funny to see birtherism back in the news (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/15/the-trump-campaign-acknowledges-the-truth-of-obamas-birthplace-layering-it-with-a-number-of-falsehoods).  Trump's been claiming that Hillary was the one who started the birther nuts off, and that he was the one who put it to rest by getting Obama the state of Hawaii to release his long-form birth certificate back in 2011.  Both of those claims are blatantly false, and the latter is especially easy to debunk from looking at the many tweets he's posted since he supposedly resolved the issue continuing to express skepticism (the article posts a few of them, here's another (https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/232572505238433794)).  Trump doesn't consider the matter closed at all.  He'd bring it back up again in an instant if he felt it was to his advantage, and his supporters would simply ignore his inconsistency, just like they're currently ignoring his inconsistency on whether he's positive or neutral (not even negative, just neutral!) about Putin.  No, Trump isn't a racist.  He just likes to use racists as his base.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 18, 2016, 03:09:08 PM
Hillary was the one who started the birther nuts off
Indirectly, she was. Tacit approval of shitty things that one's supporter's do is something Trump keeps getting shit for (and here, across the pond, the same applies to Jeremy Corbyn). It's only fair that Hillary receives the same treatment.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on September 18, 2016, 03:39:49 PM
More specifically, Sidney Blumenthal started the birther nonsense. Having your top aide try to make the argument about Obama's heritage and then claiming you didn't start it is pretty hilarious.

And actually, "Trump's a racist!" is pretty much exactly what Obama said. He told an entire race of people not to vote for Trump because... why else? Oh, he's a racist! Race baiting doesn't work anymore and the longer Democrats keep trying to use it the deeper the hole they'll dig.

Quote
The paradox of racism: Don't assume all black people act one way because of the color of their skin AND YET expect all black people to act one way because of the color of their skin.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on September 18, 2016, 07:25:55 PM
More specifically, Sidney Blumenthal started the birther nonsense. Having your top aide try to make the argument about Obama's heritage and then claiming you didn't start it is pretty hilarious.

And actually, "Trump's a racist!" is pretty much exactly what Obama said. He told an entire race of people not to vote for Trump because... why else? Oh, he's a racist! Race baiting doesn't work anymore and the longer Democrats keep trying to use it the deeper the hole they'll dig.

Quote
The paradox of racism: Don't assume all black people act one way because of the color of their skin AND YET expect all black people to act one way because of the color of their skin.

What is your source that a Clinton aid started the birther movement?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on September 18, 2016, 09:43:12 PM
More specifically, Sidney Blumenthal started the birther nonsense. Having your top aide try to make the argument about Obama's heritage and then claiming you didn't start it is pretty hilarious.

And actually, "Trump's a racist!" is pretty much exactly what Obama said. He told an entire race of people not to vote for Trump because... why else? Oh, he's a racist! Race baiting doesn't work anymore and the longer Democrats keep trying to use it the deeper the hole they'll dig.

Quote
The paradox of racism: Don't assume all black people act one way because of the color of their skin AND YET expect all black people to act one way because of the color of their skin.

What is your source that a Clinton aid started the birther movement?

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article102354777.html

Sidney Blumenthal is the one who supposedly spread it as far as he could. He has been a constant aid to Hillary (and still is) even after President Obama blacklisted him from the White House (oh, gee, I wonder what pissed him off?)

http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/30/four-sid-blumenthal-emails-in-latest-clinton-release-are-completely-classified/

The original email release (the legal one, from the investigation) had several back-and-forth emails between Hillary and Blumenthal having discussions relating to State department intelligence. Again, this is after Obama blacklisted Blumenthal. Hillary shouldn't be contacting him at all. He was a top aid to her then, and he still is, and it is highly likely he kept the birther issue going. Saying he started it entirely may be stretch, but he definitely had a hand in ensuring it caught fire.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on September 19, 2016, 05:01:04 AM
Hillary was the one who started the birther nuts off
Indirectly, she was. Tacit approval of shitty things that one's supporter's do is something Trump keeps getting shit for (and here, across the pond, the same applies to Jeremy Corbyn). It's only fair that Hillary receives the same treatment.

At worst, Hillary turned a blind eye to her supporters who promoted the birther theories, and she at least publicly disavowed the idea when she was asked about it.  Trump, however, has made a point of publicly remaining neutral and/or playing dumb whenever he's faced with his more unsavory supporters, and has even openly embraced some of them (especially on Twitter).  I could probably make the distinction better with an example of a fellow conservative with some very controversial supporters - Ron Paul.  Like Trump, Paul had some very crazy, racist, and vocal supporters, but he kept his distance from them, and so largely avoided been lumped in with them by the media.  The one issue that he did get into some trouble over was the dubious articles that appeared in his newsletters, because those were officially attached to him.

And actually, "Trump's a racist!" is pretty much exactly what Obama said. He told an entire race of people not to vote for Trump because... why else? Oh, he's a racist! Race baiting doesn't work anymore and the longer Democrats keep trying to use it the deeper the hole they'll dig.

"Why else?"  Are you seriously suggesting that the only reason Obama could give to convince black people not to vote for Trump is that he's racist?  Look, here's the full text of what Obama said:

Quote from: Obama
Our work's not done. But if we are going to advance the cause of justice, and equality, and prosperity, and freedom, then we also have to acknowledge that even if we eliminated every restriction on voters, we would still have one of the lowest voting rates among free peoples. That's not good, that is on us.

And I am reminded of all those folks who had to count bubbles in a bar of soap, beaten trying to register voters in Mississippi. Risked everything so that they could pull that lever. So, if I hear anybody saying their vote does not matter, that it doesn't matter who we elect, read up on your history. It matters. We've got to get people to vote.

In fact, if you want to give Michelle and me a good sendoff, and that was a beautiful video, but don't just watch us walk off into the sunset now, get people registered to vote. If you care about our legacy, realize everything we stand for is at stake, on the progress we have made is at stake in this election.

My name may not be on the ballot, but our progress is on the ballot. Tolerance is on the ballot. Democracy is on the ballot. Justice is on the ballot. Good schools are on the ballot. Ending mass incarceration, that's on the ballot right now.

And there is one candidate who will advance those things. And there is another candidate who's defining principal, the central theme of his candidacy is opposition to all that we have done.

There's no such thing as a vote that doesn't matter. It all matters. And after we have achieved historic turnout in 2008 and 2012, especially in the African-American community, I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy, if this community lets down it's guard and fails to activate itself in this election. You want to give me a good send off? Go vote! And iI'm going to be working as hard as I can these next seven weeks to make sure folks do.

Hope is on the ballot. And fear is on the ballot too. Hope is on the ballot and fear is on the ballot too.

There's nothing there calling Trump racist.  Maybe it's implied when he said that "tolerance" is at stake, but that's very slim grounds for you to base your generalization on.  It seems more like you saw that this was a negative statement about Trump that also talked about race, so you made your usual knee-jerk assumption that the author was just saying, "Trump is racist!"  Also, could you please define the term "race-baiting" for me?

Quote
Quote
The paradox of racism: Don't assume all black people act one way because of the color of their skin AND YET expect all black people to act one way because of the color of their skin.

I love how you put this in quote tags as if it's some kind of wise aphorism.  The only thing it's missing is the "I'm not a professional quote-maker..." disclaimer at the beginning.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 19, 2016, 06:49:12 AM
Hillary turned a blind eye to her supporters who promoted the birther theories
Yeah, that's what I meant by "tacit approval"

Also, could you please define the term "race-baiting" for me?
I'll have a stab at it. Race-baiting is using the subjects of race and racism to achieve goals that aren't really relevant. It could be selling a product, achieving a political goal, or pretty much anything else.

A good example is some of the recent BLM activities in the UK - a bunch of white environmentalists disrupting an airport because "the climate crisis is a racist crisis". They used race to try and legitimise their actions, even though they were not black, nor did they do anything that really helps black people.

Obama's "if you're black then vote in the way I told you to or else I'll be offended" can also be an example. Since none of Trump's policies are directly linked to race, choosing who you vote for should be a matter of political views, not race...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 19, 2016, 11:36:02 AM
While not specifically race... isn't Trump's policy of banning Muslims very similar?

Also, I read what Obama said and he didn't say offended nor about race.  What he said could apply to gays, transexuals, and white people who hate all the cop killings.

There may be a racial subtext there, but there's also a gay subtext so is it really race baiting?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on September 19, 2016, 12:00:44 PM
Obama was definitely pointing towards the emancipation and civil rights promotions of African Americans as a struggle that needs to be continued.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 19, 2016, 12:21:37 PM
Obama was definitely pointing towards the emancipation and civil rights promotions of African Americans as a struggle that needs to be continued.

True but we haven't had any similar civil rights movement with regards to transgender or gays.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 19, 2016, 12:46:21 PM
While not specifically race... isn't Trump's policy of banning Muslims very similar?
Arguably, but that's neither here nor there when you're making an appeal to African-Americans specifically.

Also, I read what Obama said and he didn't say offended nor about race.  What he said could apply to gays, transexuals, and white people who hate all the cop killings.
It was the Congressional Black Caucus dinner. He was certainly speaking to a well-defined demographic. And he did say he would take it as a personal insult if they didn't vote - I don't think it's a big stretch to paraphrase that as "he'd be offended".

There may be a racial subtext there, but there's also a gay subtext so is it really race baiting?
I really think it's more than subtext - if he gave the same speech elsewhere, fair enough, I can see how it could go either way.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 19, 2016, 01:48:47 PM
Ah, I didn't realize where he said it.

Ok, yeah, race card all the way.  Well... race history.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on September 20, 2016, 11:13:04 AM
There's nothing there calling Trump racist.  Maybe it's implied when he said that "tolerance" is at stake, but that's very slim grounds for you to base your generalization on.  It seems more like you saw that this was a negative statement about Trump that also talked about race, so you made your usual knee-jerk assumption that the author was just saying, "Trump is racist!"  Also, could you please define the term "race-baiting" for me?

Quote
Quote
The paradox of racism: Don't assume all black people act one way because of the color of their skin AND YET expect all black people to act one way because of the color of their skin.

I love how you put this in quote tags as if it's some kind of wise aphorism.  The only thing it's missing is the "I'm not a professional quote-maker..." disclaimer at the beginning.

Obama told an entire race of people to vote a certain way. How is that not race -baiting in the world you live in?

Also, I put a quote box around it because ...surprise!... I'm not the one that said it. That's what quotes are, Saddam. They're things you didn't say yourself.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on September 20, 2016, 01:14:52 PM
If Obama legitimately believes that Trump presents a real threat to the progress of African-American's then it is not race-baiting.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on September 20, 2016, 06:10:41 PM
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article102354777.html

Sidney Blumenthal is the one who supposedly spread it as far as he could. He has been a constant aid to Hillary (and still is) even after President Obama blacklisted him from the White House (oh, gee, I wonder what pissed him off?)

your source doesn't say that it was blumenthal who spread the birther movement.  the only attribution to blumenthal is in a single uncorroborated conversation:

Quote
Meanwhile, former McClatchy Washington Bureau Chief James Asher tweeted Friday that Blumenthal had “told me in person” that Obama was born in Kenya.

“During the 2008 Democratic primary, Sid Blumenthal visited the Washington Bureau of McClatchy Co.,” Asher said in an email Friday to McClatchy, noting that he was at the time the investigative editor and in charge of Africa coverage.

“During that meeting, Mr. Blumenthal and I met together in my office and he strongly urged me to investigate the exact place of President Obama’s birth, which he suggested was in Kenya. We assigned a reporter to go to Kenya, and that reporter determined that the allegation was false.

At the time of Mr. Blumenthal’s conversation with me, there had been a few news articles published in various outlets reporting on rumors about Obama’s birthplace. While Mr. Blumenthal offered no concrete proof of Obama’s Kenyan birth, I felt that, as journalists, we had a responsibility to determine whether or not those rumors were true. They were not.”

i personally have no trouble believing that this conversation took place, but it doesn't really matter.  the birther stuff was already around and already being spread, mostly by folks on the right.  hillary distanced herself from birthers right off the bat.

Quote
In fact, there were several people publicly pushing the theory, which was repeated extensively on conservative news outlets. There were the two Clinton supporters, but there is no evidence that Clinton herself or her campaign spread the story.

Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton’s campaign manager during part of the 2008 race, told CNN on Friday that an Iowa campaign worker had passed on an email about the birther conspiracy and that Clinton quickly fired him.

Solis Doyle said she’d called Obama campaign official David Plouffe at the time “to apologize and basically say that this was not coming from us. It was a rogue volunteer coordinator.”

your article also has a link to this page (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article24548944.html) that describes the spread of the movement in 2009.

Quote
SPREADING THE STORY

The Internet helped spread the story, through Web sites such as WorldNetDaily.com and dozens of other conservative sites, often repeating charges without evidence or attribution beyond other like-minded Web sites.

"This is abetted by changes in the structure of communications," said Michael Barkun, an expert in conspiracy theories and a political science professor at the Maxwell School at Syracuse University.

"What once would have been fringe ideas are spread very quickly and much more widely than would have been the case even 10 years ago. . . . Ideas that originate in quite small subcultures can very quickly get mainstreamed."

Once the story spread on the Internet, several of the birthers have found a stage on talk radio and cable TV. Lou Dobbs of CNN, for example, has said he thinks the allegation is false, yet he continues airing them.

i think it's absurdly revisionist to say that clinton "started" the birther movement and that trump "finished" it.  it seems the closest anyone can come to substantiating the former is a conversation with someone who isn't hillary clinton that may not have even happened.  the latter is contradicted by copious videos and tweets from donald trump himself over the last five years explicitly stating that he believes obama is from kenya, his birth certificate is fake, etc.

lol but because he says literally one time that he believes obama is am american citizen, suddenly he gets credit for "finishing" the movement?  what?  the movement he's been championing almost single-handedly for five years?  dude you don't have to like hillarly clinton, but do you really have such a boner for the god emperor that you can't admit that, yes, trump has been the primary flag bearer for the birther movement, and he's been doing it for way longer than anyone else? 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on September 20, 2016, 10:47:27 PM
i personally have no trouble believing that this conversation took place, but it doesn't really matter.  the birther stuff was already around and already being spread, mostly by folks on the right.  hillary distanced herself from birthers right off the bat.

Hillary never fully disavowed. She likely fanned the flames in an attempt to pull voters from Obama. Too bad her plan failed, a common occurence.

lol but because he says literally one time that he believes obama is am american citizen, suddenly he gets credit for "finishing" the movement?  what?  the movement he's been championing almost single-handedly for five years?  dude you don't have to like hillarly clinton, but do you really have such a boner for the god emperor that you can't admit that, yes, trump has been the primary flag bearer for the birther movement, and he's been doing it for way longer than anyone else?

Trump took a movement that Hillary started and used it to attack Obama, yes, essentially both are entirely at fault for the birther movement.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on September 20, 2016, 11:27:00 PM
essentially both are entirely at fault for the birther movement.

i can't tell if you're kidding or not.  one of them has never accused obama of being a foreigner and has explicitly decried the notion.  the other has been publicly advancing the same for at least 5 years.  those are equivalent to you?

Hillary never fully disavowed...She likely fanned the flames...her plan failed...a movement that Hillary started

source?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on September 21, 2016, 12:44:15 AM
i can't tell if you're kidding or not.  one of them has never accused obama of being a foreigner and has explicitly decried the notion.  the other has been publicly advancing the same for at least 5 years.  those are equivalent to you?

She only began decrying the notion after she thoroughly lost the primary.

source?

You want me to source Hillary not doing things? Have you really been James Comey this whole time?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on September 21, 2016, 02:18:18 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/17/politics/hillary-clinton-birther-conspiracy/

Hillary did disavow the birthers (although at that point in time, it was more about Obama being a Muslim than him being born in Kenya) in March 2008, long before the primary ended.  Granted, she did throw in a weaselly disclaimer of "as far as I know," which I won't defend.  So her hands aren't entirely clean - although I do find it amusingly ironic that if Trump had said something like "as far as I know" after a supposed disavowal of a bullshit attack on a rival, his fans would refuse to see anything wrong with it at all.  "What are you talking about, he's encouraging the rumor by saying it's as far as he knows?  That doesn't make any sense!  He literally just made a factually-correct statement that it was as far as he knows!  What, do you think he should have said it was as far as he didn't know?  Or that he should have pretended to be omniscient and claimed he knew beyond a shadow of a doubt?  This is hilarious, you're suggesting that he meant the exact opposite of what he said!  What a ridiculous liberal you are!"

Also, if we're defining "starting" the rumor as simply spreading it around, making it popular (as opposed to literally dreaming up the idea and being the first to voice it), then Trump deserves far more of the blame than Hillary and/or her supporters do.  Yes, it became fairly well-known during the 2008 election, but it was still clearly fringe; something people knew about but nobody beyond a few random nuts actually believed.  It wasn't until Trump ran with the idea that it rocketed into the mainstream.  All of a sudden, a well-known figure had thrown his weight behind the idea.  It was getting heavy media coverage.  Polls were conducted asking people whether or not they thought it was true.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on September 21, 2016, 03:07:30 AM
It's a shame he gave it up. Obama was born in Kenya and is definitely a Muslim.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 21, 2016, 06:51:28 AM
It's a shame he gave it up. Obama was born in Kenya and is definitely a Muslim.
The God Emporer Trump never surrenders.  Don't you hear him speak?

Clearly he was simply incorrect.
Which is also impossible.

But he's so amazing, he can hold two contradictory opinions at once and still be correct on both.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on September 21, 2016, 08:30:00 AM
he can hold two contradictory opinions at once and still be correct on both.
(http://i.imgur.com/XyTlGKK.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on September 21, 2016, 04:54:04 PM
You want me to source Hillary not doing things? Have you really been James Comey this whole time?

i meant evidence that clinton started, or really even had anything to do with, the birther movement.

it would look something like this: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/09/16/donald_trump_s_birther_tweets_in_order.html
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on September 21, 2016, 05:46:19 PM
You want me to source Hillary not doing things? Have you really been James Comey this whole time?

i meant evidence that clinton started, or really even had anything to do with, the birther movement.

it would look something like this: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/09/16/donald_trump_s_birther_tweets_in_order.html

I've already given that to you. Asking for it repeatedly isn't going to change much.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on September 22, 2016, 06:47:14 AM
It could be that Hillary is using multiple doubles/doppelgangers most of the time: it becomes difficult to discern which one of these doubles is actually the real Hillary.

However, this is not what should be worrying the GOP so much.

The mysterious deaths of the husband of a US prosecutor who was investigating B. Clinton, of a top United Nations official who was set to testify in a case involving Hillary, of an attorney who was investigating claims made by the Sanders camp, of a top American Democratic Party staffer who was preparing to testify against Hillary, means that the ruling cabal which does support Hillary is prepared to go any lengths and to the very end to reach their goals.

The fact that the Fed did not raise the rates, at least by a quarter percent, does not help Trump at all.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 24, 2016, 08:27:27 AM
http://www.npr.org/2016/09/23/495211893/after-bitter-primary-fight-ted-cruz-to-back-donald-trump

I am deeply disappointed.
Does anyone in politics have a backbone to stick by their convictions?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on September 24, 2016, 03:21:06 PM
http://www.npr.org/2016/09/23/495211893/after-bitter-primary-fight-ted-cruz-to-back-donald-trump

I am deeply disappointed.
Does anyone in politics have a backbone to stick by their convictions?

Are you saying you're surprised that politicians are politicking?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on September 24, 2016, 03:37:00 PM
http://www.npr.org/2016/09/23/495211893/after-bitter-primary-fight-ted-cruz-to-back-donald-trump (http://www.npr.org/2016/09/23/495211893/after-bitter-primary-fight-ted-cruz-to-back-donald-trump)

I am deeply disappointed.
Does anyone in politics have a backbone to stick by their convictions?

Are you saying you're surprised that politicians are politicking?
More like I'm surprised certain politicians are politicking in the form of unity and not stubbornness.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Snupes on September 27, 2016, 10:09:27 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_wd_ZITiiKs


Obviously he must be dying. R.I.P. Trump. :/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on September 30, 2016, 02:36:37 AM
https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/555enx/official_statement_call_to_action_following_the/

i didn't realize that the_donald was a performance art piece.  brilliant.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on September 30, 2016, 03:29:35 AM
They sound triggered.  What a bunch of oversensitive betacuck pussies, amirite?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on September 30, 2016, 06:04:42 AM
I appreciate the hand waiving away of an assault victim. He deserved it because of what he was wearing, amirite? Gee, that sounds familiar.

If we are trying to point out retarded election shit on Reddit, I'd suggest also checking /r/politics
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 30, 2016, 07:12:38 AM
I appreciate the hand waiving away of an assault victim.
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Leave it to liberals to dehumanise someone the moment said someone complains about being dehumanised.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: rooster on September 30, 2016, 12:45:33 PM
I appreciate the hand waiving away of an assault victim.
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. Leave it to liberals to dehumanise someone the moment said someone complains about being dehumanised.
Well it's not too difficult to comprehend that they're probably tired of being patronized about safe-spaces and trigger words to the point where they don't care if Republicans get their "karma."
They're humans, not saints.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on September 30, 2016, 12:48:35 PM
Well it's not too difficult to comprehend that they're probably tired of being patronized about safe-spaces and trigger words to the point where they don't care if Republicans get their "karma."
They're humans, not saints.
Sure, but because everyone else is also human, they're likely to have little respect for people who practise the opposite of what they preach.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on September 30, 2016, 01:03:36 PM
I'm sorry, I thought that Trump supporters were big strong manly men who don't need no safe spaces and never whine or bitch.  Complaining about something abstract like "dehumanizing language" sounds more like an emasculated liberal wimp.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: rooster on September 30, 2016, 01:15:50 PM
Sure, but because everyone else is also human, they're likely to have little respect for people who practise the opposite of what they preach.
Well, to be fair - I don't think the people in El Cajon are the ones wanting safe spaces. San Diego has historically been a Republican county. I'm honestly surprised this even happened, but I suppose emotions were high at the protests.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on September 30, 2016, 02:53:28 PM
I appreciate the hand waiving away of an assault victim. He deserved it because of what he was wearing, amirite? Gee, that sounds familiar.

If we are trying to point out retarded election shit on Reddit, I'd suggest also checking /r/politics

referring to the_donald as a performance art piece is hardly the same as saying that anyone deserves to be beaten for his or her political beliefs.  i obviously don't think that it's ever ok to hurt someone for his or her political beliefs (see: the extended discussion i had with rushy about why i don't think it's ever ok to hurt someone for his or her political beliefs).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 01, 2016, 01:30:37 AM
Might is Right, so this guy was obviously wrong.

The key is to hide your Trumpism until voting day and color that shit in or hit the button where no one can see. This guy didn't get the memo.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on October 01, 2016, 01:50:08 AM
Might is Right, so this guy was obviously wrong.

The key is to hide your Trumpism until voting day and color that shit in or hit the button where no one can see. This guy didn't get the memo.

Brexit 2.0 incoming...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 03, 2016, 12:15:25 AM
Quote
Bernie Sanders said Hillary Clinton's assessment that his supporters were the "children of the recession" who live in their "parents' basement" is "absolutely correct" in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on Sunday's broadcast of ABC's This Week.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/02/sanders_clinton_absolutely_correct_when_she_said_my_supporters_are_living_in_their_parents_basement.html

lol
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on October 05, 2016, 12:53:39 AM
I welcome our time-traveling overlord Mike Pence. (http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-vice-presidential-debate-live-90-minutes-ahead-of-the-debate-gop-s-1475625301-htmlstory.html)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 05, 2016, 05:47:07 AM
I welcome our time-traveling overlord Mike Pence. (http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-vice-presidential-debate-live-90-minutes-ahead-of-the-debate-gop-s-1475625301-htmlstory.html)

No, just the gop.  Clearly they have a time machine.  Probably to fix the future, make right what will go wrong.



But seriously, if anyone thinks half the shit they read isn't prestaged, they're as delusional as a child on christmas thinking Santa came.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on October 05, 2016, 11:47:16 AM
Watched the debate last night. Pence definitely seemed much more presidential than Tim Kaine, and I'd say he won the debate by remaining composed and collected. The problem is that Pence also seemed more presidential than his own running mate, and he seemed to be defending a version of Trump that only exists in Pence's head.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 05, 2016, 01:40:03 PM
It almost felt like Kaine was trying to act like Trump. Maybe trying to see if they can pull support from him? I don't get what Kaine was trying to accomplish, really.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Snupes on October 06, 2016, 04:36:35 AM
I welcome our time-traveling overlord Mike Pence. (http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-vice-presidential-debate-live-90-minutes-ahead-of-the-debate-gop-s-1475625301-htmlstory.html)

Fucking lol.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 06, 2016, 11:29:13 AM
This is an interesting bit about Trump and Nevada (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/10/05/trump-supporters-fix-economy/91642540/).

Specifically this part:

Quote
“I really feel that not just Democrats, but the senior Republicans are all corrupt and not looking after the people anymore. I think Trump is doing that,” Reeves said. “I truly believe that man will put aside his greed as everyone does not believe — he’ll put aside his greed and work for this country.”

It's the delusions of desperation.  The people see him as some kind of savior.  Sure, let's say he can get China to stop devaluing it's currency.  All that means is that costs of goods will rise.  If he puts in a tariff large enough to matter, it'll raise goods again.

Maybe in 10 years, manufacturing jobs will be back here but that just means the cost of "Made in USA" goods are going to be as high as the cost of "Made in China".   It's what people don't realize: you can't have low skill jobs AND cheap products.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Dionysios on October 07, 2016, 03:09:43 AM
I welcome our time-traveling overlord Mike Pence. (http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-vice-presidential-debate-live-90-minutes-ahead-of-the-debate-gop-s-1475625301-htmlstory.html)
But seriously, if anyone thinks half the shit they read isn't prestaged, they're as delusional as a child on christmas thinking Santa came.


I second that. And it's been that way for decades. There's more truth and understanding of the current in a methodical search through old books than through current media.

One in particular seems especially relevant:  Rajani Palme Dutt's 1934 book on fascism states that social democracy is the twin of fascism. Both systems work for the same capitalist master. Weimar Germany, pre-Mussolini Italy, pre-Franco Spain, the U.S. and most western democracies are social democracies, or social fascist countries.  They become openly fascist when the capitalist rulers feel their power threatened. Both American political parties are social democratic. America and the other social democracies are the moderate wing of fascism.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Dionysios on October 07, 2016, 03:16:49 AM
I think that is imperative to recognize - although degrees of difference do exist within that framework. The Democrats policies are generally slightly less stupid and socially corrosive than those of the Republicans. Newspapers like the Wall Street Journal are generally more inimical to the masses than the New Republic, but they agree on certain essential areas. Both Clinton and Trump appear to be against immigrants and support the fascist American military and border patrols, etc.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 07, 2016, 05:03:20 AM
I welcome our time-traveling overlord Mike Pence. (http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-vice-presidential-debate-live-90-minutes-ahead-of-the-debate-gop-s-1475625301-htmlstory.html)
But seriously, if anyone thinks half the shit they read isn't prestaged, they're as delusional as a child on christmas thinking Santa came.


I second that. And it's been that way for decades. There's more truth and understanding of the current in a methodical search through old books than through current media.

One in particular seems especially relevant:  Rajani Palme Dutt's 1934 book on fascism states that social democracy is the twin of fascism. Both systems work for the same capitalist master. Weimar Germany, pre-Mussolini Italy, pre-Franco Spain, the U.S. and most western democracies are social democracies, or social fascist countries.  They become openly fascist when the capitalist rulers feel their power threatened. Both American political parties are social democratic. America and the other social democracies are the moderate wing of fascism.

I disagree.  Old books show us nothing of greater value or truth.  Anyone can write a book and publish it, regardless of truth.  Worse yet, when all your facts flow from a limited source (books and news papers) its easier to control.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on October 07, 2016, 08:16:04 AM
http://presstv.ir/Detail/2016/10/07/487980/Clinton-US-president--war-Syria
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on October 07, 2016, 01:42:27 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/politics/mike-pence-donald-trump-muslim-ban.html

“Because that’s not Donald Trump’s position now.”

lol.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 07, 2016, 02:17:08 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/politics/mike-pence-donald-trump-muslim-ban.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/politics/mike-pence-donald-trump-muslim-ban.html)

“Because that’s not Donald Trump’s position now.”

lol.

That is fucking hilarious.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on October 07, 2016, 02:30:25 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/politics/mike-pence-donald-trump-muslim-ban.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/politics/mike-pence-donald-trump-muslim-ban.html)

“Because that’s not Donald Trump’s position now.”

lol.

That is fucking hilarious.

i'm increasingly convinced that the entire campaign is performance art.  and if it is, then it's utterly brilliant.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 07, 2016, 02:33:46 PM
All politicians are actors, Trump just keeps changing his role.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 07, 2016, 03:35:49 PM
http://news.groopspeak.com/breaking-megyn-kelly-is-supporting-hillary-clinton-for-president-civil-war-at-fox-news/

I like the video in this article.  Megyn Kelly says it like it is.  Sure she's Trump Bias but it's a thinly veiled bias.  Like she only does it to keep her job.  And of course the attack on mainstream media.  "fox exclusive" as that lawyer said.  Right...

Still, I can see why Megyn is so popular.  Granted, she talks over her guests but to be, it's clear she isn't going to play the "Conservatives are always good" game.  Hell, she complained that Trump doesn't go to interviews except with Sean Hannity, her co-host/coworker.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on October 07, 2016, 03:50:11 PM
All politicians are actors, Trump just keeps changing his role.

isn't trump supposed to be the paragon of honesty and telling it like it is and not being an actor/politician?  idgi.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 07, 2016, 08:22:06 PM
All politicians are actors, Trump just keeps changing his role.

isn't trump supposed to be the paragon of honesty and telling it like it is and not being an actor/politician?  idgi.

Trump is the God Emperor. He is the light, the glory, and his word is law.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on October 07, 2016, 08:29:01 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/politics/mike-pence-donald-trump-muslim-ban.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/politics/mike-pence-donald-trump-muslim-ban.html)

“Because that’s not Donald Trump’s position now.”

lol.

That is fucking hilarious.

When Hillary flip flops every election cycle everyone commends her for evolving, but if Trump changes on any issue he is chastised for being a hypocrite. Am I the only one who notices.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on October 08, 2016, 12:02:26 AM
When Hillary flip flops every election cycle everyone commends her for evolving, but if Trump changes on any issue he is chastised for being a hypocrite. Am I the only one who notices.

Trump "evolves" in as little as 12 hours. There's nothing wrong with changing your mind. There is something wrong if your campaign is apparently bipolar.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on October 08, 2016, 12:25:56 AM
is something wrong if your campaign is apparently bipolar.

wow, such ableist
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 08, 2016, 02:16:27 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37592684

"Hey guys, all these leaked documents exposing our extremely corrupt primary and election processes are really annoying, what do we do about it?"

uhh, blame Russia?

"That's a great idea! Thanks, Obama!"
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 08, 2016, 03:01:18 AM
That doesn't make any sense.  Accusing Russia of orchestrating the hacking only calls more attention to the revelations of those emails.  The best thing to do if they wanted to downplay the scandal would be to simply never bring it up and hope that people forget about it over time.  It's far more likely that Russia really is behind the hacking than that this is some weird, poorly thought-out political stunt.

In other news, what a class act:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Dionysios on October 08, 2016, 03:46:35 AM
http://presstv.ir/Detail/2016/10/07/487980/Clinton-US-president--war-Syria


Good article.
I have the book of articles by various authors that Stephen Lendman put together about American support of fascism in Ukraine.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Dionysios on October 08, 2016, 04:13:18 AM

i'm increasingly convinced that the entire campaign is performance art.  and if it is, then it's utterly brilliant.


On big things like determining who wields presidential power in the USA, the election process is a lie - a glove that hides an iron fist.

It seems to me that the major media's strategy is to portray Clinton as reasonable as opposed to Trump as a buffoon, but people who buy into either major candidate endorse the propaganda veneer of a progressively system Fascist system.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Snupes on October 08, 2016, 06:30:00 AM
In other news, what a class act:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html

What the fuck? Is he real?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on October 08, 2016, 08:29:02 AM
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/major-election-fraud-alert-is-this-how-they-are-going-to-steal-the-election-from-donald-trump
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 08, 2016, 08:53:01 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/politics/mike-pence-donald-trump-muslim-ban.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/us/politics/mike-pence-donald-trump-muslim-ban.html)

“Because that’s not Donald Trump’s position now.”

lol.

That is fucking hilarious.

When Hillary flip flops every election cycle everyone commends her for evolving, but if Trump changes on any issue he is chastised for being a hypocrite. Am I the only one who notices.

As Trekky pointed out, Trump changes his mind far too quickly.  Not only that but a ban on muslims was a major part of his campaign. It would be like if Hillary decided that, in order to help herself in the polls, she changed her position on gun control, saying that guns should now be more easily obtained by law abiding citizens with less restrictions.  It would be out of character and totally out of base for the people who voted for her in the primary.

That doesn't make any sense.  Accusing Russia of orchestrating the hacking only calls more attention to the revelations of those emails.  The best thing to do if they wanted to downplay the scandal would be to simply never bring it up and hope that people forget about it over time.  It's far more likely that Russia really is behind the hacking than that this is some weird, poorly thought-out political stunt.
Yeah but maybe it's a way to show that Trumps friend, Putin, is trying to help Trump win.  Or it has nothing to do with politics and wasn't thought of in any political way. 


Quote
In other news, what a class act:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html)
Trump read a pre-prepared script as a response.  And man was it in stark contrast.  He looked like a presidential candidate.
Which should make his supporters lose their cool.  I mean, this is Trump!  He doesn't apologize!  He tells it like it is.  He's the every man (with billions of dollars).  He is literally doing things he said he would never do in the primaries.  He's apologizing, being politically correct, and reading from a teleprompter. 

However, I will say that this isn't something that should have gone up.  We all say shit like this (or similar) and frankly, it's not something we should throw around and say "See?  See?  Trump's an asshole".  Well of course he is.  But you don't need to bring up private conversations to show it nor should it be relevant.  I'm sure Obama has said the word Fuck more than once.  Should we show that on national TV with the words "Do you want a president who swears?"  Granted, that's not AS bad but my point is, digging up ancient history of a private chat that reveals Trump is crude shouldn't be anywhere near the national news.  Maybe in the tabloids but not mainstream.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 08, 2016, 01:36:46 PM
That doesn't make any sense.  Accusing Russia of orchestrating the hacking only calls more attention to the revelations of those emails.  The best thing to do if they wanted to downplay the scandal would be to simply never bring it up and hope that people forget about it over time.  It's far more likely that Russia really is behind the hacking than that this is some weird, poorly thought-out political stunt.

In other news, what a class act:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/08/us/politics/donald-trump-women.html

They really want to go to war with Russia and have spent the last few years fear mongering and provoking them in Syria.

Plus, the article doesn't mention the email scandal. It just says the Obama administration claims Russia is hacking election systems.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 08, 2016, 03:22:35 PM
Yeah but maybe it's a way to show that Trumps friend, Putin, is trying to help Trump win.

Nobody seriously thinks that Trump and Putin are friends.  If the accusation that Russia has been interfering in the election pans out, it would lend credence to the idea that Putin, far from respecting Trump as an equal or peer, has been manipulating him the whole time with his flattery.  Trump's childish psychology and predictable behavior would be a disaster for foreign policy if he were elected.

Plus, the article doesn't mention the email scandal. It just says the Obama administration claims Russia is hacking election systems.

Sure it does:

Quote
The leaked emails appeared to show that Democratic Party officials were biased against Bernie Sanders in his primary race against Mrs Clinton.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on October 08, 2016, 05:04:40 PM
i've said plenty of shit in my life that i wish i could unsay, but this notion that 'well you know whatever this is how all dudes talk to each other in private' is not accurate.  there's a world of difference between "omg that chick is hot af i wanna do dirty things with her" and "lol yeah bro i just force myself on women whenever i want it's p awesome just kiss her and grab that pussy."  if this was just a video of trump talking about how smoking hot his costar was, then no one would give a shit.

plus i just don't think that this is the same as a private conversation among friends.  he was on a bus on the set of a tv show, wearing a microphone, having a conversation with someone he barely knows, and among a bunch of other people he barely knows, like the bus driver.

holy shit this is brilliant: (http://komonews.com/news/local/he-was-channeling-bill-clinton-state-gop-chair-blames-democrats-for-trumps-comments)
Quote
"All of this behavior occurred when he [Trump] was a Democrat," said Hutchison. "I'm saying that the man was Democrat at the time and that Bill Clinton defined this behavior."
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 08, 2016, 07:37:06 PM
i've said plenty of shit in my life that i wish i could unsay, but this notion that 'well you know whatever this is how all dudes talk to each other in private' is not accurate.  there's a world of difference between "omg that chick is hot af i wanna do dirty things with her" and "lol yeah bro i just force myself on women whenever i want it's p awesome just kiss her and grab that pussy."  if this was just a video of trump talking about how smoking hot his costar was, then no one would give a shit.

plus i just don't think that this is the same as a private conversation among friends.  he was on a bus on the set of a tv show, wearing a microphone, having a conversation with someone he barely knows, and among a bunch of other people he barely knows, like the bus driver.

holy shit this is brilliant: (http://komonews.com/news/local/he-was-channeling-bill-clinton-state-gop-chair-blames-democrats-for-trumps-comments)
Quote
"All of this behavior occurred when he [Trump] was a Democrat," said Hutchison. "I'm saying that the man was Democrat at the time and that Bill Clinton defined this behavior."

Wow...
Just...
Is that really how she justifies it?  She's really grasping at straws...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on October 08, 2016, 08:19:35 PM
Wow...
Just...
Is that really how she justifies it?  She's really grasping at straws...

Obvious desperation move to try and salvage a crumbling (for now) campaign.

Plus, the article doesn't mention the email scandal. It just says the Obama administration claims Russia is hacking election systems.

Sure it does:

Quote
The leaked emails appeared to show that Democratic Party officials were biased against Bernie Sanders in his primary race against Mrs Clinton.

I think Rushy is referring to the private email server and the mishandling of classified documents vs the hacked DNC emails that revealed that the conspiracy against Bernie Sanders was actually true.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 08, 2016, 11:07:40 PM
There are so many email scandals now, I have to specify which one. This is just amazing.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on October 09, 2016, 12:39:24 AM
There are so many email scandals now, I have to specify which one. This is just amazing.

You've never even mentioned the Dubya private email server... Maybe start there?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 09, 2016, 05:23:33 AM
There are so many email scandals now, I have to specify which one. This is just amazing.
Aren't there really only 2?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 09, 2016, 01:21:32 PM
There are so many email scandals now, I have to specify which one. This is just amazing.

You've never even mentioned the Dubya private email server... Maybe start there?

I am fully aware that Hillary is just as incompetent as Bush.

There are so many email scandals now, I have to specify which one. This is just amazing.
Aren't there really only 2?

Don't forget the Clinton Foundation hacks which show banks donating parts of their TARP funds to the Clintons.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 10, 2016, 02:08:19 PM
So, a thought occurred to me.

Right now, the GOP is distancing themselves from Trump. 
If enough people vote 3rd party or write-ins, the Republican controlled house chooses the president.
Would the house choose Donald Trump?

I'm starting to think they wouldn't.  I get the feeling that dealing with Donald has been very hard for them and they wish they had removed him somehow.  So maybe, just maybe, they'd vote for someone else other than Donald.  Probably make it a close margin between him and Hillary.  "Oh no, all those Democrats voted Hillary and a few of our retiring senators with generous severance checks turned traitor.  Oh no..."
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on October 11, 2016, 01:40:47 AM
So, a thought occurred to me.

Right now, the GOP is distancing themselves from Trump. 
If enough people vote 3rd party or write-ins, the Republican controlled house chooses the president.
Would the house choose Donald Trump?

I'm starting to think they wouldn't.  I get the feeling that dealing with Donald has been very hard for them and they wish they had removed him somehow.  So maybe, just maybe, they'd vote for someone else other than Donald.  Probably make it a close margin between him and Hillary.  "Oh no, all those Democrats voted Hillary and a few of our retiring senators with generous severance checks turned traitor.  Oh no..."

A third party candidate would have to win at least 1 electoral vote with neither Trump or Hillary getting to 270. It won't happen.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 11, 2016, 12:29:56 PM
So, a thought occurred to me.

Right now, the GOP is distancing themselves from Trump. 
If enough people vote 3rd party or write-ins, the Republican controlled house chooses the president.
Would the house choose Donald Trump?

I'm starting to think they wouldn't.  I get the feeling that dealing with Donald has been very hard for them and they wish they had removed him somehow.  So maybe, just maybe, they'd vote for someone else other than Donald.  Probably make it a close margin between him and Hillary.  "Oh no, all those Democrats voted Hillary and a few of our retiring senators with generous severance checks turned traitor.  Oh no..."

A third party candidate would have to win at least 1 electoral vote with neither Trump or Hillary getting to 270. It won't happen.
It's possible, if Bernie Sanders signs up as a write-in.
Right now, that's where I'm leaning towards: A write in. Because fuck them all.



Also:
So, Paul Ryan has denounced Trump, more or less.  Not only that but it seems Trump is going to "remember" all those who withdrew support.  I think Rushy's right, Trump is what his supporters say Hillary is.  They're projecting.  Or perhaps Trump is.  Either way, welcome to America 2016.  I hope this finally kills the Republican party and they can reform as something more like what they used to be: Less extreme and fear mongering.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on October 11, 2016, 01:24:00 PM
It's possible, if Bernie Sanders signs up as a write-in.

What I'm saying is, though it's possible third-party could get significant portions of the popular vote, in order to be considered by Congress, a third-party candidate would have to either win a state, or win one of Nebraska or Maine's districts. That takes coordination and more than just a significant amount of people writing in or voting third-party.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 11, 2016, 01:52:29 PM
It's possible, if Bernie Sanders signs up as a write-in.

What I'm saying is, though it's possible third-party could get significant portions of the popular vote, in order to be considered by Congress, a third-party candidate would have to either win a state, or win one of Nebraska or Maine's districts. That takes coordination and more than just a significant amount of people writing in or voting third-party.

Fair enough.

Still gonna anyway.  Not like it matters.  At this point Hillary could win in a landslide victory. 

Hell, even the wiki leaks "surprise" was more of a bore than incriminating evidence.  Plenty of people thought it would doom Hillary.  HA!  All it did was prove she's a politician.
I think the Trump October surprise was far more damning.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on October 11, 2016, 01:57:38 PM
It's possible, if Bernie Sanders signs up as a write-in.

What I'm saying is, though it's possible third-party could get significant portions of the popular vote, in order to be considered by Congress, a third-party candidate would have to either win a state, or win one of Nebraska or Maine's districts. That takes coordination and more than just a significant amount of people writing in or voting third-party.

Fair enough.

Still gonna anyway.  Not like it matters.  At this point Hillary could win in a landslide victory. 

Hell, even the wiki leaks "surprise" was more of a bore than incriminating evidence.  Plenty of people thought it would doom Hillary.  HA!  All it did was prove she's a politician.
I think the Trump October surprise was far more damning.

Which wikileaks surprise?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 11, 2016, 02:03:49 PM
It's possible, if Bernie Sanders signs up as a write-in.

What I'm saying is, though it's possible third-party could get significant portions of the popular vote, in order to be considered by Congress, a third-party candidate would have to either win a state, or win one of Nebraska or Maine's districts. That takes coordination and more than just a significant amount of people writing in or voting third-party.

Fair enough.

Still gonna anyway.  Not like it matters.  At this point Hillary could win in a landslide victory. 

Hell, even the wiki leaks "surprise" was more of a bore than incriminating evidence.  Plenty of people thought it would doom Hillary.  HA!  All it did was prove she's a politician.
I think the Trump October surprise was far more damning.

Which wikileaks surprise?
http://www.politico.com/live-blog-updates/2016/10/john-podesta-hillary-clinton-emails-wikileaks-000011
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on October 11, 2016, 04:04:47 PM
(http://cdn.thedailybeast.com/content/dailybeast/articles/2016/10/10/2016-the-year-of-the-pussy/jcr:content/image.crop.800.500.jpg/49205409.cached.jpg)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wBm3ioC6Uqk
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 11, 2016, 05:36:31 PM
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/10/11/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-paul-ryan-republicans-shackles/91891944/

Because I saw it and thought it amusing.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 11, 2016, 07:20:05 PM
And one more!
http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2016/10/10/91882548/
So, Trump things the polls are crooked.  Ok, so I decided to see what the Fox News polls had cause, you know, Fox News is crooked for Trump.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential-election-headquarters?intcmp=subnav

And he's still losing.
Well... I guess the only polls that Trump is winning, is the one his company funds. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 11, 2016, 08:14:16 PM
http://secondnexus.com/politics-and-economics/wikileaks-falsified-documents-trump-russia/2/

And... no idea if this is false or not.  I'll have to poke around at the actual e-mail later.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on October 12, 2016, 03:16:50 AM
Maine Governor Paul LePage, everyone:

Quote
[W]e need a Donald Trump to show some authoritarian power in our country and bring back the rule of law because we've had eight years of a president, he's an autocrat, he just does it on his own, he ignores Congress and every single day, we're slipping into anarchy.

"We need an authoritarian because the previous president was too authoritarian."  :-\
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 12, 2016, 03:20:48 AM
Well, the polls may not be rigged, but the demographics of the polls is meant to reflect the 2008 and 2012 voter turnout numbers. e.g. they assume Hillary will receive the same turnout percentages that Obama received. Therefore, the only thing polls tell us is that if the same percentages of voter demographics come out and vote, Hillary will receive somewhere close to the poll percentages in each state. Although I do not consider myself having the ability to peer into the future, I have a hard time seeing an election cycle where Hillary receives the outstanding voter turnout that Obama did in 2008 and 2012. It's certainly possible, of course, and there's no sense in just blatantly guessing, which is why it'd be dumb to poll based on what you guesstimate the demographics. Trump is currently winning the early voting in Florida, if that's anything to consider.

