2016 Election -- Part II

Quote: terapined

Quote: Maverick17

Quote: terapined

Quote: RS

Quote: terapined

There is no doubt many Blacks don't value other black lives
I get that
but
the point you are missing
There is no doubt that white lives matter to the Police
To a few cops, black lives don't matter.
I look white, not worried at all about being stopped by the police
If I was Black, I would be very very worried about being stopped by the police
Most cops are good cops. A few are racist. Those few are the ones to be worried about. Good cops don't turn them in. We only find out about these few racist cops when they do an unjustified shooting.

Any examples? Or you going by what the media says?

sure I'll respond to that softball :-)
Just using my eyes, no media needed
raw uncut footage

NOPE

Unless you are hiding other facts, that video shows a cop who shot a man, and then quite possibly planted evidence on the man he shot.

Doesn't show a racist at all.

It could very well show a cop that deserves jail time, but not a racist.

try again

Black lives don't matter to that cop

Why do you say black lives don't matter to that cop?

If Walter were a white woman, yall'd be saying he's misogynistic. If Walter were gay, y'all would be saying he's homophobic. If he were Middle Eastern or something else, xenophobic. Perhaps the cop is a hard core feminist and he hates men.

Nothing in that video shows he's racist. Maybe he is, but I'd expect some supporting evidence (IE: him talking poorly of black people or at least something).

Or maybe it's all a bunch of bullsh**, and you feel like seeing a white cop kill a black man means it automatically has to be about race.


In second grade I beat the shjt out of a Mexican kid in my class. Guess what -- it had nothing to do about race. It's because he stole something of mine and broke it. (He ended up getting suspended, not me.)

Quote: MaxPen

The race card has become a joker with the "real bigot".

Nothing like proving the other side's point about you by writing an illiterate meme...

Quote: beachbumbabs

Quote: MaxPen

The race card has become a joker with the "real bigot".

There is* nothing like proving the other side's point about you by writing an illiterate meme...

Ironic.

We're still in major denial here in MI.
We are the only state that hasn't been
called. Trump won by 13K votes, but
they're going precinct to precinct trying
to find the mistake that gave him all
those extra votes. Not a recount, just
checking the numbers. It means a
hell of lot of black Obama supporters
voted for Trump and the powers that
be just can't stand it. Will take till the
end of the month to find he really won
by 20K votes.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Quote: MaxPen

The race card has become a joker with the "real bigot".

Nothing like proving the other side's point about you by writing an illiterate meme...

Come on, you are better than this!!

Black lives don't matter to that cop




Ingnorance, at best.

Xenophobic likely.

A bunch of -ists at worst.

Quote: Boz

Quote: beachbumbabs

Quote: MaxPen

The race card has become a joker with the "real bigot".

Nothing like proving the other side's point about you by writing an illiterate meme...

Come on, you are better than this!!

Apparently one card you can't play is the "I'm better at grammar than you" card when you are "loosing" an argument.

Quote: Maverick17

Quote: Boz

Quote: beachbumbabs

Quote: MaxPen

The race card has become a joker with the "real bigot".

Nothing like proving the other side's point about you by writing an illiterate meme...

Come on, you are better than this!!

Apparently one card you can't play is the "I'm better at grammar than you" card when you are "loosing" an argument.

Hunting mocking birds is so easy...... :-)

This guy is a workaholic. He is going to Make America Great Again!!!!

Wow.

That was a close call. Can you imagine if America failed to hit the Trump Royal?




The look on the two guards faces is priceless.

Quote: MaxPen

Wow.

That was a close call. Can you imagine if America failed to hit the Trump Royal?




The look on the two guards faces is priceless.

Wow. Her makeup artists should use this picture next to ones of Hillary at the debates or on the campaign trail. It is amazing how good she looked made up compared to this disaster. They are miracle workers.

Kellyanne Conway announced that Donald will not go after Hillary for persecution.

Poor MaxPen, must be huddled in a corner somewhere. All his Clinton's fleeing to Qatar conspiracy theories were B.S.

Quote: SOOPOO

Quote: MaxPen

Wow.

That was a close call. Can you imagine if America failed to hit the Trump Royal?




The look on the two guards faces is priceless.

Wow. Her makeup artists should use this picture next to ones of Hillary at the debates or on the campaign trail. It is amazing how good she looked made up compared to this disaster. They are miracle workers.

I wish I could "un-see" this...

Dang!!

People can say that Hillary did not win because people don't trust her or think she's a liar or whatever other excuse you want to bring up. But the truth is she almost did win. She won the popular vote. It is just a quirk of luck or lack of strategy in manipulating the electoral college that caused her to lose.