Maine Governor Paul LePage, everyone:

Quote
[W]e need a Donald Trump to show some authoritarian power in our country and bring back the rule of law because we've had eight years of a president, he's an autocrat, he just does it on his own, he ignores Congress and every single day, we're slipping into anarchy.

"We need an authoritarian because the previous president was too authoritarian."  :-\

Tyranny is fine as long as the tyrant agrees with me, duh.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on October 12, 2016, 03:37:29 AM
Well, the polls may not be rigged, but the demographics of the polls is meant to reflect the 2008 and 2012 voter turnout numbers. e.g. they assume Hillary will receive the same turnout percentages that Obama received.

According to this article on 538 (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-arent-skewed-trump-really-is-losing-badly/), most polls do not weight results based on party-affiliation. They weight for demographics, and estimated turnout is going to be determined by the questions they ask to score your likelihood to vote ("likely voters").
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 12, 2016, 03:50:49 AM
Well, the polls may not be rigged, but the demographics of the polls is meant to reflect the 2008 and 2012 voter turnout numbers. e.g. they assume Hillary will receive the same turnout percentages that Obama received.

According to this article on 538 (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-arent-skewed-trump-really-is-losing-badly/), most polls do not weight results based on party-affiliation. They weight for demographics, and estimated turnout is going to be determined by the questions they ask to score your likelihood to vote ("likely voters").

Polls weight based on certain demographics, e.g. they'll reflect 2008/2012 numbers by estimating roughly 45% of voters will either lean or be registered as Democrats. (also, Nate Silver's idea that party affiliation is an attitude, not a demographic, is utter nonsense.) A key problem with Nate Silver is that he gained popularity by averaging out polls during 2008 (which a blind monkey could have cobbled together). He didn't recognize that Trump was going to win the primary even when the exceedingly accurate Primary Model predicted it to be so. Now he is constantly switching up his polls and ruining his reputation when the very same Primary Model predicts Trump will win in a landslide. At this point, Nate Silver is no different than any other pundit. His own inherent bias against Trump is causing him to ruin that mess he calls a political model. What's funny is that Nate Silver apologized for screwing up on Trump (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-i-acted-like-a-pundit-and-screwed-up-on-donald-trump/) and then turned right around and started doing the same thing in the general election. Also, Nate Silver is hardly one to be writing articles about reweighting polls when he does that very thing on a daily basis.


Trump got a record number of votes in a primary season that also had a record number of Republican voters (and this was against several other relatively popular opponents). I can almost guarantee we'll see a surge of people who don't normally vote coming out and voting for Trump. Is it enough to swing the polls into his favor? I suppose we'll find out.


Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on October 12, 2016, 08:10:59 AM
Maine Governor Paul LePage, everyone:

Quote
[W]e need a Donald Trump to show some authoritarian power in our country and bring back the rule of law because we've had eight years of a president, he's an autocrat, he just does it on his own, he ignores Congress and every single day, we're slipping into anarchy.

"We need an authoritarian because the previous president was too authoritarian."  :-\

"We need an authoritarian to bring about authority to the anarchy which we have as a result of an authoritarian."
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 12, 2016, 11:21:12 PM
Polls weight based on certain demographics, e.g. they'll reflect 2008/2012 numbers by estimating roughly 45% of voters will either lean or be registered as Democrats. (also, Nate Silver's idea that party affiliation is an attitude, not a demographic, is utter nonsense.)

Are you making an argument here, or just contradicting the article?  The author (who wasn't Silver, by the way, rendering the bulk of this paragraph irrelevant) explained his reasoning in detail, and made a very convincing case.  Handwaving it away by calling it "utter nonsense" isn't exactly a compelling counterargument.

Quote
Trump got a record number of votes in a primary season that also had a record number of Republican voters (and this was against several other relatively popular opponents). I can almost guarantee we'll see a surge of people who don't normally vote coming out and voting for Trump. Is it enough to swing the polls into his favor? I suppose we'll find out.

He also had (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/08/donald-trump-got-the-most-votes-in-gop-primary-history-a-historic-number-of-people-voted-against-him-too/) a record number of votes cast against him.  For all we know, there'll be a surge of people who don't normally vote coming out to vote against him.  Also, you're assuming that increased turnout for the primaries will be reflective of the turnout for the general election.  How do you know these extra voters for the primaries weren't people who already vote in the general elections?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on October 13, 2016, 12:17:31 AM
i don't think rushy read any more of that "apology" than the headline.  it actually says the opposite of what he's claiming it does.

speaking of absurd statistical weights: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/upshot/how-one-19-year-old-illinois-man-is-distorting-national-polling-averages.html?_r=1
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 13, 2016, 12:29:50 AM
Are you making an argument here, or just contradicting the article?  The author (who wasn't Silver, by the way, rendering the bulk of this paragraph irrelevant) explained his reasoning in detail, and made a very convincing case.  Handwaving it away by calling it "utter nonsense" isn't exactly a compelling counterargument.

Nate Bronze is under the impression that as an attitude, party identification changes a lot. The problem is that is, as I said, utter nonsense. While yes, quite a few people change their party line during election season, the vast majority of people do not. They vote exactly the same way each and every time. Hence, they are a demographic. What matters is whether they show up or not, not necessarily which way they vote.

He also had (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/08/donald-trump-got-the-most-votes-in-gop-primary-history-a-historic-number-of-people-voted-against-him-too/) a record number of votes cast against him.  For all we know, there'll be a surge of people who don't normally vote coming out to vote against him. 

And you think all of those GOP voters will vote for Clinton? Your best bet is that they don't show up at all.

you're assuming that increased turnout for the primaries will be reflective of the turnout for the general election.  How do you know these extra voters for the primaries weren't people who already vote in the general elections?

...primary turnout always predicts the winner. Hence why I mentioned the primary model, a model that predicts the winner based on primary turnouts and has been correct every year for the past century. Though, to be fair, the model was created in 1996 and "backtracks" in order to predict the winners since 1912.

i don't think rushy read any more of that "apology" than the headline.  it actually says the opposite of what he's claiming it does.

Oh, really? What part?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on October 13, 2016, 02:16:57 AM
i don't think rushy read any more of that "apology" than the headline.  it actually says the opposite of what he's claiming it does.

Oh, really? What part?

"He didn't recognize that Trump was going to win the primary even when the exceedingly accurate Primary Model predicted it to be so. Now he is constantly switching up his polls and ruining his reputation when the very same Primary Model predicts Trump will win in a landslide. At this point, Nate Silver is no different than any other pundit. His own inherent bias against Trump is causing him to ruin that mess he calls a political model."

538 didn't post a primary model until january, and when they did it showed favorable numbers for trump. 

Quote
But why didn’t we build a model for the nomination process? My thinking was this: Statistical models work well when you have a lot of data, and when the system you’re studying has a relatively low level of structural complexity. The presidential nomination process fails on both counts. On the data side, the current nomination process dates back only to 1972, and the data availability is spotty, especially in the early years. Meanwhile, the nomination process is among the most complex systems that I’ve studied. Nomination races usually have multiple candidates; some simplifying assumptions you can make in head-to-head races don’t work very well in those cases. Also, the primaries are held sequentially, so what happens in one state can affect all the later ones.

their general election model is different.  his apology wasn't for ignoring his model, it was for not having a model at all.

i also dunno where you got the idea that silver modifies his model every day.

Quote
To be more precise, it’s the output from a computer program that takes inputs (e.g., poll results), runs them through a bunch of computer code, and produces a series of statistics (such as each candidate’s probability of winning and her projected share of the vote), which are then published to our website. The process is, more or less, fully automated: Any time a staffer enters new poll results into our database, the program runs itself and publishes a new set of forecasts.4 There’s a lot of judgment involved when we build the model, but once the campaign begins, we’re just pressing the “go” button and not making judgment calls or tweaking the numbers in individual states.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 13, 2016, 04:14:24 AM
Nate Bronze is under the impression that as an attitude, party identification changes a lot. The problem is that is, as I said, utter nonsense. While yes, quite a few people change their party line during election season, the vast majority of people do not. They vote exactly the same way each and every time. Hence, they are a demographic. What matters is whether they show up or not, not necessarily which way they vote.

First you say it's not "a lot," then you say it's "quite a few."  Which is it?  And it doesn't need to be the "vast majority of people" to be statistically significant in terms of polling.  If we already knew how virtually everyone was going to vote based on how they voted in the last election, there would never be any doubt about who would win them to begin with.  In any case, all you're arguing here is that polls should weight their results by party identification, not that they already do.

Quote
And you think all of those GOP voters will vote for Clinton? Your best bet is that they don't show up at all.

They might vote for Clinton, or for a third-party candidate, or write someone else in.

Quote
...primary turnout always predicts the winner. Hence why I mentioned the primary model, a model that predicts the winner based on primary turnouts and has been correct every year for the past century. Though, to be fair, the model was created in 1996 and "backtracks" in order to predict the winners since 1912.

That's not true. (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2016/mar/06/david-brooks/david-brooks-said-primary-turnout-doesnt-predict-g/)  The primary model predicts the winner based on the performances of the specific candidates in the primary, not the overall turnout for the party.  I don't blame you for misunderstanding it, though, as the guy's website (http://primarymodel.com/) does an atrocious job of explaining what it is and how it works. 

Also, I was talking more about your assumption that the primary turnout would predict the general election turnout, not the winner.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 13, 2016, 07:57:50 AM
A well written cracked article o ln why Trump is popular.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-trumps-rise-that-no-one-talks-about_p2/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on October 13, 2016, 08:27:06 PM
The same mass media outlets which built Trump up to become the Republican nominee, now are turning on him with full power. During the primaries, the NYT played nice to Trump, now they are out to get him.

As I have stated from the very start, we are still waiting to find out the reason why the GOP has put up with Trump in the first place.

If the rules with respect to replacing the nominee so late in the game weren't so much against any other possible outcome, I'd have said that Trump is playing the clown to get someone else elected, a last minute replacement on the Republican ticket in November (Trump/Pence out, ?/Ryan in).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 14, 2016, 03:10:15 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/us/politics/trump-comments-linked-to-antisemitism.html

Trump has finally gone off the deep end.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 14, 2016, 04:57:57 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/us/politics/trump-comments-linked-to-antisemitism.html

Trump has finally gone off the deep end.

Eh, its a weak link.  I wouldn't give trump the credit to have intentionally made antisemite comments.

But hey, he supported her for years so obviously he's benefited.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 14, 2016, 12:12:30 PM
It's not the antisemitic thing; it's that he's hit the bottom of the barrel in his conspiracy rants.  The destruction of U.S. sovereignty?  Hillary plotting with global financial powers?  He might as well just start yelling about chemtrails and jet fuel not being able to melt steel beams while he's at it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on October 14, 2016, 12:20:56 PM
(https://i.imgflip.com/1bywjg.jpg)

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/09/there-s-still-time-to-replace-donald-trump-as-the-gop-nominee.html
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 14, 2016, 12:26:21 PM
He talks about how horrible Hillary is but if you're able to start from almost nothing and have the power to bend the will of the media AND bring down the entire US as a member of the Illuminati... you're pretty fucking good at what you do.

Trump, on the other hand, started with everything and doesn't haven't any of that power.  I think he's jealous.


Anyway, all these women suddenly accusing Trump of inappropriate behavior sounds alot like what Bill Clinton went through.  He denied it, his supporters asked "why so long", etc.. and Donald is doing the same thing saying it's false and why did they wait so long, etc...

I'm not sure if it's poetic justice, irony, or just well planned attacks by Clinton.



http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/09/there-s-still-time-to-replace-donald-trump-as-the-gop-nominee.html (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/09/there-s-still-time-to-replace-donald-trump-as-the-gop-nominee.html)

Pretty sure the tickets are locked now.  You can't replace him even if you wanted to.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: rooster on October 14, 2016, 01:57:06 PM
He talks about how horrible Hillary is but if you're able to start from almost nothing and have the power to bend the will of the media AND bring down the entire US as a member of the Illuminati... you're pretty fucking good at what you do.
She was born into a wealthy political family so I wouldn't say she started from nothing.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 14, 2016, 02:13:37 PM
He talks about how horrible Hillary is but if you're able to start from almost nothing and have the power to bend the will of the media AND bring down the entire US as a member of the Illuminati... you're pretty fucking good at what you do.
She was born into a wealthy political family so I wouldn't say she started from nothing.
She was?
Oh, then nevermind.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on October 14, 2016, 03:46:27 PM
It appears I owe Lord Dave an apology. A third-party candidate has stepped into the ring who may have a greater than 1% chance of winning the presidency. (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-evan-mcmullin-could-win-utah-and-the-presidency/)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 14, 2016, 05:06:39 PM
Well shit.

CIA operative...

I'm gonna have to look into him.  Might be my vote in November.


Also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/15/us/politics/trump-voters-reaction.html?partner=msft_msn&_r=0
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on October 14, 2016, 08:45:23 PM
It's not the antisemitic thing; it's that he's hit the bottom of the barrel in his conspiracy rants.  The destruction of U.S. sovereignty?  Hillary plotting with global financial powers?  He might as well just start yelling about chemtrails and jet fuel not being able to melt steel beams while he's at it.

Would he be wrong?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Fortuna on October 14, 2016, 09:41:38 PM
I think politicians plotting with global financial powers is par for the course.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Dionysios on October 14, 2016, 11:11:42 PM
I welcome our time-traveling overlord Mike Pence. (http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-vice-presidential-debate-live-90-minutes-ahead-of-the-debate-gop-s-1475625301-htmlstory.html)
But seriously, if anyone thinks half the shit they read isn't prestaged, they're as delusional as a child on christmas thinking Santa came.


I second that. And it's been that way for decades. There's more truth and understanding of the current in a methodical search through old books than through current media.

One in particular seems especially relevant:  Rajani Palme Dutt's 1934 book on fascism states that social democracy is the twin of fascism. Both systems work for the same capitalist master. Weimar Germany, pre-Mussolini Italy, pre-Franco Spain, the U.S. and most western democracies are social democracies, or social fascist countries.  They become openly fascist when the capitalist rulers feel their power threatened. Both American political parties are social democratic. America and the other social democracies are the moderate wing of fascism.

I disagree.  Old books show us nothing of greater value or truth.  Anyone can write a book and publish it, regardless of truth.  Worse yet, when all your facts flow from a limited source (books and news papers) its easier to control.


If you seek to broaden your horizons so as to be less easily manipulated, then may I suggest you check out 'Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes' by Jacques Ellul which might enhance your perspective. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda:_The_Formation_of_Men%27s_Attitudes
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: spoon on October 15, 2016, 12:38:15 AM
Donallary Trunton ~Versus~ Hillanald Clump

Who wins in an internationally televised rap battle?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Snupes on October 15, 2016, 03:33:23 AM
Well shit.

CIA operative...

I'm gonna have to look into him.  Might be my vote in November.


Also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/15/us/politics/trump-voters-reaction.html?partner=msft_msn&_r=0

You're voting?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on October 15, 2016, 10:34:44 AM
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-sdcZ2qacmJA/WAHAR7qwtnI/AAAAAAACZVs/XyIGmyRrnyA1ot1sGNS8YAZNALjWe_kigCLcB/s640/zmrs.php%2B%252843%2529.jpg)

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 15, 2016, 03:35:17 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-new-problems-women-make-accusations/

Trumpadumpdump
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 15, 2016, 03:56:15 PM
Well shit.

CIA operative...

I'm gonna have to look into him.  Might be my vote in November.


Also:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/15/us/politics/trump-voters-reaction.html?partner=msft_msn&_r=0

You're voting?

Yes...
Why would you think I wouldn't?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 15, 2016, 04:34:26 PM
Don't you live in Norway?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 15, 2016, 04:35:40 PM
Don't you live in Norway?
And?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 16, 2016, 01:34:11 PM
https://streamable.com/6g5v

Don't look at the email leaks! It's illegal! Don't worry, we'll tell you if we find anything important.  ;)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 16, 2016, 01:41:20 PM
https://streamable.com/6g5v (https://streamable.com/6g5v)

Don't look at the email leaks! It's illegal! Don't worry, we'll tell you if we find anything important.  ;)
He's right though.
Possession of stolen data is illegal if you know it's stolen.  Same with stolen items.  If I walk into a bank and (somehow) steal all their financial records, then give them to someone else saying "Dude, hold my stolen bank records" well... that's illegal.

Or "Dude, I just stole this car!  Can you keep it in your garage?  Thanks."
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 16, 2016, 02:23:38 PM
He's right though.
Possession of stolen data is illegal if you know it's stolen.  Same with stolen items.  If I walk into a bank and (somehow) steal all their financial records, then give them to someone else saying "Dude, hold my stolen bank records" well... that's illegal.

Or "Dude, I just stole this car!  Can you keep it in your garage?  Thanks."

Actually, it isn't. Unless you're a government employee or hold a security clearance, possession of wikileaks documents isn't illegal. Electronic records don't follow the same laws that real property does, hence your car/bank records analogy is pointless.

The act of stealing the records is illegal, the act of possessing them is not.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 16, 2016, 02:31:58 PM
Yeah, that was a really weird thing for a journalist to say.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 16, 2016, 03:18:13 PM
He's right though.
Possession of stolen data is illegal if you know it's stolen.  Same with stolen items.  If I walk into a bank and (somehow) steal all their financial records, then give them to someone else saying "Dude, hold my stolen bank records" well... that's illegal.

Or "Dude, I just stole this car!  Can you keep it in your garage?  Thanks."

Actually, it isn't. Unless you're a government employee or hold a security clearance, possession of wikileaks documents isn't illegal. Electronic records don't follow the same laws that real property does, hence your car/bank records analogy is pointless.

The act of stealing the records is illegal, the act of possessing them is not.
Wait... so I can have a copy of every single stolen piece of data and it's not illegal?  Like I can buy a stolen credit card number with social security # and it's totally legal?

Interesting...


Then it's clear that CNN is owned by Hillary and thus is telling everyone "don't read those e-mails".  Bet fox is saying "Read those e-mails".


Question though:  All this focus on Hillary is all fine and good but what about Trump?  I mean, why isn't Wikileaks trying to get Trump's Campaign e-mails?  That's only fair, right?  Why so much focus on Clinton?  We ALREADY know she's doing bad shit.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 16, 2016, 03:40:13 PM
Wait... so I can have a copy of every single stolen piece of data and it's not illegal?  Like I can buy a stolen credit card number with social security # and it's totally legal?

Interesting...

Possessing someone's credit card information isn't illegal. Using it or selling it is.

Then it's clear that CNN is owned by Hillary and thus is telling everyone "don't read those e-mails".  Bet fox is saying "Read those e-mails".

Question though:  All this focus on Hillary is all fine and good but what about Trump?  I mean, why isn't Wikileaks trying to get Trump's Campaign e-mails?  That's only fair, right?  Why so much focus on Clinton?  We ALREADY know she's doing bad shit.

Wikileaks simply releases whatever you email them. If you want Trump's emails, then I suggest you find some hackers that want them, too.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 16, 2016, 04:28:19 PM
Then it's clear that CNN is owned by Hillary and thus is telling everyone "don't read those e-mails".  Bet fox is saying "Read those e-mails".

Question though:  All this focus on Hillary is all fine and good but what about Trump?  I mean, why isn't Wikileaks trying to get Trump's Campaign e-mails?  That's only fair, right?  Why so much focus on Clinton?  We ALREADY know she's doing bad shit.

Wikileaks simply releases whatever you email them. If you want Trump's emails, then I suggest you find some hackers that want them, too.
I thought they had people who helped them and not just "random people who decided to send shit to them".
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on October 16, 2016, 04:36:54 PM
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Xqi8wG_m-QY/WAGsujSz20I/AAAAAAACZOM/yoJq5Ar8nVkrzyEDF7oBwWaoYwEdjeuEgCLcB/s640/trump1007%2B%252840%2529.jpg)

With the Mormons putting forth one of their own (McMullin), their plan is not to actually win the US presidential election, but rather to “distort/skew” the United States Electoral College in Clinton's favor.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 16, 2016, 04:46:56 PM
With the Mormons putting forth one of their own (McMullin), their plan is not to actually win the US presidential election, but rather to “distort/skew” the United States Electoral College in Clinton's favor.

Clinton already has a huge lead.
Also, why would they?  They're conservatives.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on October 16, 2016, 04:52:10 PM
Then it's clear that CNN is owned by Hillary and thus is telling everyone "don't read those e-mails".  Bet fox is saying "Read those e-mails".

Question though:  All this focus on Hillary is all fine and good but what about Trump?  I mean, why isn't Wikileaks trying to get Trump's Campaign e-mails?  That's only fair, right?  Why so much focus on Clinton?  We ALREADY know she's doing bad shit.

Wikileaks simply releases whatever you email them. If you want Trump's emails, then I suggest you find some hackers that want them, too.
I thought they had people who helped them and not just "random people who decided to send shit to them".

Anyone can upload to their servers, then on the wiki leaks side they have people who vet and verify what is uploaded.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Dionysios on October 16, 2016, 08:02:43 PM
With the Mormons putting forth one of their own (McMullin), their plan is not to actually win the US presidential election, but rather to “distort/skew” the United States Electoral College in Clinton's favor.

Clinton already has a huge lead.
Also, why would they?  They're conservatives.

You may be right about that, but Hilary Clinton is also a political conservative as much of the world is concerned. For example, she's more openly anti-Chinese than Reagan or Bush and perhaps than any major politician since the pre-Nixon era.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 16, 2016, 08:58:04 PM
Then it's clear that CNN is owned by Hillary and thus is telling everyone "don't read those e-mails".  Bet fox is saying "Read those e-mails".

Question though:  All this focus on Hillary is all fine and good but what about Trump?  I mean, why isn't Wikileaks trying to get Trump's Campaign e-mails?  That's only fair, right?  Why so much focus on Clinton?  We ALREADY know she's doing bad shit.

Wikileaks simply releases whatever you email them. If you want Trump's emails, then I suggest you find some hackers that want them, too.
I thought they had people who helped them and not just "random people who decided to send shit to them".

Anyone can upload to their servers, then on the wiki leaks side they have people who vet and verify what is uploaded.
Soo...
They choose what they leak and what they don't with no way to verify it's from the source indicated?

Honestly, they sound just like the media.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 16, 2016, 09:04:36 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/16/north-carolina-gop-headquarters-firebombed.html?cmpid=prn_msn

God damn Liberals!  First they're a bunch of pussies and "safe space" wimps, now they're fire bombing buildings.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 16, 2016, 09:14:44 PM
This is just another result of spreading the narrative that Trump is literally Hitler and that only Nazis could ever possibly care about who comes across our nation's border.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/obama-decries-wild-west-media-landscape-214642552.html

Good thing the Ministry of Truth is here to test what the media can and can't say.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 16, 2016, 09:35:50 PM
This is just another result of spreading the narrative that Trump is literally Hitler and that only Nazis could ever possibly care about who comes across our nation's border.

lol triggered

sounds like you need a safe space
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on October 16, 2016, 11:27:52 PM
Then it's clear that CNN is owned by Hillary and thus is telling everyone "don't read those e-mails".  Bet fox is saying "Read those e-mails".

Question though:  All this focus on Hillary is all fine and good but what about Trump?  I mean, why isn't Wikileaks trying to get Trump's Campaign e-mails?  That's only fair, right?  Why so much focus on Clinton?  We ALREADY know she's doing bad shit.

Wikileaks simply releases whatever you email them. If you want Trump's emails, then I suggest you find some hackers that want them, too.
I thought they had people who helped them and not just "random people who decided to send shit to them".

Anyone can upload to their servers, then on the wiki leaks side they have people who vet and verify what is uploaded.
Soo...
They choose what they leak and what they don't with no way to verify it's from the source indicated?

Honestly, they sojund just like the media.

The try to verify it is from the source just not through the submitter.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 16, 2016, 11:57:15 PM
This is just another result of spreading the narrative that Trump is literally Hitler and that only Nazis could ever possibly care about who comes across our nation's border.

lol triggered

sounds like you need a safe space

My safe space is 3.8 million square miles and its currently being invaded by uneducated mongrels. Out out out!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on October 17, 2016, 12:05:08 AM
Leading the horde of uneducated mongrels, a man who thinks SnL has singled him out for a "hit job" (https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-snl-alec-baldwin-2016-10?client=safari).

Or Trump, you delicious mongrel, you.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 17, 2016, 02:32:53 AM
Leading the horde of uneducated mongrels, a man who thinks SnL has singled him out for a "hit job" (https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-snl-alec-baldwin-2016-10?client=safari).

Or Trump, you delicious mongrel, you.

The God Emperor is displeased with this humorless attempt at wit. Burn the heretics, the Hillary Heresy will come to an end!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: rooster on October 17, 2016, 12:31:23 PM
My safe space is 3.8 million square miles and its currently being invaded by uneducated mongrels. Out out out!
That's funny coming from a country with such a shit education system where 32 million adults are illiterate.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 17, 2016, 02:18:40 PM
My safe space is 3.8 million square miles and its currently being invaded by uneducated mongrels. Out out out!
That's funny coming from a country with such a shit education system where 32 million adults are illiterate.

91% of which (http://www.statisticbrain.com/number-of-american-adults-who-cant-read) aren't white. I guess unrestrained immigration from third world nations has drawbacks for years to come.

In other news, the UK just froze Russia Today bank accounts. I guess this is what President Obama meant when he said we need to curate what the media can say.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 17, 2016, 02:33:02 PM
Leading the horde of uneducated mongrels, a man who thinks SnL has singled him out for a "hit job" (https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-snl-alec-baldwin-2016-10?client=safari).

Or Trump, you delicious mongrel, you.

Once again demonstrating how unfit he is for the presidency on a temperamental/psychological level.  Whenever he encounters hostility or opposition, he has to lash out.  He can't backtrack or apologize, he can't sit on a situation for a while to figure out the best way to handle it; he just has to keep charging bullishly ahead, as if his critics will be cowed by his ferocity and fall into line.  Or does he think that if he wins, the media will settle down and accept him at last?  Trump is in a hole, and he can't seem to stop digging.

Also, it was RT's bank NatWest that froze their accounts, not the British government.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: rooster on October 17, 2016, 02:47:55 PM
I guess unrestrained immigration from third world nations has drawbacks for years to come.
Yeah, because our school system sucks and apparently can't teach poor people how to read even if they were born in America.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 17, 2016, 05:59:34 PM
I guess unrestrained immigration from third world nations has drawbacks for years to come.
Yeah, because our school system sucks and apparently can't teach poor people how to read even if they were born in America.

It's a lot more than just a poverty problem. There are plenty of extremely poor areas in the US that have normal literacy rates.

In many inner cities there exists a culture of anti-intelligence. Where you're actively ostracized for trying to learn in an education environment. That will have to be tackled long before we begin delving into impoverishment.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 17, 2016, 06:45:10 PM
Leading the horde of uneducated mongrels, a man who thinks SnL has singled him out for a "hit job" (https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-snl-alec-baldwin-2016-10?client=safari).

Or Trump, you delicious mongrel, you.

I'm tempted to vote for Trump just so we can all watch him go into melt down every Saturday night then try to send the army to arrest everyone.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on October 17, 2016, 06:49:09 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY

I hope everyone is sitting down for this bombshell  ::)

edit* the video details the direct connection betweent he DNC and the violent protests that seem to follow Trump around
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 17, 2016, 08:56:27 PM
OK... Can someone explain why and how these high up, specially secret campaign guys would talk to a random person and reveal all their secrets?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 17, 2016, 11:05:21 PM
It's just the latest shenanigans from James O'Keefe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe).  His pattern is to approach employees of liberal organizations under false pretenses (sometimes multiple times), have long discussions with them, and then very carefully edit the hours of footage he's recorded into a misleading video that seemingly shows his targets saying ominous and incriminating things.  I don't know what the contexts of these conversations are, but given O'Keefe's record, it's a near-certainty that they've been twisted and manipulated into appearing much more sinister than they really are.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 18, 2016, 01:05:36 AM
OK... Can someone explain why and how these high up, specially secret campaign guys would talk to a random person and reveal all their secrets?

[07:50.01] <George> You want an explanation? Here's one
[07:50.30] <George> The two of them were planning a novel they were going to write together about a corrupt campaign
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 18, 2016, 01:36:48 AM
And now you're the one taking important context away!  This is the full discussion:

<Rushy> Ahahahaahah
<George> As I said on the forum, this is most likely bullshit
<George> Be careful what kind of credibility you want to assume a notorious hoaxster like O'Keefe has
<Rushy> so the heads of Hillary's SuperPACs actively said this stuff just as a joke?
<George> I don't know what the context was
<Rushy> ...
<George> But it's a good bet this wasn't any kind of candid admission at all
<George> O'Keefe is a liar, and when his targets don't say what he wants them to say, he distorts his videos to make it seem like they are
<Rushy> the videos make it clear they were giving advice to people on how to harass supporters and set up events to cause incidents
<George> No, the videos do not make anything clear
<Rushy> these are the same people who helped crush bernie
<George> You're seeing what O'Keefe wants you to see, nothing more, nothing less
<Rushy> what context makes this advice okay
<George> I don't know, nor should I have to know given his reputation
<Rushy> at any time, when is it okay to have a PAC advise its employees to harass people at events?
<Rushy> this is the worst case of cognitive dissonance I've ever seen
<George> If I see a magician perform a spectacular magic trick, I don't have to know exactly how it was done to reason that it was nothing more than illusion
<George> Again, this guy has a history of distorting videos so that they appear like this
<Rushy> you realize you can admit Hillary and her campaign are corrupt without liking trump, right?
<Rushy> there is solid proof she stole the election from the person you voted for
<Rushy> she smashed democracy
<Rushy> people like you are the reason people like her keep getting away with this shit
<Rushy> because you don't care
<George> Not accepting evidence from an extremely tainted source is hardly indicative of not caring
<Rushy> they're videos you dumbass
<Rushy> have you even watched them
<Rushy> or have you just determined its all part of a vast right wing conspiracy
<Rushy> how deep does it go?
<Rushy> is wikileaks all just fake now, too?
<George> Yes, I watched them
<George> This is what O'Keefe does, he makes videos
<Rushy> under what context is it okay to say what they said?
<Rushy> when is it okay to say things like this saddam
<George> I don't know any more than I know how a magician does a magic trick
<Rushy> ffs
<Rushy> so you can't explain the videos away
<Rushy> you've just convinced yourself they must somehow magically be fake
<Rushy> you're literally resorting to a magic analogy
<George> But don't worry, there will be an investigation, because Congress is gullible and they keep falling for O'Keefe's stunts
<Rushy> this makes no sense at all
<Rushy> I've never seen you so extremely defeated by a set of evidene but still persist in defending someone who has wronged you on every level imaginable
<George> And I'm almost certain that the end result will be that, once again, O'Keefe twisted and distorted the footage to push a narrative not supported by the actual events
<George> Okay, fine
<George> You want an explanation? Here's one
<George> The two of them were planning a novel they were going to write together about a corrupt campaign
<George> Or at least O'Keefe told him he wanted to plan a novel with him
<Rushy> my god saddam
<Rushy> This is too much
<Rushy> nice trolling
<George> Okay, I can do a better context
<George> The target realized what O'Keefe was doing, began winding him up by candidly admitting to this level of theatrics, only to end with whatever the middle-aged white guy equivalent of Bel-Airing a paragraph is
<George> As in, he told him he was full of shit and to get lost
<Rushy> so the target was smart enough to realize he was being filmed but dumb enough to say things that would be wrong to say in any context
<George> Maybe he didn't know he was being filmed
<George> Or even if he did, that O'Keefe would be so shameless as to cut off the end
<George> I'll admit, I could be wrong
<George> This could be the one time that O'Keefe really did stumble upon a genuine scandal
<George> But if it is, then it'll be his first
<George> It's basically the boy who cried wolf as far as I'm concerned
<Rushy> The problem you're facing here is attacking the source instead of the argument
<Rushy> the videos are there, that's plain to see
<George> Yes, because the source taints the argument
<Rushy> and without resorting to some very extreme and nonsensical contexts, the evidence is damning
<George> And all we have are a few out-of-context snippets
<Rushy> but many of the videos are 30-40 seconds long
<Rushy> and none of your context examples make any sense
<George> Okay
<George> But this guy has done this before
<Rushy> yet that doesn't explain away the videos
<George> He manipulates video footage to make innocent groups/people look bad for a living
<George> I'm not going to just trust that this latest one hasn't been similarly doctored
<Rushy> but this matches exactly what wikileaks says
<Rushy> this is simply video evidence supporting an argument that's already been around for a while
<George> Sure, sure
<George> This'll be the one time a notorious liar is telling the truth
<George> Never heard all this before
<Parsifal> How is Saddam this much of a retard no offence
<George> When the investigation inevitably clears the people involved, I'll gloat about this exchange
<Parsifal> hmm
<Parsifal> Except having a correct conclusion doesn't make your argument sensible
<Rushy> the only thing I'll say is that O'Keefe should release the full videos
<Rushy> but unfortunately that's thousands of gigabytes of data
<Parsifal> Rushy I think you mean terabytes
<Rushy> actually I just mean bytes
<Rushy> just a lot of them
<George> And even more unfortunately, it would reveal far too much context
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 18, 2016, 02:27:47 AM
Thanks to context, everyone can see that you were actually trying to be serious. In other news:

(https://i.redd.it/0snrw51x75sx.jpg)

Quick, fire him and pretend it was just all his idea! Scapegoats! Scapegoats everywhere!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 18, 2016, 05:25:19 AM
I agree that it is fishy.  Mosty because the video starts mid conversation.


But I would not be shocked either.  This election isn't about ethical vs not, its about a career politician (who has way more evidence coming out than nixon for some reason) against a man who is unfit to be president by temperment alone.


This is America and if you aren't playing dirty, you won't win.  Its also why I think Trump is running for Hillary, running to lose.  The motivation just doesn't make sense otherwise.


Of course, all these videos could be fake as fuck so who the fuck knows. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Fortuna on October 18, 2016, 07:24:07 AM
I think it's funny how even Hillary's Facebook page is getting blown the fuck up with anti-Hillary comments.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on October 18, 2016, 10:34:21 AM
What surprises me is how innocuous and predictable most of these Hillary leaks are. They're the evidence of a woman who's climbed the greasy pole and been near the top of politics for years. Surely the only people surprised or outraged by them are people who just don't know how politics works? She's not a perfect candidate for liberals by any stretch of the imagination - in the UK she'd be a left-ish Conservative or a middle-of-the-road Labour candidate, but compared to the opposition? She's so radically more suited to the role it's ridiculous.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: rooster on October 18, 2016, 12:27:01 PM
It's a lot more than just a poverty problem. There are plenty of extremely poor areas in the US that have normal literacy rates.

In many inner cities there exists a culture of anti-intelligence. Where you're actively ostracized for trying to learn in an education environment. That will have to be tackled long before we begin delving into impoverishment.
Anti-intellectualism in inner cities? Isn't that a rural problem?

What are your sources, sir? For poor places that have normal literacy and poor places that are anti-intellectualism.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 18, 2016, 12:55:35 PM
Anti-intellectualism in inner cities? Isn't that a rural problem?

What are your sources, sir? For poor places that have normal literacy and poor places that are anti-intellectualism.

It's a problem for rural areas, yes, but an even larger problem for cities, especially those with large minority populations. Notice the most rural states in the US have better literacy rates than the most urbanized.

(https://www.missourieconomy.org/images/newsletter/literacy_us_2003.jpg)

The anti-intellectualism is simply my experience in a city school. If there are papers on it, I haven't seen them.   

I've already shown that 91% of the illiterates are non-whites. There must be something other than "they're poor" driving that anomaly because poor rural states in the Midwest have relatively high literacy rates.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on October 18, 2016, 01:34:23 PM
even if i take everything in that video at face value (lol), then i still don't see what the big reveal is.  a political operative is talking about how they get people to go to rallies and call trump a nazi until some trump supporters get mad and throw punches.

i didn't need to see a video to surmise that that probably occurs on both sides of every political rally that has ever happened since like infinity thousand years ago.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: rooster on October 18, 2016, 01:38:02 PM
Anti-intellectualism in inner cities? Isn't that a rural problem?

What are your sources, sir? For poor places that have normal literacy and poor places that are anti-intellectualism.

It's a problem for rural areas, yes, but an even larger problem for cities, especially those with large minority populations. Notice the most rural states in the US have better literacy rates than the most urbanized.

(https://www.missourieconomy.org/images/newsletter/literacy_us_2003.jpg)

The anti-intellectualism is simply my experience in a city school. If there are papers on it, I haven't seen them.   

I've already shown that 91% of the illiterates are non-whites. There must be something other than "they're poor" driving that anomaly because poor rural states in the Midwest have relatively high literacy rates.
Right, I'm speaking of ghetto inner city areas that can sometimes even be food deserts. Places like the Bronx or something. So.. black people. They're usually not anti-intellectualism, they just don't have good encouraging family environments. Schools struggle to all be the same standard which is not what they need and inner city schools are usually way overcrowded and lack funding. Because America doesn't seem to care too much about education. So yeah, if you have a stable family and own books (which is a luxury to poor people), you'll probably be able to read.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on October 18, 2016, 02:59:13 PM
It's just the latest shenanigans from James O'Keefe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_O%27Keefe).  His pattern is to approach employees of liberal organizations under false pretenses (sometimes multiple times), have long discussions with them, and then very carefully edit the hours of footage he's recorded into a misleading video that seemingly shows his targets saying ominous and incriminating things.  I don't know what the contexts of these conversations are, but given O'Keefe's record, it's a near-certainty that they've been twisted and manipulated into appearing much more sinister than they really are.

Did you watch it? Did anything look carefully edited? I mean the dude literally spilled all the beans. That's why he's fired. Not for anything unethical he did. That is part of the job description.

They are literally paying people to make Trump supporters look like assholes. How much poking and prodding do you think it takes before anyone loses their shit. If you want to know go to a pro-choice rally talking about anything except how great abortions are and see what happens.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 18, 2016, 03:44:54 PM
Did you watch it? Did anything look carefully edited? I mean the dude literally spilled all the beans. That's why he's fired. Not for anything unethical he did. That is part of the job description.

They are literally paying people to make Trump supporters look like assholes. How much poking and prodding do you think it takes before anyone loses their shit. If you want to know go to a pro-choice rally talking about anything except how great abortions are and see what happens.

Sure, it looks bad now.  And the ACORN videos looked bad when they were first released - so much so that they too fired an employee apparently implicated in them, although an investigation eventually showed that he was completely innocent and he collected a settlement (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/andrew-breitbart-and-james-okeefe-ruined-him-and-now-he-gets-100-000/273841/) of $100,000 from O'Keefe after suing him.  O'Keefe's record speaks for itself.  He is not an honest journalist, and he does not present honest evidence.  Every single exposé from him has been either outright debunked or largely discredited after further investigation.  If this turns out to be the one time that he really has uncovered a genuine scandal, then so be it, but it's not unreasonable to be highly skeptical at this early stage.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on October 18, 2016, 03:58:35 PM
Did you watch it? Did anything look carefully edited? I mean the dude literally spilled all the beans. That's why he's fired. Not for anything unethical he did. That is part of the job description.

They are literally paying people to make Trump supporters look like assholes. How much poking and prodding do you think it takes before anyone loses their shit. If you want to know go to a pro-choice rally talking about anything except how great abortions are and see what happens.

Sure, it looks bad now.  And the ACORN videos looked bad when they were first released - so much so that they too fired an employee apparently implicated in them, although an investigation eventually showed that he was completely innocent and he collected a settlement (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/andrew-breitbart-and-james-okeefe-ruined-him-and-now-he-gets-100-000/273841/) of $100,000 from O'Keefe after suing him.  O'Keefe's record speaks for itself.  He is not an honest journalist, and he does not present honest evidence.  Every single exposé from him has been either outright debunked or largely discredited after further investigation.  If this turns out to be the one time that he really has uncovered a genuine scandal, then so be it, but it's not unreasonable to be highly skeptical at this early stage.

The guy literally said he gives homeless people meals, showers and hotel stays to do crazy, violent shit. He is ordered to do this by a super PAC that is in "constant rolling" contact with the DNC and Hillary's campaign.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 18, 2016, 04:23:47 PM
Oh, they also wrangled people in a mental institution and coached them on how to vote for Hillary.

Don't worry, though, everyone does that haha this is just politics folks, get used to it, haha
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 18, 2016, 04:26:02 PM
Did you watch it? Did anything look carefully edited? I mean the dude literally spilled all the beans. That's why he's fired. Not for anything unethical he did. That is part of the job description.

They are literally paying people to make Trump supporters look like assholes. How much poking and prodding do you think it takes before anyone loses their shit. If you want to know go to a pro-choice rally talking about anything except how great abortions are and see what happens.

Sure, it looks bad now.  And the ACORN videos looked bad when they were first released - so much so that they too fired an employee apparently implicated in them, although an investigation eventually showed that he was completely innocent and he collected a settlement (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/andrew-breitbart-and-james-okeefe-ruined-him-and-now-he-gets-100-000/273841/) of $100,000 from O'Keefe after suing him.  O'Keefe's record speaks for itself.  He is not an honest journalist, and he does not present honest evidence.  Every single exposé from him has been either outright debunked or largely discredited after further investigation.  If this turns out to be the one time that he really has uncovered a genuine scandal, then so be it, but it's not unreasonable to be highly skeptical at this early stage.

The guy literally said he gives homeless people meals, showers and hotel stays to do crazy, violent shit. He is ordered to do this by a super PAC that is in "constant rolling" contact with the DNC and Hillary's campaign.

Doesn't change anything I said.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 18, 2016, 04:26:50 PM
Did you watch it? Did anything look carefully edited? I mean the dude literally spilled all the beans. That's why he's fired. Not for anything unethical he did. That is part of the job description.

They are literally paying people to make Trump supporters look like assholes. How much poking and prodding do you think it takes before anyone loses their shit. If you want to know go to a pro-choice rally talking about anything except how great abortions are and see what happens.

Sure, it looks bad now.  And the ACORN videos looked bad when they were first released - so much so that they too fired an employee apparently implicated in them, although an investigation eventually showed that he was completely innocent and he collected a settlement (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/andrew-breitbart-and-james-okeefe-ruined-him-and-now-he-gets-100-000/273841/) of $100,000 from O'Keefe after suing him.  O'Keefe's record speaks for itself.  He is not an honest journalist, and he does not present honest evidence.  Every single exposé from him has been either outright debunked or largely discredited after further investigation.  If this turns out to be the one time that he really has uncovered a genuine scandal, then so be it, but it's not unreasonable to be highly skeptical at this early stage.

The guy literally said he gives homeless people meals, showers and hotel stays to do crazy, violent shit. He is ordered to do this by a super PAC that is in "constant rolling" contact with the DNC and Hillary's campaign.
So Clinton's campaign is helping to solve the homeless and jobless problem in America? 
And this is bad why?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 18, 2016, 05:37:39 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us/politics/obama-donald-trump-election.html

No, Obama, liberals are the ones who whine, not conservatives!  Trump is firm, resolute, and manly!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on October 18, 2016, 06:55:53 PM
why are these people so apparently eager to spill "secret" information?  one of the dudes even says something to the effect that "no one is supposed to know who i am."  so why is he divulging this information to a stranger?  what is the context of this interview?  who is asking the questions and under what circumstance?

how do i know that what foval says is accurate?  has it been corroborated?  he asserts that he's in regular connection with superpacs or the hillary campaign or whatever.  how do i know that's actually true?  what is the content of that communication? 

why is this footage edited at all?  why can't i watch the entire dialogue from beginning to end?

my political worldview has no trouble incorporating the notion that hillary clinton and her campaign game the fuck out of elections.  i still don't see why anyone should take this video at face value.  ffs, as far as i can tell, foval could just be trying to impress a girl at a bar.  he certainly seems stoked to tell the interviewer all about how important and devious he is (but srsly tho shhhhhhhhhh don't tell anyone ok?).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on October 19, 2016, 01:45:40 AM
why is this footage edited at all?  why can't i watch the entire dialogue from beginning to end?

Because James O'Keefe is a liar. I mean that's really all there is to it. On ACORN, fracking, NPR, and Planned Parenthood he has been dishonest and completely wrong.

This video is no different. It is edited so that either (a) we don't get to hear O'Keefe's questions, (b) are told what questions are in post-production edits, or (c) we only get part of an answer. Out of context like this, the only thing I would say the DNC is probably doing is astroturfing, which isn't illegal.

Take the "bussing people out to Iowa" quote. Knowing O'Keefe's reputation, this could just as easily be referring to volunteers or campaign workers as it is to voters. We can't know because O'Keefe won't give us the unedited clips.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 19, 2016, 07:41:18 AM
In other news:

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/18/498449943/trump-proposes-term-limits-for-congress
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 19, 2016, 11:17:18 AM
In other news:

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/18/498449943/trump-proposes-term-limits-for-congress

He also proposed a five year ban on  congressmen lobbying after their term as well as a five year ban on executive branch officials lobbying. To top it off he proposed a lifetime ban on any senior executive branch official from lobbying Congress or speaking on behalf of a foreign nation.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 19, 2016, 11:25:57 AM
In other news:

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/18/498449943/trump-proposes-term-limits-for-congress (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/18/498449943/trump-proposes-term-limits-for-congress)

He also proposed a five year ban on  congressmen lobbying after their term as well as a five year ban on executive branch officials lobbying. To top it off he proposed a lifetime ban on any senior executive branch official from lobbying Congress or speaking on behalf of a foreign nation.
Yeah... that's all in there.

Why didn't he start with this?  If he had this plus a more tame and less angry persona, he'd almost be likable.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 19, 2016, 03:02:16 PM
In other news:

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/18/498449943/trump-proposes-term-limits-for-congress (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/18/498449943/trump-proposes-term-limits-for-congress)

He also proposed a five year ban on  congressmen lobbying after their term as well as a five year ban on executive branch officials lobbying. To top it off he proposed a lifetime ban on any senior executive branch official from lobbying Congress or speaking on behalf of a foreign nation.
Yeah... that's all in there.

Why didn't he start with this?  If he had this plus a more tame and less angry persona, he'd almost be likable.

His temperament is what got him to where he is in the first place. If he didn't act like he does, we wouldn't be discussing his policies because it'd be Hillary versus #Cruzmissile
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 19, 2016, 03:53:43 PM
In other news:

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/18/498449943/trump-proposes-term-limits-for-congress (http://www.npr.org/2016/10/18/498449943/trump-proposes-term-limits-for-congress)

He also proposed a five year ban on  congressmen lobbying after their term as well as a five year ban on executive branch officials lobbying. To top it off he proposed a lifetime ban on any senior executive branch official from lobbying Congress or speaking on behalf of a foreign nation.
Yeah... that's all in there.

Why didn't he start with this?  If he had this plus a more tame and less angry persona, he'd almost be likable.

His temperament is what got him to where he is in the first place. If he didn't act like he does, we wouldn't be discussing his policies because it'd be Hillary versus #Cruzmissile
True.
The anger in America is strong.  And I guess it's easier to hope that the angry man fixes all your problems by yelling at them then to, you know, fix it yourself.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 20, 2016, 01:39:41 AM
Chris Wallace: do you want open borders?

Hillary: no I do not want open borders

Chris Wallace: I have this wikileaks that says you told a banker you want open borders

Hillary: RUSSIA PUTIN RUSSIA PUTIN

lol
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 20, 2016, 03:22:16 AM
Quote-mining is a dishonest tactic:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/12/donald-trump/trump-ive-been-proven-right-about-clinton-wanting-/

Quote
My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.

It's a vague piece of wishy-washy environmentalism, nothing more.  It's certainly not her laying out her immigration policies.  I wish she had made more of this fact, rather than so awkwardly changing the subject to Wikileaks.  Someone who didn't know about this quote and didn't look it up after the fact would assume that she had been caught in a lie and was frantically trying to cover it up.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on October 20, 2016, 03:33:36 AM
So I'm assuming the answer is that, no, Trump will not accept the results of the election if he loses.

Pence probably will though.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 20, 2016, 04:49:59 AM
I only read the highlights but I hear Trump wasn't nearly as angry or interrupting as the first two debates.  Did he bitch about the moderator being biased again?  Or was he nice cause it was a fox news guy?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Snupes on October 20, 2016, 06:20:25 AM
I only read the highlights but I hear Trump wasn't nearly as angry or interrupting as the first two debates.  Did he bitch about the moderator being biased again?  Or was he nice cause it was a fox news guy?

Wrong. Wrooong. You're wrong. Wrong. You're a nasty woman. Wrong. Pff. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 20, 2016, 10:53:50 AM
I only read the highlights but I hear Trump wasn't nearly as angry or interrupting as the first two debates.  Did he bitch about the moderator being biased again?  Or was he nice cause it was a fox news guy?

Wrong. Wrooong. You're wrong. Wrong. You're a nasty woman. Wrong. Pff. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Ah.  So classic trump.  Taking from the school of ad homin debating.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 20, 2016, 11:10:38 AM
Quote-mining is a dishonest tactic:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/12/donald-trump/trump-ive-been-proven-right-about-clinton-wanting-/

Quote
My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.

It's a vague piece of wishy-washy environmentalism, nothing more.  It's certainly not her laying out her immigration policies.  I wish she had made more of this fact, rather than so awkwardly changing the subject to Wikileaks.  Someone who didn't know about this quote and didn't look it up after the fact would assume that she had been caught in a lie and was frantically trying to cover it up.

Considering that it was a paid, secret speech made to a bank, yeah, she did try to cover this up. There's no soft interpretation of "my dream is an open market and open borders" The whole speech is available if you want to read it, this wasn't a case of quote mining.

I only read the highlights but I hear Trump wasn't nearly as angry or interrupting as the first two debates.  Did he bitch about the moderator being biased again?  Or was he nice cause it was a fox news guy?

Wrong. Wrooong. You're wrong. Wrong. You're a nasty woman. Wrong. Pff. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Ah.  So classic trump.  Taking from the school of ad homin debating.

Wrong!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on October 20, 2016, 11:14:36 AM
I'm pretty sure Trump doesn't know what a partial-birth abortion is. If you "pull out a baby" a couple of days before its due date, that's just called birth.

His answer on Aleppo sounded like an essay from a literature student who hadn't actually read the book.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 20, 2016, 12:04:21 PM
Considering that it was a paid, secret speech made to a bank, yeah, she did try to cover this up. There's no soft interpretation of "my dream is an open market and open borders" The whole speech is available if you want to read it, this wasn't a case of quote mining.

You're not even responding to what I said so much as you are ignoring it.  Yes, it's out of context, as made clear by the full sentence I posted.  This was not her secretly outlining her "real" immigration policies to her co-conspirators, it was her trying to be inspiring by painting a rosy picture of the future.  Under different circumstances, you'd be the first to attack it for its excessive idealism.  And no, the whole speech isn't available to be read.  That sentence is all that was leaked.

His answer on Aleppo sounded like an essay from a literature student who hadn't actually read the book.

https://twitter.com/hashtag/trumpbookreport
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 20, 2016, 12:30:59 PM
Ah.  So classic trump.  Taking from the school of ad homin debating.

Wrong!
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/1d/8a/cd/1d8acd8c6e8e337ce31bef84a8636491.jpg)


Also:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v303/Lord_dave/sp09232016_zpseltapn3r.png) (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/Lord_dave/media/sp09232016_zpseltapn3r.png.html)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on October 20, 2016, 01:35:01 PM
i was going to vote for hillary, but then trump pointed out that everything sucks and only he can save me from everything being terrible and of course i believe him for some reason.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 20, 2016, 04:16:08 PM
i was going to vote for hillary
wtf you sick fuck
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on October 20, 2016, 05:59:03 PM
i was going to vote for hillary shillery all-time mlb strikeout leader nolan ryan
wtf you sick fuck
fixed
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on October 20, 2016, 08:03:53 PM
I only read the highlights but I hear Trump wasn't nearly as angry or interrupting as the first two debates.  Did he bitch about the moderator being biased again?  Or was he nice cause it was a fox news guy?

Wrong. Wrooong. You're wrong. Wrong. You're a nasty woman. Wrong. Pff. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Ah.  So classic trump.  Taking from the school of ad homin debating.

No wasn't ad hominem at all, she was literally wrong, and or lying half the time when he interjected with that. He was refuting a claim she made, based on the claims validity, not attacking her character. That's pretty much all she could do the whole debate to take the pressure off having to actually respond to the wikileaks shit or Clinton Foundation pay to play allegations.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: rooster on October 20, 2016, 08:10:22 PM
No, you're the puppet!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 20, 2016, 08:18:16 PM
I only read the highlights but I hear Trump wasn't nearly as angry or interrupting as the first two debates.  Did he bitch about the moderator being biased again?  Or was he nice cause it was a fox news guy?

Wrong. Wrooong. You're wrong. Wrong. You're a nasty woman. Wrong. Pff. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Ah.  So classic trump.  Taking from the school of ad homin debating.

No wasn't ad hominem at all, she was literally wrong, and or lying half the time when he interjected with that. He was refuting a claim she made, based on the claims validity, not attacking her character. That's pretty much all she could do the whole debate to take the pressure off having to actually respond to the wikileaks shit or Clinton Foundation pay to play allegations.
And did he back it up?  What was the claim Hillary made?
Also, he called her a nasty woman.  How is that NOT an attack of her character?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on October 20, 2016, 08:36:27 PM
I only read the highlights but I hear Trump wasn't nearly as angry or interrupting as the first two debates.  Did he bitch about the moderator being biased again?  Or was he nice cause it was a fox news guy?

Wrong. Wrooong. You're wrong. Wrong. You're a nasty woman. Wrong. Pff. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Ah.  So classic trump.  Taking from the school of ad homin debating.

No wasn't ad hominem at all, she was literally wrong, and or lying half the time when he interjected with that. He was refuting a claim she made, based on the claims validity, not attacking her character. That's pretty much all she could do the whole debate to take the pressure off having to actually respond to the wikileaks shit or Clinton Foundation pay to play allegations.
And did he back it up?  What was the claim Hillary made?
Also, he called her a nasty woman.  How is that NOT an attack of her character?

You obviously didn't watch the debate whatsoever, so why are you trying to even discuss it?

She made a ton of claims, that turned out to be false. Don't use politifact though or you will see just how biased and absurd it is. Do your own research if you want to see instead of relying on second hand accounts on internet forums.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 20, 2016, 09:20:04 PM
I only read the highlights but I hear Trump wasn't nearly as angry or interrupting as the first two debates.  Did he bitch about the moderator being biased again?  Or was he nice cause it was a fox news guy?

Wrong. Wrooong. You're wrong. Wrong. You're a nasty woman. Wrong. Pff. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Ah.  So classic trump.  Taking from the school of ad homin debating.

No wasn't ad hominem at all, she was literally wrong, and or lying half the time when he interjected with that. He was refuting a claim she made, based on the claims validity, not attacking her character. That's pretty much all she could do the whole debate to take the pressure off having to actually respond to the wikileaks shit or Clinton Foundation pay to play allegations.
And did he back it up?  What was the claim Hillary made?
Also, he called her a nasty woman.  How is that NOT an attack of her character?

You obviously didn't watch the debate whatsoever, so why are you trying to even discuss it?

She made a ton of claims, that turned out to be false. Don't use politifact though or you will see just how biased and absurd it is. Do your own research if you want to see instead of relying on second hand accounts on internet forums.
I did not see it.  Not all of it.
Hence why I asked.

And, pray tell, where should I get my facts from?  Because let's face it: I can type in 'hillary clinton is a nazi' and I'll get a hit saying it's true.  You can't, seriously, ask me to do my own research then tell me what sources I can't use.  Not without giving me a valid, credible source of unbiased information.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on October 20, 2016, 11:36:57 PM
Apparently the Trump Foundation gave money to O'Keefe. (https://thinkprogress.org/trump-funded-james-okeefe-53015c2f44b6#.ddjf4sxhc)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 21, 2016, 03:08:53 AM
Not without giving me a valid, credible source of unbiased information.

You'll get nowhere asking someone to gift you a solid gold unicorn, Dave.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 21, 2016, 03:25:21 AM
I do think that Politifact has a slight issue with bias in that they tend to be a little harder on Republicans as far as their final verdict goes - they're more likely to give them a "False" where a Democrat in a very similar situation would only get a "Mostly False," for example.  But the good news is that they don't limit themselves to simply summarizing the issue with a few words; they go into detail and explain their reasoning, the research they did, what the record says, etc.  The same goes for most mainstreaming fact-checking websites.  If you have a problem with their determinations, then be specific and talk about where they went wrong.  You can't just dismiss everything they say by crying "bias!"

To answer Dave's question about Trump's objections, here (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/full-transcript-third-2016-presidential-debate-230063) is the transcript of the debate.  Trump interrupted Clinton to dispute what she was saying four times:

Quote
Clinton: I find it ironic that he is raising nuclear weapons. This is a person who has been very cavalier, even casual about the use of nuclear weapons.

Trump: Wrong.

Clinton: He has advocated more countries getting them. Japan, Korea, even Saudi Arabia. He’s said if we have them, why don't we use them which I think is terrifying. But here's the deal. The bottom line on nuclear weapons is that when the president gives the order, it must be followed. There is about four minutes between the order being given and the people responsible for launching nuclear weapons to do so. And that is why ten people who have had that awesome responsibility have come out and in an unprecedented way said they would not trust Donald Trump with the nuclear codes or to have his finger on the nuclear button.

Trump: I have 200 generals and admirals, 21 endorsing me. 21 congressional medal of honor recipients. As far as Japan and other countries, we are being ripped off by everybody in the world. We're defending other countries. We are spending a fortune doing it. They have the bargain of the century. All I said is we have to renegotiate these agreements. Because our country cannot afford to defend Saudi Arabia, Japan, Germany, South Korea, and many other places. We cannot continue to afford. She took that as saying nuclear weapons.

This isn't true.  He specifically talked about nuclear armament for Japan and South Korea here (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/us/politics/donald-trump-foreign-policy.html) and here (http://cnnpressroom.blogs.cnn.com/2016/03/29/full-rush-transcript-donald-trump-cnn-milwaukee-republican-presidential-town-hall/).

Quote
Clinton: At the last debate, we heard Donald talking about what he did to women, and after that a number of women have come forward saying that's exactly what he did to them. Now, what was his response? Well, he held a number of big rallies where he said that he could not possibly have done those things to those women because they were not attractive enough for –

Trump: I did not say that.

Clinton: -- them to be assaulted.

Trump: I did not say that.

Clinton: In fact, he went on to say --

Wallace: Her two minutes. Sire, her two minutes.

Trump: I did not say that.

Wallace: Her two minutes.

Clinton: He went on to say “look at her, I don’t think so.” About another woman, he said “that wouldn't be my first choice.” He attacked the woman reporter writing the story, called her disgusting, as he has called a number of women during this campaign. Donald thinks belittling women makes him bigger. He goes after their dignity, their self-worth, and I don't think there is a woman anywhere that doesn't know what that feels like.

We have footage of Trump saying these things:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks67ZNKBZU0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AodqmjhYEso

The second one, I'll grant, could be interpreted a bit more generously to mean simply looking at her allegations and dismissing them as implausible, although I'm not inclined to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, given his history.  But the first video leaves no doubt as to what he meant.

Quote
Clinton: Well, every time Donald is pushed on something, which is obviously uncomfortable like what these women are saying, he immediately goes to denying responsibility and it's not just about women. He never apologizes or says he's sorry for anything, so we know what he has said and what he's done to women. But he also went after a disabled reporter, mocked and mimicked him on national television.

Trump: Wrong.

Again, we have footage:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PX9reO3QnUA

Quote
Clinton: Well, you know, once again Donald is implying that he didn't support the invasion of Iraq. I said it was a mistake. I said that years ago. He has consistently denied what is --

Trump: Wrong.

Clinton: -- is a very clear fact that before the invasion

Trump: Wrong.

Clinton: -- he supported it. I just want everybody to go google it. “Google Donald Trump Iraq” and you'll see the dozens of sources which verify that he was for the invasion of Iraq.

Trump: Wrong.

The old "I never supported the Iraq War!" line.  It's strange how obstinate Trump is being on this.  It should only ever have been a very minor point, as he could have easily defended himself by pointing out that he was a civilian then, he only knew what the government was saying, and that Hillary, being a senator at the time, was in a far better position to investigate what was going on and see if the war really needed to happen, as well as had a greater responsibility to do so.  He seems to truly believe that he was against it the whole time.  However, the record shows (http://www.factcheck.org/2016/02/donald-trump-and-the-iraq-war/) that he expressed a number of different views at the time, far from being the ardent skeptic he's now claiming to have been.  Which, again, wouldn't have been a problem, but then he had to go and make it a problem by saying all these silly, easily-disproved things.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: rooster on October 21, 2016, 12:18:19 PM
Ah, I'm glad George came in with the videos. I would have referenced them but been to lazy to do it myself.

Anyway, almost any fact checking done (not by alt-right pepes) shows that Hillary was correct most of the time while Trump was lying most of the time. It's always been this way and it's not that hard to believe. He's never been in politics, he has no idea what he's saying.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 21, 2016, 06:01:32 PM
ok but real talk guys

(https://i.imgur.com/XspNwfJ.jpg)

amirite??? :D
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 21, 2016, 06:04:59 PM
It wouldn't matter. Hillary going to "prison" would actually be some sort of pseudo-house-arrest. It's not like they'd put her in a concrete cell like one of the common peasants.

There's only one way Hillary would actually face real consequences at this point and it has nothing to do with the legal system.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 21, 2016, 06:11:39 PM
There's only one way Hillary would actually face real consequences at this point and it has nothing to do with the legal system.

Yeah, the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 21, 2016, 07:23:48 PM
There's only one way Hillary would actually face real consequences at this point and it has nothing to do with the legal system.

Yeah, the Second Amendment people — maybe there is, I don’t know.

Actually, I was referring to divine retribution.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 21, 2016, 08:27:29 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p0uKiUSJKSg

I love how people's expressions and reactions change over time. It goes from "haha nice one buddy" to "i'll pretend-laugh out of politeness" to "pls trump stop trumping".
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 21, 2016, 10:44:17 PM
Holy shit nevermind Hillary started some serious shit:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSGj3PSZdr0

H I L L A R Y
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 21, 2016, 10:48:37 PM
Trump is a character troll that doesn't stop. The ride never ends, folks, let me tell you.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on October 22, 2016, 02:56:43 PM
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/if-donald-trump-wins-the-election-it-will-be-the-biggest-miracle-in-u-s-political-history

By comparison...

Anyone watching the American mainstream propaganda medias coverage of this election are assaulted on an hourly basis by these leftist tactics with polls showing it’s impossible for Donald Trump to win and calling him more names then the dictionary actually has definitions for—while at the same time they fail to even once tell anyone exactly what Hillary Clinton stands for, what, if any, her accomplishments are.

Standing against this massive leftist propaganda media tide attacking Donald Trump, however, are the plain and simple facts showing that Hillary’s Democratic Party has failed to generate any enthusiasm for electing her, the young voters (called Millennials) she absolutely must have for her to win are not even caring about this election, while at the same time, Donald Trump’s Republican Party has registered more voters than Hillary to elect him.

And sending Hillary and her leftist propaganda media supporters into full panic mode this past week is the record shattering voting turnout for Donald Trump throughout America—including in North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio, Tennessee, Georgia, Nebraska, and Michigan, to just name a few.

As to how Donald Trump is winning against what can only be described as the largest leftist propaganda attack against any candidate in the history of the Western world, one must first remember the previous American presidents who won their elections when a paradigm shift communication technology occurred—and that began in the 1930’s when Franklin Roosevelt became the first “radio” president, the 1960’s when John Kennedy became the first “television” president, 2008 when Barack Obama became the first “Internet” president—and today, 2016, Donald Trump becoming the first “social media” president.

“Social media” are computer-mediated technologies that allow individuals, companies, NGOs, governments, and other organizations to view, create and share information, ideas, career interests, and other forms of expression via virtual communities and networks—and that Donald Trump has become the first US presidential candidate to master in his attempt to break the information stranglehold of the American leftist propaganda mainstream media.

To the staggering advantage Donald Trump has over Hillary Clinton in the “social media” world is evidenced by his having double the amount of Facebook users (Trump nearly 12 million to Hillary’s 5 million), a 30% advantage in Twitter users (Trump over 10 million to Hillary’s 8 million), Facebook Livestream posts with Trump having 135,000 likes, 18,167 shares, 1.5 million views compared to Hillary having 11,000 likes, 0 shares, 321,000 views, YouTube Livestream showing Trump averaging 30,000 live viewers per stream while Hillary is averaging 500 live viewers per stream, Instagram where Trump has 2.2 million followers and Hillary 1.8 million, and Reddit where Trump has 197,696 subscribers and Hillary only has 24,429—but Hillary For Prison has 55,228 subscribers.

Standing opposed to Donald Trump’s staggering “social media” advantage is Hillary Clinton’s leftist propaganda leftist mainstream media supporters—such as the New York Times with 1 million readers, and CNN-MSNBC cable news with 1.7 million combined hourly viewers.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 22, 2016, 04:02:16 PM
If online enthusiasm was a more accurate gauge of support than polls, Ron Paul would have been elected president a long time ago.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 22, 2016, 06:06:53 PM
If online enthusiasm was a more accurate gauge of support than polls, Ron Paul would have been elected president a long time ago.

Luckily for us, the RAND tracking polls all have Trump in the lead.

IBD/TIPP and LATIMES/USC both use the RAND method.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 22, 2016, 06:47:00 PM
If online enthusiasm was a more accurate gauge of support than polls, Ron Paul would have been elected president a long time ago.
One day... one day we shall overcome ;_;
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 22, 2016, 07:06:48 PM
https://twitter.com/Im_WithHerakles/status/789602425900498944

Obama in 2008: Elections can be rigged, I've seen people in power rig them, even democrats

Obama in 2016: No one seriously believes elections could ever be rigged haha

Interesting change in tone.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 22, 2016, 07:21:33 PM
As far as Obama's personal experience went, he was talking about local elections, as indicated by him bringing up Chicago.  And regarding his apparent skepticism of the voting process for federal elections, maybe he just didn't know then?  He was only replying to an audience question, after all, not deliberately turning it into a major campaign issue like Trump has.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 22, 2016, 10:45:11 PM
As far as Obama's personal experience went, he was talking about local elections, as indicated by him bringing up Chicago.  And regarding his apparent skepticism of the voting process for federal elections, maybe he just didn't know then?  He was only replying to an audience question, after all, not deliberately turning it into a major campaign issue like Trump has.

Obama's key point was that electronic machines can't be trusted and you should always have a paper trail. Interesting that he now believes it is utterly impossible to rig an election in one person's favor.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 22, 2016, 11:26:19 PM
Obama's key point was that electronic machines can't be trusted and you should always have a paper trail.
Coincidentally, this is also what most Western nations will tell you.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 23, 2016, 01:00:45 AM
Obama's key point was that electronic machines can't be trusted and you should always have a paper trail.
Coincidentally, this is also what most Western nations will tell you.

The US requires neither paper trails nor voter IDs, something most (if not all?) Western nations consider crucial to their elections.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 23, 2016, 11:51:06 PM
Interesting that he now believes it is utterly impossible to rig an election in one person's favor.

Because it is.  It's far too vast and decentralized a process for a conspiracy to simply take it over.  Even if we allow that they only need to rig the votes in a few key places, it's still impossible.  Are they going to hack all the voting machines, knowing that they're inspected before and after the voting?  Bribe or corrupt everyone overseeing the process?  And you'd have to do all this at thousands of polling stations to tip the vote in any given state.  The time and manpower to pull off a stunt like that without detection just don't exist.  Yes, voting machines have been shown to be vulnerable to attack before, but there's a world of difference between that fact and the idea that a faction could control enough of them (while remaining undetected) on the day of the election to ensure the candidate of their choice won.

Also, it's interesting that you're mostly talking about voting machines when Trump virtually never mentions them.  He just talks about "older" methods of vote-rigging, like dead people voting, illegal immigrants voting, and people voting multiple times, all things that very seldom happen and have never had any real impact on a presidential election.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 24, 2016, 12:46:00 AM
It would only take one state to be swung a few percentage points in a candidate's favor to decide this election. It doesn't take a vast conspiracy. One or two urban districts spitting out bogus electronic results could swing Ohio, for example.



Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 24, 2016, 01:41:01 AM
Ohio has 8,887 voting precincts.  Do you really think that you could ensure the winner by manipulating the votes in just two of those?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 24, 2016, 02:38:55 AM
Ohio has 8,887 voting precincts.  Do you really think that you could ensure the winner by manipulating the votes in just two of those?

I said districts, Saddam, not precincts. I'm fairly certain you're aware those are two different things and you've just opted to misconstrue my argument in a petty attempt to dissolve my point.

Even with precincts, my point still stands. A very small percentage of counties contain a very large percentage of the population. You don't need a vast conspiracy to rig swathes of the vote. A few percentage points in a single swing state is enough to push the election into one candidate's favor.

(http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012/countymaprb1024.png)



Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 24, 2016, 04:33:30 AM
I assumed you meant precincts, because that's how voting is organized, logistically speaking.  Districts are, well, I won't say that they're irrelevant, lest some pedant pounce on me with a cry of "Aha!  You don't know what you're talking about!" but they don't really make a difference in this discussion of where and how votes are cast and how someone could interfere with that process.  Bringing up counties is absolutely irrelevant, though, and extremely misleading in this context.  Delimitation - by which I mean the process of drawing up precincts, or wards, or mini-districts, whatever you want to call them - is determined by population size, not geographic size.  For example, if you had a state that had one big urban area with a population of 100,000, and one big rural area with a population of 1,000, you wouldn't drop a polling station into each area and tell everyone to use their respective local station.  For one thing, that would make it very easy for any would-be election thieves to rig the whole thing by targeting the urban station, and for another, there's no way that all those urban residents would be able to vote with just one station, even discounting the non-voters among them.  Instead, you'd split up the urban area into a number of different precincts with their own stations.  It's a lot harder to rig that election, and everyone can vote now.

The same thing applies here.  The more densely-populated areas are going to have more precincts, and therefore more polling stations, so that they can handle the higher populations.  I'm sure it isn't perfectly even, but each precinct in a state will have roughly similar numbers of voters assigned to them.  There certainly aren't any cases where it's so absurdly lopsided that we can just figure that, oh, all they have to do is target this polling station here, this other one over here, and this last one here, and the state is all theirs.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: xasop on October 24, 2016, 04:42:23 AM
Saddam, do you understand how software works? It's not like anyone in their right mind would try to rig each and every machine individually when they all run the same code.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on October 24, 2016, 06:27:50 AM
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/major-election-fraud-alert-is-this-how-they-are-going-to-steal-the-election-from-donald-trump
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 24, 2016, 11:57:46 AM
Saddam, do you understand how software works? It's not like anyone in their right mind would try to rig each and every machine individually when they all run the same code.

They don't.  The types of machines used vary widely based on the state and polling station.

In other news, lol (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/clinton-trump-election-countdown-polls-230212).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 24, 2016, 12:24:35 PM
They don't.  The types of machines used vary widely based on the state and polling station.
Saddam, do you understand how software works?

Hardware aside, surely there can't be many underlying different software systems in concurrent use. Otherwise, your electronic voting system has bigger issues than the blatant risk of being rigged.

To give you a quick bite-size example: most self-checkout machines in the world run one of four software systems. Even though the machines look very different and offer different sets of functionality, they often share the same underlying software. If I find a way to, say, get NCR's software system to let me check out without paying, I could screw over most of Sainsbury's, Tesco and ASDA locations in the UK, as well as most Walmart and Target stores in the USA.

Now, is it a stretch to transfer some factors from retail to the US presidential election? Yeah, I would hope that the software systems driving the electoral process are guarded a bit more heavily; but the principle remains. If someone were to produce an altered version of the software and set it up on the machine, thus causing it to do whatever said person wants it to do. How likely is that to happen? Intuitively, not likely, but that strongly depends on how corrupt the powers that be are.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 24, 2016, 12:42:44 PM
They don't.  The types of machines used vary widely based on the state and polling station.
Saddam, do you understand how software works?

Hardware aside, surely there can't be many underlying different software systems in concurrent use. Otherwise, your electronic voting system has bigger issues than the blatant risk of being rigged.

To give you a quick bite-size example: most self-checkout machines in the world run one of four software systems. Even though the machines look very different and offer different sets of functionality, they often share the same underlying software. If I find a way to, say, get NCR's software system to let me check out without paying, I could screw over most of Sainsbury's, Tesco and ASDA locations in the UK, as well as most Walmart and Target stores in the USA.

Now, is it a stretch to transfer some factors from retail to the US presidential election? Yeah, I would hope that the software systems driving the electoral process are guarded a bit more heavily; but the principle remains. If someone were to produce an altered version of the software and set it up on the machine, thus causing it to do whatever said person wants it to do. How likely is that to happen? Intuitively, not likely, but that strongly depends on how corrupt the powers that be are.
I think the biggest issue is delivering the software.
Some, for example, us a memory card.  But that means you'd have to alter the memory card on each machine, which takes time and effort.  Sure, you can prep them before hand but getting the manpower needed to stick enough of those altered cards in to ensure victory isn't easy.

And then you have the original votes which can be recounted by hand if there's a dispute. (See Florida 2000)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 24, 2016, 12:53:22 PM
I think the biggest issue is delivering the software.
In an absolute doomsday scenario (the Democratic party are literally North Korea, intend to overthrow democracy and install a one-party system), the machines could come pre-packed with the "right" software. A massive foreign power could probably build up the numbers of corrupt officials necessary to pull something like that off too. It's not like the US hasn't installed puppet governments around the world before.

Otherwise, it does introduce a challenge, but with a few surgical strikes you could probably swing a close election.

Some, for example, us a memory card.  But that means you'd have to alter the memory card on each machine, which takes time and effort.  Sure, you can prep them before hand but getting the manpower needed to stick enough of those altered cards in to ensure victory isn't easy.

And then you have the original votes which can be recounted by hand if there's a dispute.
I believe 5 states don't have a paper audit trail at all. Add to that numerous counties in the remaining states. Again, I doubt you could rig an election as clear as 1996 or 2008, but 2000, 2004 and 2012 are just about within the realm of slim possibility.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on October 24, 2016, 02:10:25 PM
They don't.  The types of machines used vary widely based on the state and polling station.
Saddam, do you understand how software works?

Hardware aside, surely there can't be many underlying different software systems in concurrent use. Otherwise, your electronic voting system has bigger issues than the blatant risk of being rigged.

To give you a quick bite-size example: most self-checkout machines in the world run one of four software systems. Even though the machines look very different and offer different sets of functionality, they often share the same underlying software. If I find a way to, say, get NCR's software system to let me check out without paying, I could screw over most of Sainsbury's, Tesco and ASDA locations in the UK, as well as most Walmart and Target stores in the USA.

Now, is it a stretch to transfer some factors from retail to the US presidential election? Yeah, I would hope that the software systems driving the electoral process are guarded a bit more heavily; but the principle remains. If someone were to produce an altered version of the software and set it up on the machine, thus causing it to do whatever said person wants it to do. How likely is that to happen? Intuitively, not likely, but that strongly depends on how corrupt the powers that be are.

genuine question from someone who doesn't understand software/programming/whatever on the same level as you: could these things be done without getting caught?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: xasop on October 24, 2016, 02:33:58 PM
genuine question from someone who doesn't understand software/programming/whatever on the same level as you: could these things be done without getting caught?

In principle, always. In practice, it depends on how good the oversight of the whole process is and how corrupt the officials doing the overseeing are. Honestly, I could see the US government being really good or really bad in this regard.

The important point is that corrupt officials can do a lot more damage with electronic voting than with paper voting, precisely because a single modification to the voting machine software at the point of origin is so easily distributed to every machine. It doesn't matter how the software gets onto the machines, if you modify it prior to distribution, then you don't need to corrupt the distribution process itself.

This is why there should always be a paper trail. Not because paper votes are infallible, but because it's so much more difficult to systematically influence them.

In other words, it may be true that this election is not being rigged, but it's extremely difficult to prove it because of the difficulty in verifying that the voting software is behaving as it should.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 24, 2016, 06:24:58 PM
Trump is winning by a landslide (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/302461-trump-says-press-refusing-to-report-that-hes-winning)!

Just like Mitt Romney.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 24, 2016, 10:33:45 PM
Parsifal's answer to Gary's question is spot on, but perhaps I'd add this:

When it comes to corruption in paper voting, there is a considerable chance of some evidence emerging that anyone can look at and say "yep, that looks clearly wrong". You know, things like recordings of people stuffing the booths with a bunch of pre-prepared ballots.

A good rigged voting system would likely be indistinguishable from a legitimate one from the voters' or polling station staff's perspective. Because of that, it's much more difficult to completely wrap one's head around it. It would look like a duck, quack like a duck, and those who tell you it might actually not be a duck are probably the paranoid/wacky type.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 25, 2016, 12:19:24 AM
Otherwise, your electronic voting system has bigger issues than the blatant risk of being rigged.

It does, unfortunately:

https://www.brennancenter.org/publication/americas-voting-machines-risk

https://www.wired.com/2016/08/americas-voting-machines-arent-ready-election/

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-pennsylvania-voting-paperless-20161020-snap-story.html

There are a million flaws and vulnerabilities to be found in these machines, but it all adds up to a system that's far too chaotic and unpredictable for the purposes of anyone setting out to deliberately rig the election.  There's certainly no one convenient point of origin where a conspiracy could slip a malicious software onto the machines prior to their distribution.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/24/politics/trump-on-latest-accusations/

Quote from: Trumpadumpdump
These are stories that are made up, these are total fiction. You'll find out that, in the years to come, these women that stood up, it was all fiction. They were made up. I don't know these women, it's not my thing to do what they say. You know I don't do that. I don't grab them, as they say, on the arm. One said, 'he grabbed me on the arm.' And she's a porn star. You know, this one that came out recently, 'he grabbed me and he grabbed me on the arm.' Oh, I'm sure she's never been grabbed before.

I didn't do it and it's not a big deal that I did it anyway
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 25, 2016, 05:02:20 AM
This so very reminds me of the clinton scandal.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monika Lewinski."



I'm sure all those other women were fakes too.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 26, 2016, 02:13:36 AM
This so very reminds me of the clinton scandal.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monika Lewinski."

I'm sure all those other women were fakes too.

The difference being all of those women didn't magically appear twenty years after the incident to berate their assaulter only weeks before his campaign ends.

If someone sexually assaults you, I suggest not waiting twenty to thirty years, accusing the person during their presidential campaign, and then getting upset when people think you're a lunatic.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 26, 2016, 02:49:56 AM
Excellent point.  I can't imagine any reason why someone would hesitate before accusing a powerful, wealthy celebrity with millions of fans of sexual assault, and only speak up when evidence of similar antics was made public.  It's not like Trump would flatly deny the charges, publicly mock them as being too ugly to assault, claim that they were being paid by his enemies to smear him, and threaten to bury them in litigation, all while his army of enthusiastic fans continue to gleefully cheer him on.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 26, 2016, 04:44:13 AM
This so very reminds me of the clinton scandal.
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monika Lewinski."

I'm sure all those other women were fakes too.

The difference being all of those women didn't magically appear twenty years after the incident to berate their assaulter only weeks before his campaign ends.

If someone sexually assaults you, I suggest not waiting twenty to thirty years, accusing the person during their presidential campaign, and then getting upset when people think you're a lunatic.
Bill Cosby.


But George is correct.  Alot of sexual assault never gets reported for various reasons.  Add rich and powerful to the mix and you gotta ask: what's the point?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on October 26, 2016, 06:15:04 AM
https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/2316 (voting machines changing votes in Texas)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on October 26, 2016, 09:25:50 AM
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/it-is-happening-again-voting-machines-are-switching-votes-from-donald-trump-to-hillary-clinton
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 26, 2016, 11:19:49 AM
Excellent point.  I can't imagine any reason why someone would hesitate before accusing a powerful, wealthy celebrity with millions of fans of sexual assault, and only speak up when evidence of similar antics was made public.  It's not like Trump would flatly deny the charges, publicly mock them as being too ugly to assault, claim that they were being paid by his enemies to smear him, and threaten to bury them in litigation, all while his army of enthusiastic fans continue to gleefully cheer him on.

The only evidence is a tape of Trump trying to sound alpha around his buddies.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on October 26, 2016, 11:28:57 AM
The only evidence is a tape of Trump trying to sound alpha around his buddies.

Unfortunately on that tape he is describing actions that other women have also described before the tapes were even released. Jill Harth, for one, made her allegations in 1997 of Trump fondling her private parts, and she stood by that story in July of this year, months before the Billy Bush tape came out.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 26, 2016, 12:27:51 PM
Most likely case of those wrong votes:

People who clicked the wrong thing.
Machines that didn't read their input properly.
Glitches.

If it were voter fraud, why would it show you the fraud right before submission?  That's just really, really stupid.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on October 26, 2016, 12:28:13 PM
The only evidence is a tape of Trump trying to sound alpha around his buddies.

There is likely some criminality around his admitted behavior in the dressing rooms of the Miss Teen USA pageant as well.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on October 26, 2016, 03:57:00 PM
Excellent point.  I can't imagine any reason why someone would hesitate before accusing a powerful, wealthy celebrity with millions of fans of sexual assault, and only speak up when evidence of similar antics was made public.  It's not like Trump would flatly deny the charges, publicly mock them as being too ugly to assault, claim that they were being paid by his enemies to smear him, and threaten to bury them in litigation, all while his army of enthusiastic fans continue to gleefully cheer him on.

But I can certainly imagine many reasons why they would show up the last month of the presidential campaign.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: DuckDodgers on October 26, 2016, 06:18:59 PM
Excellent point.  I can't imagine any reason why someone would hesitate before accusing a powerful, wealthy celebrity with millions of fans of sexual assault, and only speak up when evidence of similar antics was made public.  It's not like Trump would flatly deny the charges, publicly mock them as being too ugly to assault, claim that they were being paid by his enemies to smear him, and threaten to bury them in litigation, all while his army of enthusiastic fans continue to gleefully cheer him on.

But I can certainly imagine many reasons why they would show up the last month of the presidential campaign.
Such as the candidate saying he would never act the way he talked about acting, and them knowing differently so they come forward to call him out on his lie?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 26, 2016, 07:12:36 PM
The only evidence is a tape of Trump trying to sound alpha around his buddies.

This wasn't a private conversation among friends.  He was bragging to a bus full of strangers (http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/donald-trump-comments-women-access-hollywood-229331), or at least people he only had a passing professional relationship with:

Quote
"We'll tell you all of the logistics so you understand the context," Morales said. "There were seven other people on the bus with Mr. Trump and Billy Bush at the time. They were with a two-person camera crew, the bus driver, an 'Access Hollywood' producer, a production assistant, Mr. Trump's security guard and his PR person. Upon arriving at our NBC lot our camera crew was let off the bus so they could record Mr. Trump getting off and meeting the soap opera star."

A minor point, but I'm sick of the narrative of that this was just normal male bonding, something that all men do, not at all unusual when bros are chilling, etc.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Snupes on October 27, 2016, 12:23:53 AM
I either have to believe Trump's an anomaly and a creep, or be terrified of the idea that all guys just talk about groping and assaulting women and trying to sleep with taken women and just generally sound rapey among friends. I really like to believe my male friends aren't such creeps.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 27, 2016, 12:38:25 AM
The only evidence is a tape of Trump trying to sound alpha around his buddies.

This wasn't a private conversation among friends.  He was bragging to a bus full of strangers (http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/10/donald-trump-comments-women-access-hollywood-229331), or at least people he only had a passing professional relationship with:

Quote
"We'll tell you all of the logistics so you understand the context," Morales said. "There were seven other people on the bus with Mr. Trump and Billy Bush at the time. They were with a two-person camera crew, the bus driver, an 'Access Hollywood' producer, a production assistant, Mr. Trump's security guard and his PR person. Upon arriving at our NBC lot our camera crew was let off the bus so they could record Mr. Trump getting off and meeting the soap opera star."

A minor point, but I'm sick of the narrative of that this was just normal male bonding, something that all men do, not at all unusual when bros are chilling, etc.

It's not at all unusual, though, and that is the primary reason why this tape wasn't the groundbreaking campaign dagger that the Democrats had hoped it would be. Private alpha-bragging isn't some new phenomenon that totally doesn't happen.

Unfortunately on that tape he is describing actions that other women have also described before the tapes were even released. Jill Harth, for one, made her allegations in 1997 of Trump fondling her private parts, and she stood by that story in July of this year, months before the Billy Bush tape came out.

And without a proper conviction it's just as believable as the "Bill Clinton is a rapist" meme.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on October 27, 2016, 02:48:01 AM
And without a proper conviction it's just as believable as the "Bill Clinton is a rapist" meme.

Well, I mean, Bill Clinton isn't on tape talking about how he did actually rape someone, though.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 27, 2016, 07:27:49 PM
And without a proper conviction it's just as believable as the "Bill Clinton is a rapist" meme.

Well, I mean, Bill Clinton isn't on tape talking about how he did actually rape someone, though.

No one mentioned is this thread is on tape saying they raped someone.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on October 27, 2016, 07:29:53 PM
http://dailycaller.com/2016/01/29/is-trump-straussed-out/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 27, 2016, 09:04:18 PM
And without a proper conviction it's just as believable as the "Bill Clinton is a rapist" meme.

Well, I mean, Bill Clinton isn't on tape talking about how he did actually rape someone, though.

No one mentioned is this thread is on tape saying they raped someone.

Don't be dense.  You know perfectly well he's only talking about rape because it's the example you gave.  Trump is on tape talking about groping women, and that's what he's been accused of doing.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 27, 2016, 09:12:46 PM
Trump is on tape talking about groping women
Not without consent. On the same tape, he states that they let him do it.

Being obscene is one thing, being a criminal is another. Let's keep them separate.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 27, 2016, 09:34:21 PM
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/inside-the-trump-bunker-with-12-days-to-go/ar-AAjsUji

Interesting article.

It makes me think that Trump just wants the attention, win or lose.  Maybe they're right, he will have his own news network.  And he'll have alot of info on people who will watch.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Fortuna on October 27, 2016, 09:45:13 PM
I either have to believe Trump's an anomaly and a creep, or be terrified of the idea that all guys just talk about groping and assaulting women and trying to sleep with taken women and just generally sound rapey among friends. I really like to believe my male friends aren't such creeps.

What Trump said is like PG compared to how most guys talk among their friends.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on October 27, 2016, 11:17:13 PM
Trump is on tape talking about groping women
Not without consent. On the same tape, he states that they let him do it.

Being obscene is one thing, being a criminal is another. Let's keep them separate.

He did say he does it without consent though (emphasis mine).

Quote
I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

So he admits he does not wait, he just gropes women. So in a quite literal sense, no, they aren't consenting. He hasn't given them the chance. And in most situations, there's a huge power imbalance there. He's rich and powerful, the women he allegedly gropes usually aren't. It's the same as if a boss groped an employee. What you're arguing is that, as long as the employee doesn't resist, that constitutes consent. I don't believe that is the case at all, especially in such a lopsided power dynamic. And that's ignoring the women who have come forward to claim just the opposite—that he did grope them without their consent.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 28, 2016, 08:54:34 AM
Holy interpretation, Batman. Trump is still a living human being. You can't just write a book report on what the author may have meant.

The same goes for me. I suggested none of these things, but here you go loudly proclaiming what I did and didn't think. It reeks of desperation.

And yes, it does go against these women's claims. Our society necessarily relies on the presumption of innocence1. Abandoning it because you violently disagree with a politician sets an abysmal precedent, and in this case reflects on you much more than on either Trump or Clinton. If it's convenient, we don't need evidence, right? haha politics everyone



1 - this goes both ways. Until good evidence has been presented to determine either way, both Trump's claims that the women are lying and the women's claim that Trump sexually violated them are entirely null and void.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 28, 2016, 09:33:25 AM
Holy interpretation, Batman. Trump is still a living human being. You can't just write a book report on what the author may have meant.

The same goes for me. I suggested none of these things, but here you go loudly proclaiming what I did and didn't think. It reeks of desperation.

And yes, it does go against these women's claims. Our society necessarily relies on the presumption of innocence1. Abandoning it because you violently disagree with a politician sets an abysmal precedent, and in this case reflects on you much more than on either Trump or Clinton. If it's convenient, we don't need evidence, right? haha politics everyone



1 - this goes both ways. Until good evidence has been presented to determine either way, both Trump's claims that the women are lying and the women's claim that Trump sexually violated them are entirely null and void.

You are correct.  Please educate the rest of the Trump supporters about that.  I'm tired of having Trump and his followers say that Hillary should be in Jail without so much as a trial. 

"She's guilty and a crook and has people murdered."
Great, I say.  You should bring it to the justice department so they can make a case.
Oh they look at it?  And found nothing worth going to trial for?

Well...
Innocent until proven guilty, right?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 28, 2016, 10:02:21 AM
You are correct.  Please educate the rest of the Trump supporters about that.  I'm tired of having Trump and his followers say that Hillary should be in Jail without so much as a trial. 
Hey, I'm no Trump fan (I think he might be a tiny bit less shit than Hillary, but I don't envy anyone who actually needs to make that choice). I'm still salty about my "let's get a moderate Republican in" idea going to shit.

As I said, the problem lies on both sides. Judge Hillary on her abysmal record as a stateswoman and policy proposals, not on unproven allegations.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on October 28, 2016, 10:55:46 AM
Our society necessarily relies on the presumption of innocence1. Abandoning it because you violently disagree with a politician sets an abysmal precedent, and in this case reflects on you much more than on either Trump or Clinton.

I'm not calling for Trump to be punished for alleged crimes, or even saying that he is guilty of them. I am speculating about the evidence, though, and saying that, yeah, he probably did grope at least some women without their consent if he admittedly is going around and grabbing them by the crotch without asking. If I can speculate about whether or not Adnan on Serial is a murderer or not and debate that, I don't see why I can't do the exact same thing with Trump just because the allegations are about sexual assault instead of murder. The presumption of innocence is not under attack here.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: spanner34.5 on October 28, 2016, 12:30:01 PM
To the citizens of the United States of America from Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

In light of your immediate failure to financially manage yourselves and also in recent years your tendency to elect incompetent Presidents of the USA and therefore not able to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately. (You should look up 'revocation' in the Oxford English Dictionary.)

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas, which she does not fancy).

Your new Prime Minister, Theresa May, will appoint a Governor for America without the need for further elections.

Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated sometime next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'colour,' 'favour,' 'labour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix '-ize' will be replaced by the suffix '-ise.' Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up 'vocabulary').

------------------------

2. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as ''like' and 'you know' is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as U.S. English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take into account the reinstated letter 'u'' and the elimination of '-ize.'

-------------------

3. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.

-----------------

4. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be used for shooting grouse. If you can't sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you're not ready to shoot grouse.

----------------------

5. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. Although a permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

----------------------

6. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left side with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

--------------------

7. The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) of roughly $10/US gallon. Get used to it.

-------------------

8. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.