I don't like Trump, but in some ways, I'm glad that he won. And those ways are this: I'm tired of politicians that think that if they're shrewd and careful enough to not be caught in a lie that it's the same thing as being honest and having integrity. I want there to be an enforcement of our laws. I want our borders to be secure. I want our government to quit coddling criminals. And I believe that Trump is the better choice for this to happen.

There are some people that say the Trump won the election and the protesters should accept it--that they are sore losers. I don't see it that way. Protesters are voicing their dissatisfaction for Trump, and they have a right to protest. But at some point it's no longer a protest but a means to cause havoc and disruption. And if the protests get too large and disruptive I hope we put a stop to this by enforcing martial law. Because protestors cannot loot, block traffic, or destroy property.

But if they do, bring out the water canon! Of course the media will show clips of black civil rights protesters being hosed down in the 1960s while liberal news reporters cry and say, "Look what we've become as a nation. We've gone backwards 50 years." But protestors throwing tantrums and showing a lack of respect for the law and the rights of others need to be met with force.

Water canon would not be an appropriate first tactic, of course. But I think quick trials, a fine and 10 days in jail would convince most protestors not to break the law; and the more egregious offenders could be be dealt with more harshly.

As we increase the deporting of people that are here illegally I could just see news organizations showing footage of an angelic Latino child crying because their life is disrupted. I would have no sympathy for the tears of the child. Kids cry for all sorts of reasons. The parents who brought their child here illegally to use our schools, hospitals and services are the ones to blame. And by deporting them we send a message that illegal entry into our country will not be rewarded.

I have a right to not want my tax dollars to be spent on the education and illnesses of people here illegally. Our citizens already spend millions of dollars in increased auto insurance premiums to fix their cars that are damaged by illegals who don't have adequate insurance--or insurance at all. And look what we spend on border control, our courts, our prisons, financial aid, etc.

Trump made a lot statements about what he would change. And you know what? I don't care if he can't change the vast majority of the things he mentioned. The fact that he wants the changes is the right direction.

Secure our borders, vastly increase deportations, enforce federal laws in sanctuary cities, quit coddling criminals.

But even more importantly I hope that Trump is circumspect, thoughtful and that he seeks out the best guidance and input from knowledgable advisors across party lines to help navigate a strong yet humanitarian U.S. policy in a dangerous world.

Quote: Greasyjohn

But if they do, bring out the water canon! Of course the media will show clips of black civil rights protesters being hosed down in the 1960s while liberal news reporters cry and say, "Look what we've become as a nation. We've gone backwards 50 years." But protestors throwing tantrums and showing a lack of respect for the law and the rights of others need to be met with force.

Water canon would not be an appropriate first tactic, of course. But I think quick trials, a fine and 10 days in jail would convince most protestors not to break the law; and the more egregious offenders could be be dealt with more harshly.

No water cannons
Its being used in the pipeline protests sending people to the hospital
In my opinion, its criminal to shoot a water cannon in freezing temps.
Anybody simply protesting should be allowed to protest
Anybody breaking the law should be arrested.
Sure its a tough job for the police but that's the way it is.
Don't punish protesters for the criminal fringe

Quote: Greasyjohn

But if they do, bring out the water canon! Of course the media will show clips of black civil rights protesters being hosed down in the 1960s while liberal news reporters cry and say, "Look what we've become as a nation. We've gone backwards 50 years." But protestors throwing tantrums and showing a lack of respect for the law and the rights of others need to be met with force.

Water canon would not be an appropriate first tactic, of course. But I think quick trials, a fine and 10 days in jail would convince most protestors not to break the law; and the more egregious offenders could be be dealt with more harshly.

No water cannons
Its being used in the pipeline protests sending people to the hospital
In my opinion, its criminal to shoot a water cannon in freezing temps.
Anybody simply protesting should be allowed to protest
Anybody breaking the law should be arrested.
Sure its a tough job for the police but that's the way it is.
Don't punish protesters for the criminal fringe

Quote: Greasyjohn

I don't like Trump, but in some ways, I'm glad that he won. And those ways are this: I'm tired of politicians that think that if they're shrewd and careful enough to not be caught in a lie that it's the same thing as being honest and having integrity. I want there to be an enforcement of our laws. I want our borders to be secure. I want our government to quit coddling criminals. And I believe that Trump is the better choice for this to happen.

WSJ: Trump Foundation engaged in self-dealing

NYT: Trump's business dealings will violate the Constitution's emoluments clause

An Asian diplomat told the Washington Post “Why wouldn’t I stay at his hotel blocks from the White House, so I can tell the new president, ‘I love your new hotel!’ Isn’t it rude to come to his city and say, ‘I am staying at your competitor?’ ”

Trump's answer to all this? "Prior to the election it was well known that I have interests in properties all over the world. Only the crooked media makes this a big deal!"

Trump has no intention of disentangling himself and his family members from these conflicts prior to taking office, which means on the day Trump takes office, he will be in open violation of the Constitution. You want the laws enforced, yes? What would you suggest?

Quote: MathExtremist

Trump's answer to all this? "Prior to the election it was well known that I have interests in properties all over the world. Only the crooked media makes this a big deal!"

I would like to think that pointing such stuff out might finally make Trump supporters cry foul finally. But I keep getting disappointed.

The blind trust, and not to his kids, is a reasonable request.

The following was posted on the FB account of a U of Oregon BLM activist:

"Black Lives Splatter."

He should put his assets into a blind trust, to the degree possible. But many of his assets are part of his personal brand. I guess it shouldn't matter. Prez is a pretty imortant job. Even if his hotels lose value, suck it up.

However, what anti-Trumpers don't get, or refuse to get, is that nobody cares about individual corruption in which one hotel owner might screw over another or something. Even Trump U, which is pretty reprehensible.

Not when compared to systematic corruption that targets THEM. Like the Clintons de-regulating banks and rolling bank individual bankruptcy protection and other republicans doing the same sort of thing.

Some people think Trump is the Sun God. But I think most of them think he is a guy with a deep mean streak who often plays dirty. And, they want to unleash him on the DC elites who have taken sides against us.

Haven't you seen movies where a bad guy helps to defeat an even worse bad guy? At the end of the last Jurassic Park, the raptors and T-Rex, villains of the previous movies, are used to defeat an even worse dino who "hunts for sport." That's what I think most Trump supporters imagine, and why they don't really care that he's an a-hole.

Hopefully, they are right to at least some degree. If the man stops allowing corporations to write our trade policy, reinstates banking regulations, tosses a few Wall Street pigs in the slammer the next time they break the law and refuses to start an unjust war or three, we should all be happy.

Quote: ams288

Kellyanne Conway announced that Donald will not go after Hillary for persecution.

Poor MaxPen, must be huddled in a corner somewhere. All his Clinton's fleeing to Qatar conspiracy theories were B.S.

No, I don't huddle in corners like you did during and for a good time after election day. Of course, DJT can say that he won't go after her, as he is not in office yet. Her daughter and Jesse Jackson have been out for a week begging him not to.

Why would they have to beg if she were innocent?

Congress will be the ones to open investigations and the Trump DOJ will be the ones to bring charges. Trump will sit back without meddling, unlike Obama. Trump is the boss. He can keep his hands clean.

Come back in June 2017 and try again.

Katrina Pierson is a powerful debater. It's amazing to watch her. I hope Trump has a future position for her.

Quote: Rigondeaux

He should put his assets into a blind trust, to the degree possible. But many of his assets are part of his personal brand. I guess it shouldn't matter. Prez is a pretty imortant job. Even if his hotels lose value, suck it up.

However, what anti-Trumpers don't get, or refuse to get, is that nobody cares about individual corruption in which one hotel owner might screw over another or something. Even Trump U, which is pretty reprehensible.

Not when compared to systematic corruption that targets THEM. Like the Clintons de-regulating banks and rolling bank individual bankruptcy protection and other republicans doing the same sort of thing.

With all due respect, "screwing over another hotel owner" is not the real problem with a president who can be bought. It's not about individual corruption per se, it's about the corruption of our entire government by foreign interests. It's about Trump doing deals that benefit him personally (and that includes his family) while harming our national security, and him not caring, and nobody else caring either -- or worse, justifying it like you're doing. Bribery is a crime for a reason. You agree that scamming suckers out of money with worthless seminars is "reprehensible" but you also think that it's acceptable? What happens when the money comes from foreign nationals and is exchanged for official U.S. favors? Is that acceptable too?

If Trump sent the Army Corps of Engineers to help with flooding around one of his golf courses, would you view that as acceptable?
If Trump gave Princess Kate an Ivanka-branded bracelet, and tweeted a link to the website where you could buy it, would you view that as acceptable?
If Trump deployed the U.S. military to retake his Indonesian hotel from terrorist jihadists who had captured it and were using it as a fortress, would you view that as acceptable? If so, should the U.S. military get involved in every terrorist incursion around the globe, or just the ones where Trump's business interests are at risk?