-------------------

9. The cold, tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. New Zealand beer is also acceptable, as New Zealand is pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of the British Commonwealth - see what it did for them. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat's Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.

---------------------

10. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie Macdowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.

---------------------

11. You will cease playing American football. There are only two kinds of proper football; one you call soccer, and rugby (dominated by the New Zealanders). Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies).

---------------------

12. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the Australians (World dominators) first to take the sting out of their deliveries.

--------------------

13. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.

-----------------

14. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).

---------------

15. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 p.m. with proper cups, with saucers, and never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; plus strawberries (with cream) when in season

God Save the Queen!

PS: Only share this with friends who have a good sense of humour (NOT humor)!

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 28, 2016, 01:42:08 PM
I'm not calling for Trump to be punished for alleged crimes, or even saying that he is guilty of them.

Indeed - I wouldn't have batted an eyelid if you were only doing something so innocuous. You're doing something far more sinister than that. You choose to ignore the justice system and instead exact your own idea of justice by attempting to smear him with baseless allegations (which, by your own admission, rely on reading Trump's words in reverse...).

This is just a less competent variant of SJWs trying to get people fired for saying disagreeable things on Facebook. It's disgusting, and if you manage to set the precedent, you'll get to enjoy an even more broken country.

But hey, whether or not you want to go there is for Americans to decide. In this particular case, it's not a Trump vs Hillary issue. It's a Saddam/Trekky vs ethics issue.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 28, 2016, 04:34:50 PM
I'm not calling for Trump to be punished for alleged crimes, or even saying that he is guilty of them.

Indeed - I wouldn't have batted an eyelid if you were only doing something so innocuous. You're doing something far more sinister than that. You choose to ignore the justice system and instead exact your own idea of justice by attempting to smear him with baseless allegations (which, by your own admission, rely on reading Trump's words in reverse...).

This is just a less competent variant of SJWs trying to get people fired for saying disagreeable things on Facebook. It's disgusting, and if you manage to set the precedent, you'll get to enjoy an even more broken country.

But hey, whether or not you want to go there is for Americans to decide. In this particular case, it's not a Trump vs Hillary issue. It's a Saddam/Trekky vs ethics issue.

This is incredibly melodramatic and not at all a fair interpretation of the situation.  Trump is running for president.  His past words and actions are absolutely going to be scrutinized.  It's not unusual, and it's not a sinister attempt at bypassing the justice system.  It's just the political process at work, and something that every candidate has to face.  Look at the furor over Hillary's emails, for example.  Unlike Trump's alleged groping, that issue did go through the justice system, and she was officially cleared of wrongdoing.  And yet Trump, along with a significant chunk of his fanbase, continues to rant about how she should not only not be elected president over it, but should be thrown in prison anyway.  Going by your logic, isn't that far worse than what's happened with this groping issue?  They're not simply trying to ignore the justice system, they're trying to outright defy it!

Also, while I agree with you that online mobs devoted to destroying people's lives and careers for saying or doing the wrong thing are bullshit (although it's fair to make a note here that that tactic is not exclusive to leftists/SJWs), those are cases of coercion, not persuasion.  It's never a situation where people genuinely say to each other, "Hey, I don't think we should use this business/service any longer; there's a couple of people working there who are pretty openly racist," it's always "Hey, business/service owner!  You had better fire this employee that you have, or else we're going to be telling everyone that you hire racists, maybe because you're a racist yourself, contact all your business partners to let them know that they've gotten involved with a creep who knowingly employs racists, and in general dedicate ourselves to destroying your livelihood!"  To put it another way, that would be more like if people were demanding that Trump be forcibly removed from the ticket and prohibited from running.  Which, come to think of it, is another thing that Trump and much of his fanbase have been openly calling for about Hillary.  Hmm.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on October 28, 2016, 06:21:13 PM
Indeed - I wouldn't have batted an eyelid if you were only doing something so innocuous. You're doing something far more sinister than that.

(http://www.gamasutra.com/db_area/images/blog/171559/MustacheTwirl.jpg)

You choose to ignore the justice system

Nope.

and instead exact your own idea of justice by attempting to smear him with baseless allegations

I am not exacting justice by thinking that Trump probably groped women without their consent. And you must be using a definition of "baseless" of which I am not aware, because Trump admitting to groping women after those claims had already surfaced makes those claims at least more credible than baseless.

(which, by your own admission, rely on reading Trump's words in reverse...).

Nah I'm pretty sure you can read them in the correct order and still see that he's talking about groping women and them letting him do it because he is rich/powerful/famous.

This is just a less competent variant of SJWs trying to get people fired for saying disagreeable things on Facebook. It's disgusting,

Talk dirty to me bebe.

and if you manage to set the precedent, you'll get to enjoy an even more broken country.

lol k

But hey, whether or not you want to go there is for Americans to decide. In this particular case, it's not a Trump vs Hillary issue. It's a Saddam/Trekky vs ethics issue.

Saddam/Trekky 2020?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 28, 2016, 07:04:51 PM
Well, fair enough. If you're interested in employing Trump's tactics by yourselves, be my guest. I'll simply continue to point it out to you and explain over and over how absolutely bonkers that is.

Nah I'm pretty sure you can read them in the correct order and still see that he's talking about groping women[...]
Right, let's give you a chance to explain yourself, then. Here's what you have quoted (additional emphasis mine):
He did say he does it without consent though (emphasis mine).

Quote
I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything

So, either you think that kissing is groping, or you decided to apply a later statement ("Grab them by the pussy") retroactively to "I don't even wait." Now, having known you for a while I assume you know that kissing is not in fact groping (http://www.clickhole.com/blogpost/kissing-sex-1140), so that leaves me with the conclusion that you have read the statements in reverse. If neither of these is correct, could you present an alternative explanation?

Going by your logic, isn't that far worse than what's happened with this groping issue?  They're not simply trying to ignore the justice system, they're trying to outright defy it!
[...]
To put it another way, that would be more like if people were demanding that Trump be forcibly removed from the ticket and prohibited from running.  Which, come to think of it, is another thing that Trump and much of his fanbase have been openly calling for about Hillary.  Hmm.
In fairness, people have been calling for Trump to be prohibited from running... and the Hillary case isn't exactly closed either (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-37805525)... But those minor details aside, I agree. I've said it twice, and I'll said it a third time: the problem exists on both sides. That doesn't give you an excuse to do it as well, imo. "Many people are shitheads therefore I can be a shithead too" just doesn't sit well with me.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on October 28, 2016, 07:38:36 PM
Well, fair enough. If you're interested in employing Trump's tactics by yourselves, be my guest. I'll simply continue to point it out to you and explain over and over how absolutely bonkers that is.

Nah I'm pretty sure you can read them in the correct order and still see that he's talking about groping women[...]
Right, let's give you a chance to explain yourself, then. Here's what you have quoted (additional emphasis mine):
He did say he does it without consent though (emphasis mine).

Quote
I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything

So, either you think that kissing is groping, or you decided to apply a later statement ("Grab them by the pussy") retroactively to "I don't even wait." Now, having known you for a while I assume you know that kissing is not in fact groping (http://www.clickhole.com/blogpost/kissing-sex-1140), so that leaves me with the conclusion that you have read the statements in reverse. If neither of these is correct, could you present an alternative explanation?

Quote
TRUMP: I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

BUSH: Whatever you want.

TRUMP: Grab ’em by the pussy. You can do anything.

Trump is saying that he can do anything to women without asking, because they let him do it because he's "a star." That includes the two acts mentioned in this exchange, kissing, and the groping. Are you implying that only the first is related to him being able to do anything, and the second sentence juxtaposed with that exact same sentiment is somehow talking about something completely different? That makes no sense, and you know it.

EDIT: Here's the thing: if he is talking about consensually fingering women, then why the heck is he bragging about it to Billy Bush? That's not unexpected or unusual. What's unusual is the point of the story he's telling: That his fame allows him to get away with the things he does to women. You can do anything when you're a star, etc. If he's suddenly talking about fingering women in the bedroom, it makes zero sense to say that that's something he is able to do in this context. Everybody can do that, not only "stars."
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 28, 2016, 08:51:30 PM
The initial sentiment of "holy interpretation, Batman" only grows stronger as you talk. Since Trump clarified the meaning of what he said on tape, and no evidence to date suggests that he lied, we shouldn't take your book report seriously. That would be a presumption of guilt. If new evidence emerges, fair enough. How about we wait for that and stop slandering people in the meantime?

Trump is saying that he can do anything to women without asking
Yes, but not that he does do it.

Here's the thing: if he is talking about consensually fingering women, then why the heck is he bragging about it to Billy Bush? That's not unexpected or unusual. What's unusual is the point of the story he's telling: That his fame allows him to get away with the things he does to women.
Or that the fame means he can obtain consent more easily than others. If you're so committed to the idea of the presumption of innocence (by your own admission, you're not trying to threaten it, no siree Bob!), why do you jump to the most demeaning conclusion possible?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on October 28, 2016, 10:19:06 PM
I don't think you understand what slander is. Saying what I think about Donald Trump and what I think about the evidence being presented is not slander, and as a proponent of free speech I'd think you'd realize that. My own thoughts on the matter also pose no threat to the presumption of innocence in the justice system or to Trump's well being, so climb down off your high horse preaching about justice and innocence. No one is suggesting Trump should be treated unfairly in the legal system.

Now, when you have:

then yeah, I'm going to think Donald Trump probably fondled at least some women without their consent. Unless we are to presume that the four women above made up similar stories of Donald Trump's behavior at different times which all also happened to be eerily similar to how Donald Trump describes himself in a tape released after their accusations had already gone public. In my mind, Donald Trump groping some women is a lot more plausible.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 28, 2016, 11:20:31 PM
I don't think you understand what slander is.
nice meme bro

You made an untrue statement in an attempt to damage somebody's reputation (which you're now attempting to rephrase and rationalise over and over). It had nothing to do with what you think - it was a factually incorrect account of what's contained in a recording. At best, you can get pedantic and point out that your statement wasn't spoken, but many definitions do not posit that as a strict requirement.

as a proponent of free speech I'd think you'd realize that.
Your freedom of speech does not in any way change how appalling your eagerness to ignore morality when it suits you is, and the disastrous consequences it would have if your attitude became more commonplace. It also in no way interferes with my freedom of pointing these things out. You're free to promote fascism if you want to (well, in some countries you are), but that doesn't make fascism any less shit, and people are likely to tell you that. Freely.

The rest of your post is a classic SJW "accusations have been made and therefore listen and believe" ramble, and I don't really have anything to say about it other than once again calling it distasteful.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on October 29, 2016, 05:03:07 AM
He also admitted to entering the Miss Teen America dressing rooms unannounced and that his position as owner of the pageant allowed him to get away with peeping on teenage girls.  It really is not a stretch to think that Donald Trump would feel entitled enough, due to this wealth and celebrity, that he could do what he wanted with women, consenting or not.  I agree with Trekky: I am not saying he did it, but there is enough on the table to consider it as a serious allegation.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on October 29, 2016, 06:01:18 AM
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/donald-trump-is-often-more-hawkish-than-the-washington-elites/502145/

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-iraq-syria-220608

http://www.ifyouonlynews.com/politics/shut-up-about-sanders-or-clintons-support-by-war-hawks-its-trump-they-really-want/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 29, 2016, 06:18:18 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/28/exclusive-comey-memo-to-fbi-staffers-says-election-timing-required-disclosure-renewed-probe.html

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/28/499770889/anthony-weiner-investigation-leads-fbi-back-to-clinton-email-server-case

From what I'm reading...

"We here at the FBI saw something that may be Clinton related and in order to suck Republican dick in case Trump wins, we've released this memo."

Purely a political stunt.  He literally has nothing useful to add other than "It's being reopened".  It could simply be a single e-mail from Clinton's e-mail server to Anthony Weiner saying "WTF are you doing sending dick pics?" but they wont' tell us. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on October 29, 2016, 06:23:45 AM
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/fbi-clinton-new-probe-trump-hails-230460

http://aanirfan.blogspot.ro/2016/10/wikileaks-and-war-hawks-deep-state.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/hillary-clinton-fbi-campaign-230472

https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/2338

https://www.superstation95.com/index.php/world/2340
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 29, 2016, 06:42:12 AM
Trump: The FBI are horrible, corrupt, and in the pockets of Obama and Clinton.... Unless they hurt Clinton, then they aren't.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on October 29, 2016, 01:32:41 PM
You made an untrue statement in an attempt to damage somebody's reputation (which you're now attempting to rephrase and rationalise over and over). It had nothing to do with what you think - it was a factually incorrect account of what's contained in a recording. At best, you can get pedantic and point out that your statement wasn't spoken, but many definitions do not posit that as a strict requirement.

All right. In a very generous interpretation of what he said on tape, then no, Donald Trump is not admitting that he did, in fact, grope women without their consent. He is saying he could do it, and that, according to him, women would let him do it. He is also saying, without any doubt, that he has at least kissed women without knowing whether they consented or not (which in itself could be considered sexual assault depending on the circumstances, but whatever). Fair enough?

Now, that statement that he could, if he wanted to, grope women without their consent, combined with allegations that predate the publication of his own statements, leads me to believe that some of those allegations are probably true.

Your freedom of speech does not in any way change how appalling your eagerness to ignore morality when it suits you is, and the disastrous consequences it would have if your attitude became more commonplace. It also in no way interferes with my freedom of pointing these things out. You're free to promote fascism if you want to (well, in some countries you are), but that doesn't make fascism any less shit, and people are likely to tell you that. Freely.

The rest of your post is a classic SJW "accusations have been made and therefore listen and believe" ramble, and I don't really have anything to say about it other than once again calling it distasteful.

I am not "listening and believing" anything when the women's own alleged perpetrator is on tape saying he could do the things these women claim if he wanted to. I know you find it endless fun to beat those anti-SJW war drums so fervently, but there's a big difference between automatically believing anyone accusing someone of rape and believing some of Trump's accusers given the timing of their allegations and his own words.

EDIT: a word
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 29, 2016, 01:54:43 PM
Fair enough?
Not in the slightest. Your interpretation involves inventing new definitions for words and reading words right-to-left (Did you know that if you listen to the American anthem in reverse it actually says TRUMP 2K16? QED the Founding Fathers love Trump!). Mine relies on presumption of innocence until evidence arises. If the accusers whose word you take at face value have some evidence, they should present it and let us get on with it. My interpretation is not generous at all, whilst yours requires making stuff up for it to even conceivably work.

Did you think lying again would make you seem less ethically questionable? Because it didn't work.

I am not "listening and believing" anything when the women's own alleged perpetrator is on tape saying he could do the things these women claim if he wanted to.
I could probably get away with some crimes if I wanted to. Let's go with the cliché of "hacking". I was once accused of that by a local charity I was working for, and now (j'accuse!) there's a written record of me saying that I could probably do it if I wanted to. And (mon Dieu!) the accusations predate my statement! That means I'm probably guilty, right? Right?!

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TPxrwzUOwmo/ViY4smdGobI/AAAAAAAABGw/RsjNw3BV_7s/s1600/trump.gif)

SPOILERS: Wrong. The accusation was never taken to court, and the organisation's internal disciplinary process concluded that I deserved an apology for the moronic assertion
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 29, 2016, 02:58:52 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAcO5TacXVU&feature=youtu.be
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on October 29, 2016, 03:31:54 PM
Quote from: parsifal
computer words
Quote from: sexwarrior
more computer words

i did read those, btw, and thank you.  good eli5 10/10 would let you explain computers to me again.

i am fairly persuaded that it seems silly for any of the voting machines to not generate paper receipts.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 29, 2016, 04:15:27 PM
Fair enough?
Not in the slightest. Your interpretation involves inventing new definitions for words and reading words right-to-left (Did you know that if you listen to the American anthem in reverse it actually says TRUMP 2K16? QED the Founding Fathers love Trump!). Mine relies on presumption of innocence until evidence arises. If the accusers whose word you take at face value have some evidence, they should present it and let us get on with it. My interpretation is not generous at all, whilst yours requires making stuff up for it to even conceivably work.

Did you think lying again would make you seem less ethically questionable? Because it didn't work.

I am not "listening and believing" anything when the women's own alleged perpetrator is on tape saying he could do the things these women claim if he wanted to.
I could probably get away with some crimes if I wanted to. Let's go with the cliché of "hacking". I was once accused of that by a local charity I was working for, and now (j'accuse!) there's a written record of me saying that I could probably do it if I wanted to. And (mon Dieu!) the accusations predate my statement! That means I'm probably guilty, right? Right?!

(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-TPxrwzUOwmo/ViY4smdGobI/AAAAAAAABGw/RsjNw3BV_7s/s1600/trump.gif)

SPOILERS: Wrong. The accusation was never taken to court, and the organisation's internal disciplinary process concluded that I deserved an apology for the moronic assertion
Rape cases or sexual assault cases are extremely hard to prove or even provide evidence for.  By your argument, anyone who is sexually assaulted should never bother trying to get justice unless they have physical evidence or an eye witness of some credibility.  What's the point of asking for an investigation if the only evidence you can immediately present is your word? 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 29, 2016, 04:38:44 PM
By your argument, anyone who is sexually assaulted should never bother trying to get justice [...]
On the contrary, I insist that they do seek justice instead of going on TV and presenting their 20-years-old claims to everyone but the judicial system.

What's the point of asking for an investigation if the only evidence you can immediately present is your word? 
Law enforcement are pretty good at securing evidence - probably better than you or me. That's why you talk to them.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 29, 2016, 05:00:51 PM
By your argument, anyone who is sexually assaulted should never bother trying to get justice [...]
On the contrary, I insist that they do seek justice instead of going on TV and presenting their 20-years-old claims to everyone but the judicial system.

What's the point of asking for an investigation if the only evidence you can immediately present is your word? 
Law enforcement are pretty good at securing evidence - probably better than you or me. That's why you talk to them.


Is there evidence to show they did not go to the police first?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 29, 2016, 05:15:32 PM
Is there evidence to show they did not go to the police first?
Given that Trump is Trump, any charges pressed would be pretty high profile - I doubt we'd have to speak in hypotheticals. I mean, they're digging out tapes from a decade ago where he's bragging about how macho he is. Do you really think we'd miss something this major?

But okay, it's fair to assume that we have no idea, at least formally speaking. Even then, you need to consider the context of this conversation.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 29, 2016, 05:33:07 PM
SexWarrior, none of what you're saying makes any sense.  This has nothing to do with fascism, slander, bypassing the justice system, or anything else you're preaching about up there on your soapbox (we're talking about whether or not we should vote for this man to be president, nothing more drastic than that), and your claim that Trump couldn't have meant "I don't even wait" to be referring to "Grab them by the pussy" because the "pussy" comment came after the "wait" line simply flies in the face of reality.  Sure, maybe it would be nice if everyone neatly organized what they said into nice little paragraphs where they listed all their supporting points first, summarized them with an overall topic sentence, and then promptly moved on to the next subject, but of course that doesn't happen in real life.  Consider, for example, someone saying, "Grab your jacket, it's raining out.  Bring an umbrella too."  Do you think the suggestion that the listener should bring an umbrella is unrelated to the fact that it's raining outside?  Would it only make sense that they'd want them to bring an umbrella because of the rain if they had said, "Grab a jacket and an umbrella, it's raining outside"?

Also, if your interpretation of how Trump's words aren't incriminating is correct - and not just correct, but apparently very clearly and unambiguously correct to the degree where anyone who claims to disagree with you is being dishonest - don't you think that this would be something that Trump or his campaign/defenders would have brought up?  Trump apologized for what he said and insisted it didn't represent who he was anymore, but he still took a major hit in the polls and endured an enormous amount of criticism over this.  I can't imagine him not responding with something like "If you listen to the recording, you'll find that I never claimed I groped women," if he or his people felt that was an arguable point (let alone one as obviously true as you think it is), nor can I imagine him or his people missing such a point, especially if, again, it's as obvious as you claim.  Is this all just some weird joke/troll from you?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 29, 2016, 05:44:15 PM
SexWarrior, none of what you're saying makes any sense.
nice meme bro

Instead of saying "This makes no sense and is totally not like what you said", you may want to consider responding to some of the points made. Otherwise, you're just not very convincing.

don't you think that this would be something that Trump or his campaign/defenders would have brought up?
I do, and he has. He did it quite poorly, but he made it clear that he doesn't do this things (and that Bill does do them).

and not just correct, but apparently very clearly and unambiguously correct to the degree where anyone who claims to disagree with you is being dishonest
Oh, you're welcome to disagree. Just try not to lie while you're at it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on October 29, 2016, 05:59:29 PM
in fairness sw, your indigence would be more convincing if it were evenly applied.  i don't recall seeing you this perturbed over anyone calling hillary a crook and a criminal.

besides, isn't slander a crime for which one is presumed innocent until proven guilty?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on October 29, 2016, 06:11:07 PM
This is all ridiculous. People on a semi-private forum are not committing slander by making unofficial claims of guilt based on available information. It is not unjust, it's inconsequential gossip. Ditto for people saying Hillary is a crook.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 29, 2016, 06:30:51 PM
in fairness sw, your indigence would be more convincing if it were evenly applied.  i don't recall seeing you this perturbed over anyone calling hillary a crook and a criminal.
Fair enough. I tend to side with the minority opinion because I find it more interesting. But, for the record, Trump does stupid and borderline illegal shit 24/7 and it's disgusting.

besides, isn't slander a crime for which one is presumed innocent until proven guilty?
I would argue I provided my evidence together with the accusation - thus hopefully erasing most presumption either way.

This is all ridiculous. People on a semi-private forum are not committing slander by making unofficial claims of guilt based on available information. It is not unjust, it's inconsequential gossip. Ditto for people saying Hillary is a crook.
It's just locker room banter, bro.

Yes, if two people choose to be stupid on the Internet, it's of no consequence. It's still appalling, but inconsequential. As I said, however, this mentality would have grim consequences if it became more commonplace.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 29, 2016, 06:44:20 PM
https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&geo=US&q=change%20early%20vote

Related topic: Federal Bureau of Investigation

lmao.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 29, 2016, 06:54:53 PM
https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&geo=US&q=change%20early%20vote

Related topic: Federal Bureau of Investigation

lmao.
Can't shill the Jill
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 29, 2016, 07:08:48 PM
Is there evidence to show they did not go to the police first?
Given that Trump is Trump, any charges pressed would be pretty high profile - I doubt we'd have to speak in hypotheticals. I mean, they're digging out tapes from a decade ago where he's bragging about how macho he is. Do you really think we'd miss something this major?

But okay, it's fair to assume that we have no idea, at least formally speaking. Even then, you need to consider the context of this conversation.

  • If they did report it and charges were successfully pressed, presenting the evidence you need to shut me up should be very easy. The burden's on the other crowd, not on me.
  • If they did report it and nothing happened, then every single accusation I've made of Trekky and Saddam being sinister have just been amplified tenfold. After all, we no longer have to presume innocence - we have established innocence. Both Trekky and Saddam made it abundantly clear that they have no interest in ignoring or defying the justice system. In this case, they would have been lying.
  • If they didn't report it, we're back to my previous question.
Apparently one woman did file a lawsuit but withdrew it.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/exclusive-inside-the-donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuit/ (http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/exclusive-inside-the-donald-trump-sexual-assault-lawsuit/)
http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/bad-dream-donald-ends-settlement-article-1.785734 (http://www.nydailynews.com/archives/gossip/bad-dream-donald-ends-settlement-article-1.785734)
http://heavy.com/news/2016/10/jill-harth-who-is-donald-trump-sued-houraney-groped-billy-bush-women-sexual-assault-bio-makeup-artist-lawsuit/ (http://heavy.com/news/2016/10/jill-harth-who-is-donald-trump-sued-houraney-groped-billy-bush-women-sexual-assault-bio-makeup-artist-lawsuit/)

Near as I can figure: Her husband sued Trump due to breach of contract.(1995)  She sued him for sexual misconduct.(1997)  She dropped it a month later.  Trump then settled with the husband's company 2 months after that as that lawsuit has some sexual assault allegations in it.

His ex-wife also filed for it during the divorce.  Apparently they were granted the divorce due to inhuman and cruel treatment.

The others have not filed lawsuits and so far I have not found any official reports, which there wouldn't be if they didn't come forward first.  Though a few are being shown in a different light on the subject.  Such as the woman who was on the apprentice.  According to her cousin, she was so happy and supportive of Trump for years until she invited him to her restaurant and he declined.  Then she came forward.


So again:
Fuck the media, can't believe anything you read these days.

Also:
Still waiting for my overseas ballot.
WTF USA?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 29, 2016, 07:14:01 PM
I do, and he has. He did it quite poorly, but he made it clear that he doesn't do this things (and that Bill does do them).

He denied doing those things, but your argument seems to be that he never even really said that he did those things to begin with because of the chronological order of the phrases he used, or something like that.

Also, some tiny nitpicks to some different posts in this thread - "The Star-Spangled Banner" was written in 1814 by Francis Scott Key and didn't become the national anthem until over a hundred years later, so it had nothing to do with the Founding Fathers, obscenity is actually illegal in the U.S., and slander is not a crime, but a tort.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 29, 2016, 07:30:17 PM
He denied doing those things, but your argument seems to be that he never even really said that he did those things to begin with because of the chronological order of the phrases he used, or something like that.
No.

Also, some tiny nitpicks to some different posts in this thread - "The Star-Spangled Banner" was written in 1814 by Francis Scott Key and didn't become the national anthem until over a hundred years later, so it had nothing to do with the Founding Fathers
Breaking news: it also doesn't say TRUMP 2K16 when played backwards.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on October 30, 2016, 01:14:10 AM
Guys I cucked out and voted for Hillary. Sorry...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 30, 2016, 02:13:42 AM
He denied doing those things, but your argument seems to be that he never even really said that he did those things to begin with because of the chronological order of the phrases he used, or something like that.
No.

No, I'm pretty sure that is what you were trying to argue:

baseless allegations (which, by your own admission, rely on reading Trump's words in reverse...)

you decided to apply a later statement ("Grab them by the pussy") retroactively to "I don't even wait."...that leaves me with the conclusion that you have read the statements in reverse.

Your interpretation involves inventing new definitions for words and reading words right-to-left (Did you know that if you listen to the American anthem in reverse it actually says TRUMP 2K16? QED the Founding Fathers love Trump!).

You even rephrased it a few times ("reverse," "retroactively," "right to left") to make it clearer.  I'm not misunderstanding you.  You made this argument, and it's only fair that you get called out for how silly it is.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 30, 2016, 10:43:07 AM
No, I'm pretty sure that is what you were trying to argue:

[...]

You even rephrased it a few times ("reverse," "retroactively," "right to left") to make it clearer.  I'm not misunderstanding you.
No, Saddam. Take a step back and try to read the conversation again. Try to understand what everyone's saying, together with context, then you might be able to actually not derp. It is true that in order to make your insane accusation, you necessarily need to read Trump's statements in reverse or to believe that kissing is groping, but it is not true that "he never even really said that he did those things to begin with because of the chronological order of the phrases he used, or something like that". The fact that you'd have to read Trump's statements in reverse to believe what you believe is just an easily-accessible proof of just how detached from reality your claim is.

Pointing out that your belief necessarily requires one of two nonsensical assumptions is an overly-simplified but nonetheless effective form of a proof by contradiction.

The root of the argument, which you've done a marvellous job at missing entirely, is as follows:

You made this argument, and it's only fair that you get called out for how silly it is.
Well, it's either that or you think that kissing is sex. I agree, both of your options are incredibly silly and you should probably come back with a better argument. But hey-ho, here you are :^)

Nice call-out culture reference tho, definitely helps to back up my accusations of you acting like SJWs. Now you just need to break into your trademark rant about how I'm not American and/or how I'm too privileged, which precludes me from making a point.

Also, it's very important to point out that you have now twice claimed that Trump didn't deny saying he groped women, and that you believe he would have said them. I tried explaining once, but you were having none of it, so here's a transcript proving you to be thoroughly and utterly wrong:

Quote from: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/10/9/13220702/second-presidential-debate-live-transcript-clinton-trump
AC: [...] You bragged that you have sexually assaulted women.

DT: I don't think you understood.

[snip - lots of Trump dodging the question]

AC: So, you're saying you never did that.

DT: I said things that frankly, you hear these things. And I was embarrassed by it. But I have tremendous respect for women.

AC: Have you ever done those things?

DT: No, I have not.

Guys I cucked out and voted for Hillary. Sorry...
It's okay, we all knew you were a traitor. That's why you don't have access to the secret meme stash.[/list]
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 30, 2016, 03:56:48 PM
No, Saddam...It is true that in order to make your insane accusation, you necessarily need to read Trump's statements in reverse or to believe that kissing is groping, but it is not true that "he never even really said that he did those things to begin with because of the chronological order of the phrases he used, or something like that". The fact that you'd have to read Trump's statements in reverse to believe what you believe is just an easily-accessible proof of just how detached from reality your claim is.

You say no, but then you go on to say yes, at least in part.  It's a really weird argument, and you don't need to be American or unprivileged or an SJW to know that it's simply not how spoken language works, or even just language in general.  I agree that kissing isn't the same thing as groping, and in and of itself, a claim that one can do something is not identical to a claim that one has does something.  But it depends on the context, and the setting, and the vagaries of human communication in general.  There are no solid, scientific rules that let us objectively parse an exchange like this.  Most people would find saying, "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," and then immediately following it with "Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything," to be highly incriminating.  That's why his numbers went down, and that's why he endured so much criticism over it.  As far as I can tell, you're alone in your interpretation of it.

That transcript you posted supports my point, not yours.  Trump denied that he behaves towards women in the way that he talked about in the video, as I've already acknowledged, but he didn't deny that he said those things to begin with - in fact, he's quite clearly admitting that he did say them, and is apologetic and embarrassed by it.

Breaking news: it also doesn't say TRUMP 2K16 when played backwards.

Key must have been a Shillary supporter.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 30, 2016, 04:16:11 PM
(https://i.sli.mg/LvHG6W.jpg)

For the record, I still think Comey is trying to cover shit up. Something out of his control has forced him to do this.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on October 30, 2016, 06:36:43 PM
Giant Meteor 2016 ramping up for the final week of its campaign. (http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/30/499751470/nasas-new-intruder-alert-system-spots-an-incoming-asteroid)

(http://www.thegreenhead.com/imgs/giant-meteor-2016-bumper-sticker-4.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 30, 2016, 10:32:41 PM
(https://i.sli.mg/LvHG6W.jpg)

For the record, I still think Comey is trying to cover shit up. Something out of his control has forced him to do this.

In fairness, it is kind of wacky to publicize something this ominous and cryptic so soon before the election.  It's FUD.  "Maybe Clinton's guilty of something after all.  Maybe she's not.  We just don't know!  Thought you should know that's where we're at with this!"  Obviously, Comey's in something of an awkward position here.  If he hadn't disclosed this, everyone would be tearing into him and calling it further proof that he was corrupt, despite their policy of not doing that sort of thing with this timing.  And now that he has, well, he's still getting endless criticism for it.  He just can't win.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 30, 2016, 11:31:53 PM
Saddam, I'm going to move on from the "words mean things even if they weren't said" argument now. I explained to you what I meant, and if you insist on putting words in my mouth, then you're just repeating the Trump fiasco I criticised you for in the first place.

Moving on, it looks like the FBI (not Comey) fucked up by underinforming their director. Now he caught up with things and realised he was never ready to close the case in the first place. An unfortunate turn of events, but not the conspiracy either side is decrying.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on October 31, 2016, 12:02:37 AM
ur retartet but u donut even no it and i walnut tell u y

Cool.  But, moving on, everyone behold some liberal propaganda (http://www.salon.com/2016/10/29/im-with-stupid-the-entire-2016-election-has-been-an-insult-to-our-intelligence/).  At least it doesn't only criticize Trump or the Republicans.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on October 31, 2016, 02:16:32 AM
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3210714-Letter-to-Director-Comey-10-30-2016.html

(https://i.sli.mg/eLwhkT.jpg)

Harry Reid's going to affect the pH of the Atlantic if he keeps spewing salt of this magnitude.
Title: Reasons why Hillary is horrible
Post by: axl2468 aka Sir Cumference on October 31, 2016, 03:45:02 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q714fz3Cu4

And before you start ranting, I believe that Trump is also horrible.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 31, 2016, 04:49:00 AM

Moving on, it looks like the FBI (not Comey) fucked up by underinforming their director. Now he caught up with things and realised he was never ready to close the case in the first place. An unfortunate turn of events, but not the conspiracy either side is decrying.


I don't think so.  Cases can become reopened when new evidence pops up unexpectedly.  And if we are to believe the official report, its from a separate and unrelated investigation.  But we don't know what it is.  You're right, its a lose-lose so I think he should of taken the high road and waited until he could state the evidence found.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: model 29 on October 31, 2016, 05:42:43 PM
I haven't visited this thread in some time, but it seems Hillary is still a lying elitist who wants to disarm the citizens and bring in even more people from the middle east.

Thankyou Trump for running, and probably giving the election to that closet communist.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 31, 2016, 05:53:57 PM
I haven't visited this thread in some time, but it seems Hillary is still a lying elitist who wants to disarm the citizens and bring in even more people from the middle east.

Thankyou Trump for running, and probably giving the election to that closet communist.

I thought Obama was gonna take your guns.  What happened to that?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on October 31, 2016, 05:55:18 PM
I thought Obama was gonna take your guns.  What happened to that?
He tried, but Congress happened, so he had to settle on unlawfully banning the banning of gay marriage and mass-amnesty of illegals :^)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on October 31, 2016, 08:18:23 PM
I thought Obama was gonna take your guns.  What happened to that?
He tried, but Congress happened, so he had to settle on unlawfully banning the banning of gay marriage and mass-amnesty of illegals :^)
Congress bows before the SCOTUS!  Which sounds like Scrotum.  Which is what gay men gargle.
Thus, SCOTUS is gay.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: model 29 on November 02, 2016, 02:29:26 AM
I haven't visited this thread in some time, but it seems Hillary is still a lying elitist who wants to disarm the citizens and bring in even more people from the middle east.

Thankyou Trump for running, and probably giving the election to that closet communist.

I thought Obama was gonna take your guns.  What happened to that?
They need to do it in increments so as not to raise any alarm.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on November 02, 2016, 03:07:46 AM
Doing absolutely nothing seems to raise alarms all by itself.  Do you ever think that you spend so much time and effort being skeptical of the government that maybe you forget to be skeptical of other groups, like the gun lobby?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 02, 2016, 07:29:59 AM
I haven't visited this thread in some time, but it seems Hillary is still a lying elitist who wants to disarm the citizens and bring in even more people from the middle east.

Thankyou Trump for running, and probably giving the election to that closet communist.

I thought Obama was gonna take your guns.  What happened to that?
They need to do it in increments so as not to raise any alarm.
Who is they?
Because we've been through alot of presidents and so far none of them have taken away the guns.  And if it is incremental, how long is it supposed to take?  Because during the Bush years, any work on "taking the guns" could (and might have been?) undone completely. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on November 02, 2016, 05:01:05 PM
I haven't visited this thread in some time, but it seems Hillary is still a lying elitist who wants to disarm the citizens and bring in even more people from the middle east.

Thankyou Trump for running, and probably giving the election to that closet communist.

I thought Obama was gonna take your guns.  What happened to that?
They need to do it in increments so as not to raise any alarm.
Who is they?
Because we've been through alot of presidents and so far none of them have taken away the guns.  And if it is incremental, how long is it supposed to take?  Because during the Bush years, any work on "taking the guns" could (and might have been?) undone completely.

They haven't because they can't. So as a consolation prize they can only hope to put just enough restrictions to make the 2nd amendment useless while at the same time saying it's integrity is intact.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 02, 2016, 05:32:36 PM
I haven't visited this thread in some time, but it seems Hillary is still a lying elitist who wants to disarm the citizens and bring in even more people from the middle east.

Thankyou Trump for running, and probably giving the election to that closet communist.

I thought Obama was gonna take your guns.  What happened to that?
They need to do it in increments so as not to raise any alarm.
Who is they?
Because we've been through alot of presidents and so far none of them have taken away the guns.  And if it is incremental, how long is it supposed to take?  Because during the Bush years, any work on "taking the guns" could (and might have been?) undone completely.

They haven't because they can't. So as a consolation prize they can only hope to put just enough restrictions to make the 2nd amendment useless while at the same time saying it's integrity is intact.
Which THEY?
Because the federal government hasn't made much in the way of gun laws lately, only the states. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on November 02, 2016, 06:38:00 PM
Which THEY?

(http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/clubpenguin/images/2/2d/Illuminati.png/revision/latest?cb=20150117022611)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on November 02, 2016, 07:35:01 PM
Which THEY?

(http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/clubpenguin/images/2/2d/Illuminati.png/revision/latest?cb=20150117022611)

If you don't, or just refuse to, believe in a "they" then there is really not much to discuss. There is more than enough circumstantial evidence, along with plenty of concrete proof, that there is a cabal (many of them) bent on influencing global affairs to their advantage and pushing their sick agenda. Either you haven't done your research or you're just happy living under a rock.

An armed populace as big as the one in the country I live in is a problem for even the strongest militaries in the world. It's something that they are afraid of and frankly don't want to deal with at full strength.

In my opinion, the ultimate goal is 100% dependence on the state for everything, including your safety and protection --which as we've seen during the violent crackdown on protestors, and the slaying of Americans by police, that that would be a terrible idea.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 02, 2016, 07:48:20 PM
Which THEY?

(http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/clubpenguin/images/2/2d/Illuminati.png/revision/latest?cb=20150117022611)

If you don't, or just refuse to, believe in a "they" then there is really not much to discuss. There is more than enough circumstantial evidence, along with plenty of concrete proof, that there is a cabal (many of them) bent on influencing global affairs to their advantage and pushing their sick agenda. Either you haven't done your research or you're just happy living under a rock.

An armed populace as big as the one in the country I live in is a problem for even the strongest militaries in the world. It's something that they are afraid of and frankly don't want to deal with at full strength.

In my opinion, the ultimate goal is 100% dependence on the state for everything, including your safety and protection --which as we've seen during the violent crackdown on protestors, and the slaying of Americans by police, that that would be a terrible idea.


I asked which ones not questioning if they exist. 


Also, why would they want state dependancy?  That's literally the dumbest idea.  Its expensive as shit and you risk making people angry at you when you can't deliver.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on November 02, 2016, 08:30:33 PM
Which THEY?

(http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/clubpenguin/images/2/2d/Illuminati.png/revision/latest?cb=20150117022611)

If you don't, or just refuse to, believe in a "they" then there is really not much to discuss. There is more than enough circumstantial evidence, along with plenty of concrete proof, that there is a cabal (many of them) bent on influencing global affairs to their advantage and pushing their sick agenda. Either you haven't done your research or you're just happy living under a rock.

An armed populace as big as the one in the country I live in is a problem for even the strongest militaries in the world. It's something that they are afraid of and frankly don't want to deal with at full strength.

In my opinion, the ultimate goal is 100% dependence on the state for everything, including your safety and protection --which as we've seen during the violent crackdown on protestors, and the slaying of Americans by police, that that would be a terrible idea.


I asked which ones not questioning if they exist. 


Also, why would they want state dependancy?  That's literally the dumbest idea.  Its expensive as shit and you risk making people angry at you when you can't deliver.

Something about absolute control appeals to these people. It's a gradual, very slow process, but we are already seeing it unfold. The middle class has been under assault all across the world. Poverty is definitely a prerequisite to surrendering your rights. The ever constant spectre of terrorism and war with [insert other world power] has caused people all around the world to give up their privacy and liberties for perceived security.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 02, 2016, 10:22:23 PM
Which THEY?

(http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/clubpenguin/images/2/2d/Illuminati.png/revision/latest?cb=20150117022611)

If you don't, or just refuse to, believe in a "they" then there is really not much to discuss. There is more than enough circumstantial evidence, along with plenty of concrete proof, that there is a cabal (many of them) bent on influencing global affairs to their advantage and pushing their sick agenda. Either you haven't done your research or you're just happy living under a rock.

An armed populace as big as the one in the country I live in is a problem for even the strongest militaries in the world. It's something that they are afraid of and frankly don't want to deal with at full strength.

In my opinion, the ultimate goal is 100% dependence on the state for everything, including your safety and protection --which as we've seen during the violent crackdown on protestors, and the slaying of Americans by police, that that would be a terrible idea.


I asked which ones not questioning if they exist. 


Also, why would they want state dependancy?  That's literally the dumbest idea.  Its expensive as shit and you risk making people angry at you when you can't deliver.

Something about absolute control appeals to these people. It's a gradual, very slow process, but we are already seeing it unfold. The middle class has been under assault all across the world. Poverty is definitely a prerequisite to surrendering your rights. The ever constant spectre of terrorism and war with [insert other world power] has caused people all around the world to give up their privacy and liberties for perceived security.
Right...
"I love absolute control!  Let's take 100 years to do it so I won't be alive when it happens."

Seriously, this has been going on for thousands of years.  It's not a conspiracy, it's human nature.  When humans get scared, they want someone to save them.  When the threat has passed, they get uppity and want freedoms.
It's an endless cycle of peace and war.  Fear and safety.  Love and hate.

Look, here in Norway the middle class is alive and well.  Your mioptic view is the problem.  You can't see that the "attack" is an attack at all, it's simply human nature: those who have wish for more.  Those who have not, want more.  Everyone wants more and those who have are more powerful at keeping what they have than those who do not.  The entire French revolution was built on this concept.  Heck, what constitutes middle class is so vague, it's different based on who you talk to.  You might as well ask "how good is good enough?"

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 02, 2016, 10:24:15 PM
Anyway:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/11/02/Growing-Republican-Chorus-If-Clinton-Wins-She-Should-Be-Impeached

This is a new low.  At least they gave Obama a year before determining that they'd fight him at every point.  Clinton won't even get that.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on November 03, 2016, 12:43:29 AM
Anyway:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/11/02/Growing-Republican-Chorus-If-Clinton-Wins-She-Should-Be-Impeached

This is a new low.  At least they gave Obama a year before determining that they'd fight him at every point.  Clinton won't even get that.

She won't win, anyway, so this is pointless posturing.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on November 03, 2016, 02:14:22 AM
Quote from: Michael Cohen
I will make sure that you and I meet one day while we’re in the courthouse. And I will take you for every penny you still don’t have. And I will come after your Daily Beast and everybody else that you possibly know. So I’m warning you, tread very fucking lightly, because what I’m going to do to you is going to be fucking disgusting. You understand me?

You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it, with the word “rape,” and I’m going to mess your life up… for as long as you’re on this frickin’ planet… you’re going to have judgments against you, so much money, you’ll never know how to get out from underneath it.

Trump's lawyer, Michael Cohen, the "Which polls?" guy, laying down some Navy Seal Copypasta-level smack on the Daily Beast last year.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: model 29 on November 03, 2016, 03:51:02 AM
Who is they?
Those who claim "it doesn't serve a 'sporting' purpose", or "we're protecting the rights of gun owners by exempting the following 900 firearms from this ban" (for example, 50 of them are every slight variant of basically the same model bolt-action rifle) , or "no one needs a shoulder thing that goes up", or "no one needs to have X number of rounds", or "we need to add a tax of X amount per round"....
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on November 03, 2016, 05:10:53 AM
Who is they?
Those who claim "it doesn't serve a 'sporting' purpose", or "we're protecting the rights of gun owners by exempting the following 900 firearms from this ban" (for example, 50 of them are every slight variant of basically the same model bolt-action rifle) , or "no one needs a shoulder thing that goes up", or "no one needs to have X number of rounds", or "we need to add a tax of X amount per round"....

Well thats not what Hillary has proposed anyway, so I guess we are safe... for now.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 03, 2016, 06:36:46 AM
Who is they?
Those who claim "it doesn't serve a 'sporting' purpose", or "we're protecting the rights of gun owners by exempting the following 900 firearms from this ban" (for example, 50 of them are every slight variant of basically the same model bolt-action rifle) , or "no one needs a shoulder thing that goes up", or "no one needs to have X number of rounds", or "we need to add a tax of X amount per round"....


Ssoo....people who want Gun restrictions?
I thought it was some kind of big conspiracy but its just normal people like me?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 03, 2016, 08:29:16 AM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/02/fbi_sources_tell_fox_news_indictment_likely_in_clinton_foundation_case.html

RCP confirmed for Trump stronghold and anti-Hillary conspiracy. And the FBI is probably sexist.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 03, 2016, 09:12:08 AM
Ugh...




So what, Clinton maybe goes to jail and her VP gets the whitehouse?


Can we just destroy America already and start over?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on November 03, 2016, 09:32:56 AM
There seems to be an internal feud going on at the FBI. (http://www.wsj.com/articles/secret-recordings-fueled-fbi-feud-in-clinton-probe-1478135518) Back in May, Infowars was reporting the same sort of thing, that sources within the FBI were saying that an investigation into the Clinton Foundation would probably lead to an indictment. Now the Wall Street Journal is reporting that apparently investigators in the Clinton Foundation case are now "disobeying orders" from superiors. FBI and Department of Justice officials were apparently not convinced by the investigators' findings, but those investigators "won't let it go." I would bet serious money that those are the Fox News sources, and they are moving behind the backs of FBI superiors.

November 8th can't come soon enough, effin Christ man.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on November 03, 2016, 11:21:29 AM
Lower level agents know the higher ups are covering shit up and handing immunity deals out like they're candy.

The FBI Twitter recently put out a guide from the 1950s on how to evade a Soviet occupying force. Interesting timing all things considered.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 03, 2016, 12:50:07 PM
Lower level agents know the higher ups are covering shit up and handing immunity deals out like they're candy.