Quote: MathExtremist

If Trump sent the Army Corps of Engineers to help with flooding around one of his golf courses, would you view that as acceptable?
If Trump gave Princess Kate an Ivanka-branded bracelet, and tweeted a link to the website where you could buy it, would you view that as acceptable?
If Trump deployed the U.S. military to retake his Indonesian hotel from terrorist jihadists who had captured it and were using it as a fortress, would you view that as acceptable? If so, should the U.S. military get involved in every terrorist incursion around the globe, or just the ones where Trump's business interests are at risk?

Trump is a pillar of self-control and moral responsibility. He would never do it. (insert Ken cough here.)

The problem is that too many current pols have been bought off.

I know some people here believe bill and Hill really added a quarter billion in value to companies by giving talks. Don't know how that's supposed to work. But, I know people all across the political spectrum, and almost nobody else buys that. It seems native to wov, for some reason.

Or chelsea, Jeb, Eric cantor and so on getting seven figure gigs on Wall Street with no knowledge of finance. And on and on.

We Know these mofos bought off. Some hope trump won't be.

I'm sure our representatives voted to reduce our bankruptcy protections because they thought that's what we really wanted though. All on the up and up.

Wonder what politicians who oppose wall Street get offered for talks.

I saw a video of some hippies protesting the pipeline or what have you. Tough to make it all out with poor video quality.

It seemed like the "protestors" were blocking the road. They should be removed from the road. If they want to be outside in freezing temperatures with water shooting at them, that's on them.


Next we're gonna hear liberals defend the murderer who's being chased by cops on icy roads. "They forced him to drive 90+ MPH on icy roads by chasing him. Cops are racist and what they did is extremely dangerous!"

Quote: MaxPen

Come back in June 2017 and try again.

Will do. I'm sure the Clinton's will still be living comfortably in NY with their $200+ million wealth in tact (and not in Qatar).

Quote: Rigondeaux

The problem is that too many current pols have been bought off.

I know some people here believe bill and Hill really added a quarter billion in value to companies by giving talks. Don't know how that's supposed to work. But, I know people all across the political spectrum, and almost nobody else buys that. It seems native to wov, for some reason.

Or chelsea, Jeb, Eric cantor and so on getting seven figure gigs on Wall Street with no knowledge of finance. And on and on.

We Know these mofos bought off. Some hope trump won't be.

Hope? Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump attended a private meeting between Trump and the Japanese Prime Minister. I'm sure they're well-versed in Japanese politics, no? There's your hope. Trump isn't draining the swamp, he's rebranding it as a luxury hot springs and moving his whole family into it. Beneath the glamour and hype and dramatic reality-TV music, it's still the same swamp.

And he's still the same Trump. You think people voted for Trump in the hope that he won't be a corrupt, self-dealing politician after his long and well-documented history of being a corrupt, self-dealing businessman. There's as much chance of Trump changing his stripes as you have of growing a third elbow.

deleted (duplicate post)

Quote: RS

I saw a video of some hippies protesting the pipeline or what have you.

They're the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and they and their supporters in ND are protesting the Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL).

The basis for their objection:

Originally the portion of the pipeline in question was to be routed well north of there, near Bismarck, but the residents of that fair burg objected to close proximity, claiming an oil spill would contaminate their drinking water.

So it was rerouted to the edge of the Sioux reservation, set on a new path under the Missouri River, a bit upstream from the water intake for the tribe's drinking water.

Nobody consulted with them about it in a significant way first, it was just done.

They argue it is unfair to reroute the DAPL based upon the white's objecting that it will impact their water quality, but then not allow them to voice the same objection and reroute the DAPL based upon their equal concerns over impact on water quality.

The tribe also argue that the new path impacts "sacred sites."

There are other possible routes which the company could choose which would not impact anybody's drinking water, but they refuse.

The tribe and their supporters call themselves "protectors," not "protesters."

At first I had no sympathy for them, thinking that they just wanted their own fifteen minutes of fame (like the Occupy movement did, then the BLM folks, currently the Trump protesters), but now I understand their point, and it seems valid.

They're tired of being screwed over by the Great White Father; fair is fair.

Unless a solution is found, this will almost certainly end in bloodshed.

And yeah, that's barbed wire in the pic.

Quote: MathExtremist

Hope? Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump attended a private meeting between Trump and the Japanese Prime Minister. I'm sure they're well-versed in Japanese politics, no? There's your hope. Trump isn't draining the swamp, he's rebranding it as a luxury hot springs and moving his whole family into it. Beneath the glamour and hype and dramatic reality-TV music, it's still the same swamp.