The FBI Twitter recently put out a guide from the 1950s on how to evade a Soviet occupying force. Interesting timing all things considered.
Yep.
Trump is right, Hillary is corrupt.
But it could easily be that the lower level agents are seeing it as their job while the upper level guys know Hillary must win or we'll be screwed.

Kinda of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation.

But it doesn't matter.  America must fall to save America.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 03, 2016, 01:05:56 PM
America must fall to save America.
So, are we looking at a 50+ independent states sort of dealio, or would you rather reestablish the British Empire?

I'm all for independent states. Balkanise everything!

they are moving behind the backs of FBI superiors.
Well, surely it's not entirely behind their backs if Comey decided to go public with the reopening of the case?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on November 03, 2016, 02:03:20 PM
they are moving behind the backs of FBI superiors.
Well, surely it's not entirely behind their backs if Comey decided to go public with the reopening of the case?

Two separate investigations. The one reported to Infowars and Fox News is about the Clinton Foundation, the case Comey sent a letter about to Congressional Oversight is about the E-mails. Yes, I know, there's so many it's hard to keep track.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 03, 2016, 03:35:17 PM
America must fall to save America.
So, are we looking at a 50+ independent states sort of dealio, or would you rather reestablish the British Empire?

I'm all for independent states. Balkanise everything!


Don't care.  I suspect, though, that several states would band together.  State lines would blurr, politicians would begin wars with other states, some would fragment, others get bigger.  In the end, America would become broken into its ideological pieces.  Whatever that looks like.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on November 03, 2016, 04:34:40 PM
Anyway:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/11/02/Growing-Republican-Chorus-If-Clinton-Wins-She-Should-Be-Impeached

This is a new low.  At least they gave Obama a year before determining that they'd fight him at every point.  Clinton won't even get that.

Because Obama was a choir boy compared to this bitch
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 03, 2016, 04:39:39 PM
Anyway:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/11/02/Growing-Republican-Chorus-If-Clinton-Wins-She-Should-Be-Impeached (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/11/02/Growing-Republican-Chorus-If-Clinton-Wins-She-Should-Be-Impeached)

This is a new low.  At least they gave Obama a year before determining that they'd fight him at every point.  Clinton won't even get that.

Because Obama was a choir boy compared to this bitch
Yes and she's competent.
Look, what would you prefer: someone who's intelligent, competent, and corrupt or someone who's quick to anger and has no knowledge of politics or how governments work?

When choosing between two evils, I go with the competent one.  At least they will keep the status quo.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on November 03, 2016, 05:29:12 PM
The problem here is that Dave, not living in the US, thinks the status quo is good enough. 

Furthermore, no, Hillary will not maintain the status quo. Her presidency would be proof you can rig the primary and the election and get away with all of it. Her presidency would spell the end of this government as it currently exists. She'll do unspeakable damage to the supreme Court and my rights.  I won't allow it.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 03, 2016, 05:37:04 PM
The problem here is that Dave, not living in the US, thinks the status quo is good enough. 

Furthermore, no, Hillary will not maintain the status quo. Her presidency would be proof you can rig the primary and the election and get away with all of it. Her presidency would spell the end of this government as it currently exists. She'll do unspeakable damage to the supreme Court and my rights.  I won't allow it.
Pretty sure elections have been rigged for years.  She's just the only one who got published about it... for some reason.

Anyway, I feel the status quo would be better than what Trump would bring: That you can get elected by yelling loudly enough, blaming everyone else, and giving them what they want instead of what is needed (or possible). 

But that's it, really.  You'll ever destroy America with anger and baseless blame or you destroy it with corruption.  Pick your poison cause they both suck.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on November 03, 2016, 05:39:37 PM
I love incendiary rhetoric. According to either side, the country is literally doomed.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on November 03, 2016, 05:55:08 PM
I love incendiary rhetoric. According to either side, the country is literally doomed.

It's true. This is the end times, junker. The cubs won the world series.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on November 03, 2016, 05:57:53 PM
I love incendiary rhetoric. According to either side, the country is literally doomed.

It's true. This is the end times, junker. The cubs won the world series.

This is probably the most telling revelation. Although, like the election, the WS was also rigged...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 03, 2016, 05:58:52 PM
I love incendiary rhetoric. According to either side, the country is literally doomed.

It's true. This is the end times, junker. The cubs won the world series.

This is probably the most telling revelation. Although, like the election, the WS was also rigged...
Well, yeah.
It just took 100 years for the cubs to save enough money to buy a WS win.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on November 03, 2016, 06:02:04 PM
I love incendiary rhetoric. According to either side, the country is literally doomed.

It's true. This is the end times, junker. The cubs won the world series.

This is probably the most telling revelation. Although, like the election, the WS was also rigged...

The weather was rigged. Just like the rain during the Brexit vote.
Title: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on November 03, 2016, 07:17:14 PM
I haven't seen enough proclamations from people who are totally leaving the country if candidate X gets elected. Maybe this election cycle is too tame for that old hat.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on November 03, 2016, 08:00:07 PM
I haven't seen enough proclamations from people who are totally leaving the country if candidate X gets elected. Maybe this election cycle is too tame for that old hat.

http://ijr.com/2015/12/504520-trump-wins-moving/

Ask and ye shall receive
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on November 03, 2016, 08:15:27 PM
I haven't seen enough proclamations from people who are totally leaving the country if candidate X gets elected. Maybe this election cycle is too tame for that old hat.

http://ijr.com/2015/12/504520-trump-wins-moving/

Ask and ye shall receive


Quote from: http://ijr.com/2015/12/504520-trump-wins-moving/
If Donald Trump Becomes President I'm Moving To Hawaii. Peace Out America[emoji111]????????????

heh, gr8 m8
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on November 03, 2016, 08:59:17 PM
Anyway:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/11/02/Growing-Republican-Chorus-If-Clinton-Wins-She-Should-Be-Impeached (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/11/02/Growing-Republican-Chorus-If-Clinton-Wins-She-Should-Be-Impeached)

This is a new low.  At least they gave Obama a year before determining that they'd fight him at every point.  Clinton won't even get that.

Because Obama was a choir boy compared to this bitch
Yes and she's competent.
Look, what would you prefer: someone who's intelligent, competent, and corrupt or someone who's quick to anger and has no knowledge of politics or how governments work?

When choosing between two evils, I go with the competent one.  At least they will keep the status quo.


See that's where we're going to differ in opinion. Trump clearly knows how politics and government work: corruption and cronyism. That's why he is vowing to "Drain the Swamp". Just to be clear: It's your opinion she is competent and intelligent, but simultaneously incapable of operating a secure server or knowing classified material shouldn't be sent thru insecure means. Her literal defense is stupidity and incompetence, because the other option involves criminality.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on November 03, 2016, 10:17:14 PM
Trump clearly knows how politics and government work: corruption and cronyism.

A bumper sticker could tell us that much.  Do you really think expressing a sentiment that commonplace and passé constitutes being knowledgeable of politics and government?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on November 03, 2016, 11:01:37 PM
See that's where we're going to differ in opinion. Trump clearly knows how politics and government work: corruption and cronyism. That's why he is vowing to "Drain the Swamp".

why do you believe him?  why are you willing to simply take him at his word that he's willing or able to end political corruption?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 03, 2016, 11:17:49 PM
Anyway:

http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/11/02/Growing-Republican-Chorus-If-Clinton-Wins-She-Should-Be-Impeached (http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/11/02/Growing-Republican-Chorus-If-Clinton-Wins-She-Should-Be-Impeached)

This is a new low.  At least they gave Obama a year before determining that they'd fight him at every point.  Clinton won't even get that.

Because Obama was a choir boy compared to this bitch
Yes and she's competent.
Look, what would you prefer: someone who's intelligent, competent, and corrupt or someone who's quick to anger and has no knowledge of politics or how governments work?

When choosing between two evils, I go with the competent one.  At least they will keep the status quo.


See that's where we're going to differ in opinion. Trump clearly knows how politics and government work: corruption and cronyism. That's why he is vowing to "Drain the Swamp". Just to be clear: It's your opinion she is competent and intelligent, but simultaneously incapable of operating a secure server or knowing classified material shouldn't be sent thru insecure means. Her literal defense is stupidity and incompetence, because the other option involves criminality.
Tell me, are you capable of solving complex mathematical equations?
Getting away with murder?
Balancing the books of a major corporation?
Can you fix your own car or PC?

A lack of skills (in this case computers) does not make someone stupid, it makes them ignorant of that area.  Clinton is quite intelligent but is not tech savvy (or wasn't back then).  To claim that makes her unintelligent then makes the entire population of the world unintelligent as everyone lacks skills at something complex.  Most can't fix their own car.  Most can't fix their own PC.  Most can't diagnose their health problems or build a cabinet. 

And finally:
If you take your car to a mechanic.  The best mechanic.  And he says "Sure, your car can drive under water" are you gonna question him?  Probably not.  He's the best mechanic, why would he lie?
We know Clinton setup her own e-mail server, not by her own hand but by a hired one.  Whose to say those she hired didn't simply say "Yep, it's totally secure.  Unhackable.  Don't worry about it."  I mean, it's not like the US government servers are any better.  Or major corporations for that matter.  How many times have you read stories of credit cards or personal information being stolen?  The IRS got hacked too, remember?

So tell me, why is she so unintelligent for choosing an e-mail server she likely knew little about but was probably better than the state department's system?

Also:
Quote from: garygreen
why do you believe him?  why are you willing to simply take him at his word that he's willing or able to end political corruption?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on November 04, 2016, 12:59:27 AM
I don't know what the other guy's argument is, but mine has always been that Hillary has been very purposefully using that server to sell information to foreign governments. If she wasn't selling it, then she was giving it away for free. Either option speaks to incompetence.

So tell me, why is she so unintelligent for choosing an e-mail server she likely knew little about but was probably better than the state department's system?

She was the Secretary of State for many years and told the FBI she didn't know what a classification header looks like and couldn't give an example of what would make data classified. She is either treasonous or utterly incompetent, both options being worse than a worst-case scenario Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on November 04, 2016, 01:16:16 AM
I don't know what the other guy's argument is, but mine has always been that Hillary has been very purposefully using that server to sell information to foreign governments. If she wasn't selling it, then she was giving it away for free. Either option speaks to incompetence.

what evidence do you have to support this assertion?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on November 04, 2016, 02:29:41 AM
If you take your car to a mechanic.  The best mechanic.  And he says "Sure, your car can drive under water" are you gonna question him?  Probably not.  He's the best mechanic, why would he lie?
We know Clinton setup her own e-mail server, not by her own hand but by a hired one.  Whose to say those she hired didn't simply say "Yep, it's totally secure.  Unhackable.  Don't worry about it."

The thing is, no, I would not agree with that mechanic, because even with my very limited experience with cars, I know they don't drive underwater. Similarly, Clinton should have known that handling possibly classified information on a private E-mail server was not a good idea. Personally, I think she did it specifically to avoid FOIA requests, but we'll probably never know.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on November 04, 2016, 02:37:52 AM
Hillary is now struggling in New Hampshire, which makes this a not-entirely-unlikely scenario:

(http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/9Bxpj.png) (http://www.270towin.com/maps/9Bxpj)

God help us all . . .
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on November 04, 2016, 03:22:22 AM
Hillary is now struggling in New Hampshire, which makes this a not-entirely-unlikely scenario:

(http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/9Bxpj.png) (http://www.270towin.com/maps/9Bxpj)

God help us all . . .

That map forgets Trump is +15 in ME CD2 which is worth a single electoral vote. If Trump sees a map like that he's at 270, not 269. ME should be striped blue/red.

I don't know what the other guy's argument is, but mine has always been that Hillary has been very purposefully using that server to sell information to foreign governments. If she wasn't selling it, then she was giving it away for free. Either option speaks to incompetence.

what evidence do you have to support this assertion?

Quote
Authorities now believe there is about a 99 percent chance that up to five foreign intelligence agencies may have accessed and taken emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server, two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations told Fox News.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/03/sources-99-percent-chance-foreign-intel-agencies-breached-clinton-server.html

Either she sold it to them and will claim "they hacked me" or they gained access due to her sheer incompetence. As I said, both are bad options.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on November 04, 2016, 04:17:51 AM
That map forgets Trump is +15 in ME CD2 which is worth a single electoral vote. If Trump sees a map like that he's at 270, not 269. ME should be striped blue/red.

Where the heck are you getting +15? Emerson College has Clinton+1, October 28–30, and RCP average is Clinton +0.7 in ME2. I don't think my 269-269 map is unrealistic at all.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 04, 2016, 08:28:20 AM
If you take your car to a mechanic.  The best mechanic.  And he says "Sure, your car can drive under water" are you gonna question him?  Probably not.  He's the best mechanic, why would he lie?
We know Clinton setup her own e-mail server, not by her own hand but by a hired one.  Whose to say those she hired didn't simply say "Yep, it's totally secure.  Unhackable.  Don't worry about it."

The thing is, no, I would not agree with that mechanic, because even with my very limited experience with cars, I know they don't drive underwater. Similarly, Clinton should have known that handling possibly classified information on a private E-mail server was not a good idea. Personally, I think she did it specifically to avoid FOIA requests, but we'll probably never know.
Fair enough.  Then how about "your car can keep you safe in a highway crash" or "that noise isn't anything to worry about".

As for good or bad ideas, let me say two things:
1. It's not a new concept and has been done by several previous members of the white house staff.

2. Considering public opinion is that the government is horrible and can't do anything right, would it not stand to reason that getting a private company to do it would be better?  The government can't do anything right so surely the private enterprise that Hillary hired would be better, yes?

But this just shows that such things are only excuses to dislike the government.  We rant about the inefficiency and poor quality of the government's services but will happily condemn someone for using a private system in it's place if we don't like them.

Quote from: Rushy

Quote<blockquote>Authorities now believe there is about a 99 percent chance that up to five foreign intelligence agencies may have accessed and taken emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server, two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations told Fox News.</blockquote>
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/03/sources-99-percent-chance-foreign-intel-agencies-breached-clinton-server.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/03/sources-99-percent-chance-foreign-intel-agencies-breached-clinton-server.html)

Either she sold it to them and will claim "they hacked me" or they gained access due to her sheer incompetence. As I said, both are bad options.

I have one big issue with this:
How do they know? It's easy enough to determine a hack shortly after it happens if the information is released or if unauthorized access is seen but it's not like they "magically" found a new log file that shows she got hacked years ago.  Nor is it likely any of her information has shown up and even if it has, the FBI wouldn't likely know about it, would they?  It's all fine to say it now but it's not like the hack would have happened last week so why is this evidence suddenly appearing?  And if it was buried, how did the republican investigations not see it?  I mean, these investigators had over  a year to show and leak the information yet they did not.

This is as fake as all those women accusing Trump right before the election.   I suspect this is a group of FBI agents who are like most Trump Supporters: They see evidence where there is none.  They draw conclusions before any facts.  And in the end, they made their own case with their own logic and proclaim it to be factual.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on November 04, 2016, 12:56:23 PM
Guys, let's talk about this story:

http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/02/attorney-representing-woman-suing-trump-on-rape-charges-speaks-out/

Accusations have been made and therefore listen and believe!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 04, 2016, 01:58:57 PM
Clinton knowingly consorts with Saudi Arabia while also knowing that they help fund ISIL!

http://dailycaller.com/2016/10/10/hillary-in-leaked-email-saudi-arabia-and-qatar-are-funding-isis/

The e-mail in question:
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774

I saw this in this interview:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ7lYRnF1F8

And I gotta say... why is this a problem?  She is literally saying "We gotta stop them from helping ISIL using diplomacy" rather than "punish them with violence" which is what her critics would likely say.   They claim that the Saudi's have donated heavily to her foundation and maybe they have but she's not stupid.  She knows that if the US suddenly went to war against Saudi Arabi, it would be the worst idea in recent history.

First off, we'd have a fuel embargo so gas prices would jump to insane levels.
We'd have the entire Middle East (except Israel) pissed at us and possibly at war with us. 
And it would only make ISIL stronger.  "America is willing to attack their allies now?  Proof they want to control us all!"  This isn't proof of evil or corruption, this is proof that the world is far more complex than some "good guys vs bad guys" movie. 

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on November 04, 2016, 04:14:36 PM
I don't know what the other guy's argument is, but mine has always been that Hillary has been very purposefully using that server to sell information to foreign governments. If she wasn't selling it, then she was giving it away for free. Either option speaks to incompetence.

what evidence do you have to support this assertion?

Quote
Authorities now believe there is about a 99 percent chance that up to five foreign intelligence agencies may have accessed and taken emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server, two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations told Fox News.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/11/03/sources-99-percent-chance-foreign-intel-agencies-breached-clinton-server.html

Either she sold it to them and will claim "they hacked me" or they gained access due to her sheer incompetence. As I said, both are bad options.

i meant evidence that she's selling state secrets, not absurd false dilemmas.  i'm not an expert in computer security, but i bet that incompetence isn't literally the only way that servers get hacked.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: model 29 on November 05, 2016, 04:33:29 AM
Who is they?
Those who claim "it doesn't serve a 'sporting' purpose", or "we're protecting the rights of gun owners by exempting the following 900 firearms from this ban" (for example, 50 of them are every slight variant of basically the same model bolt-action rifle) , or "no one needs a shoulder thing that goes up", or "no one needs to have X number of rounds", or "we need to add a tax of X amount per round"....

Ssoo....people who want Gun restrictions?
I thought it was some kind of big conspiracy but its just normal people like me?
And after those restrictions based on make-believe concepts, misleading lists, no knowledge of the subject matter, or some other bs, then what?  More restrictions.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 05, 2016, 06:27:08 AM
Who is they?
Those who claim "it doesn't serve a 'sporting' purpose", or "we're protecting the rights of gun owners by exempting the following 900 firearms from this ban" (for example, 50 of them are every slight variant of basically the same model bolt-action rifle) , or "no one needs a shoulder thing that goes up", or "no one needs to have X number of rounds", or "we need to add a tax of X amount per round"....

Ssoo....people who want Gun restrictions?
I thought it was some kind of big conspiracy but its just normal people like me?
And after those restrictions based on make-believe concepts, misleading lists, no knowledge of the subject matter, or some other bs, then what?  More restrictions.
You just described most people in regards to political issues.


Again, not a conspiracy, just people who are emotional.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on November 05, 2016, 02:53:09 PM
so apparently clinton and podesta literally worship satan...fuck this, i'm out, and at this point i genuinely hope trump wins.  i can't take another four years of listening to this stupid bullshit.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on November 05, 2016, 04:18:46 PM
so apparently clinton and podesta literally worship satan...fuck this, i'm out, and at this point i genuinely hope trump wins.  i can't take another four years of listening to this stupid bullshit.

Breathe
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 05, 2016, 04:22:24 PM
so apparently clinton and podesta literally worship satan...fuck this, i'm out, and at this point i genuinely hope trump wins.  i can't take another four years of listening to this stupid bullshit.


I'm mostly with ya on that. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on November 05, 2016, 05:12:18 PM
I give up.  Vote for Trump.  Vote for Mr. T.  Vote for Bruce Campbell.  Nothing makes sense anymore, and I just want to curl up into a ball and let it all pass me by.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on November 05, 2016, 05:48:12 PM
Actually, vote for whoever, except Clinton.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on November 05, 2016, 05:55:26 PM
so apparently clinton and podesta literally worship satan...fuck this, i'm out, and at this point i genuinely hope trump wins.  i can't take another four years of listening to this stupid bullshit.

Breathe

srsly tho, we're talking about at least four more years of this nonsense if hillary wins.  at least if trump wins i'll get to spend four years being super smug all the time.  that'll be kinda fun.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 05, 2016, 06:12:26 PM
so apparently clinton and podesta literally worship satan...fuck this, i'm out, and at this point i genuinely hope trump wins.  i can't take another four years of listening to this stupid bullshit.

Breathe

srsly tho, we're talking about at least four more years of this nonsense if hillary wins.  at least if trump wins i'll get to spend four years being super smug all the time.  that'll be kinda fun.
Before or after you're drafted into the army because Trump went to war with both Mexico AND Canada at the same time?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on November 05, 2016, 06:30:43 PM
srsly tho, we're talking about at least four more years of this nonsense if hillary wins.

Only if Hillary wins?  We'll have to endure all this during Hillary's inevitable trial if Trump wins too.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 05, 2016, 07:17:10 PM
srsly tho, we're talking about at least four more years of this nonsense if hillary wins.

Only if Hillary wins?  We'll have to endure all this during Hillary's inevitable trial if Trump wins too.
And let's not forget next election to.  Unless the democrats don't run because they've been banned.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 05, 2016, 08:15:25 PM
srsly tho, we're talking about at least four more years of this nonsense if hillary wins.

Only if Hillary wins?  We'll have to endure all this during Hillary's inevitable trial if Trump wins too.
ok but Gary Johnson tho
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on November 06, 2016, 01:36:50 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/us/politics/donald-trump-rally.html

It turns out that the supposed assassination attempt against Trump yesterday was in fact no such thing - his fans beat the shit out of an innocent man. ::)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on November 06, 2016, 02:01:01 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/06/us/politics/donald-trump-rally.html

It turns out that the supposed assassination attempt against Trump yesterday was in fact no such thing - his fans beat the shit out of an innocent man. ::)

i think you meant to say "MSM REFUSES TO REPORT TRUMP SHOT SEVERAL TIMES DURING SPEECH AT POINT BLANK RANGE BY SHILLERY OPERATIVES. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/05/politics/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-campaign-rally/)  SUSPECTS DEAD AFTER DETONATING SUICIDE VESTS IN THE CROWD KILLING MULTIPLE SECRET SERVICE AGENTS AND HUNDREDS OF TRUMP SUPPORTERS.  VIDEO FOUND DURING AFTERMATH SHOWS HILLARY LAUGHING ABOUT HOW FUN IT IS TO "WATCH AMERICANS DIE."  GET.  THIS.  TO.  THE.  TOP!!!!!!!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on November 06, 2016, 08:59:05 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html

It looks like Clinton's been re-cleared by the FBI.  I wonder how many people will even know or care about this new development at this late stage.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on November 06, 2016, 09:19:41 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html

It looks like Clinton's been re-cleared by the FBI.  I wonder how many people will even know or care about this new development at this late stage.

That Comey, constantly interfering with the election...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on November 06, 2016, 09:46:34 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html

It looks like Clinton's been re-cleared by the FBI.  I wonder how many people will even know or care about this new development at this late stage.

Can you screen shot any of the article?  I have no NY Times subscription.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on November 06, 2016, 10:02:18 PM
Can you screen shot any of the article?  I have no NY Times subscription.

Incognito mode.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on November 06, 2016, 10:19:22 PM
It's pretty much the same story on every news site:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/06/politics/comey-tells-congress-fbi-has-not-changed-conclusions/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 06, 2016, 10:24:46 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html)

It looks like Clinton's been re-cleared by the FBI.  I wonder how many people will even know or care about this new development at this late stage.

Few if any.

Guess we know which side Comey is on.

Also:
http://www.investors.com/politics/donald-trump-leads-hillary-clinton-with-more-states-in-play-ibdtipp-poll/ (http://www.investors.com/politics/donald-trump-leads-hillary-clinton-with-more-states-in-play-ibdtipp-poll/)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on November 07, 2016, 01:28:22 AM
Would've been great if, you know, Comey had looked into that before sending his vague as shit letter 12 days before the election.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on November 07, 2016, 08:23:22 AM

Exonerate exonerate EXONERATE!



(who! joke)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Fortuna on November 07, 2016, 10:50:21 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html

It looks like Clinton's been re-cleared by the FBI.  I wonder how many people will even know or care about this new development at this late stage.

Of course she has been. Which federal prosecutor is going to go after the first potential female president? This isn't a Kevin Costner movie. All those mother effers at the top have serious dirt, and they all protect each other. That's one thing Trump has going for him: he may be a loudmouthed asshole, but he is very anti-establishment. If he's elected it will be Spring cleaning for all the power structures in Washington.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 07, 2016, 12:53:50 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html)

It looks like Clinton's been re-cleared by the FBI.  I wonder how many people will even know or care about this new development at this late stage.

Of course she has been. Which federal prosecutor is going to go after the first potential female president? This isn't a Kevin Costner movie. All those mother effers at the top have serious dirt, and they all protect each other. That's one thing Trump has going for him: he may be a loudmouthed asshole, but he is very anti-establishment. If he's elected it will be Spring cleaning for all the power structures in Washington.
If that were the case he wouldn't have announced anything about reopening the investigation.
No, this was a political play.  Mostly to cover his own ass.

As for Trump:
No, he is not anti-establishment.  He SAYS he is but he only goes after the establishment that isn't helping him.  He'll happily say Congress is amazing if Congress does what he wants.  He harks on the media only when the media prints negative stories about him.  He harks on Republicans only when Republicans started abandoning him or fighting him. 

All those who disagree with Trump are the enemy.  Remember that.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on November 07, 2016, 04:57:28 PM
Would've been great if, you know, Comey had looked into that before sending his vague as shit letter 12 days before the election.

Most people don't know what the new investigation was even about. All they will know is that the "partisan witch-hunt" led by the FBI will have failed its plan to unfairly prosecute one of the greatest, most honorable women of our time.

That first exoneration didn't really stick, so they wanted to have another one right before the election to make the sheep feel safer about selecting their next executioner in chief
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Fortuna on November 07, 2016, 09:25:42 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html)

It looks like Clinton's been re-cleared by the FBI.  I wonder how many people will even know or care about this new development at this late stage.

Of course she has been. Which federal prosecutor is going to go after the first potential female president? This isn't a Kevin Costner movie. All those mother effers at the top have serious dirt, and they all protect each other. That's one thing Trump has going for him: he may be a loudmouthed asshole, but he is very anti-establishment. If he's elected it will be Spring cleaning for all the power structures in Washington.
If that were the case he wouldn't have announced anything about reopening the investigation.
No, this was a political play.  Mostly to cover his own ass.

As for Trump:
No, he is not anti-establishment.  He SAYS he is but he only goes after the establishment that isn't helping him.  He'll happily say Congress is amazing if Congress does what he wants.  He harks on the media only when the media prints negative stories about him.  He harks on Republicans only when Republicans started abandoning him or fighting him. 

All those who disagree with Trump are the enemy.  Remember that.

You just explained why he's anti-establishment: he doesn't play by the usual political rules.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 07, 2016, 10:12:02 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/us/politics/hilary-clinton-male-voters-donald-trump.html)

It looks like Clinton's been re-cleared by the FBI.  I wonder how many people will even know or care about this new development at this late stage.

Of course she has been. Which federal prosecutor is going to go after the first potential female president? This isn't a Kevin Costner movie. All those mother effers at the top have serious dirt, and they all protect each other. That's one thing Trump has going for him: he may be a loudmouthed asshole, but he is very anti-establishment. If he's elected it will be Spring cleaning for all the power structures in Washington.
If that were the case he wouldn't have announced anything about reopening the investigation.
No, this was a political play.  Mostly to cover his own ass.

As for Trump:
No, he is not anti-establishment.  He SAYS he is but he only goes after the establishment that isn't helping him.  He'll happily say Congress is amazing if Congress does what he wants.  He harks on the media only when the media prints negative stories about him.  He harks on Republicans only when Republicans started abandoning him or fighting him. 

All those who disagree with Trump are the enemy.  Remember that.

You just explained why he's anti-establishment: he doesn't play by the usual political rules.
That's not anti-establishment.
He's less "not playing by the usual political rules" and more "ramping it up far beyond reasonable extremes".  Instead of making vague but technically correct comments, he's outright demanding that we bypass the constitution.  But people love it.  They love hearing someone high up say "I'm going to fix your problems by making those people you blame for them suffer!"

He would not be the first politician to do this, either.  He's just more direct than most.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on November 07, 2016, 10:25:16 PM
Most people don't know what the new investigation was even about. All they will know is that the "partisan witch-hunt" led by the FBI will have failed its plan to unfairly prosecute one of the greatest, most honorable women of our time.

I can't imagine anyone having such a rosy view of Hillary beyond the core group of (I can't believe I'm about to say this - the company I keep must be rubbing off on me) diehard feminists who have been with her for every step of the way.  Most people disapprove (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/02/tracking-poll-finds-race-tied-as-trump-opens-up-an-8-point-edge-on-honesty/) of how Hillary has handled the entire email situation, along with bafflingly viewing Trump as more honest than her, despite the fact that he's objectively lied far, far more than she has throughout the race.

Quote
That first exoneration didn't really stick, so they wanted to have another one right before the election to make the sheep feel safer about selecting their next executioner in chief

If that were the case, then why not just announce that after further review, they're sticking to their decision to not charge her?  Why first throw the race into chaos with the vague letter declaring the investigation back open?  That was hardly going to reassure anyone.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on November 08, 2016, 07:38:46 PM
Quote
That first exoneration didn't really stick, so they wanted to have another one right before the election to make the sheep feel safer about selecting their next executioner in chief

If that were the case, then why not just announce that after further review, they're sticking to their decision to not charge her?  Why first throw the race into chaos with the vague letter declaring the investigation back open?  That was hardly going to reassure anyone.

Because they're not that bright. Maybe the net positive outweighed the net negative in their focus groups, I don't know. But I've seen people triumphantly celebrating this second FBI "clearing" of Clinton, as some kind of assertion that they were right all along about the emails not mattering. The emails do matter. We will see some shit go down after she's elected,  I'll be shocked if she gets out of this without an Obama pardon
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 08, 2016, 07:48:10 PM
Quote
That first exoneration didn't really stick, so they wanted to have another one right before the election to make the sheep feel safer about selecting their next executioner in chief

If that were the case, then why not just announce that after further review, they're sticking to their decision to not charge her?  Why first throw the race into chaos with the vague letter declaring the investigation back open?  That was hardly going to reassure anyone.

Because they're not that bright. Maybe the net positive outweighed the net negative in their focus groups, I don't know. But I've seen people triumphantly celebrating this second FBI "clearing" of Clinton, as some kind of assertion that they were right all along about the emails not mattering. The emails do matter. We will see some shit go down after she's elected,  I'll be shocked if she gets out of this without an Obama pardon

Couple of things.
1. I have not heard people celebrating this.  But then again, I turned off my facebook feed.  But even so, the e-mails don't matter anymore.  If they haven't found whatever missing e-mails by now, they never will.
2. We will not see some shit go down after the election.  What would change?  Why would it suddenly cause someone to say "Oh hey, I've got these e-mails!"
3. Obama can't pardon someone who isn't convicted of a crime.  Even IF she suddenly got charged today, unless she pleaded guilty, Obama would be out of office long before the trial concluded.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: TheTruthIsOnHere on November 08, 2016, 09:50:46 PM
Quote
That first exoneration didn't really stick, so they wanted to have another one right before the election to make the sheep feel safer about selecting their next executioner in chief

If that were the case, then why not just announce that after further review, they're sticking to their decision to not charge her?  Why first throw the race into chaos with the vague letter declaring the investigation back open?  That was hardly going to reassure anyone.

Because they're not that bright. Maybe the net positive outweighed the net negative in their focus groups, I don't know. But I've seen people triumphantly celebrating this second FBI "clearing" of Clinton, as some kind of assertion that they were right all along about the emails not mattering. The emails do matter. We will see some shit go down after she's elected,  I'll be shocked if she gets out of this without an Obama pardon

Couple of things.
1. I have not heard people celebrating this.  But then again, I turned off my facebook feed.  But even so, the e-mails don't matter anymore.  If they haven't found whatever missing e-mails by now, they never will.
2. We will not see some shit go down after the election.  What would change?  Why would it suddenly cause someone to say "Oh hey, I've got these e-mails!"
3. Obama can't pardon someone who isn't convicted of a crime.  Even IF she suddenly got charged today, unless she pleaded guilty, Obama would be out of office long before the trial concluded.

I've seen it, then again I'm an American living in America. It's not emails missing that's the problem, we already got enough information from what HAS been released that she frequently engages in behavior that is devastating to true democracy. Collusion with media, voter intimidation, fraud, political favors to the highest bidder. I don't see how anyone could be comfortable knowing how their meaningful right to vote has long been usurped and not a single agency we pay to stop that from happening is going to do anything about it.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on November 08, 2016, 09:58:58 PM
People were indeed celebrating Hillary's second "clearing," although I'd argue it was no more enthusiastic or widespread than Trump and the Republicans' celebration when the FBI reopened the investigation.  Also, it's within the president's power to pardon someone before they've even been indicted for an offense.  One of the most famous examples is Ford's pardon of Nixon.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on November 09, 2016, 04:39:56 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/OFYhsP3.png)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on November 09, 2016, 04:45:16 AM
BEHOLD THE HOLY IMPERIAL CROWN
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 09, 2016, 05:53:14 AM
Trump IS winning by a landslide.

Well fuck.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 09, 2016, 06:16:56 AM
(http://i.omgomg.eu/happening)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on November 09, 2016, 06:21:47 AM
Romney is still winning by a landslide
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 09, 2016, 06:37:37 AM
So... does this mean the Election isn't rigged and never was?
Or Trump rigged it?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Fortuna on November 09, 2016, 06:46:50 AM
It's all ogre. Trump wins. Here's hoping he doesn't do something massively stupid.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on November 09, 2016, 06:57:44 AM
It's all ogre. Trump wins. Here's hoping he doesn't do something massively stupid.

Well he doesn't want a no-fly zone over Syria like Hillary, risking war with Russia, so maybe there's that?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 09, 2016, 07:33:09 AM
It's official: Trump won.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on November 09, 2016, 07:50:17 AM
http://www.redstate.com/joesquire/2016/11/09/donald-trump-elected-45th-president-of-the-united-states/

Well he doesn't want a no-fly zone over Syria like Hillary, risking war with Russia, so maybe there's that?

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1805.msg106124#msg106124
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on November 09, 2016, 07:55:14 AM
http://www.redstate.com/joesquire/2016/11/09/donald-trump-elected-45th-president-of-the-united-states/

Well he doesn't want a no-fly zone over Syria like Hillary, risking war with Russia, so maybe there's that?

http://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=1805.msg106124#msg106124

sandokhan I love you but no one gives a shit about any of the retarded things you have to say at the moment
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on November 09, 2016, 08:04:53 AM
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vZ0wyIFgvog/VupXRwJo-nI/AAAAAAAATEs/Lb337g5Cm8kuPOCVNs4mmI_EGdFxUQu2A/s320/psy-op.jpg)

Your enthusiasm is way out of proportion in comparison to the facts: you have all been duped to believe that Trump will actually keep his promises (wars in the ME, Ukraine; Fed).

Read the links I provided in my last message carefully.


http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Trumps-VP-Mike-Pence-Hails-Dick-Cheney-as-His-Role-Model-20160918-0020.html

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Dick-Cheney-Thinks-Trump-Can-Bring-US-Back-to-the-Dark-Side-20160506-0030.html

http://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13170020/mike-pence-vice-presidential-debate-russia


http://aanirfan.blogspot.ro/2016/10/trumps-rich-and-intelligent-supporters.html
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 09, 2016, 08:14:21 AM
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vZ0wyIFgvog/VupXRwJo-nI/AAAAAAAATEs/Lb337g5Cm8kuPOCVNs4mmI_EGdFxUQu2A/s320/psy-op.jpg)
Just an FYI, that cartoon doesn't predate the real events on which it was based.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on November 09, 2016, 08:17:17 AM
Your enthusiasm is way out of proportion in comparison to the facts...

http://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13170020/mike-pence-vice-presidential-debate-russia

And you non-ironically sourced Vox as a reliable source for anything ever.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on November 09, 2016, 08:17:58 AM
Well, just got up to see the start of the last season of "The USA", the last nail in the coffin of the age of reason.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 09, 2016, 08:38:33 AM
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vZ0wyIFgvog/VupXRwJo-nI/AAAAAAAATEs/Lb337g5Cm8kuPOCVNs4mmI_EGdFxUQu2A/s320/psy-op.jpg)
Just an FYI, that cartoon doesn't predate the real events on which it was based.
Huh?
How do you figure?
The episode aired in 2000.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 09, 2016, 08:44:49 AM
Huh?
How do you figure?
The episode aired in 2000.
It didn't. Stupid people are spreading an urban myth. It was a short that aired in July 2015.

It's pretty funny, too. Enjoy:

https://youtu.be/oz7_JP7ROvA

Here's the relevant bit of the 2000 episode that people are conflating with the recent short: http://metro.co.uk/video/the-simpsons-predicted-president-trump-1355087/?ito=vjs-link
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 09, 2016, 08:50:50 AM
Ah.
Fair enough.

However, in "Bart to the Future" they said that Trump was, in fact, president.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 09, 2016, 08:52:03 AM
Yup, just edited my post to add that. Couldn't find the clip when I first posted.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on November 09, 2016, 01:41:32 PM
inb4 Hillary runs again in four years
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 09, 2016, 01:42:51 PM
inb4 Hillary runs again in four years
She won't.
Because Trump will use his executive power to bypass the constitution and have her arrested.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on November 09, 2016, 01:47:35 PM
Guys. There won't be an election in four years. God-Emperor Trump is immortal, and emperors rule for life.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on November 09, 2016, 01:54:13 PM
So,I'm never reading another poll again.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 09, 2016, 02:13:18 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m2valF3s84
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on November 09, 2016, 02:39:24 PM
The true losers of 2016, besides America, are the pollsters. What the fuck happened? Did everyone decide at the beginning of 2016 to just lie when people ask them how they're going to vote. Jaysus.

Looks like we're not going to address climate change. We'll have a Supreme Court justice from that Heritage Foundation list Trump published. Deficit will rocket upwards. Healthcare reform is out the window. But at least we didn't vote for Hillary Clinton.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 09, 2016, 02:44:23 PM
The true losers of 2016, besides America, are the pollsters. What the fuck happened? Did everyone decide at the beginning of 2016 to just lie when people ask them how they're going to vote. Jaysus.

Looks like we're not going to address climate change. We'll have a Supreme Court justice from that Heritage Foundation list Trump published. Deficit will rocket upwards. Healthcare reform is out the window. But at least we didn't vote for Hillary Clinton.

Oh let's not forget the market crashing (we'll see how that lasts) and trade deals now on rocky footing.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on November 09, 2016, 03:07:01 PM
hats off to the trump campaign.  the gop now controls the house, senate, and presidency, with the supreme court soon to follow.  i genuinely hope they do a good job.

my 2016-2020 predictions:
manufacturing employment will continue to decline.
manufacturing output will continue to increase.
"the swamp" won't be "drained."  no one will even really try.
immigration will continue to increase.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on November 09, 2016, 03:32:26 PM
The true losers of 2016, besides America, are the pollsters. What the fuck happened? Did everyone decide at the beginning of 2016 to just lie when people ask them how they're going to vote. Jaysus.

Looks like we're not going to address climate change. We'll have a Supreme Court justice from that Heritage Foundation list Trump published. Deficit will rocket upwards. Healthcare reform is out the window. But at least we didn't vote for Hillary Clinton.

The majority of polls assume a turnout equivalent to the average of the last two turnouts for the presidential race. Hillary's turnout didn't come close to Obama's 2012 turnout.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on November 09, 2016, 03:32:31 PM
http://www.reuters.com/article/usa-election-russia-putin-idUSR4N1D800D?c?

Sorry, sandokhan.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on November 09, 2016, 03:40:44 PM
The true losers of 2016, besides America, are the pollsters. What the fuck happened? Did everyone decide at the beginning of 2016 to just lie when people ask them how they're going to vote. Jaysus.

Looks like we're not going to address climate change. We'll have a Supreme Court justice from that Heritage Foundation list Trump published. Deficit will rocket upwards. Healthcare reform is out the window. But at least we didn't vote for Hillary Clinton.

The majority of polls assume a turnout equivalent to the average of the last two turnouts for the presidential race. Hillary's turnout didn't come close to Obama's 2012 turnout.

It is still looking like she won the popular vote... yay...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 09, 2016, 03:45:21 PM
Interesting...

I just read an article in the guardian:  all those countries that hate us are happy Trump got elected.
Iran
Pakistan
China
Russia

Israel is happy cause now they can stop being nice to Palestine.

So congrats: Trump made the US enemies happy....
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 09, 2016, 04:34:41 PM
The true losers of 2016, besides America, are the pollsters. What the fuck happened? Did everyone decide at the beginning of 2016 to just lie when people ask them how they're going to vote. Jaysus.
The pollsters rely on a number of factors (which I don't understand well enough, so I'll leave them vague) which are simply outdated. For example, they do not take into account the ever-growing number of people who have all but opted out from traditional media, and who instead rely on social-media-based alternatives. A decade ago, the amount of negative publicity Trump received from the media would be the kiss of death for his campaign long before the primaries. But that's just not the case anymore.

This is more or less what happened with Brexit, too. While exceptions apply, the division was mostly between experts and those who have (quite famously by now) had enough of experts. When society as a whole begins to fail certain groups, these groups seek alternatives. Whether you consider them reasonable or not, people like militant MRAs/MGTOWs, the alt-right, or campus SJWs feel that the current order of matters doesn't work for them. They seek alternatives, and when they're sufficiently pissed off, they'll take any alternative that seems like a stern departure from "the system". Such behaviour is difficult to predict unless you're already on the inside of these discontent group.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 09, 2016, 04:36:41 PM
SW is, sadly, correct.

If people feel angry enough, they'll let the devil himself run the country if he promises to change things.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 09, 2016, 04:38:55 PM
Hillary is due to speak soon (several hours late).

Right now Tim Kain is speaking.
(watching on Norwegian News)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on November 09, 2016, 05:07:55 PM
The pollsters rely on a number of factors (which I don't understand well enough, so I'll leave them vague) which are simply outdated. For example, they do not take into account the ever-growing number of people who have all but opted out from traditional media, and who instead rely on social-media-based alternatives. A decade ago, the amount of negative publicity Trump received from the media would be the kiss of death for his campaign long before the primaries. But that's just not the case anymore.

This is more or less what happened with Brexit, too. While exceptions apply, the division was mostly between experts and those who have (quite famously by now) had enough of experts. When society as a whole begins to fail certain groups, these groups seek alternatives. Whether you consider them reasonable or not, people like militant MRAs/MGTOWs, the alt-right, or campus SJWs feel that the current order of matters doesn't work for them. They seek alternatives, and when they're sufficiently pissed off, they'll take any alternative that seems like a stern departure from "the system". Such behaviour is difficult to predict unless you're already on the inside of these discontent group.

this is almost absurdly correct.

the one caveat i'd make is that i think it's entirely plausible that some of the "outlier" models like 538 actually did accurately quantify the probabilities.  538 rarely had trump pegged worse than 4:1 against, and prior to the polls closing had trump at nearly 2:1 against.  neither of those are such long odds that we should be very surprised to see them hit.  the cubs had worse odds of winning the world series.

personally, the big question i have is how the polls so badly missed on clinton's firewall.  538 had hillary as a nearly prohibitive favorite in michigan and wisconsin, and i think they had her as a 3:1 favorite in pennsylvania.  those are huge misses.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on November 10, 2016, 09:53:37 AM
The true losers of 2016, besides America, are the pollsters. What the fuck happened? Did everyone decide at the beginning of 2016 to just lie when people ask them how they're going to vote. Jaysus.
The pollsters rely on a number of factors (which I don't understand well enough, so I'll leave them vague) which are simply outdated. For example, they do not take into account the ever-growing number of people who have all but opted out from traditional media, and who instead rely on social-media-based alternatives. A decade ago, the amount of negative publicity Trump received from the media would be the kiss of death for his campaign long before the primaries. But that's just not the case anymore.

This is more or less what happened with Brexit, too. While exceptions apply, the division was mostly between experts and those who have (quite famously by now) had enough of experts. When society as a whole begins to fail certain groups, these groups seek alternatives. Whether you consider them reasonable or not, people like militant MRAs/MGTOWs, the alt-right, or campus SJWs feel that the current order of matters doesn't work for them. They seek alternatives, and when they're sufficiently pissed off, they'll take any alternative that seems like a stern departure from "the system". Such behaviour is difficult to predict unless you're already on the inside of these discontent group.

Also, more and more people cleave to their own kind either on the internet or (for the older generation) in their homes. The explosion of TV channels and internet groups leads counterintuitively to less choice as they can filter out what they don’t want to hear, and as the media seems incapable or unwilling to screen out, (or culpable in) the outrageous lies that politicians increasingly use to shock/scare/irate people to vote for them, this isolation with its lack of balance is hard to breach and it would seem harder to gauge.
Many people (such as my mother) also appear to have a sense of guilt that their views have hardened, whilst others become entrenched and defensive, so if reached by pollsters would probably refuse to answer or downright lie, further skewing results.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 10, 2016, 06:19:38 PM
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/10/501566466/in-surreal-moment-president-elect-donald-trump-meets-with-president-obama

What.
The.
Fuck.

Ok so what this tells me is that everyone who voted for Trump just got anti-Trump.
I'm actually starting to wonder if Trump may actually become decent.  And that all of his persona during the election was purely an act to get elected.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on November 10, 2016, 07:27:22 PM
I'm actually starting to wonder if Trump may actually become decent.  And that all of his persona during the election was purely an act to get elected.

It's not only Trump that should be worrying. He won't be the one making laws. It's the complete lack of Democratic power in, soon, all three branches of government. Go read the GOP platform that was published at the RNC this year. That is the policy that will be passed under a Trump administration, and Trump is not going to veto anything that is in pursuit of the GOP platform.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: xasop on November 10, 2016, 07:47:45 PM
Ok so what this tells me is that everyone who voted for Trump just got anti-Trump.
I'm actually starting to wonder if Trump may actually become decent.  And that all of his persona during the election was purely an act to get elected.

No, this is just politics. They would be saying this no matter how much they hated each other, because they have another two months to go until Trump takes over, and nobody wants to start a frenzy of media drama for the next two months.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 10, 2016, 08:00:17 PM
Ok so what this tells me is that everyone who voted for Trump just got anti-Trump.
I'm actually starting to wonder if Trump may actually become decent.  And that all of his persona during the election was purely an act to get elected.

No, this is just politics. They would be saying this no matter how much they hated each other, because they have another two months to go until Trump takes over, and nobody wants to start a frenzy of media drama for the next two months.
I'd believe that if I hadn't seen the last 6 months of Trump's media frenzy.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: xasop on November 10, 2016, 11:51:31 PM
I'd believe that if I hadn't seen the last 6 months of Trump's media frenzy.

Again, that's politics. That's how campaigns work, which is different from how actual presidential office works. It's not like Hillary Clinton was sitting quietly in a corner the whole time.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on November 11, 2016, 03:14:52 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/8Z0yUON.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on November 12, 2016, 04:18:56 AM
The true losers of 2016, besides America, are the pollsters. What the fuck happened? Did everyone decide at the beginning of 2016 to just lie when people ask them how they're going to vote. Jaysus.
The pollsters rely on a number of factors (which I don't understand well enough, so I'll leave them vague) which are simply outdated. For example, they do not take into account the ever-growing number of people who have all but opted out from traditional media, and who instead rely on social-media-based alternatives. A decade ago, the amount of negative publicity Trump received from the media would be the kiss of death for his campaign long before the primaries. But that's just not the case anymore.

This is more or less what happened with Brexit, too. While exceptions apply, the division was mostly between experts and those who have (quite famously by now) had enough of experts. When society as a whole begins to fail certain groups, these groups seek alternatives. Whether you consider them reasonable or not, people like militant MRAs/MGTOWs, the alt-right, or campus SJWs feel that the current order of matters doesn't work for them. They seek alternatives, and when they're sufficiently pissed off, they'll take any alternative that seems like a stern departure from "the system". Such behaviour is difficult to predict unless you're already on the inside of these discontent group.

Also, more and more people cleave to their own kind either on the internet or (for the older generation) in their homes. The explosion of TV channels and internet groups leads counterintuitively to less choice as they can filter out what they don’t want to hear, and as the media seems incapable or unwilling to screen out, (or culpable in) the outrageous lies that politicians increasingly use to shock/scare/irate people to vote for them, this isolation with its lack of balance is hard to breach and it would seem harder to gauge.
Many people (such as my mother) also appear to have a sense of guilt that their views have hardened, whilst others become entrenched and defensive, so if reached by pollsters would probably refuse to answer or downright lie, further skewing results.

I don't agree with this part.  There was very thorough fact-checking from the media throughout the election, and anyone who was so inclined could do a cursory Google search and discover the extensive documentation and debunking of Trump's endless lies.  In some cases, you didn't even need to go online, as the TV news shows fact-checked Trump in their chyrons.  I'm sure we've all seen these hilarious pictures:

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpmCJZVWIAEIFdm.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Cj9I5IbXEAAqfqi.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpmCJZXWAAA7pFU.jpg)

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CpmCJZoWYAE8EMJ.jpg)

For some people, reality simply can't overrule what their intuition tells them.  They live in a "feels>reals world" to borrow Rushy's phrasing.  Trump feels like he's honest.  How could someone so seemingly impulsive and outspoken, always willing to bark out how he feels no matter how people react to it, be a liar?  And Hillary feels like she's dishonest.  How could someone so shrewd and guarded, always carefully choosing her words and trying to maintain good political form at all times, be someone who tells the truth more than the plain-spoken Trump?

That's a cynical outlook, and while I have no doubt that many of Trump's fans fit it perfectly, it can't be entirely accurate.  What SexWarrior said about people simply being disconnected from the mainstream media and/or desperate enough to go with a wild card that promises real change is more likely.  I guess it's hard to care that much about whether or not Trump mocked a disabled reporter when he's the only candidate telling you that he can help you out.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 12, 2016, 05:48:50 AM
I don't think its "feels".  I think its bending perception to desire.  Trump said what they thought: Illegals took our jobs, Obama and Clinton are evil, X deals are horrible, I will fix your problems with minimal effort from you.


And when you have the conclusion of "Trump is my candidate cause he says it like it is" then you make excuses to dismiss facts.


"Snopes is liberal garbage"
"Mainstream media is owned by Clinton."
"Fact checkers are liars"
Etc...


Its like religion.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 12, 2016, 02:11:35 PM
There was very thorough fact-checking from the media throughout the election, and anyone who was so inclined could do a cursory Google search and discover the extensive documentation and debunking of Trump's endless lies.  In some cases, you didn't even need to go online, as the TV news shows fact-checked Trump in their chyrons.
I agree with most of your post, but let's not forget that Hillary also exists; and her getting a free pass on the (much fewer, but also more poorly executed) blatant lies did not win the media any friends among the already disenfranchised. Gary's point from a while ago directed at me applies here as well:

in fairness sw, your indigence would be more convincing if it were evenly applied.

It's all well and good that pro-Clinton media were quick to jump on Trump at every possible opportunity, but it doesn't help to convince those who aren't already convinced. It achieves the opposite.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on November 12, 2016, 03:48:17 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/did-donald-trump-say-hed-refuse-to-take-a-salary-as-president/?ftag=CNM-00-10aab7e&linkId=31071717

Trump already saved the country 1.6 million dollars. Under budget. Ahead of schedule.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on November 12, 2016, 04:12:18 PM
we're very early on to be sure, but so far trump's teams appears to be indicating that he's going to let paul ryan control the legislative agenda.  as a mostly-centrist, that actually makes me pretty happy.  i'd much rather ryan set trump's docket for him, so to speak.  but doesn't that run afoul of his campaign message of draining the swamp and not letting washington insiders control the white house?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on November 12, 2016, 04:48:18 PM
we're very early on to be sure, but so far trump's teams appears to be indicating that he's going to let paul ryan control the legislative agenda.  as a mostly-centrist, that actually makes me pretty happy.  i'd much rather ryan set trump's docket for him, so to speak.  but doesn't that run afoul of his campaign message of draining the swamp and not letting washington insiders control the white house?

Anyone who thought the "swamp" was going to be drained was naïve. That ain't happening.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 12, 2016, 04:48:57 PM
we're very early on to be sure, but so far trump's teams appears to be indicating that he's going to let paul ryan control the legislative agenda.  as a mostly-centrist, that actually makes me pretty happy.  i'd much rather ryan set trump's docket for him, so to speak.  but doesn't that run afoul of his campaign message of draining the swamp and not letting washington insiders control the white house?
Trump has gone 180 from his campaign.
He no longer wants to repeal Obamacare.
He's no longer going to focus on the wall (it'll be built... eventually).
He's not going to make China pay 45% import tax.
And he says Obama is both a fine man AND he'll seek his council.

But of course, his supporters aren't gonna talk about this.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 12, 2016, 05:12:04 PM
Anyone who thought the "swamp" was going to be drained was naïve. That ain't happening.
So far, he's doing better than others
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on November 12, 2016, 06:22:43 PM
we're very early on to be sure, but so far trump's teams appears to be indicating that he's going to let paul ryan control the legislative agenda.  as a mostly-centrist, that actually makes me pretty happy.  i'd much rather ryan set trump's docket for him, so to speak.  but doesn't that run afoul of his campaign message of draining the swamp and not letting washington insiders control the white house?
Trump has gone 180 from his campaign.
He no longer wants to repeal Obamacare.
He's no longer going to focus on the wall (it'll be built... eventually).
He's not going to make China pay 45% import tax.
And he says Obama is both a fine man AND he'll seek his council.

But of course, his supporters aren't gonna talk about this.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-makes-his-case-in-pittsburgh/501335/

Quote
The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.

Please, we've been saying this for months. The person you (Dave) think Trump represents is actually just a straw man built by the media. They lied to you, and now instead of acknowledging that, you instead seek to lash out.

Quote
“I am blown away!” said one worker, an African American man who asked for anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak to the press. “The man I just saw there talking to people is nothing like what I’ve seen, day in and day out, in the news.”

Congratulations on being easily manipulated, Dave. Keep up the good work.

For example you haven't even bothered to look up what you're talking about. When did "I'll keep parts of Obamacare, such as requiring insurance companies to ignore preexisting conditions" turn into "HE ISN'T GOING TO REPEAL OBAMACARE OMG"? Trump is a businessman. He isn't going to actually make black-and-white decisions. He isn't dumb, he isn't literally Hitler, he's a business mogul. Thinking Trump is a retarded version of Hitler is just as bad as thinking Hillary was literally a pedosatanist.

This is going to be 8 long years of cognitive dissonance. Where Trump actually gets things done that are good for the nation (even things the left wanted done themselves!) and they spin it to be bad, more or less what the right did to Obama for eight years.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 12, 2016, 07:09:08 PM
we're very early on to be sure, but so far trump's teams appears to be indicating that he's going to let paul ryan control the legislative agenda.  as a mostly-centrist, that actually makes me pretty happy.  i'd much rather ryan set trump's docket for him, so to speak.  but doesn't that run afoul of his campaign message of draining the swamp and not letting washington insiders control the white house?
Trump has gone 180 from his campaign.
He no longer wants to repeal Obamacare.
He's no longer going to focus on the wall (it'll be built... eventually).
He's not going to make China pay 45% import tax.
And he says Obama is both a fine man AND he'll seek his council.

But of course, his supporters aren't gonna talk about this.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-makes-his-case-in-pittsburgh/501335/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-makes-his-case-in-pittsburgh/501335/)

Quote
The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.

Please, we've been saying this for months. The person you (Dave) think Trump represents is actually just a straw man built by the media. They lied to you, and now instead of acknowledging that, you instead seek to lash out.

Quote
“I am blown away!” said one worker, an African American man who asked for anonymity because he wasn’t authorized to speak to the press. “The man I just saw there talking to people is nothing like what I’ve seen, day in and day out, in the news.”

Congratulations on being easily manipulated, Dave. Keep up the good work.

For example you haven't even bothered to look up what you're talking about. When did "I'll keep parts of Obamacare, such as requiring insurance companies to ignore preexisting conditions" turn into "HE ISN'T GOING TO REPEAL OBAMACARE OMG"? Trump is a businessman. He isn't going to actually make black-and-white decisions. He isn't dumb, he isn't literally Hitler, he's a business mogul. Thinking Trump is a retarded version of Hitler is just as bad as thinking Hillary was literally a pedosatanist.

This is going to be 8 long years of cognitive dissonance. Where Trump actually gets things done that are good for the nation (even things the left wanted done themselves!) and they spin it to be bad, more or less what the right did to Obama for eight years.
But I've heard him speak.  I've SEEN his rallies.
Like here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QwoH9rlocs

Repeal and Replace.
Great.  Fine.
But the parts he wants to keep?  That's the parts that are causing the issues.  Insurance premiums aren't spiking because of the new regulations, they're spiking because insurance companies can no longer turn away those who have long term care needs that are greater than their payments.

He's also talked alot about building a wall and how it's so important.

Look, I'll admit the left wing media painted him negatively.  But he didn't exactly help his case either.  He yelled, called for Hillary to be locked up, called her a horrible person, and a liar.  The media can build what they want but at the end of the day, his rallies and the debates speak for themselves.  No amount of media manipulation can change that.  And no amount of media strawmanning is going to suddenly make his very direct words change meaning.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on November 12, 2016, 07:35:55 PM
Insurance premiums are spiking because companies have been given monopolies over the states they control. You don't get to choose between companies, so they get to charge you whatever they want. They don't have a price cap, they just have to give the government the prices in advance and say "we're doing this next fiscal year" and that doesn't invalidate their contract.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on November 12, 2016, 07:50:09 PM
Anyone who thought the "swamp" was going to be drained was naïve. That ain't happening.
So far, he's doing better than others

I wouldn't call the members of his cabinet short list of Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Stephen Bannon, and Myron Ebell "better." They're almost all part of the Republican establishment. It's not surprising, given that Trump is apparently letting Pence pick his cabinet members for him, but it's far from "draining the swamp."
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 12, 2016, 08:07:41 PM
Insurance premiums are spiking because companies have been given monopolies over the states they control. You don't get to choose between companies, so they get to charge you whatever they want. They don't have a price cap, they just have to give the government the prices in advance and say "we're doing this next fiscal year" and that doesn't invalidate their contract.
But they didn't spike like they are now.  Not like they suddenly got a monopoly.
And even so, it IS profit prohibitive to allow customers whose medical costs per lifetime exceed their lifetime contribution. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 12, 2016, 08:35:11 PM
I wouldn't call the members of his cabinet short list of Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Stephen Bannon, and Myron Ebell "better." They're almost all part of the Republican establishment. It's not surprising, given that Trump is apparently letting Pence pick his cabinet members for him, but it's far from "draining the swamp."
Ah, right, so it seems that your idea of disempowering the establishment is to give it the boot altogether and hire a bunch of non-politicians. I can see how that would work, but I don't think it's a fair interpretation of Trump's promise, not even by a long shot.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on November 12, 2016, 08:52:52 PM
Insurance premiums are spiking because companies have been given monopolies over the states they control. You don't get to choose between companies, so they get to charge you whatever they want. They don't have a price cap, they just have to give the government the prices in advance and say "we're doing this next fiscal year" and that doesn't invalidate their contract.
But they didn't spike like they are now.  Not like they suddenly got a monopoly.
And even so, it IS profit prohibitive to allow customers whose medical costs per lifetime exceed their lifetime contribution.

Apparently not very prohibitive, seeing as how every other first world nation seems to be doing it just fine.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on November 12, 2016, 08:56:25 PM
I wouldn't call the members of his cabinet short list of Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee, Stephen Bannon, and Myron Ebell "better." They're almost all part of the Republican establishment. It's not surprising, given that Trump is apparently letting Pence pick his cabinet members for him, but it's far from "draining the swamp."
Ah, right, so it seems that your idea of disempowering the establishment is to give it the boot altogether and hire a bunch of non-politicians. I can see how that would work, but I don't think it's a fair interpretation of Trump's promise, not even by a long shot.

He could start by just not hiring corrupt people. I mean, Chris Christie? Really? After the bridge-gate verdict? Sarah Palin is a moron, and Myron Ebell for the head of the EPA is a climate change denialist. So draining the swamp, for me, would entail competent people, not necessarily non-politicians.

Even you must admit that these cabinet picks are far from the most competent people he could have chosen. Rather, Trump sorry, Pence, seems to be filling up the cabinet with loyal insiders.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 12, 2016, 09:06:25 PM
Insurance premiums are spiking because companies have been given monopolies over the states they control. You don't get to choose between companies, so they get to charge you whatever they want. They don't have a price cap, they just have to give the government the prices in advance and say "we're doing this next fiscal year" and that doesn't invalidate their contract.
But they didn't spike like they are now.  Not like they suddenly got a monopoly.
And even so, it IS profit prohibitive to allow customers whose medical costs per lifetime exceed their lifetime contribution.

Apparently not very prohibitive, seeing as how every other first world nation seems to be doing it just fine.
I think the key word in that is "profit".
Public health care systems don't earn a profit and since they're funded by taxes, they have the entire nation funding one pool by default.
Also, WAY more simplified.  But that's the result of the not-for profit model.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on November 12, 2016, 09:38:01 PM
Clinton will win.
lol
I'll be sure to quote this again in November.

lol
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 12, 2016, 10:07:14 PM
Clinton will win.
lol
I'll be sure to quote this again in November.

lol
I hate being wrong.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on November 12, 2016, 10:45:26 PM
Clinton will win.
lol
I'll be sure to quote this again in November.

lol
I hate being wrong.

(https://rachelhopecleves.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/images.jpeg)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on November 12, 2016, 11:37:44 PM
Hillary will win the nomination and then lose to God Emperor Trump.

Oh yes.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 13, 2016, 09:40:53 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37963965

C O M E Y   2 0 2 4
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Fortuna on November 13, 2016, 09:45:56 AM
Clinton will win.
lol
I'll be sure to quote this again in November.

lol
I hate being wrong.

You must be hateful a lot.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 13, 2016, 09:53:00 AM
Clinton will win.
lol
I'll be sure to quote this again in November.

lol
I hate being wrong.

You must be hateful a lot.
You have no idea.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on November 14, 2016, 02:56:28 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/gyUuULl.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on November 14, 2016, 03:42:12 PM
They have gifs with sound now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyT7vXdyieM
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on November 14, 2016, 06:21:15 PM
>cutting the punchline
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on November 14, 2016, 06:51:51 PM
(http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/dddt1.gif)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: beardo on November 14, 2016, 07:49:33 PM
T R U M P
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 15, 2016, 10:08:20 AM
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/502018139/trump-advisors-mulling-whether-to-keep-fbi-director-james-comey

"I respect him alot." 
Well, at least now we know why James sent that memo: to help protect his job.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on November 15, 2016, 04:13:45 PM
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/502018139/trump-advisors-mulling-whether-to-keep-fbi-director-james-comey

"I respect him alot." 
Well, at least now we know why James sent that memo: to help protect his job.

Uhh, Dave, agency directors have terms. Comey will have his job until 2024 regardless of who was elected.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on November 15, 2016, 04:27:46 PM
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/502018139/trump-advisors-mulling-whether-to-keep-fbi-director-james-comey

"I respect him alot." 
Well, at least now we know why James sent that memo: to help protect his job.

Uhh, Dave, agency directors have terms. Comey will have his job until 2024 regardless of who was elected.

President's can and have removed FBI Director's with cause and congress can also impeach them.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 15, 2016, 04:55:28 PM
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/502018139/trump-advisors-mulling-whether-to-keep-fbi-director-james-comey (http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/502018139/trump-advisors-mulling-whether-to-keep-fbi-director-james-comey)

"I respect him alot." 
Well, at least now we know why James sent that memo: to help protect his job.

Uhh, Dave, agency directors have terms. Comey will have his job until 2024 regardless of who was elected.
As Rama said, there are ways to remove a director and, surprise surprise, there's gonna be a full Republican run house, senate, and white house. 
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2002/06/how_do_you_dump_the_fbi_director.html

Clinton did it.

And even if they couldn't get him forcefully removed, I'm sure they could make his life unpleasant.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on November 15, 2016, 06:04:59 PM
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/502018139/trump-advisors-mulling-whether-to-keep-fbi-director-james-comey

"I respect him alot." 
Well, at least now we know why James sent that memo: to help protect his job.

Uhh, Dave, agency directors have terms. Comey will have his job until 2024 regardless of who was elected.

President's can and have removed FBI Director's with cause and congress can also impeach them.

Which has no bearing on Comey since he's done nothing criminal. Comey can stick around as long as he wants and Hillary would have been stuck with a Republican majority Congress if she won, anyway.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on November 15, 2016, 09:03:11 PM
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/502018139/trump-advisors-mulling-whether-to-keep-fbi-director-james-comey

"I respect him alot." 
Well, at least now we know why James sent that memo: to help protect his job.

Uhh, Dave, agency directors have terms. Comey will have his job until 2024 regardless of who was elected.

President's can and have removed FBI Director's with cause and congress can also impeach them.

Which has no bearing on Comey since he's done nothing criminal. Comey can stick around as long as he wants and Hillary would have been stuck with a Republican majority Congress if she won, anyway.

Comey could be protecting his ass against losing his job anyway.  We continue not to have the full picture of what made the FBI behave like they did throughout the Clinton affair and the election. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 15, 2016, 09:10:12 PM
http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/502018139/trump-advisors-mulling-whether-to-keep-fbi-director-james-comey (http://www.npr.org/2016/11/14/502018139/trump-advisors-mulling-whether-to-keep-fbi-director-james-comey)

"I respect him alot." 
Well, at least now we know why James sent that memo: to help protect his job.

Uhh, Dave, agency directors have terms. Comey will have his job until 2024 regardless of who was elected.

President's can and have removed FBI Director's with cause and congress can also impeach them.

Which has no bearing on Comey since he's done nothing criminal. Comey can stick around as long as he wants and Hillary would have been stuck with a Republican majority Congress if she won, anyway.

Comey could be protecting his ass against losing his job anyway.  We continue not to have the full picture of what made the FBI behave like they did throughout the Clinton affair and the election.
Yeah, for all we know, Trump will come in, find out he DID do something he shouldn't have that could be considered criminal, and get in trouble cause Obama would have let it slide.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on November 16, 2016, 12:16:42 AM
Or maybe he wants to be Attorney General?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on November 16, 2016, 03:04:37 AM
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/giuliani-foreign-clientele-possible-conflicts-231413

The swamp-draining continues.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on November 16, 2016, 04:59:13 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/giuliani-foreign-clientele-possible-conflicts-231413

The swamp-draining continues.

The swamp is draining. It just so happens that the drain leads right to 1600 Pennsylvania.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 16, 2016, 05:14:55 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/giuliani-foreign-clientele-possible-conflicts-231413 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/giuliani-foreign-clientele-possible-conflicts-231413)

The swamp-draining continues.

The swamp is draining. It just so happens that the drain leads right to 1600 Pennsylvania.

Trump explained this though:

Down there, all you have are lobbyists.  So what else can he do?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on November 16, 2016, 06:35:45 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/giuliani-foreign-clientele-possible-conflicts-231413 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/giuliani-foreign-clientele-possible-conflicts-231413)

The swamp-draining continues.

The swamp is draining. It just so happens that the drain leads right to 1600 Pennsylvania.

Trump explained this though:

Down there, all you have are lobbyists.  So what else can he do?

Probably should've thought of that before promising to drain the swamp. And, if the only choices he has are lobbyist, at least pick some qualified, intelligent lobbyists.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 16, 2016, 07:04:34 PM
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/giuliani-foreign-clientele-possible-conflicts-231413 (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/giuliani-foreign-clientele-possible-conflicts-231413)

The swamp-draining continues.

The swamp is draining. It just so happens that the drain leads right to 1600 Pennsylvania.

Trump explained this though:

Down there, all you have are lobbyists.  So what else can he do?

Probably should've thought of that before promising to drain the swamp. And, if the only choices he has are lobbyist, at least pick some qualified, intelligent lobbyists.
Especially ones who don't side with "the enemy" (aka muslims)
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/giuliani-foreign-clientele-possible-conflicts-231413
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 16, 2016, 11:02:56 PM
I'm still not sure why any of you thought that "draining the swamp" would mean not hiring professional politicians. I guess it's another one of those "Brexit means Brexit" scenarios where everyone gets to choose their favourite interpretation and then be outraged that it wasn't correct.

In other news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38003747

Trump is such a badass he even went out without telling mom.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rushy on November 17, 2016, 02:10:29 AM
You see, by saying he will only take $1 as his salary, Trump is actually being evil. You better take that money!

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/donald-trump-salary-george-washington-214458

Just a few days ago, "haha people will spin Trump not taking his $400,000 salary as a bad thing" and now here we are, in the meme universe where a large political magazine is saying it's a bad thing. They even use they tried and true "if it's good enough for the framers, it should be good enough for you!" Thanks, Politico, I guess I'll come back to that if you ever complain about the second amendment or the Electoral College ever again.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on November 17, 2016, 03:58:08 AM
I'm still not sure why any of you thought that "draining the swamp" would mean not hiring professional politicians. I guess it's another one of those "Brexit means Brexit" scenarios where everyone gets to choose their favourite interpretation and then be outraged that it wasn't correct.

In other news: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38003747

Trump is such a badass he even went out without telling mom.

Meh, Trump made a very pointed effort to tell people he would not get in bed with the establishment.  I always knew that was BS and this is just my own version of "I told you so", but to the wrong crowd.  I have found this election to be extra frustrating because of it's peculiar blend of rhetoric, media hype and public hysteria.  My strategy to stay sane is to laud my rationalizations over anyone I can... Kinda immature ultimately, but better than buying in to the narrative in my books.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on November 17, 2016, 05:30:57 AM
I'm still not sure why any of you thought that "draining the swamp" would mean not hiring professional politicians. I guess it's another one of those "Brexit means Brexit" scenarios where everyone gets to choose their favourite interpretation and then be outraged that it wasn't correct.

Nobody expected him to not work with politicians, only that he wouldn't be working with the same mainstream, business-as-usual, longtime Washington insiders that he spent so much of his campaign criticizing as corrupt and inefficient.  Many of them (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/donald-trump-transition-gop-insiders-lobbyists-231224) aren't even politicians, they're lobbyists.  And there's nobody on his team who's more demonstrative of its general swampiness than Giuliani.  He's spent the past fifteen years campaigning and enriching himself as a lobbyist and paid speaker, and his career has a very long history of alleged corruption, business deals with shady clients, and plenty of personal scandals.  Trump should be running a negative campaign against this guy, not considering him for Secretary of State.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on November 17, 2016, 05:37:46 AM
if bernie were president-elect and made debbie w-s his chief of staff, i'd have some concerns
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 17, 2016, 01:54:00 PM
Nobody expected him to not work with politicians, only that he wouldn't be working with the same mainstream, business-as-usual, longtime Washington insiders that he spent so much of his campaign criticizing as corrupt and inefficient.
But why? I really strongly doubt you could make an argument that this is what he meant. He said he'd make government smaller, thus saving lotsa cash. Whether or not he'll do that remains to be seen, but the logic of "haha Giuliani QED!" just doesn't apply.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Tom Bishop on November 17, 2016, 03:34:57 PM
Mike Pence took over the transition team and the lobbyists were fired, and Chris Christie was demoted.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/306309-pence-removes-lobbyists-from-trump-transition-team
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on November 17, 2016, 03:41:23 PM
Mike Pence took over the transition team and the lobbiests were fired, and Chris Christie was demoted.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/306309-pence-removes-lobbyists-from-trump-transition-team

Giuliani is still on the team.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 17, 2016, 03:47:18 PM
Mike Pence took over the transition team and the lobbiests were fired, and Chris Christie was demoted.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/306309-pence-removes-lobbyists-from-trump-transition-team (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/306309-pence-removes-lobbyists-from-trump-transition-team)

Quote
Since Christie’s removal, many of his appointees on the team have also been dismissed, and the transition effort has been taken over by campaign loyalists.
Super.
At least they'll be loyal to Trump, keeping his self esteem from going down.[/quote]
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on November 17, 2016, 05:59:21 PM
Nobody expected him to not work with politicians, only that he wouldn't be working with the same mainstream, business-as-usual, longtime Washington insiders that he spent so much of his campaign criticizing as corrupt and inefficient.
But why? I really strongly doubt you could make an argument that this is what he meant. He said he'd make government smaller, thus saving lotsa cash. Whether or not he'll do that remains to be seen, but the logic of "haha Giuliani QED!" just doesn't apply.

if bernie were president-elect and made debbie w-s his chief of staff, i'd be like "wait wtf"

lol turn out i already said this exact thing like 12 hours ago.  whoopsy.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on November 17, 2016, 06:37:17 PM
#pizzagate
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Fortuna on November 18, 2016, 05:03:46 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/C6Q3i7m.png)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 18, 2016, 07:28:45 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/C6Q3i7m.png)
It's clear that the election was rigged. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on November 18, 2016, 04:41:00 PM
I let my autism get away from me. Here are the results of the election using different voting methods.

Candidate
Popular Vote
EC, current
EC D'Hondt
EC-436
EC-436 D'Hondt
Clinton
47.7%
232
267
191
219
Trump
47.4%
306
268*
245
214
Johnson
3.3%
2
2
McMullin
0.3%
1
1
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: sandokhan on November 18, 2016, 05:33:56 PM
http://www.schiffradio.com/king-of-debt-takes-the-reins/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on November 19, 2016, 03:57:36 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/11/18/trumps-pick-for-attorney-general-good-people-dont-smoke-marijuana/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 19, 2016, 05:15:29 PM
Mittt Romney considered for Secretary of State.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on November 19, 2016, 06:08:52 PM
Mittt Romney considered for Secretary of State.

Better than Giuliani. Best choice I've heard so far.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 19, 2016, 06:25:04 PM
Mittt Romney considered for Secretary of State.

Better than Giuliani. Best choice I've heard so far.


Yep.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on November 19, 2016, 06:36:50 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/us/mike-pence-hamilton.html

BAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

It never ceases to amaze me how the exact same people who rant about liberals being easily-offended special snowflakes have rallied around a man who's probably the most oversensitive crybaby in the history of American politics.  We should call Trump Mr. Pussy instead of Mr. President.  Also, so much for not settling the case against Trump University out of principle:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-defends-25-million-settlement-trump-university-lawsuits/story?id=43654491
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 19, 2016, 06:46:35 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/us/mike-pence-hamilton.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/19/us/mike-pence-hamilton.html)

BAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

It never ceases to amaze me how the exact same people who rant about liberals being easily-offended special snowflakes have rallied around a man who's probably the most oversensitive crybaby in the history of American politics.  We should call Trump Mr. Pussy instead of Mr. President.  Also, so much for not settling the case against Trump University out of principle:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-defends-25-million-settlement-trump-university-lawsuits/story?id=43654491 (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-defends-25-million-settlement-trump-university-lawsuits/story?id=43654491)


Cause they like it.  They love seeing a man get angry and comain.  Why do you think they whine about whiny liberals? 


America isn't very diverse, just delusional.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Snupes on November 19, 2016, 08:58:46 PM
Man, I hate when people harass me by going "please be nice and help us make this place better :)". Seriously gets my goat.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 19, 2016, 09:39:48 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how the exact same people who rant about liberals being easily-offended special snowflakes have rallied around a man who's probably the most oversensitive crybaby in the history of American politics.
See, this is a problem with not being a centrist. It never ceases to amaze you that the safe-space mentality is stupid when your opponents engage in it. Meanwhile, the fact that safe-space proponents are suddenly jeering now that their ideology doesn't immediately work in their favour is a-OK.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 19, 2016, 11:19:04 PM
It never ceases to amaze me how the exact same people who rant about liberals being easily-offended special snowflakes have rallied around a man who's probably the most oversensitive crybaby in the history of American politics.
See, this is a problem with not being a centrist. It never ceases to amaze you that the safe-space mentality is stupid when your opponents engage in it. Meanwhile, the fact that safe-space proponents are suddenly jeering now that their ideology doesn't immediately work in their favour is a-OK.
Uhh...

George is talking about Trump's response as being harassment to Pence. 
Also, the definition of safe-space mentality is not what Trump used as is used by the left.  Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the left side "safe space" the "you can be yourself without judgement"?
But the way Trump used it "Safe Space" means "No talking to certain people"  Or "No Politics Zone". 

Not only that but he called it harassment.  Do you think Mr. Pence was harassed?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on November 20, 2016, 12:03:09 AM
i didn't know "safe space" ever included safety from being graciously thanked for attending a play. 

i always thought it was supposed to be more like when the_donald bans dissent because they want to have a place to get stoked on trump without having to constantly defend that premise to people who aren't stoked on trump.  which is perfectly reasonable, i think.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on November 20, 2016, 01:36:06 AM
It never ceases to amaze me how the exact same people who rant about liberals being easily-offended special snowflakes have rallied around a man who's probably the most oversensitive crybaby in the history of American politics.
See, this is a problem with not being a centrist. It never ceases to amaze you that the safe-space mentality is stupid when your opponents engage in it. Meanwhile, the fact that safe-space proponents are suddenly jeering now that their ideology doesn't immediately work in their favour is a-OK.
Uhh...

George is talking about Trump's response as being harassment to Pence. 
Also, the definition of safe-space mentality is not what Trump used as is used by the left.  Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the left side "safe space" the "you can be yourself without judgement"?
But the way Trump used it "Safe Space" means "No talking to certain people"  Or "No Politics Zone". 

Not only that but he called it harassment.  Do you think Mr. Pence was harassed?

A safe space is a place where you can be safe from a triggering influence, whether it is a micro-aggression, ideology or something. So yeah, the theatre is one of the last places that should ever be thought of as a safe space.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on November 20, 2016, 02:54:07 AM
i didn't know "safe space" ever included safety from being graciously thanked for attending a play. 

i always thought it was supposed to be more like when the_donald bans dissent because they want to have a place to get stoked on trump without having to constantly defend that premise to people who aren't stoked on trump.  which is perfectly reasonable, i think.

I think you mean when /r/politics pretended to be a nonpartisan space, but asshammered any post that didn't conform.

At least the other shitty sub didn't pretend to be objective.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on November 20, 2016, 03:35:28 AM
I think you mean when /r/politics pretended to be a nonpartisan space, but asshammered any post that didn't conform.

At least the other shitty sub didn't pretend to be objective.

i wasn't criticizing the_donald.  i think that literally is the purpose of a safe space.  like, i think it's fine for trump supporters to have a place to get stoked about trump without having to defend the premise to anyone else.  i only don't think it applies to being politely thanked and asked to pay careful attention to the themes of the performance.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 20, 2016, 11:09:04 AM
Also, the definition of safe-space mentality is not what Trump used as is used by the left.  Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the left side "safe space" the "you can be yourself without judgement"?
I'm sure that's going to be contentious, but hey ho:

They like to advertise it as places where you can be yourself without judgement, and I know that these exist too, but "safe spaces" are also very commonly established as something like "here's a room you can go to during a speech or debate so you don't have to experience the content of said speech, even by proxy".

Decent example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html

But the way Trump used it "Safe Space" means "No talking to certain people"  Or "No Politics Zone".
Yup, and I claim that that's what the left does too. There are plenty of examples of college students setting up safe spaces filled with plush puppies so that their trigger-happy friends can run away from the real world while the rest of the world is saying something mean.

Not only that but he called it harassment.  Do you think Mr. Pence was harassed?
Absolutely not. I don't agree with the content of the actor's little spiel, and I don't think it was particularly professional of him to do it, but being unprofessional is hardly the worst thing in the world.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 20, 2016, 11:59:05 AM
Also, the definition of safe-space mentality is not what Trump used as is used by the left.  Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the left side "safe space" the "you can be yourself without judgement"?
I'm sure that's going to be contentious, but hey ho:

They like to advertise it as places where you can be yourself without judgement, and I know that these exist too, but "safe spaces" are also very commonly established as something like "here's a room you can go to during a speech or debate so you don't have to experience the content of said speech, even by proxy".

Decent example:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/22/opinion/sunday/judith-shulevitz-hiding-from-scary-ideas.html)
Ok.  I'll not argue as my understanding of "safe space" is rather limited but based on what you said and the link you provided, it sounds less like a "safe space" and more like a calming room.  In Special Education for small children (elementary school kids) there's a room which is basically devoid of anything except padded walls, maybe some music.  The idea being that when a kid with behavior issues gets set off and gets out of control, you put them in there so they can work out their energy, frustration, etc... until they calm down.  (I'm not a professional but I've spoken to them on the subject.  I may be a little inaccurate but the general idea is correct).
This apparently exists in Occupational Therapy as well.  The idea that, when you're stressed, sometimes you just need to go somewhere to de-stress until you can deal with the world again.  Escapism, essentially.  But unlike the usual stress you and I have where it's a slow buildup, some people have triggers that make them snap instantly.  And when someone gets to that point, telling them to "calm down" just isn't going to work.  It's like if someone was sexually aroused and you said "Stop being aroused".  It just isn't going to happen.  You need to give them time to calm down or a place they can make themselves calm.

But...
Quote
But the way Trump used it "Safe Space" means "No talking to certain people"  Or "No Politics Zone".
Yup, and I claim that that's what the left does too. There are plenty of examples of college students setting up safe spaces filled with plush puppies so that their trigger-happy friends can run away from the real world while the rest of the world is saying something mean.
Everything you said and linked still contradicts Trump's use of Safe Space.  Pence's "safe space" would be his home or Donald's penthouse at Trump Tower.  A theater, which just put on a play that was about politics, can't be a safe space from politics.  It would be like if a college said "Lecture Halls are Safe Spaces".   You can't calm down in a lecture hall, especially if you're a student taking a course.  If anything, you'll get MORE stressed from the information being given to you and the pile of work.  And a theater, plays specifically, are a form of art, which is expression of emotion or point of view.  Both of which are the exact opposite of what a 'safe space' is.  So to say that a Theater should be a Safe Space is just ignorant about what safe space means.

Quote
Not only that but he called it harassment.  Do you think Mr. Pence was harassed?
Absolutely not. I don't agree with the content of the actor's little spiel, and I don't think it was particularly professional of him to do it, but being unprofessional is hardly the worst thing in the world.
Unprofessional?  I'm not so sure.  Had they done it prior or between acts, I'd have said yes.  But they did it after, when their job was finished.  Nor did they do anything to forcefully keep Pence from walking away. 

But considering that Pence isn't saying a word on the subject (as far as I can tell) and Trump is the one who is making an issue of it, it makes me think this is a knee jerk reaction by him and only him.  He says that it was harassment and we both agree, it wasn't.  And while I agree the theater should be free from harassment, if that is what Trump considers harassment... what's going to happen when he's on a golf course on his "time off" and his staff calls him with a problem?  I mean, what areas should be "politics free" and can one really have such a place in such high offices?  It's not like they aren't on call 24/7.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 20, 2016, 12:16:18 PM
Everything you said and linked still contradicts Trump's use of Safe Space.  Pence's "safe space" would be his home or Donald's penthouse at Trump Tower.
Okay, so it seems like you think I've made a leap of judgement here. Fair enough, I didn't present a good enough example. I was trying to illustrate the ridiculous mentality, not draw a direct parallel. Let's try something else. How about the Yale students who believe Yale is not about creating an intellectual space, but rather creating a home, a space of comfort?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3308422/Students-rage-professor-sent-email-telling-students-just-look-away-offended-Halloween-costumes.html

We're completely in agreement that this mentality is stupid. You don't need to convince me of that, or explain to my why it's self-contradictory. Unfortunately, it still exist, and it's gaining in popularity. The left just enjoys ignoring it when it happens on their side (i.e. most of the time).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 20, 2016, 02:10:13 PM
Everything you said and linked still contradicts Trump's use of Safe Space.  Pence's "safe space" would be his home or Donald's penthouse at Trump Tower.
Okay, so it seems like you think I've made a leap of judgement here. Fair enough, I didn't present a good enough example. I was trying to illustrate the ridiculous mentality, not draw a direct parallel. Let's try something else. How about the Yale students who believe Yale is not about creating an intellectual space, but rather creating a home, a space of comfort?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3308422/Students-rage-professor-sent-email-telling-students-just-look-away-offended-Halloween-costumes.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3308422/Students-rage-professor-sent-email-telling-students-just-look-away-offended-Halloween-costumes.html)

We're completely in agreement that this mentality is stupid. You don't need to convince me of that, or explain to my why it's self-contradictory. Unfortunately, it still exist, and it's gaining in popularity. The left just enjoys ignoring it when it happens on their side (i.e. most of the time).
Yeah... that's a bit much.  Like I said, calming rooms (safe spaces) are medically sound ideas and I'm all in favor of it, but it should be for a "I'm being hit with a PTSD attack" and not "I'm angry that I have to look at a Hitler costume!". 

Extremists on both sides suck.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on November 20, 2016, 03:14:12 PM
I don't think it's necessary to make a tu quoque argument about the existence of people on the left who whine and complain excessively in response to trivial or nonexistent issues.  We already know that.  It's very much a mainstream narrative.  My argument is that a blind eye is turned to the sheer number of crybabies who can't handle differences of opinion on the right, of whom there are just as many as there are of oversensitive leftists.  Oh, and one of whom has now bafflingly been elected president.  We'll see plenty more of them coming out of the woodwork around this time of year to bitch about Christmas not being publicly acknowledged enough, or something along those lines.  Remember this insanity (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2015/11/10/who-is-josh-feuerstein-the-man-behind-the-starbucks-red-cup-frenzy/) from last year?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 20, 2016, 03:21:21 PM
I don't think it's necessary to make a tu quoque argument
I mean... I agree... but you literally opened this conversation with a tu quoque, and I'm in the middle of telling you off for that. Are you now changing your position?

It never ceases to amaze me how the exact same people who rant about liberals being easily-offended special snowflakes have rallied around a man who's probably the most oversensitive crybaby in the history of American politics.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 20, 2016, 05:03:29 PM
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/306931-pence-i-wasnt-offended-by-hamilton-message (http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/306931-pence-i-wasnt-offended-by-hamilton-message)

So Pence was ok with what happened.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: juner on November 20, 2016, 05:16:55 PM
I think you mean when /r/politics pretended to be a nonpartisan space, but asshammered any post that didn't conform.

At least the other shitty sub didn't pretend to be objective.

i wasn't criticizing the_donald.  i think that literally is the purpose of a safe space.  like, i think it's fine for trump supporters to have a place to get stoked about trump without having to defend the premise to anyone else.  i only don't think it applies to being politely thanked and asked to pay careful attention to the themes of the performance.

I agree. Just wanted to point out the r/politics are cunts.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on November 20, 2016, 05:23:07 PM
I don't think it's necessary to make a tu quoque argument
I mean... I agree... but you literally opened this conversation with a tu quoque, and I'm in the middle of telling you off for that. Are you now changing your position?

It never ceases to amaze me how the exact same people who rant about liberals being easily-offended special snowflakes have rallied around a man who's probably the most oversensitive crybaby in the history of American politics.

My tu quoque is exactly why we don't need a second tu quoque.  It's redundant.  If I weren't already conceding my own side's guilt/responsibility, my argument would be "NO U!" rather than tu quoque.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on November 21, 2016, 01:51:30 AM
I'm black and I voted for President Trump. Take that, SJWs!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on November 21, 2016, 03:51:10 AM
I'm black and I voted for President Trump. Take that, SJWs!

You really showed them.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 22, 2016, 12:32:12 PM
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/21/502951630/trump-airs-greivances-fields-questions-in-meeting-with-top-tv-news-figures

This is kinda funny.  Basically Trump invited reporters to his tower, told them they aren't good at their jobs and are horrible, then his Advisor had to stop him and say how Trump wanted to make their relationship better.  Then he took questions about his policy.

This whole meeting was purely off the record.

Yes, let's allow the press to ask policy questions but not be allowed to publish it.  That's a great way to get the message out.



Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: rooster on November 22, 2016, 01:50:41 PM
NPR is great.

I've been hearing such stupid things. Like how Trump criticized NBC for using a picture of him with his double chin showing? What a silly man.

Honestly, the most obvious and present issue with a Trump presidency seems to be his conflict of interests. He has something like 75 pending lawsuits and of course lots of business ventures that he refuses to turn over to a blind trust.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on November 22, 2016, 03:11:42 PM
But Hillary and her emails!!!!!!!111
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on November 22, 2016, 03:16:03 PM
the 2-for-1 rule trump proposed has got to be one of the more asinine things i've ever heard.  hey dummy: you're tacitly admitting that some regulations are productive and beneficial, which means that "less regulation always = more good" isn't true, which means that the number of regulations doesn't matter.

"regulation is always a barrier to productivity and freedom" is getting almost as tired as "taxes are the same as stealing."  ugh.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on November 23, 2016, 12:35:17 AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/22/donald-trumps-threat-to-prosecute-hillary-clinton-was-always-hollow/

Trumpadumpdump
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on November 23, 2016, 01:44:03 AM
I'm black and I voted for President Trump. Take that, SJWs!

You really showed them.

Thank you.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on November 23, 2016, 02:15:22 AM
I'm black and I voted for President Trump. Take that, SJWs!

You really showed them.

Thank you.

So how are you enjoying Trump backing off on most of his promises so far?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 23, 2016, 08:00:19 AM
I'm black and I voted for President Trump. Take that, SJWs!

You really showed them.

Thank you.

So how are you enjoying Trump backing off on most of his promises so far?
This just shows how efficient he is as a business man.  Unlike other politicians, which back out of their promises slowly over time and use vague language to justify it, Donald Trump cuts through the Washington BS and not only says it out right but BEFORE he even takes office.

Truly a man who represents America.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on November 23, 2016, 10:41:52 AM
Or.... Trump, realises that those that fear what he represents are happy to imagine he will abandon his stance, and those that voted him in, quite happily sneering from the side-lines while he comes into line.

Until he gets sworn in. He will not, he cannot, he does not want to become another bland part of the machine. The moment he takes office expect a fire in the pentagon, attributed to a Democratic, Mexican Muslim, pro-abortion gun snatching terrorist organisation, followed by the Pentagon fire decree suspending all personal freedom. By June, bibles, Billy clubs, book burning and bad hair styles. Welcome to the neo golden age.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Boots on November 23, 2016, 01:30:38 PM
Or.... Trump, realises that those that fear what he represents are happy to imagine he will abandon his stance, and those that voted him in, quite happily sneering from the side-lines while he comes into line.

Until he gets sworn in. He will not, he cannot, he does not want to become another bland part of the machine. The moment he takes office expect a fire in the pentagon, attributed to a Democratic, Mexican Muslim, pro-abortion gun snatching terrorist organisation, followed by the Pentagon fire decree suspending all personal freedom. By June, bibles, Billy clubs, book burning and bad hair styles. Welcome to the neo golden age.

This seems like over-the-top rhetoric. Most of your other posts, that I've read, seem very sensible and level-headed. I agree he  got elected on the promise that he wouldn't be "another bland part of the machine." But your description of how he is going to be different is ultra-pessimistic. I have never been a big Trump fan, but now that he is elected let's see what he can accomplish. There is something to be said for not being "another bland part of the machine." Whether Trump is better or worse than the status quo depends on how he is different. I am a little worried but also hopeful.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on November 23, 2016, 03:42:29 PM
Most of your other posts, that I've read, seem very sensible and level-headed.

Why thank you sir. Unfortunately, when someone mentions Trump, “a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi troubles my sight”, I see marching armies, burning corpses and floppy fringes, and “a gaze blank and pitiless as the sun”. I suppose four years from now we will know if I should be committed to an asylum or burnt at the stake.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Luke 22:35-38 on November 24, 2016, 02:21:39 AM
I'm black and I voted for President Trump. Take that, SJWs!

You really showed them.

Thank you.

So how are you enjoying Trump backing off on most of his promises so far?

I wouldn't say most. As far as his main promise about locking up Hillary, all he said was he isn't going to pursue it. That doesn't mean he'll appoint a FBI director that will.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 24, 2016, 05:30:14 AM
I'm black and I voted for President Trump. Take that, SJWs!

You really showed them.

Thank you.

So how are you enjoying Trump backing off on most of his promises so far?

I wouldn't say most. As far as his main promise about locking up Hillary, all he said was he isn't going to pursue it. That doesn't mean he'll appoint a FBI director that will.
Correct.  That does not mean he will.
He will not appoint an FBI director that will.
Because he'd have to force the current one to resign first.
And he won't persue the clintons.  They're good people.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 24, 2016, 02:25:50 PM
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-betsy-devos-as-education-secretary-a7435026.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/donald-trump-betsy-devos-as-education-secretary-a7435026.html)

God fucking damnit.
So much for public schools.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cambridge-analytica-steve-bannon-robert-rebekah-mercer-donald-trump-conflicts-of-interest-white-a7435536.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/cambridge-analytica-steve-bannon-robert-rebekah-mercer-donald-trump-conflicts-of-interest-white-a7435536.html)
And here's fun!
Yep.  Nepotism, the best way to govern.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on November 24, 2016, 02:36:00 PM
I wouldn't say most. As far as his main promise about locking up Hillary, all he said was he isn't going to pursue it. That doesn't mean he'll appoint a FBI director that will.

How do you figure that was his main promise?  As far as I or most people are concerned, the Mexican wall, the scrapping of Obamacare and the tearing up of NAFTA were more prominent platform promises... all of which he has backed off on or has indicated they will be scaled back.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Fortuna on November 24, 2016, 06:51:45 PM
And he won't persue the clintons.  They're good people.

You probably think George Soros is a philanthropist too, huh?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 24, 2016, 07:42:44 PM
And he won't persue the clintons.  They're good people.

You probably think George Soros is a philanthropist too, huh?
No, I'm quoting Donald Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Fortuna on November 24, 2016, 09:16:04 PM
I'm quoting Donald Trump.

Irrelevant
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 24, 2016, 10:23:56 PM
I'm quoting Donald Trump.

Irrelevant
That's the whole point of the statement.  So it's totally relevant.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Fortuna on November 25, 2016, 06:05:29 AM
I'm quoting Donald Trump.

Irrelevant
That's the whole point of the statement.  So it's totally relevant.

Incorrect.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: disputeone on November 25, 2016, 06:22:58 AM
The moment he takes office expect a fire in the pentagon, attributed to a Democratic, Mexican Muslim, pro-abortion gun snatching terrorist organisation, followed by the Pentagon fire decree suspending all personal freedom.

You mean 9/11?
 ;D ;D ;D

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

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on November 25, 2016, 03:55:26 PM
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/23/503156456/trump-says-he-has-open-mind-on-climate-but-staff-pick-raises-questions

FFS, this is as bad as putting Ben Carson in charge of education.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Dionysios on November 26, 2016, 09:52:24 PM
Coming from Trump, I would take the epithet "brutal dictator" as a compliment.

God bless Fidel Castro Ruz
& have mercy on his soul.

I'm critical of Obama as well, but I believe in giving credit where it's due. The  rapprochement with Cuba was one of the more honourable things he did as the U.S. has been a tyranny against Cuba and others for over a hundred years.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on November 29, 2016, 01:38:56 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-calls-complete-shutdown-clinton-foundation-n636051

super funny in retrospect.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on November 30, 2016, 02:12:52 AM
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803567993036754944

Texas v. Johnson and Afroyim v. Rusk are landmark Supreme Court cases.  The President of the United States should know this.

I feel like I'm going to be saying that last line a lot over the next four years.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 30, 2016, 12:40:27 PM
The President of the United States should know this.

I feel like I'm going to be saying that last line a lot over the next four years.
"POTUS cannot have opinions on how things should be if they contradict how things currently are."

Top quality sadaam 10/10 bet you said that a lot about Obama too.

In less retarded news, Trump continues to prepare for his job just as expected:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38155141

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on November 30, 2016, 02:26:40 PM
"POTUS cannot have opinions on how things should be if they contradict how things currently are."

genuine curiosity: for those of us miffed by the "flag burners should be arrested" tweet that george refers to, do you think this is what we're upset about?  like, if i asked you to describe as best as possible what troubles people about that tweet, is this what you'd come up with?

e: not meant to sound as backhanded as it does. real q.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 30, 2016, 03:18:06 PM
In less retarded news, Trump continues to prepare for his job just as expected:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38155141 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-38155141)

Good.
Let's see if he just gives it to his kids to run, which is only a small step away. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Jura-Glenlivet on November 30, 2016, 03:44:27 PM
"POTUS cannot have opinions on how things should be if they contradict how things currently are."

genuine curiosity: for those of us miffed by the "flag burners should be arrested" tweet that george refers to, do you think this is what we're upset about?  like, if i asked you to describe as best as possible what troubles people about that tweet, is this what you'd come up with?

e: not meant to sound as backhanded as it does. real q.

The only reason I can think of why he wants to make such a law, is that he has just cornered the rights to export bits of coloured rag to the middle east/pretty much anywhere, as soon as it becomes illegal to deface it in the US it will become (even more) the du-rigueur thing to do at all parties and public gatherings out there.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 30, 2016, 04:11:21 PM
genuine curiosity: for those of us miffed by the "flag burners should be arrested" tweet that george refers to, do you think this is what we're upset about?  like, if i asked you to describe as best as possible what troubles people about that tweet, is this what you'd come up with?

e: not meant to sound as backhanded as it does. real q.
[Same disclaimer about being genuine and not trying to be snarky applies to all of this post]

Tbh I have no idea what people are upset about. Donald Trump's Twitter feed is not an accurate depiction of his policy proposals and actions as president-elect. I'm sure that's not a controversial proposal. Looking at a small section of responses to the tweet itself, people seem to be angry because what Trump said, if turned into actual law, would violate the Bill of Rights. From my point of view, there's nothing to be upset about. He's welcome to his personal opinion, and if he tries to influence the law in this direction (unlikely imo), he'll get stuck in a short legal fight after which he'll be told to shove it.

That's not to say you can't or shouldn't be upset. I was specifically responding to Saddam's mentality. The idea that "Trump should know that there's a legal precedent for this, ergo he shouldn't be tweeting about it!" is extremely silly.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 30, 2016, 04:17:41 PM
"POTUS cannot have opinions on how things should be if they contradict how things currently are."

genuine curiosity: for those of us miffed by the "flag burners should be arrested" tweet that george refers to, do you think this is what we're upset about?  like, if i asked you to describe as best as possible what troubles people about that tweet, is this what you'd come up with?

e: not meant to sound as backhanded as it does. real q.

The only reason I can think of why he wants to make such a law, is that he has just cornered the rights to export bits of coloured rag to the middle east/pretty much anywhere, as soon as it becomes illegal to deface it in the US it will become (even more) the du-rigueur thing to do at all parties and public gatherings out there.


Nah, its a simple tweet to keep his base barking at something.  If you don't keep them occupied and energized behind you, they start to wander away.


This just something he can tweet that's easy to not do, energizes his base, and leaves him with nothing lost by saying it.




genuine curiosity: for those of us miffed by the "flag burners should be arrested" tweet that george refers to, do you think this is what we're upset about?  like, if i asked you to describe as best as possible what troubles people about that tweet, is this what you'd come up with?

e: not meant to sound as backhanded as it does. real q.
[Same disclaimer about being genuine and not trying to be snarky applies to all of this post]

Tbh I have no idea what people are upset about. Donald Trump's Twitter feed is not an accurate depiction of his policy proposals and actions as president-elect. I'm sure that's not a controversial proposal. Looking at a small section of responses to the tweet itself, people seem to be angry because what Trump said, if turned into actual law, would violate the Bill of Rights. From my point of view, there's nothing to be upset about. He's welcome to his personal opinion, and if he tries to influence the law in this direction (unlikely imo), he'll get stuck in a short legal fight after which he'll be told to shove it.

That's not to say you can't or shouldn't be upset. I was specifically responding to Saddam's mentality. The idea that "Trump should know that there's a legal precedent for this, ergo he shouldn't be tweeting about it!" is extremely silly.


I'm upset not because I think he'll be able to do it, but because its an empty "I'm awesome, praise me for being anti-freedom!" Message.
The president (or president elect) is a very powerful person.  His words can shape the world yet he throws them around like a troll.
He is literally trolling America.  (Saying something to get a reaction out of people) What happens when he  tweets something that upsets someone as thin skinned and powerful as him?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on November 30, 2016, 06:12:51 PM
[...]what Trump said, if turned into actual law, would violate the Bill of Rights. From my point of view, there's nothing to be upset about. He's welcome to his personal opinion, and if he tries to influence the law in this direction (unlikely imo), he'll get stuck in a short legal fight after which he'll be told to shove it.

totally agree.

That's not to say you can't or shouldn't be upset. I was specifically responding to Saddam's mentality. The idea that "Trump should know that there's a legal precedent for this, ergo he shouldn't be tweeting about it!" is extremely silly.

i can see what you mean.  and personally i'm on the side of 'let's reserve our criticisms for policy proposals, not personality traits and tweets.'  not that i follow my own advice all the time, but i agree with the principle.

that said, i'm also in the camp of taking all politicians both literally, and seriously.  the transparency of the state is very important to me, and that extends to the politicians themselves.  i'm troubled that he might genuinely believe in such a policy, and i'm equally troubled that i don't know if he does or not.

and if he does believe in such a policy, then i think that's troubling in its own right.  sure, he may not be able to roll back free speech in cases like flag burning that are already well-settled.  but not all of our rights are so clearly delineated (privacy comes to mind), and if his attitude toward individual rights are so draconian in this instance (even if he can't actualize them), then i kinda shudder to think what his attitude will be on the rights issues he can affect.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on November 30, 2016, 06:23:40 PM
...  and personally i'm on the side of 'let's reserve our criticisms for policy proposals, not personality traits and tweets.'  not that i follow my own advice all the time, but i agree with the principle.

This, to me, is dangerous.  Those tweets ARE him.  His personality.  His words.  When he talks to other law makers behind closed doors, those tweets are the closest we'll ever get to what he says.

Asking us to ignore "the man" and just follow "the policy" is asking us to ignore a big part of him.  I mean, it's important that someone can do the job, but if they're an asshole, it's not going to make it easier for anyone else.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on December 01, 2016, 03:48:29 AM
...  and personally i'm on the side of 'let's reserve our criticisms for policy proposals, not personality traits and tweets.'  not that i follow my own advice all the time, but i agree with the principle.

This, to me, is dangerous.  Those tweets ARE him.  His personality.  His words.  When he talks to other law makers behind closed doors, those tweets are the closest we'll ever get to what he says.

Asking us to ignore "the man" and just follow "the policy" is asking us to ignore a big part of him.  I mean, it's important that someone can do the job, but if they're an asshole, it's not going to make it easier for anyone else.

i can see what you mean, and i don't really disagree.  probably my number one personal dissatisfaction with trump is that i think he's temperamentally unsuited to the position, and i think that's a fair criticism of anyone seeking that office.  the sort of thing i had in mind was the scale of 'preemptive' criticism of trump's nominees so far.  i think it's fair to kinda hold back until the full lineup is presented and they actually start making tangible policy recommendations. 

my wording was terrible since i said personality traits and tweets, but i'll defend that by saying that i think the left (and i'm left-of-center myself) could gain some credibility by just backing off the reins a bit, even when it comes to trump's personality and tweets and shit.  let's pick our battles more selectively.  i wanna be the party of policy.

i do admit, though, that i have at least one foot in the 'it doesn't matter if he's good at the job or not' camp.  i want him to be good at the job for sure, don't get me wrong; but, i don't have any kudos to give after the campaign he ran.  i don't think complete disregard for the truth should be rewarded with the highest office we have.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on December 01, 2016, 05:03:16 AM
Dave has somewhat covered my thoughts, but to be clear, I'm not worried that Trump is really going to outlaw flag-burning or strip citizenship from people who do it; I'm worried that this kind of ignorant shitposting from the president is embarrassing for the country, as well as what it seems to show about his personality and temperament.  It's like he just shoots these tweets off the moment he thinks of them.  He doesn't take the time to consider his actions, maybe look over his words, reflect on what the consequences might be - no, he has to go wherever his id drags him.

(Also, flag-burning is another excellent example of what conservatives rather than liberals are traditionally "triggered" by and/or want to prohibit.  Of course, you don't see many articles from the mainstream media criticizing the frailty of the modern conservative, because the narrative is that conservatives are strong, stoic, and masculine, while liberals are weak, whiny, and feminine.)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 01, 2016, 10:37:47 PM
It's like he just shoots these tweets off the moment he thinks of them.  He doesn't take the time to consider  his actions, maybe look over his words
That's precisely what he does. That's precisely what a personal Twitter account is meant for. If you don't like Twitter, perhaps you just shouldn't use it?

reflect on what the consequences might be
>twitter
>tweets
>consequences

Fucking lol. The only possible "consequences" of personal tweets is that a bunch of butthurt liberals might try to get the owner of the account fired. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what's happening, just with zero success.

Of course, you don't see many articles from the mainstream media criticizing the frailty of the modern conservative, because the narrative is that conservatives are strong, stoic, and masculine, while liberals are weak, whiny, and feminine.
Saddam, am I really going to have to introduce you to left wing media? The "uh oh conservatives are the reaaaal triggered snowflakes" meme is so old and tired, you can't possibly believe that MSM are ignoring it.

I mean, this really isn't that hard.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/05/fragile-conservatives-upset-a-woman-blocked-them.html
http://www.salon.com/2016/07/08/tv_as_a_conservative_safe_space_fragile_viewers_cant_handle_being_challenged_by_their_entertainment/
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/michelle-obama-makes-fragile-white-conservatives-lose-their-minds-just-by-saying-slavery
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on December 02, 2016, 02:32:51 AM
That's precisely what he does. That's precisely what a personal Twitter account is meant for. If you don't like Twitter, perhaps you just shouldn't use it?

Twitter accounts aren't "meant" for anything beyond expressing a message less than 140 characters long at a time.  There are a variety of things that people use them for, and Trump uses his for stirring up controversy, flexing his e-penis, and venting when he's angry.

Quote
>twitter
>tweets
>consequences

Fucking lol. The only possible "consequences" of personal tweets is that a bunch of butthurt liberals might try to get the owner of the account fired. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what's happening, just with zero success.

I don't know how you could possibly argue something like this after the election we just witnessed.  Trump's tweets have already had major consequences, both positive and negative.  He probably would have lost the election if not for Twitter.  Don't you remember the shitstorm about him retweeting posts from white nationalists, like the "Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!" picture?  Or how he's been hammered for continuing to make pro-birther tweets years after he supposedly "ended" the issue by getting Obama to release his long-form birth certificate?  Or the hilarity that ensued when Hillary began calling attention to Trump's friendliness with people tweeting Pepe memes?   Even one tweet he made years ago about global warming being a Chinese hoax formed Hillary's main argument against him on that issue.  As far as Trump's administration goes, the consequences I expect we're going to see play out are how heavily he's strained his relationship with top Republicans.

Quote
Saddam, am I really going to have to introduce you to left wing media? The "uh oh conservatives are the reaaaal triggered snowflakes" meme is so old and tired, you can't possibly believe that MSM are ignoring it.

I mean, this really isn't that hard.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/05/fragile-conservatives-upset-a-woman-blocked-them.html
http://www.salon.com/2016/07/08/tv_as_a_conservative_safe_space_fragile_viewers_cant_handle_being_challenged_by_their_entertainment/
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/michelle-obama-makes-fragile-white-conservatives-lose-their-minds-just-by-saying-slavery

When I talked about the mainstream media, I had meant reasonably moderate newspapers, like the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc., rather than openly left-wing sources.  However, after further research, I've discovered that those moderate newspapers aren't nearly as unanimously pitted against the whiny liberals and their safe spaces as I had thought.  Indeed, there are just many articles from them defending such liberals and their ideas as there are articles criticizing them.  So I'll retract my complaint about this being the mainstream narrative, as that doesn't appear to be the case.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on December 02, 2016, 05:30:30 AM
>twitter
>tweets
>consequences

Fucking lol. The only possible "consequences" of personal tweets is that a bunch of butthurt liberals might try to get the owner of the account fired. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what's happening, just with zero success.
Donald Trump is influential.  His words, even tweets, are read by millions and millions take those words at face value.  To claim tweets have no consequences for someone like Trump is just absolutely wrong.  His tweets make national news, on all sides.  They are no different than if any celebrety or political figure went on national TV and said those things.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 02, 2016, 12:30:51 PM
They are no different than if any celebrety or political figure went on national TV Twitter and said those things.
[ftfy: Twitter is not TV. One carries an expectation of content and quality control, the other does the opposite. But otherwise:]

Precisely! When Tila Tequila or Kanye West get on Twitter and say retarded shit, a few news outlets will report on it, a few people (usually on the left, because most moral busybodies tend to align themselves with the left) will get outraged, and then... nothing will happen. Another tweet will come up, and the cycle will begin anew.

Thank you so much for backing up my point so eloquently.

Twitter accounts aren't "meant" for anything beyond expressing a message less than 140 characters long at a time.  There are a variety of things that people use them for, and Trump uses his for stirring up controversy, flexing his e-penis, and venting when he's angry.
Saddam... you are literally agreeing with me, except you're starting the sentence with "no ur wrong".

I don't know how you could possibly argue something like this after the election we just witnessed.  Trump's tweets have already had major consequences, both positive and negative.  He probably would have lost the election if not for Twitter.  Don't you remember the shitstorm about him retweeting posts from white nationalists, like the "Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!" picture?  Or how he's been hammered for continuing to make pro-birther tweets years after he supposedly "ended" the issue by getting Obama to release his long-form birth certificate?  Or the hilarity that ensued when Hillary began calling attention to Trump's friendliness with people tweeting Pepe memes?   Even one tweet he made years ago about global warming being a Chinese hoax formed Hillary's main argument against him on that issue.  As far as Trump's administration goes, the consequences I expect we're going to see play out are how heavily he's strained his relationship with top Republicans.
Ah, yes, all those things that massively set his campaign back and caused MSM to Streisand Effect the fuck out of his candidacy. Yep, definitely the consequences of tweets.

All those super serious issues like people insisting that this:

(http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2016/07/trumptwitter-e1467482685925.jpg)

contains a Star of David and is therefore clearly anti-semitic. All those serious, influential people, who apparently have never been to a supermarket before (https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/best-price-label-promotion-12324993.jpg). It's a shame that he didn't come out as a Satanist (https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1Hm97IVXXXXafapXXq6xXFXXX5/6-9CM-Push-font-b-sale-b-font-POP-explorer-advertising-paper-card-DIY-promotion-label.jpg) instead.

I'm glad that you genuinely think Pepe won the election, though, and that you're taking yourself seriously enough to admit it. That's hilarious.

(http://i.imgur.com/mUWtowV.jpg)

When I talked about the mainstream media, I had meant reasonably moderate newspapers, like the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc., rather than openly left-wing sources.  However, after further research, I've discovered that those moderate newspapers aren't nearly as unanimously pitted against the whiny liberals and their safe spaces as I had thought.  Indeed, there are just many articles from them defending such liberals and their ideas as there are articles criticizing them.  So I'll retract my complaint about this being the mainstream narrative, as that doesn't appear to be the case.
Woop woop, you backed away from your least insane claim, the one you could have actually tried defending, while doubling down on the sheer lunacy of "Pepe the Frog helped Trump win the election". Well done.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: rooster on December 02, 2016, 01:29:00 PM
I think the whole Pepe thing showed more people that Hillary had no idea what the fuck she was talking about while also ostracizing anyone who does use Pepe for the lulz.

At least I think that was one of her more retarded moves - so it's certainly plausible that it didn't help her campaign at least.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on December 02, 2016, 01:32:00 PM
@SexWarrior - You don't have to look very hard to see that Twitter activities have caused celebrities and plebs alike to lose jobs over tweets. That being said, it obviously was not a fatal mistake for Trump.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on December 02, 2016, 01:36:18 PM
They are no different than if any celebrety or political figure went on national TV Twitter and said those things.
[ftfy: Twitter is not TV. One carries an expectation of content and quality control, the other does the opposite. But otherwise:]

Precisely! When Tila Tequila or Kanye West get on Twitter and say retarded shit, a few news outlets will report on it, a few people (usually on the left, because most moral busybodies tend to align themselves with the left) will get outraged, and then... nothing will happen. Another tweet will come up, and the cycle will begin anew.

Thank you so much for backing up my point so eloquently.
Yeah, I walked into that one.
My point, poorly put, is that a tweet is the same as a statement.  A facebook post is the same as a press release.  Words have power, regardless of the medium.
Social Media may have a lower standard of quality but that's because it's *mostly* Unfiltered.  It doesn't mean what's posted isn't a reflection on you.  And everything Donald Trump posts as POTUS will be a reflection on not only him, but also the USA. 

As for consequences, I don't think it's as consequence free as you think.  Ticket sales, banned accounts, loss of contracts, opportunities, record deals, sponsorship, etc... are all very real for those celebrities.  Bad PR and all that.

What consequences, exactly, do you expect?  Not like Kanye West can start a war with China by calling Xi Jinping an asshole.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 02, 2016, 01:57:08 PM
I think the whole Pepe thing showed more people that Hillary had no idea what the fuck she was talking about while also ostracizing anyone who does use Pepe for the lulz.

At least I think that was one of her more retarded moves - so it's certainly plausible that it didn't help her campaign at least.
I agree, but can you really put the blame for the fact that Trump can navigate online shitposting culture better than Clinton on either:

a) Trump
b) Twitter?

@SexWarrior - You don't have to look very hard to see that Twitter activities have caused celebrities and plebs alike to lose jobs over tweets.
Agreed pre-emptively:

The only possible "consequences" of personal tweets is that a bunch of butthurt liberals might try to get the owner of the account fired. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what's happening, just with zero success.
To clarify, "zero success" refers to the fact that Trump (specifically) isn't getting fired over tweets, rather than that no one has ever been fired over tweets.

As for consequences, I don't think it's as consequence free as you think.  Ticket sales, banned accounts, loss of contracts, opportunities, record deals, sponsorship, etc... are all very real for those celebrities.  Bad PR and all that.
Again, I already acknowledged that his statements set his campaign back. As they should have. If people disapprove of Trump's statements, they shouldn't support Trump. However, I think it's fair to say that these aren't the consequences that Saddam fears when he says "He doesn't take the time to consider his actions, maybe look over his words, reflect on what the consequences might be - no, he has to go wherever his id drags him." - and that's precisely the statement I'm ripping into here.

What consequences, exactly, do you expect?  Not like Kanye West can start a war with China by calling Xi Jinping an asshole.
Wrong person to ask. I expect no serious consequences of personal tweets. It's Twitter, for Christ's sake. Saddam's the one who thinks people on Twitter should "think about the consequences" before posting.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on December 02, 2016, 02:05:08 PM
Saddam... you are literally agreeing with me, except you're starting the sentence with "no ur wrong".

No, I'm not.  You're saying, "This is the correct use of Twitter, therefore there is nothing wrong with what he's doing," while I'm saying, "There is no such thing as 'the correct use' of Twitter beyond the technical limits, so arguing that what he's doing is perfectly acceptable because it's such a correct use of Twitter is meaningless."

Quote
Ah, yes, all those things that massively set his campaign back and caused MSM to Streisand Effect the fuck out of his candidacy. Yep, definitely the consequences of tweets.

All those super serious issues like people insisting that this:

(http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2016/07/trumptwitter-e1467482685925.jpg)

contains a Star of David and is therefore clearly anti-semitic. All those serious, influential people, who apparently have never been to a supermarket before (https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/best-price-label-promotion-12324993.jpg). It's a shame that he didn't come out as a Satanist (https://ae01.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1Hm97IVXXXXafapXXq6xXFXXX5/6-9CM-Push-font-b-sale-b-font-POP-explorer-advertising-paper-card-DIY-promotion-label.jpg) instead.

I'm glad that you genuinely think Pepe won the election, though, and that you're taking yourself seriously enough to admit it. That's hilarious.

(http://i.imgur.com/mUWtowV.jpg)

Media coverage and criticism are still consequences, regardless of whether or not you think the coverage was justified or the criticisms were deserved.  All you're really arguing here is "I don't care what people say on Twitter, therefore nobody does."
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 02, 2016, 02:15:16 PM
No, I'm not.  You're saying, "This is the correct use of Twitter, therefore there is nothing wrong with what he's doing,"
Except that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm laughing at you thinking that Twitter is serious business, and that Trump's tweets should be taken seriously.

Media coverage and criticism are still consequences, regardless of whether or not you think the coverage was justified or the criticisms were deserved.  All you're really arguing here is "I don't care what people say on Twitter, therefore nobody does."
Except that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm laughing in your face for your "he doesn't even think about the consequences!!!" spiel. If the consequences you're so worried about is that someone might write a story about how Trump is totally a mean bean, that's laughable. "Trump shouldn't say words because someone else might also say words" is a very, very poor argument, and a big downgrade even from what you originally said.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on December 02, 2016, 04:25:12 PM
Except that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm laughing at you thinking that Twitter is serious business, and that Trump's tweets should be taken seriously.

What the President of the United States says publicly is absolutely serious business, and it doesn't matter if his medium of choice is Twitter, MySpace, Instagram, or scribbling down messages on paper airplanes that he throws at journalists.

Quote
Except that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm laughing in your face for your "he doesn't even think about the consequences!!!" spiel. If the consequences you're so worried about is that someone might write a story about how Trump is totally a mean bean, that's laughable. "Trump shouldn't say words because someone else might also say words" is a very, very poor argument, and a big downgrade even from what you originally said.

Pardon me for supposing that public opinion bears some relevance to international politics. ::)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: rooster on December 02, 2016, 05:16:53 PM
I'm personally more concerned with his introduction call with the Pakistan PM.

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2016/12/01/504010662/trump-gushes-about-pakistan-in-call-with-its-prime-minister

"President Trump said Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif you have a very good reputation. You are a terrific guy. You are doing amazing work which is visible in every way. I am looking forward to see you soon. As I am talking to you Prime Minister, I feel I am talking to a person I have known for long. Your country is amazing with tremendous opportunities. Pakistanis are one of the most intelligent people. I am ready and willing to play any role that you want me to play to address and find solutions to the outstanding problems."

I will point out that Trump has tweeted about Pakistan's betrayal calling them "some ally" in the past and wanting them to apologize for hiding Osama Bin Laden. So who knows what the fuck this guy is thinking.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on December 02, 2016, 09:17:10 PM
As for consequences, I don't think it's as consequence free as you think.  Ticket sales, banned accounts, loss of contracts, opportunities, record deals, sponsorship, etc... are all very real for those celebrities.  Bad PR and all that.
Again, I already acknowledged that his statements set his campaign back. As they should have. If people disapprove of Trump's statements, they shouldn't support Trump. However, I think it's fair to say that these aren't the consequences that Saddam fears when he says "He doesn't take the time to consider his actions, maybe look over his words, reflect on what the consequences might be - no, he has to go wherever his id drags him." - and that's precisely the statement I'm ripping into here.

What consequences, exactly, do you expect?  Not like Kanye West can start a war with China by calling Xi Jinping an asshole.
Wrong person to ask. I expect no serious consequences of personal tweets. It's Twitter, for Christ's sake. Saddam's the one who thinks people on Twitter should "think about the consequences" before posting.
George is right though.  Personal tweets or not, The president of the United States isn't going to get a pass on anything he tweets just because "It's twitter".  It's easy to dismiss it as "lol, why so serious" but it's still words.  It's still your words.  If I go on tweeting my feelings about something, those who follow me are going to think that's how I feel.  To do otherwise would be saying that I'm tweeting lies or satire.  So far, we've no indication that Donald isn't serious in everything he tweets.  It may be a lie or wrong, but he's serious about the message he's sending.  He's also using it to bypass the press and deliver his message directly.  His tweets are even going to be archived by the government.

So when you have all that, his tweets become very serious.  In fact, because they're HIS tweets and often shot off quickly and without a speech writer, they are a good look into what he really thinks.  And if I were a world leader, I'd be following him on twitter to find out just what he thinks.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 03, 2016, 11:40:57 AM
What the President of the United States says publicly is absolutely serious business, and it doesn't matter if his medium of choice is Twitter, MySpace, Instagram, or scribbling down messages on paper airplanes that he throws at journalists.
Fuck me, am I glad that your worldview is losing ground so quickly.

Pardon me
Let me talk to you about that after I get into office.

Meanwhile, in less Saddam news, Trump is already pissing China off. About time.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on December 03, 2016, 07:17:34 PM
You said yourself that more people than ever before are relying on social media for their news.  Why should the president's Twitter account be any different?  And it's not like Trump doesn't use it for precisely that purpose.  I'd understand where you were coming from if it was solely dedicated to his casual musings, but he's making hiring/nomination announcements there, linking to interviews and news articles he wants his followers to see, and discussing his touring schedule.  It seems like Trump expects his Twitter account to be taken seriously, even if you don't.

<Rushy> George: https://i.redd.it/3o220qscz61y.jpg
<George> lol
<beardo> Kek
<George> NATIONAL ALERT SYSTEM
<George> ur a fagit
<George> faggit*
<George> http://www.snopes.com/trump-can-send-texts-to-all-americans/
<Rushy> No information suggested that President-elect Trump had plans to frivolously mass text the United States.
<Rushy> Pfft
<Rushy> Like he actually plans things
<Rushy> Why use Twitter when you can just message everyone in America instantly
<George> shitposting en masse
<George> I actually hope he does this
<George> I would laugh and laugh
<Rushy> No one could possibly think this is an actually possible scenario
<Rushy> I do want to see it
<Rushy> "hey guys guess who is literally not your president? Hillary. Lmao. -The Don"
<George> yes
<Rushy> I can't even imagine the insanity that would cause
<Rushy> It's something reserved only for a parody universe
<beardo> I'd love it
<George> Trump is from a parody universe
<Rushy> "just got out of a meeting with Mexico, still think not pay4wall. I declare war on Mexico."
<Rushy> They will pay in blood

(https://i.redd.it/3o220qscz61y.jpg)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 03, 2016, 10:18:15 PM
You said yourself that more people than ever before are relying on social media for their news.  Why should the president's Twitter account be any different?
Primarily because of the way he uses it. It's a good channel for some things, but "news" is taking it way too far.

You've departed so far from your original issue - Trump talking about how he thinks flag-burning should be a punishable offence. It's not "news", it's not a dangerous legal precedent, and it's not something that should warrant "stopping and think about the consequences!!1!" before doing it. It's just a notorious troll voicing an opinion on a personal Twitter channel - an opinion which may or may not be serious for all we know, but one that doesn't ultimately matter either way.

I'd understand where you were coming from if it was solely dedicated to his casual musings, but he's making hiring/nomination announcements there, linking to interviews and news articles he wants his followers to see, and discussing his touring schedule.
Eh. I don't think the presence of serious tweets makes the entire channel serious. I'll concede that it's not a pure stream of shitposts, but that doesn't make his shitposting any more serious.

(https://i.redd.it/3o220qscz61y.jpg)
Compulsory Trump Steak ads, coming soon to your mobile phone.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on December 09, 2016, 04:17:26 PM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/06/did-donald-trump-tank-boeings-stock-because-he-was-mad-about-a-news-article/?utm_term=.0a77785d3019

Granted, it recovered by the end of the day but this is a very real world consequence of his tweets.  Shit posting or not, I bet the CEO of Boeing isn't gonna criticize Trump ever gain.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on December 16, 2016, 06:51:20 PM
So... I just learned how the hackers got into the DNC e-mail and that they tried something similar in the RNC systems. 

An e-mail.
It was a fucking e-mail.  The god damn, moron clicked a link in a suspicious god damn e-mail.

The RNC, by the way, didn't click the suspicious link.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 16, 2016, 07:38:04 PM
(http://i.omgomg.eu/hackedhillary)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on December 16, 2016, 07:49:32 PM
So... I just learned how the hackers got into the DNC e-mail and that they tried something similar in the RNC systems. 

An e-mail.
It was a fucking e-mail.  The god damn, moron clicked a link in a suspicious god damn e-mail.

The RNC, by the way, didn't click the suspicious link.

Apparently the person who received the malicious email asked someone, also via email, if it was ok to click the link and a typo in the reply gave the impression that it was. And thus, Trump became president.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: xasop on December 19, 2016, 10:36:14 PM
The Electoral College has just elected Trump president. #MAGA
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: model 29 on December 25, 2016, 07:57:58 PM
One of my friends is taking this pretty hard.  He's been going downhill for quite some time with his man Obama in charge, so I don't know why he was expecting anything different anytime soon with Hillary. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on December 30, 2016, 04:45:18 AM
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/312132-fbi-dhs-release-report-on-russia-hacking

the report: https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on December 30, 2016, 05:07:42 AM
But Rushy assured me that the WaPo had made all of this up because they were sore losers! :o
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 30, 2016, 07:40:51 AM
Lol, at this point Obama is deliberately destroying his country to make Trump's job harder. 10/10 president, January 20th couldn't come any sooner.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/312132-fbi-dhs-release-report-on-russia-hacking

the report: https://www.us-cert.gov/sites/default/files/publications/JAR_16-20296A_GRIZZLY%20STEPPE-2016-1229.pdf
I admit I only skimmed through the document [e: I have since read it more thoroughly], so I may have well missed something that's hidden in plain sight, but (other than pointing the finger very loudly) has this report made any attempt of providing evidence that the attackers were Russian intelligence agencies?

The best I can find is a reference to this statement (https://www.dhs.gov/news/2016/10/07/joint-statement-department-homeland-security-and-office-director-national) where they assert that they're confident in their assessment and that such actions are not unprecedented.

The article itself seems even worse - the groups are "thought" to be run by the Russians, and phishing is super srs hacking. It just comes across as lacking any kind of awareness.

But Rushy assured me that the WaPo had made all of this up because they were sore losers! :o
His assurances appear to be as evidence-based as DHS's allegations to date.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on December 30, 2016, 04:05:40 PM
I admit I only skimmed through the document [e: I have since read it more thoroughly], so I may have well missed something that's hidden in plain sight, but (other than pointing the finger very loudly) has this report made any attempt of providing evidence that the attackers were Russian intelligence agencies?

it all seems very schematic to me, but i would've posed the same question to you since i have virtually no expertise of any kind in coding/networking/whatever other computer things matter here.

i don't expect that we'll be given the source material until well after the trump presidency is over, or until such time as it no longer matters if russia knows how we knew what we knew.

for me personally it's difficult to see how or why this would all be manufacturing from whole cloth.  i'm not even sure why the claim that russia uses these sorts of clandestine operations to fuck with the us is controversial.  i mean they're not exactly our allies...

Lol, at this point Obama is deliberately destroying his country to make Trump's job harder.

sigh.  i mean i know he's on the blue team or whatever, but get real.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on December 30, 2016, 04:42:39 PM
From what I read it goes like this:

Two groups that use specific domains and handles and are known Russian affiliates, spammed phishing e-mails to a bunch of people and got the DNC to click it twice.  Once for an install of malware in 2015 that let them in and the other, in 2016, to change their password, which they did like a dumbass and also let them in.

So the "evidence" boils down to "Yeah, we know the guys who sent it.  Trust us."

This may or may not be contradictory to Wikileaks, depending on how it was done.  Like, if the group had an agent inside the DNC who did this, it could still appear to come from an insider while at the same time be done by Russia.

But if that isn't so then who should we believe?  That the DNC is incompetent and clicked on a phishing e-mail twice?  Or that someone inside got access to the e-mail account and did it him/herself?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 31, 2016, 08:30:43 AM
it all seems very schematic to me, but i would've posed the same question to you since i have virtually no expertise of any kind in coding/networking/whatever other computer things matter here.
When it comes to cyber attacks, attribution is extremely difficult. You can find plenty of hints (mostly cultural, e.g. people from different backgrounds write code differently, so some analysis can give you an idea of the dialect used, much like in a human language), but hard evidence is rare. That's why it's so uncommon for high profile conflicts to arise from cyber attacks.

I'm sure intelligence agencies are fucking with each other all the time, and they can probably make a good guess as to who's fucking with them at a given time, but that's where this situation is uncomfortably different. They're very confident, so confident that Obama decided to start a major diplomatic standoff just moments before he, y'know, won't have to deal with any of it.

for me personally it's difficult to see how or why this would all be manufacturing from whole cloth.  i'm not even sure why the claim that russia uses these sorts of clandestine operations to fuck with the us is controversial.  i mean they're not exactly our allies...
Aside from the suspicious level of confidence, the lack even a vague hint as to how they figured it out, and the aggrandised claims about the scale of the attacks, it's really not controversial. It's perfectly possible that the Russian government ordered their intelligence agencies to find dirt on Hillary to boost Trump. It's even less controversial since it looks like all they did was supply the press with correct and accurate information. But the US response suggests that there's either much more to it, or (as I chose to believe) much less to it.

sigh.  i mean i know he's on the blue team or whatever, but get real.
No, no, hear me out, this has nothing to do with teams. Obama has 20-something days left in office and suddenly he simultaneously launches diplomatic conflicts with Russia, Israel (America's puppet state), and by extension the UK. The Israel thing is because suddenly they realised that Netanyahu is Netanyahu. They've been ignoring him for 7 years (awfully close a period to someone's presidency...), but now, just in time for Trump to take over, the Obama administration won't stand for Israel for another 3 weeks. It's hilarious. I hope they cut ties with South Korea in a week or something like that. 

But if that isn't so then who should we believe?  That the DNC is incompetent and clicked on a phishing e-mail twice?  Or that someone inside got access to the e-mail account and did it him/herself?
I mean, they hired Podesta. Clearly the brain drain is widespread...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 31, 2016, 09:24:32 AM
Meanwhile, the Russian Embassy in the UK is on point

https://twitter.com/RussianEmbassy/status/814564127230271489
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on December 31, 2016, 09:27:12 AM
Obama is doing a bunch of dickish things.  I agree with them, mind you, but this smells of retaliation.

And to be honest, I can't blame him.  He spent 8 years being nice, trying to do things, having one of his biggest scandals be an open mike where he says he can stop worrying about reelection and do what he wants, and with all that, gets hammered for everything.  After 8 years of being told that you're a horrible failure, you should leave, your a Muslim, you weren't born in America, and probably a few racial slurs, then watching the nation elect a man who has no political experience (one of the many criticisms of Obama during his first campaign), campaigned purely on vague promises and "Everyone but me and you suck.", and probably giving Obama a headache during the transition, I'd probably fuck him up too.

"Hey, wanna be friends with Russia?  Fuck you Russia."
"Hey, wanna drill on all this wonderful land?  Fuck no, it's a park now."
"Hate the two state solution?  Oh they want the one state solution too? Fine, Israel, I'm done being nice, fuck you." (This was LONG over due)

He's giving Trump an economy that's much better than what he got in 2008 and not only is he still seen as a failure (It didn't go fast enough?  That's your complaint?) but America voted in the kind of person they claim to hate (Rich, selfish, lies, vague promises, outsources, greedy, does what he wants).  The irony is that while Republicans complained Obama did what he wanted, used executive actions liberally, pushed through ACA on a technicality because he could, they elected someone who promises to do the exact same thing.  Obama tells Israel to go fuck itself.  -OMG!  Obama is fucking up America!
Trump tells Mexico/China/Europe go to fuck itself. - YAY!  Stick it to those jerks!

I suspect that if Obama's SS detail could move beyond America, he'd move the fuck out and hope America didn't take the world down with it.

Or at least, that's what I'd want to do.  Which is why I will NEVER be a good president.  After 8 years of what Obama got hit with, I'd be seriously tempted to just nuke the nation and save what's left of the world.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Fortuna on December 31, 2016, 11:11:55 AM
You have to be an INTP or INTJ to be a good president. If an insult is true, then it is valid and must be considered. If it isn't true, then it is irrelevant and requires no further thought.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 01, 2017, 12:53:19 AM
I know, I know, it's a Salon article; but it does a pretty good job of summarising the (lack of) evidence that officially led to Obama's totally rational move of trying to start a new cold war

http://www.salon.com/2016/12/31/down-the-rabbit-hole-governments-first-report-on-russian-hack-is-woefully-inadequate/
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: George on January 01, 2017, 02:00:05 AM
Even Rolling Stone is skeptical!

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 01, 2017, 08:10:38 AM
Even Rolling Stone is skeptical!
2017 is off to a zany start!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on January 01, 2017, 09:25:20 AM
Honestly, I'm not sure what other evidence you could present besides:

"These urls and domains are used by known Russian hackers."  Not like they sign their names on each packet or something.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 01, 2017, 09:43:35 AM
Honestly, I'm not sure what other evidence you could present besides:

"These urls and domains are used by known Russian hackers."  Not like they sign their names on each packet or something.
They aren't known Russian hackers, that's exactly the problem. They made a completely unsubstantiated assertion.

The argument of "These urls and domains are used by known Russian hackers." would be even poorer than what they're actually doing. They're just saying "it's the Russians, trust us, also here are a few factual errors about what happened and some computing 101 tips on how to stay safe online"

But there's one thing you're right about (a thing I already said but whatever): it is immensely difficult to provide evidence to an accusation like this. That's why world leaders don't make accusations like this (not without lengthy investigations leading to multiple high-profile arrests, at least), and that's why they don't provoke potential wars over accusations like this. Obama is, quite literally, attacking his own country. Luckily Russia's response was appropriate: they attributed the idiocy to a butthurt Obama and not to the USA as a whole.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on January 01, 2017, 09:47:14 AM
Honestly, I'm not sure what other evidence you could present besides:

"These urls and domains are used by known Russian hackers."  Not like they sign their names on each packet or something.
They aren't known Russian hackers, that's exactly the problem. They made a completely unsubstantiated assertion.

The argument of "These urls and domains are used by known Russian hackers." would be even poorer than what they're actually doing. They're just saying "it's the Russians, trust us, also here are a few factual errors about what happened and some computing 101 tips on how to stay safe online"
That's what I got from the document when they listed all those handles and domains, that they knew they were russians from those.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 01, 2017, 09:55:07 AM
That's what I got from the document when they listed all those handles and domains, that they knew they were russians from those.
It's very difficult to explain if you're not willing to listen. Perhaps an analogy will help.

What we know right now is that a criminal made a phone call using a burner phone. He purchased the phone in LA, from a shop clerk called Juan. The FBI decided to codename this phone "LADY LIBERTY THE FREE" while the CIA opted for the name "ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE SLAYER".

Now, one of these agencies published a report saying "this phone, known as LADY LIBERTY THE FREE or ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE SLAYER, is thought to have been purchased by Vladimir Putin". How do we know this? Why do we know this? Bah, don't bother me with details, after all they published a couple of names!!!
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on January 01, 2017, 10:11:22 AM
That's what I got from the document when they listed all those handles and domains, that they knew they were russians from those.
It's very difficult to explain if you're not willing to listen. Perhaps an analogy will help.

What we know right now is that a criminal made a phone call using a burner phone. He purchased the phone in LA, from a shop clerk called Juan. The FBI decided to codename this phone "LADY LIBERTY THE FREE" while the CIA opted for the name "ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE SLAYER".

Now, one of these agencies published a report saying "this phone, known as LADY LIBERTY THE FREE or ABRAHAM LINCOLN: VAMPIRE SLAYER, is thought to have been purchased by Vladimir Putin". How do we know this? Why do we know this? Bah, don't bother me with details, after all they published a couple of names!!!
No no, I got that.  There are certainly names the FBI made like APT28 and APT29 but I don't think all the names and domains on that list are made up by them.  (Plus the file names for some reason)

And reading it again, I realize there aren't any domain names on that list, just handles.

But they did have that YARA signature.  Which, while isn't exactly concrete, does help.  Assuming they found that anyway.

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on January 01, 2017, 05:09:31 PM
Aside from the suspicious level of confidence, the lack even a vague hint as to how they figured it out, and the aggrandised claims about the scale of the attacks, it's really not controversial. It's perfectly possible that the Russian government ordered their intelligence agencies to find dirt on Hillary to boost Trump. It's even less controversial since it looks like all they did was supply the press with correct and accurate information. But the US response suggests that there's either much more to it, or (as I chose to believe) much less to it.

why is it reasonable for you to speculate about obama's motives and behavior without direct evidence, but unreasonable for me to do the same regarding putin and russia?

ultimately i doubt we diverge much on this issue.  i completely agree that, to date, no direct evidence of russian involvement has been provided, and it would be shortsighted to assert that the intelligence community must be correct.  that said, i don't think it's fair to say there's no evidence; these events didn't occur in a context-less vacuum, so to speak.  i think we can make some reasonable inferences based on what we already know about russia's motivations and capabilities.  my guess is that the intelligence community's assessment is based, in part, on exactly that: prior knowledge of russia's clandestine operations.

maybe a more succinct way of putting it is this: if you'd asked me 18 months ago if i thought russia willing and able to use clandestine services, cyber or otherwise, to either try to affect the outcome of the general election, or at least stir the pot, then i would've said yes without equivocation.  it would genuinely surprise me if they didn't.  there are plenty of well-documented examples of the us doing precisely the same thing.  i mean shit there probably hasn't been a genuinely free election in south america in like...i dunno, forever.

fwiw i also just don't think any of it matters.  even if the cia were to produce a video recording of putin himself sitting at a laptop and sending phishing links, what difference would it make?  i don't think it discredits the results of the general election in any way, and i don't think it ultimately has much of an impact on us-russia relations.  it's too boilerplate.  sure, the democrats are pissed, but whatever, they'll get over it.

this was way too long-winded a way to say that i agree absolute confidence is wholly unwarranted, but i think moderate-to-high confidence is perfectly well-warranted based on what we already know about russia's intelligence community.

diplomatic conflicts with Russia, Israel (America's puppet state), and by extension the UK.

we'll probably have to agree to disagree, but i think everyone's making a mountain of a molehill.  expelling some diplomats is hardly an international incident, and presidential activism in the waning months of an administration is hardly unusual. 

as i understand it, the speculation among former members of the intelligence community is that these diplomats were already known affiliates of russian clandestine services, and expelling them was more about signaling than anything else.

i'm almost patently unwilling to believe the argument that obama is intentionally trying to sabotage america to fulfill some vendetta against trump.  i know a very wise person who once said something to the effect that there's no need to assert malice where incompetence suffices.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on January 01, 2017, 05:13:39 PM
Well, looks like we'll get something more "Tuesday or Wednesday"

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-hacking.html?partner=msft_msn&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/31/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-hacking.html?partner=msft_msn&_r=0)

Quote
And I know a lot about hacking. And hacking is a very hard thing to prove. So it could be somebody else. And I also know things that other people don’t know, and so they cannot be sure of the situation.

The man doesn't even use e-mail, that's how careful he is.  And really, the only safe way to get something delivered is via courier.  He's right.  A courier is the safest way to ensure no one ever finds out what you've written. 

All sarcasm aside, he IS right that no computer is safe.  But really, can anyone name a single method of communication that is 100% safe?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 01, 2017, 09:21:25 PM
why is it reasonable for you to speculate about obama's motives and behavior without direct evidence, but unreasonable for me to do the same regarding putin and russia?
I'm criticising the US government, not you (you're welcome to speculate about whatever you want). Here's why I'm holding Obama/FBI to a higher standard than you or me:

1. I'm posting on an online forum, not conducting international diplomacy. My posts here are of very little consequence, so being slightly careless in my actions is not as big of a deal. Obama might be acting with conviction (although I don't believe that), but even then he's dangerously careless, because his actions could have far reaching consequences on a global scale.

2. I explained my reasoning to the best of my ability. It may be flawed, but it's out there for everyone to see and judge. Some might agree, others won't. Obama's reasoning is currently not only unclear, but to make things worse, a document that pretends to be informative has been published. It successfully fooled... well, probably not much more than Occupy Democrats (https://facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1371591886267195&id=346937065399354), but still.

ultimately i doubt we diverge much on this issue.  i completely agree that, to date, no direct evidence [...] prior knowledge of russia's clandestine operations.
Agreed. What we seem to disagree on is whether or not it's appropriate for Obama to take such drastic action based on educated guesses (or, indeed, whether this action is drastic to begin with). To me, he's had plenty of time to make this call - no new information has been released, and I doubt they've made a breakthrough that suddenly prompted him to act. So I have to wonder: why did the timing end up being what it is?

maybe a more succinct way of putting it is this [...]

fwiw i also just don't think any of it matters.  even if the cia were to produce a video [...]
No objections there.

i'm almost patently unwilling to believe the argument that obama is intentionally trying to sabotage america to fulfill some vendetta against trump.  i know a very wise person who once said something to the effect that there's no need to assert malice where incompetence suffices.
I'd be willing to entertain this if not for the report you've linked. It's being presented as proof that Russia did it, and a justification for Obama's actions. But it doesn't come even close to providing good evidence. Intuitively, this reeks of deception to me. I refuse to believe that the FBI got an unpaid intern (who blagged his way through his interview) to write this report, and I reckon that's what it would take to make it *this* incompetent.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on January 01, 2017, 11:00:13 PM
Can't disagree, SW.




Honestly, Obama is probably just trying to fuck over Trump.  I don't blame him and doing things right hasn't helped his popularity so why not pull a Trump?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: garygreen on January 03, 2017, 01:55:13 AM
I'm criticising the US government, not you (you're welcome to speculate about whatever you want).

ah, my mistake.  i get what you're saying now.

I'd be willing to entertain this if not for the report you've linked. It's being presented as proof that Russia did it, and a justification for Obama's actions. But it doesn't come even close to providing good evidence. Intuitively, this reeks of deception to me. I refuse to believe that the FBI got an unpaid intern (who blagged his way through his interview) to write this report, and I reckon that's what it would take to make it *this* incompetent.

probably our only real divergence at this point is that i'm taking the released document to be merely a schematic of what these agencies believe happened, but i don't think it's meant to describe the evidence or details of how they came to the conclusion.  it's just agitprop for public consumption.

if it is the case that this document represents the totality of the evidence obama used to justify his response, then i completely agree with you that obama's reaction was dangerously shortsighted.

it seems like one has to believe one of two assumptions to make sense of these events: either 1) obama is incompetent and/or absurdly petty; or, 2) obama has access to more evidence than this document represents.  i think 2 is the safer bet.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 03, 2017, 09:15:37 AM
As per usual, mainstream media are part of the problem. Multiple outlets claim that this report is "proof that Russia did it", and so many people are examining as such. And, since many people don't know where to even begin, they end up reaching a conclusion along the lines of "look at all these words, this must mean Russians did it!"

Perhaps I'm being idealistic, but if u were in charge of the organisations that released them and I was not interested in deceiving the masses, I would immediately get a spokesperson to clarify that the report can't be Interpreted in that way and that the media are retarted.

It is very likely that Obama has more information than us, of course. It's just that I'm not sure what information he possibly *could* have. As I said before, it's extremely difficult to attribute cyber attacks to organisations with the degree of confidence that the USA seems to exhibit. It usually doesn't happen, and thus I'm a bit conflicted about assuming that it did happen when no information has been released. And then there's the scale of the retaliation. Unless I'm missing something, it's unprecedented globally, so I'd be expecting extraordinarily good evidence... which makes it even rarer, which makes me even more sceptical

Side note: lol CNN (http://bgr.com/2017/01/02/cnn-hacking-fallout-screenshot/)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on January 04, 2017, 10:11:56 AM
Just to follow up (a link from the trump thread)
http://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/03/us/politics/trump-russian-hacking.html?partner=msft_msn&_r=0

It sounds like the REAL report is yet to be released (or even compiled).
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: xasop on January 05, 2017, 08:17:05 PM
http://www.infowars.com/obama-seized-enough-land-and-water-in-8-years-to-cover-texas-three-times/

Obama is acting like a toddler who didn't get the Christmas present he wanted.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on January 05, 2017, 09:05:18 PM
http://www.infowars.com/obama-seized-enough-land-and-water-in-8-years-to-cover-texas-three-times/ (http://www.infowars.com/obama-seized-enough-land-and-water-in-8-years-to-cover-texas-three-times/)

Obama is acting like a toddler who didn't get the Christmas present he wanted.

No.
It's more like the last ditch effort to try and preserve nature.  He probably, very honestly believes that all that land, all that nature, will be destroyed in 4 years if he doesn't act. 

And really, is that bad?  It's like a toddler throwing a temper tantrum by going out and planting trees.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: xasop on January 05, 2017, 09:21:11 PM
And really, is that bad?

Yes, it's bad. It's bad for two main reasons.

First, it's quite clear from the article that the Utah state legislature was in opposition to the move. The federal government should not steal land away from the states it is supposed to be representing.

Second, government-enforced "nature reserves" are harmful to everyone involved. By denying the potential of humans to live and work harmoniously with nature, they also deny them the opportunity to do so, instead contributing to overcrowding of already populated areas. In turn, the people who never see or appreciate the natural area (because they aren't allowed to go there) see no interest in helping to maintain it.

Far better would be to permit development of the area and provide tax incentives for land owners and farmers to do their part for sustainability. That has two major benefits: first, the strain on existing cities and towns is reduced as more land opens up for development, allowing those cities to become more sustainable; and second, the care for natural resources is left in the hands of people who see and work the land every day, not bureaucrats on the other side of the country.

This is just yet another example of statists unnecessarily and condescendingly enforcing their own notion of sustainability by fiat.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on January 05, 2017, 10:07:04 PM
And really, is that bad?

Yes, it's bad. It's bad for two main reasons.

First, it's quite clear from the article that the Utah state legislature was in opposition to the move. The federal government should not steal land away from the states it is supposed to be representing.

Second, government-enforced "nature reserves" are harmful to everyone involved. By denying the potential of humans to live and work harmoniously with nature, they also deny them the opportunity to do so, instead contributing to overcrowding of already populated areas. In turn, the people who never see or appreciate the natural area (because they aren't allowed to go there) see no interest in helping to maintain it.

Far better would be to permit development of the area and provide tax incentives for land owners and farmers to do their part for sustainability. That has two major benefits: first, the strain on existing cities and towns is reduced as more land opens up for development, allowing those cities to become more sustainable; and second, the care for natural resources is left in the hands of people who see and work the land every day, not bureaucrats on the other side of the country.

This is just yet another example of statists unnecessarily and condescendingly enforcing their own notion of sustainability by fiat.
So... http://fox13now.com/2016/12/28/utah-republicans-critical-of-bears-ears-national-monument-designation/

Utah is basically saying that it takes away land from Utah and keeps Utah people from maintaining that land (which it doesn't) and that the government should help them build roads and schools, which isn't relevant anyway.  Also the people who used to own the land and consider it sacred (it's got cultural significance) are very happy with this.  I mean, it sounds like the argument is "We, the people who don't care about the Indian cultural relics, want to do whatever we want with the land."  which, in my opinion, is pretty bad.

Secondly, history has proven time and time again that humans and nature do not mix well when you add "development".  How many times have strip mining companies failed to clean up?  How many times do lumber companies just leave a forest cleared?  Fraking, for god's sake, is causing Earth Quakes in Oklahoma.  With the support of the Trump administration, that land could easily have been strip mined(or whatever) and all of those cultural heritage icons lost forever.    And it's not like we don't have an abundant amount of farm land. 

As for tax incentives... I don't think that ever works.  Hell, fines don't work either.  Just look at how much coal mines get away with for safety violations and they just pay the fine cause it's cheaper.  The tax incentives would, at the very least, need to be set to 0 and even then, it might not offset the cost.

Plus, why in god's name do you need to develop everything?  Cities aren't bulging because there's no place to live, cities are bulging because people have no financial ability or desire to leave. 
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: xasop on January 05, 2017, 10:55:38 PM
So... http://fox13now.com/2016/12/28/utah-republicans-critical-of-bears-ears-national-monument-designation/

Utah is basically saying that it takes away land from Utah and keeps Utah people from maintaining that land (which it doesn't)

It very explicitly does:

Quote from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/54/320301-
(c) Relinquishment to Federal Government.— When an object is situated on a parcel covered by a bona fide unperfected claim or held in private ownership, the parcel, or so much of the parcel as may be necessary for the proper care and management of the object, may be relinquished to the Federal Government and the Secretary may accept the relinquishment of the parcel on behalf of the Federal Government.


and that the government should help them build roads and schools, which isn't relevant anyway.

It's relevant in that the federal government does not have infinite money, and they could be prioritising spending better than funding the maintenance of land needlessly stolen from states.


Also the people who used to own the land and consider it sacred (it's got cultural significance) are very happy with this.  I mean, it sounds like the argument is "We, the people who don't care about the Indian cultural relics, want to do whatever we want with the land."  which, in my opinion, is pretty bad.

From the article you linked:

Quote
Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes issued a statement threatening a lawsuit:
“The Antiquities Act was passed to protect archaeological sites from pillage by treasure hunters with narrow, focused designations of thousands of acres or only what was absolutely necessary. It has turned into a tool for the Executive Branch to bypass proper Congressional authority, to designate millions of acres at a time and far beyond what is necessary to preserve sacred sites.

This goes way beyond protecting sacred sites to reserving massive swathes of land that could otherwise be developed to improve the quality of life for Americans.

Besides, native Americans aren't the only ones with interests that matter. Obviously we should be protecting legitimate cultural relics, but America shouldn't hold itself hostage to the demands of a minority, regardless of how much they were wronged in the past.


Secondly, history has proven time and time again that humans and nature do not mix well when you add "development".  How many times have strip mining companies failed to clean up?  How many times do lumber companies just leave a forest cleared?  Fraking, for god's sake, is causing Earth Quakes in Oklahoma.

I could find plenty of examples of companies doing the right thing for sustainability. So what? It doesn't mean that development is necessarily good or bad. Should we just pack it in and not give ourselves the opportunity to learn from our collective mistakes because some people did a bad job?


With the support of the Trump administration, that land could easily have been strip mined(or whatever) and all of those cultural heritage icons lost forever.    And it's not like we don't have an abundant amount of farm land.

I don't know what you mean by "with the support of the Trump administration". Like, do you seriously think Trump is just going to get into office and steamroll the country?


As for tax incentives... I don't think that ever works.  Hell, fines don't work either.  Just look at how much coal mines get away with for safety violations and they just pay the fine cause it's cheaper.  The tax incentives would, at the very least, need to be set to 0 and even then, it might not offset the cost.

You seem to have a very low opinion of your fellow humans. Most people want to do the right thing; the tax incentive makes it financially viable to do so.

An example of a system like this working well is in the UK, where their national parks are largely composed of privately owned parcels of land, governed by a national park board.

Quote from: http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/students/wholooksafternationalparks/meetpeopleintheparks
National park authorities have staff who work closely with farmers. We help them apply for grants that pay money to farmers who farm in ways that help protect the countryside. We give advice and sometimes work with volunteers to do practical work like repairing dry stone walls or footpaths.


Plus, why in god's name do you need to develop everything?  Cities aren't bulging because there's no place to live, cities are bulging because people have no financial ability or desire to leave.

Irrelevant. By that logic, the federal government might as well ban Crocs. After all, nobody needs to wear them.

"You don't need it" is not a valid reason to prohibit something.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on January 06, 2017, 12:18:41 AM
It very explicitly does:

Quote from: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/54/320301-
(c) Relinquishment to Federal Government.— When an object is situated on a parcel covered by a bona fide unperfected claim or held in private ownership, the parcel, or so much of the parcel as may be necessary for the proper care and management of the object, may be relinquished to the Federal Government and the Secretary may accept the relinquishment of the parcel on behalf of the Federal Government.
And what part of that says that citizens of the state of Utah will not be hired by the federal government to assist in maintaining the land?

Quote
It's relevant in that the federal government does not have infinite money, and they could be prioritising spending better than funding the maintenance of land needlessly stolen from states.
Except the money the federal government uses to maintain the land frees up the money the STATE used to maintain the land.  So now the state has more money it can use to spend on whatever it thinks it needs. 

Quote

From the article you linked:

Quote
Utah Attorney General Sean Reyes issued a statement threatening a lawsuit:
“The Antiquities Act was passed to protect archaeological sites from pillage by treasure hunters with narrow, focused designations of thousands of acres or only what was absolutely necessary. It has turned into a tool for the Executive Branch to bypass proper Congressional authority, to designate millions of acres at a time and far beyond what is necessary to preserve sacred sites.

This goes way beyond protecting sacred sites to reserving massive swathes of land that could otherwise be developed to improve the quality of life for Americans.

Besides, native Americans aren't the only ones with interests that matter. Obviously we should be protecting legitimate cultural relics, but America shouldn't hold itself hostage to the demands of a minority, regardless of how much they were wronged in the past.
Improve the lives of Americans?   Ok, first off, it hasn't.  The state has had that land for I don't know how long and has yet to develop it.  It's possible it's value is insignificant compared to the political backlash of destroying the landmark.  But things have changed.  Anger is in.  Development is in.  And Obama chose those two spots so odds are, he knows something we don't.  Otherwise, why would he bother?  What would be the motivation?

Quote
I could find plenty of examples of companies doing the right thing for sustainability. So what? It doesn't mean that development is necessarily good or bad. Should we just pack it in and not give ourselves the opportunity to learn from our collective mistakes because some people did a bad job?
The problem isn't some people doing a bad job, it's that the system of punishing that bad job is inadequate so much so that it's is cheaper to pay the price of disaster than to do things correctly in alot of cases with regards to resource extraction.  And the businesses can't be shown to self regulate.  When they've gotten what they want, they leave.  The people affected are minor compared to the whole US and thus, the PR damage is simply listed as a cost of business.

Quote
I don't know what you mean by "with the support of the Trump administration". Like, do you seriously think Trump is just going to get into office and steamroll the country?
Think about the oil pipeline.  The Obama administration spent years blocking it.  A Trump administration plans to allow it to go through.  With the support of Trump, even a "Destroying these old buildings is good for business." could be enough to crush any opposition.  Hell, just look at the natives who have that oil pipeline going through their burial land.  Look how much they're being pushed aside and arrested.  And that's with a sympathetic president.  Now picture an unsympathetic one.

Quote
You seem to have a very low opinion of your fellow humans. Most people want to do the right thing; the tax incentive makes it financially viable to do so.
Most people do.  Most people, however, don't run development companies.  Or resource extraction companies.  Or deal with the financial burden of fixing what they destroyed to get said resources that may, in fact, make the whole thing financially burdensome.  The idea is to maximize profit and if you can do that by not replacing the rock you removed when you mined out the copper, then why would you?

Quote
An example of a system like this working well is in the UK, where their national parks are largely composed of privately owned parcels of land, governed by a national park board.

Quote from: http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/students/wholooksafternationalparks/meetpeopleintheparks
National park authorities have staff who work closely with farmers. We help them apply for grants that pay money to farmers who farm in ways that help protect the countryside. We give advice and sometimes work with volunteers to do practical work like repairing dry stone walls or footpaths.
Great!  How many requests to develop buildings, factories, or mining do they get?  Cause it seems to me that it operates as a park with people who live there and farm and not as development land.

Quote
Irrelevant. By that logic, the federal government might as well ban Crocs. After all, nobody needs to wear them.

"You don't need it" is not a valid reason to prohibit something.
How about "The damage to this area by development will not offset the social benefit gained." ?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 06, 2017, 08:37:39 AM
Otherwise, why would he bother?  What would be the motivation?
The same reason he's been trying to wreck American diplomacy over the past couple weeks, presumably.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on January 06, 2017, 09:43:19 AM
Otherwise, why would he bother?  What would be the motivation?
The same reason he's been trying to wreck American diplomacy over the past couple weeks, presumably.
From what I've been reading the intelligence departments, Democrats, and Republicans in congress all agree that Russia tried to influence the election.  I'm not sure he's trying to wreck American diplomacy, just attack Russia.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 06, 2017, 10:35:54 AM
From what I've been reading the intelligence departments, Democrats, and Republicans in congress all agree that Russia tried to influence the election.  I'm not sure he's trying to wreck American diplomacy, just attack Russia.
There is also Israel. Openly denouncing your own puppet state for actions that took place throughout your entire presidency at the very end of it...
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on January 06, 2017, 01:33:26 PM
From what I've been reading the intelligence departments, Democrats, and Republicans in congress all agree that Russia tried to influence the election.  I'm not sure he's trying to wreck American diplomacy, just attack Russia.
There is also Israel. Openly denouncing your own puppet state for actions that took place throughout your entire presidency at the very end of it...
True, it IS kinda unusual but like I said in the other thread, I don't blame him for doing it.  I think Obama saw the writing on the wall as "Fuck you, we don't care how nice you are we still hate you and your party".  So he did what he thought was right, not what was politically correct.  Which, ironically, is what America seems to want now.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on January 06, 2017, 01:47:51 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/top-russians-celebrated-when-trump-won-intel-report-says-source-n703741

Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Rama Set on January 06, 2017, 02:27:18 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/top-russians-celebrated-when-trump-won-intel-report-says-source-n703741

You don't have to be the CIA to figure that one out. Putin was extremely positive in his post-election remarks.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 06, 2017, 03:38:00 PM
True, it IS kinda unusual but like I said in the other thread, I don't blame him for doing it.  I think Obama saw the writing on the wall as "Fuck you, we don't care how nice you are we still hate you and your party".  So he did what he thought was right, not what was politically correct.  Which, ironically, is what America seems to want now.
Well, yes, by being "nice" he set a precedent of overreaching and ignoring the will of those he's supposed to work for/with for the sake of what he considered to be "right". No wonder people told him to fuck off. Deliberately damaging the country now is not gonna make the Democrats any more popular. Perhaps The Donald paid him off to ensure a lasting reign for the Republicans?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on January 06, 2017, 04:26:22 PM
True, it IS kinda unusual but like I said in the other thread, I don't blame him for doing it.  I think Obama saw the writing on the wall as "Fuck you, we don't care how nice you are we still hate you and your party".  So he did what he thought was right, not what was politically correct.  Which, ironically, is what America seems to want now.
Well, yes, by being "nice" he set a precedent of overreaching and ignoring the will of those he's supposed to work for/with for the sake of what he considered to be "right". No wonder people told him to fuck off. Deliberately damaging the country now is not gonna make the Democrats any more popular. Perhaps The Donald paid him off to ensure a lasting reign for the Republicans?
I'm not sure anything Obama can do is going to change a thing.
He could have God bless him in front of the world and he'd still be hated.
He could rubber stamp every single republican policy from now until January 20 and it wouldn't matter.
Nothing he does now is going to really change anything one way or another with the exception of declaring martial law or launching military attacks.  People's minds are made up.  The country has chosen.  America is going down a polar opposite route. 

Democrats want to fight for the health care law but they should give up.  It's a lost cause.  If you aren't a Trump supporter, you should give up, find someplace relatively safe, and hope whatever happens, it's either not as bad as we think or it's reversible.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on January 06, 2017, 04:27:46 PM
Well, yes, by being "nice" he set a precedent of overreaching and ignoring the will of those he's supposed to work for/with for the sake of what he considered to be "right". No wonder people told him to fuck off. Deliberately damaging the country now is not gonna make the Democrats any more popular. Perhaps The Donald paid him off to ensure a lasting reign for the Republicans?

What now? How did Obama deliberately damage the country? Are you saying he acted as president with the intent to make the country worse?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: xasop on January 06, 2017, 11:05:20 PM
And what part of that says that citizens of the state of Utah will not be hired by the federal government to assist in maintaining the land?

Yes, if you take your poorly worded summary literally, then I can see how you would come to that conclusion. But nowhere in that article do they literally say that it "keeps Utah people from maintaining that land". Those are your words, not theirs.


Except the money the federal government uses to maintain the land frees up the money the STATE used to maintain the land.  So now the state has more money it can use to spend on whatever it thinks it needs.

Until you account for the fact that the state now cannot develop the land to improve its economy.


Improve the lives of Americans?   Ok, first off, it hasn't.  The state has had that land for I don't know how long and has yet to develop it.  It's possible it's value is insignificant compared to the political backlash of destroying the landmark.  But things have changed.  Anger is in.  Development is in.

What is your point here?

You start out by saying it hasn't (yet) improved the lives of Americans because it hasn't been developed. You then go on to say (in a very roundabout and confusing fashion -- what does "anger is in" even mean?) that they are likely to develop it soon. You've not only nullified what vestige of a point you had initially made, but failed to produce a coherent sentence in the process.


And Obama chose those two spots so odds are, he knows something we don't.  Otherwise, why would he bother?  What would be the motivation?

As SexWarrior says, it fits in with his pattern of making things as difficult as possible for Trump in two weeks.


The problem isn't some people doing a bad job, it's that the system of punishing that bad job is inadequate so much so that it's is cheaper to pay the price of disaster than to do things correctly in alot of cases with regards to resource extraction.  And the businesses can't be shown to self regulate.  When they've gotten what they want, they leave.  The people affected are minor compared to the whole US and thus, the PR damage is simply listed as a cost of business.

Again, does that mean we shouldn't try to improve? We should just give up and never develop anything else again?


Think about the oil pipeline.  The Obama administration spent years blocking it.  A Trump administration plans to allow it to go through.  With the support of Trump, even a "Destroying these old buildings is good for business." could be enough to crush any opposition.  Hell, just look at the natives who have that oil pipeline going through their burial land.  Look how much they're being pushed aside and arrested.  And that's with a sympathetic president.  Now picture an unsympathetic one.

I assume that by "the oil pipeline" you mean the Keystone XL extension. Since you've failed to actually explain what you mean, probably because you're too busy implying Trump is Satan incarnate, I did a little research for you and found this example (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/11/19/crow-creek-tribe-member-arrested-at-us-capitol-keystone-pipeline-south-dakota-senate/19291685/) of an arrest. The guy decided it was a spiffing idea to burst into song while the Senate was in session. I'm sorry, but impeding the functioning of your federal legislature is a great way to get arrested in any country.


Most people do.  Most people, however, don't run development companies.  Or resource extraction companies.  Or deal with the financial burden of fixing what they destroyed to get said resources that may, in fact, make the whole thing financially burdensome.  The idea is to maximize profit and if you can do that by not replacing the rock you removed when you mined out the copper, then why would you?

A number of potential reasons:

1. You get fined for not doing it.
2. The bad publicity will bring a reduction in business, or even a boycott.
3. Your right to operate within the state of Utah might be taken away.
4. You actually want to leave things as you found them, and the state of Utah provides you with a grant to make that fiscally justifiable.

There are various things the state of Utah and the people of America can do to discourage this behaviour. I'm not sure why you seem to think it's a choice between an executive order from Barack Obama and a free-for-all.


Great!  How many requests to develop buildings, factories, or mining do they get?  Cause it seems to me that it operates as a park with people who live there and farm and not as development land.

Did you actually read the link I posted? From (the very top of) the same page:

Quote from: http://www.nationalparks.gov.uk/students/wholooksafternationalparks/meetpeopleintheparks
National Parks contain small towns and villages as well as more isolated farms. Some areas of towns or villages are protected as conservation areas to keep their traditional look and feel.

Some families have lived in the area for many generations. Traditionally people would make money from the landscape around them, as farmers, fishermen, foresters, miners or as craftsmen.


How about "The damage to this area by development will not offset the social benefit gained." ?

You have yet to demonstrate that. Either way, it should be up to the state of Utah to decide for themselves, not Barack Obama in the final two weeks of his presidency.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 06, 2017, 11:11:57 PM
What now? How did Obama deliberately damage the country?
By triggering two diplomatic crises over two weeks, neither of them with any good justification.

Are you saying he acted as president with the intent to make the country worse?
Yes, recently. I made the accusation openly and directly a couple of times now (go back a couple pages (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=3243.msg109161#msg109161)). I also explained why I believe this assumption explains his actions better than the alternatives.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on January 07, 2017, 01:23:45 AM
If Obama is receiving the same info that was in the partially declassified report released this afternoon (https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf), I don't think he's doing it without any good justification. He's using the time he has left to respond to Russian interference in the 2016 election. Every intelligence agency around him is saying that they strong believe Russia interfered to have Trump elected president, and he only has two weeks left to do anything about it.

Even if you think these charges are false, you must admit that he does have some justification for his actions given what experts on intelligence are telling him.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 07, 2017, 11:49:50 AM
Okay, I'll go with negligible justification then. This report notably doesn't say much about the DNC hacks (other than that the Russians did it oh God please believe us this time), and instead focuses on social media efforts (which I have no problem accepting as true) and RT's pro-Kremlin bias (which shouldn't be news to anyone).

If Obama doesn't want Russians influencing his citizens online, perhaps he should get in touch with China and ask them about their firewall. If he doesn't want people to watch Russian-owned TV... honestly, I dunno, but I don't think starting a standoff that could have turned into a war was the way to go.

The report makes assessment based on patterns. While I don't claim to be as good at it as the FBI+CIA+NSA, I am seeing a clear pattern in Obama's actions, and I'm making my assessment based on that. Particularly damming is the Israel incident, which everyone seems to conveniently ignore when I bring it up.

Also, lol: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/817500610442522625
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on January 07, 2017, 02:10:55 PM
The report makes assessment based on patterns.

Actually, it is making this assessment based on patterns as well as classified evidence, and they say as much:

Quote
The Intelligence Community rarely can publicly reveal the full extent of its knowledge or the precise bases for its assessments, as the release of such information would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future.
Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods.

So yea, they aren't going to release the evidence to back up their claims that the DNC hack was perpetrated by the Russian government. Whether you ultimately accept that it did happen depends on whether you are willing to trust the FBI, CIA, NSA, as well as private security firms that have backed up their findings.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 07, 2017, 03:03:45 PM
Whether you ultimately accept that it did happen depends on whether you are willing to trust the FBI, CIA, NSA, as well as private security firms that have backed up their findings.
Which I absolutely am not, given the immense scale of the accusations, the extremely low likelihood of appropriate evidence existing, and the extremely high likelihood that the person behind the "hack"* was a script kiddie. This is Cybersecurity 101 stuff. If the FBI/NSA/CIA said that the Czech government is actually a shadowy conspiracy type of dealio that runs all the banks and has funded every single war since 1720 BC, and kept saying "trust us, we have proof", I would also reject it outright until at least a shred of evidence was presented.

* - Pollsters HATE him! This N3w York businessmannn discovered the ONE-WEIRD_TRICK to win a presidential election. Click HERE (http://www.disney.com/) to FIND OUT cheap elections (http://www.disney.com/) rig elections (http://www.disney.com/) buy many vote (http://www.disney.com/)
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on January 07, 2017, 03:48:35 PM
Regardless of whether Russia was involved, I think the whole perspective of this narrative is completely manufactured. Why is Russia treated as a "cyber threat" when the real threat is the complete lack of cybersecurity in the DNC (seriously, anyone can send a phishing email to Podesta. Not that they even had to, since according to Assange the password Podesta used was literally "password")? Why are we more concerned about potential influence on an election than actual corruption?

Even if the "hacks" did influence the election, the people deserve to know what terrible shit their government is up to. This is just a convenient excuse for the DNC to absolve themselves of any guilt.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on January 07, 2017, 06:01:31 PM
Why is Russia treated as a "cyber threat" when the real threat is the complete lack of cybersecurity in the DNC?

Because if foreign governments are allowed to influence US elections without consequence, it will continue to happen. Foreign governments will continue to leak information about whichever political party they don't want to win, and the American people will feel their election was fine because at least now they know the losing party's dirty laundry (forgetting that the other political party is most likely just as corrupt.)

Why are we more concerned about potential influence on an election than actual corruption?

Is a lack of cybersecurity really corruption?

Even if the "hacks" did influence the election, the people deserve to know what terrible shit their government is up to. This is just a convenient excuse for the DNC to absolve themselves of any guilt.

They deserve all the information, not information selectively presented to them by a foreign government in order to sway an election.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 07, 2017, 06:11:08 PM
Because if foreign governments are allowed to influence US elections without consequence, it will continue to happen.
It's been happening for centuries, and nowadays it's usually America doing it and bragging about it (http://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1996/1101960715_400.jpg). The USA is in no position to talk about how dangerous the precedent might be here.

Foreign governments will continue to leak information about whichever political party they don't want to win, and the American people will feel their election was fine because at least now they know the losing party's dirty laundry (forgetting that the other political party is most likely just as corrupt.)
Okay, let's ban all forms of investigative journalism because we can't ensure that it will target everyone equitably.

They deserve all the information, not information selectively presented to them by a foreign government in order to sway an election.
Assuming the information was presented to them by a foreign agent (even though a lot of it was presented by the US State Department in response to a FOI request, but I guess they're foreign now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯), are you suggesting that foreign individuals should be prohibited from whistleblowing? Why should they withhold information from the general public if said information is true and accurate? Should we expand this to US citizens as well, just so we can make Edward Snowden's case easier? Whistleblowing bad, mainstream media good, right?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Blanko on January 07, 2017, 06:16:36 PM
Why is Russia treated as a "cyber threat" when the real threat is the complete lack of cybersecurity in the DNC?

Because if foreign governments are allowed to influence US elections without consequence, it will continue to happen. Foreign governments will continue to leak information about whichever political party they don't want to win, and the American people will feel their election was fine because at least now they know the losing party's dirty laundry (forgetting that the other political party is most likely just as corrupt.)

Actually, it wouldn't happen if foreign governments didn't have information to leak. I'm actually concerned this strategy will have the opposite effect of what you're suggesting. Given what we know about the security practices on Hillary's server, DNC's servers and Podesta's inability to not click on obvious phishing links, it seems almost painfully obvious to me that Russia is not the only foreign power with intel from US government or its officials. If any semi-competent skiddie can """"hack"""" them, then so can any intelligence service in the world. And by asserting that "Russia is behind this 100% please trust us", the US is essentially saying to every other foreign power that they don't care what they know.

Quote
Why are we more concerned about potential influence on an election than actual corruption?

Is a lack of cybersecurity really corruption?

I'm talking about the contents of the emails, not what led to them leaking.

Quote
Even if the "hacks" did influence the election, the people deserve to know what terrible shit their government is up to. This is just a convenient excuse for the DNC to absolve themselves of any guilt.

They deserve all the information, not information selectively presented to them by a foreign government in order to sway an election.

Well, it's not like anyone else is giving them that information.

You know why I'm not concerned about Russia influencing the election? It's because they're not using propaganda or false allegations to do it. They're using real information that should influence a voter's decision. The voter is objectively more informed as a result of these leaks.

Am I supposed to be upset about that?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on January 07, 2017, 07:12:44 PM
I think they did use propoganda.  Like fake news.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on January 07, 2017, 07:25:42 PM
Assuming the information was presented to them by a foreign agent (even though a lot of it was presented by the US State Department in response to a FOI request, but I guess they're foreign now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯), are you suggesting that foreign individuals should be prohibited from whistleblowing? Why should they withhold information from the general public if said information is true and accurate? Should we expand this to US citizens as well, just so we can make Edward Snowden's case easier? Whistleblowing bad, mainstream media good, right?

Unless there was something illegal in the leaked E-mails, it wasn't whistleblowing, at least not under US law. It was a leak of embarrassing information. Are there any examples in the E-mail leaks of illegal activities taking place?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Fortuna on January 07, 2017, 11:29:17 PM
Assuming the information was presented to them by a foreign agent (even though a lot of it was presented by the US State Department in response to a FOI request, but I guess they're foreign now ¯\_(ツ)_/¯), are you suggesting that foreign individuals should be prohibited from whistleblowing? Why should they withhold information from the general public if said information is true and accurate? Should we expand this to US citizens as well, just so we can make Edward Snowden's case easier? Whistleblowing bad, mainstream media good, right?

Unless there was something illegal in the leaked E-mails, it wasn't whistleblowing, at least not under US law. It was a leak of embarrassing information. Are there any examples in the E-mail leaks of illegal activities taking place?

Technically, one does not have to expose illegal information to be considered a whistleblower. Remember Snowden? The NSA wiretapping and surveillance was technically allowed with FISA court warrants, however what he exposed was still highly unethical.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 08, 2017, 12:35:15 AM
Yeah, sorry, I don't agree with your understanding of what whistleblowing is under US law, and neither does Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_the_United_States). I must admit I much prefer the wording of UK law, which focuses on the public interest of the information more than the exact nature thereof, but the two definitions seem largely compatible with one another.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on January 08, 2017, 01:48:26 AM
Yeah, sorry, I don't agree with your understanding of what whistleblowing is under US law, and neither does Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whistleblower_protection_in_the_United_States). I must admit I much prefer the wording of UK law, which focuses on the public interest of the information more than the exact nature thereof, but the two definitions seem largely compatible with one another.

It seems your right.

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the government and political parties should be withholding information from the public, even thought that is always going to happen. I just do not think that illegal cybersecurity breaches from foreign powers that effect elections should go unpunished. If they do, then the elections just become a sham as nations continue to influence them for their own gain. Had Clinton won, and it turned out a foreign nation had leaked information on Trump to influence voters, I'm sure Trump supporters would also be up in arms about the election results.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 08, 2017, 01:57:53 AM
I just do not think that illegal cybersecurity breaches from foreign powers that effect elections should go unpunished.
Would this be different if the much more likely scenario was true, and the breach came from a hobbyist or a Nigerian prince? Let's say, hypothetically, that he was an American citizen and a committed Democrat, to make things less ambiguous. Should he be punished for releasing information of public interest to the public?

If they do, then the elections just become a sham as nations continue to influence them for their own gain.
Again, America's been doing it for ages.

Had Clinton won, and it turned out a foreign nation had leaked information on Trump to influence voters, I'm sure Trump supporters would also be up in arms about the election results.
Of course, but you most certainly wouldn't see Obama double down on trying to instigate international crises (unsuccessfully, thank fuck) over unsubstantiated allegations.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Lord Dave on January 08, 2017, 11:39:57 AM
{stuff directed at me}
I'm not ignoring you, but I have determined that I can not debate with you on this subject, so I conced.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on January 08, 2017, 01:44:45 PM
Would this be different if the much more likely scenario was true, and the breach came from a hobbyist or a Nigerian prince? Let's say, hypothetically, that he was an American citizen and a committed Democrat, to make things less ambiguous. Should he be punished for releasing information of public interest to the public?

Well, what they did would be illegal, first off, and I don't think illegal cybersecurity breaches should go unpunished either just because it happens to help the guy in power.

Again, America's been doing it for ages.

And? That doesn't make it right. I am not defending every action the US makes.

Had Clinton won, and it turned out a foreign nation had leaked information on Trump to influence voters, I'm sure Trump supporters would also be up in arms about the election results.
Of course, but you most certainly wouldn't see Obama double down on trying to instigate international crises (unsuccessfully, thank fuck) over unsubstantiated allegations.

Had Clinton won, and it turned out that, say, China had hacked the Trump campaign and released info to help her, I would place good money on Trump supporters calling for sanctions or some sort of international response at this gross invasion into our electoral process. And given the information Obama presumably has, I don't think his actions are unjustified, and they certainly aren't going to lead to international crises. Again, if Clinton had won due to Chinese espionage, would it be undesirable to expel Chinese diplomats and intelligence workers?
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 08, 2017, 06:41:58 PM
Well, what they did would be illegal, first off, and I don't think illegal cybersecurity breaches should go unpunished either just because it happens to help the guy in power.
That's great, but please answer the question. I was asking about public interest, not whether or not it helps Trump. Unless you dispute that the DNC's dirt is a matter of public interest (as much as RNC's dirt would be)?

And? That doesn't make it right. I am not defending every action the US makes.
Right, you're doing the same thing Gary was doing earlier. I'm not criticising you, I'm criticising Obama. I'm sure you wouldn't try and undermine the electoral process of a foreign country, but Obama is POTUS.

Had Clinton won, and it turned out that, say, China had hacked the Trump campaign and released info to help her, I would place good money on Trump supporters calling for sanctions or some sort of international response at this gross invasion into our electoral process.
Of course, but once again you changed the subject. I'm not suggesting that Trump supporters wouldn't be up in arms about it, I'm suggesting that Obama wouldn't have done anything about it. He'd probably tell Trump to stop whi- oh wait (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us/politics/obama-donald-trump-election.html).

And given the information Obama presumably has, I don't think his actions are unjustified
That's the thing, I'm not willing to take the FBI's word for it. If they throw the public a bone and explain even in the broadest of strokes why they're so unbelievably confident of something that's so difficult to be confident about, I'll be happy to consider it. But this is not something to be presumed.

and they certainly aren't going to lead to international crises.
We have Putin and Netanyahu to thank for that. Again, I'm criticising Obama for trying to start shit, regardless of whether he was competent enough to succeed or not.

Again, if Clinton had won due to Chinese espionage, would it be undesirable to expel Chinese diplomats and intelligence workers?
See, this is where you and I differ on a fundamental level - I struggle to reason about extreme hypotheticals.

Because of my (limited, but probably above average) understanding of cybersec, I find the premise of this question to be so unlikely that I find it very difficult to even think about the consequences. It really reads to me like something along the lines of "If China built a big gravity gun and pulled the moon into the Earth, should we <some sanctions go here>?" I kind of stop reading the sentence halfway and go "whoaa there, slow down". I think I would be on the fence with a slight lean towards "no, whistleblowing should not be treated as anything else when it's performed by a foreign government. Should the information provided prove to be false, fair enough, but otherwise releasing truthful information about wrongdoings in public interest should be protected and encouraged".
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on January 08, 2017, 09:16:11 PM
That's great, but please answer the question. I was asking about public interest, not whether or not it helps Trump. Unless you dispute that the DNC's dirt is a matter of public interest (as much as RNC's dirt would be)?

You asked if he should be punished, actually, which I answered. The fact that it's a matter of public interest doesn't change that a crime was committed.

Right, you're doing the same thing Gary was doing earlier. I'm not criticising you, I'm criticising Obama. I'm sure you wouldn't try and undermine the electoral process of a foreign country, but Obama is POTUS.

I don't think Obama is defending every action the US has done either. You're trying to appeal to hypocrisy, which I don't deny. The US is a hypocrite, but that doesn't make it wrong in this instance.

Of course, but once again you changed the subject. I'm not suggesting that Trump supporters wouldn't be up in arms about it, I'm suggesting that Obama wouldn't have done anything about it. He'd probably tell Trump to stop whi- oh wait (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us/politics/obama-donald-trump-election.html).

He might not, no, because his party won, and that would be bad of him, and Trump supporters would be right in being upset.

We have Putin and Netanyahu to thank for that. Again, I'm criticising Obama for trying to start shit, regardless of whether he was competent enough to succeed or not.

Just a question, but do you criticize Trump for the same things when he, for instance, accepts calls from Taiwan? The US shouldn't just lay down and take whatever foreign governments throw at it.

Again, if Clinton had won due to Chinese espionage, would it be undesirable to expel Chinese diplomats and intelligence workers?
See, this is where you and I differ on a fundamental level - I struggle to reason about extreme hypotheticals.

Because of my (limited, but probably above average) understanding of cybersec, I find the premise of this question to be so unlikely that I find it very difficult to even think about the consequences. It really reads to me like something along the lines of "If China built a big gravity gun and pulled the moon into the Earth, should we <some sanctions go here>?" I kind of stop reading the sentence halfway and go "whoaa there, slow down". I think I would be on the fence with a slight lean towards "no, whistleblowing should not be treated as anything else when it's performed by a foreign government. Should the information provided prove to be false, fair enough, but otherwise releasing truthful information about wrongdoings in public interest should be protected and encouraged".

This just sounds like climate change denialism at this point, to think that foreign espionage to influence an eleciton is the same as a "gravity gun", especially when you yourself admit the US has done the same thing in the past.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 08, 2017, 09:40:56 PM
You asked if he should be punished, actually, which I answered. The fact that it's a matter of public interest doesn't change that a crime was committed.
It literally does change it. I asked about whistleblowing (which, by US law, it would be illegal to retaliate against -- not that stuff being illegal has ever stopped Obama before :^)), and your answer conveniently stripped that away. If this makes no functional difference for you, just tell us you think whistleblowing protections should be repealed and be done with it.

I don't think Obama is defending every action the US has done either. You're trying to appeal to hypocrisy, which I don't deny. The US is a hypocrite, but that doesn't make it wrong in this instance.
I'm taking it farther than that. It's not just that the USA is a hypocrite. It's also not just that Obama, personally, is a hypocrite. What makes this truly hilarious is that one of Obama's crowning achievements was undermining and destabilising multiple nations' governments through similar means. It's a particularly amusing sort of hypocrisy.

He might not, no, because his party won, and that would be bad of him, and Trump supporters would be right in being upset.
*shrug* All I can say to that is "nope", to which you can probably not say much more than "nope" back. Agree to disagree?

Just a question, but do you criticize Trump for the same things when he, for instance, accepts calls from Taiwan? The US shouldn't just lay down and take whatever foreign governments throw at it.
Given that one of the key overtones of the Trump campaign was "haha fuck China", it's more a case of him doing exactly what he promised. I strongly suspect that he deliberately set the call up, although my response when that happened was that of enthusiasm, not of criticism.

This just sounds like climate change denialism at this point, to think that foreign espionage to influence an eleciton is the same as a "gravity gun"
Once again you misrepresent what I said. It was an exaggeration meant to illustrate a difference in how we think, and blatantly not a direct comparison - that's why I went for an abstract claim instead of, say, nukes. Looks like it worked too well - we've unearthed a whole bunch of differences, just not the right one.

Ultimately, your position is religious. There exists something you cannot see, touch, experience, or perceive in any way. BUT IT EXISTS I PROMISE!! It's bad and dangerous to disbelieve it, and it's unfair to demand proof. This magical thing has achieved things that have previously been thought impossible, and I can reassure you with great confidence that it's all totally true!

especially when you yourself admit the US has done the same thing in the past.
Yes, the fact that we've observed similar things in the past gives us something tangible to compare this claim against. It is perhaps the most damning piece of evidence suggesting that American intelligence agencies are simply lying. The very important thing to learn from this precedent is that we only know that it happened because the US openly admits their meddling and takes pride in it. There was no mysterious totally-true-but-plz-no-peeking proof that the victims of US attacks held. And no, American cybersec experts aren't far enough ahead of the rest of the world to explain this anomaly away.

To be clear: It's completely possible that the FBI/CIA/NSA have achieved a previously unprecedented feat while simultaneously failing spectacularly to disseminate it to the general public; but it's an unintuitive interpretation of the situation which goes against the evidence we do have at our disposal.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: trekky0623 on January 08, 2017, 09:49:51 PM
It literally does change it. I asked about whistleblowing (which, by US law, it would be illegal to retaliate against -- not that stuff being illegal has ever stopped Obama before :^)), and your answer conveniently stripped that away. If this makes no functional difference for you, just tell us you think whistleblowing protections should be repealed and be done with it.

Whistleblowing has to be done through the correct channels. It does not mean unilaterally hacking into a computer and leaking files to the public because you believe something wrong was done.

The rest of the post I think I agree with. The US is hypocritical, and we have to agree to disagree about Trump supporter reactions to a hypothetical.
Title: Re: 2016 US Presidential Race
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 08, 2017, 11:01:55 PM
Whistleblowing has to be done through the correct channels. It does not mean unilaterally hacking into a computer and leaking files to the public because you believe something wrong was done.
Fair enough, I suppose thanks to my favourite president we now have the precedent of Snowden. Oh well, one more thing to add to Obama's legacy, here's hoping it can be undone.