And he's still the same Trump. You think people voted for Trump in the hope that he won't be a corrupt, self-dealing politician after his long and well-documented history of being a corrupt, self-dealing businessman. There's as much chance of Trump changing his stripes as you have of growing a third elbow.

Going in circles again.

The distinction is between someone who is dishonest for themselves at times. And someone who's primary source of income is taking money in exchange for using their political power to screw over the population.

I don't feel like this is hard to understand.

1) Bill Clinton repealed the banking regulations meant to prevent another depression and was very richly rewarded. Personally. Wall Street showered his whole family with money for years and years, and everyone else got screwed.

2)Trump will (hopefully) bring them back, and maybe he'll make some money for himself from foreign dignitaries staying in his hotel, or something more sordid. But we'll all be better protected from another financial collapse.

If that's the case, it's easy to see why many people prefer 2). Not perfect, but perfect wasn't a choice.

Trump is not legally required to put his assets in a blind trust, nor to surrender control to others.

It is unrealistic to demand he completely release the reins of an empire he worked all his life to build, just so he can work at another job for a few years.

Quote: MrV

It is unrealistic to demand he completely release the reins of an empire he worked all his life to build, just so he can work at another job for a few years.

He volunteered for it.

Quote: MrV

Trump is not legally required to put his assets in a blind trust, nor to surrender control to others.

It is unrealistic to demand he completely release the reins of an empire he worked all his life to build, just so he can work at another job for a few years.

It is also unrealistic to hire a man as the chief executive and key fiduciary of an organization if he has ownership of another one that stands to benefit. You'd never hire the CEO of Ford to run General Motors without requiring a divestment first. The shareholders wouldn't stand for it. This is an even worse situation because Trump will not only have access to government financial resources he can deploy but military ones. Except this time, the shareholders are all of us, and half of them said "sure, go ahead."

Also, there's judicial opinion on point here. The president is not immune from the emoluments clause in the Constitution, so yes, he is legally required to surrender control. An officer of the United States may not receive anything of value from a foreign state without consent of Congress. Using Trump's DC Post Office Hotel for foreign dignitaries visiting Washington is a violation. So is having Trump's children simultaneously run Trump's assets and negotiating government contracts that could steer business toward those assets. It's not just a breach of ethics, it's a violation of Constitutional law. Without a full family divestment, Trump will be lying when he swears the presidential oath of office.

The GSA owns that post office and Trump and his kids own a lease. Congress and a bunch of lawyers are going to have to sort out that problem, and your tax dollars are going to pay for it. I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for my elected officials to sort out the legality of Trump's business entanglements. Do you?

I hesitate to post this because I'm not a conspiracy guy. Election security expert, J Alex Halderman is urging the Clinton campaign to call for a recount of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. Some media outlets have picked it up, but the best source is Halderman's blog post.
https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-know-if-the-election-was-hacked-look-at-the-ballots-c61a6113b0ba#.4c5iiqn10

Quote:

Were this year’s deviations from pre-election polls the results of a cyberattack? Probably not. I believe the most likely explanation is that the polls were systematically wrong, rather than that the election was hacked. But I don’t believe that either one of these seemingly unlikely explanations is overwhelmingly more likely than the other. The only way to know whether a cyberattack changed the result is to closely examine the available physical evidence — paper ballots and voting equipment in critical states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Unfortunately, nobody is ever going to examine that evidence unless candidates in those states act now, in the next several days, to petition for recounts.

I doubt Clinton will request a recount. After a painful lengthy process and millions of dollars spent, the results would probably not change. Clinton would be remembered for her petty attempt to flip the election. However I find the scenario that Halderman describes fascinating and I wish they would investigate.

Quote: MathExtremist

Also, there's judicial opinion on point here. The president is not immune from the emoluments clause in the Constitution, so yes, he is legally required to surrender control. An officer of the United States may not receive anything of value from a foreign state without consent of Congress.

The US Constitution states:

"7: The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."

Please cite to your authority.

Federal law requires presidents to disclose their financial and real estate holdings, but nothing forces a president, vice president, House member or senator to sell off assets upon taking office, nor must they divest same.

The GSA is forbidden to lease space to corporations headed by a Federal Employee. President is a Federal Employee.
Can't get much simpler than that.

That may or may not be true: please cite to authority.

Assuming it is true: so what?

That would apply only to new leases, and no doubt The Don and his consigliere can and will find a work around.

Sorry, but the people knew what he was when they elected him.

I wonder if Trump’s IRS audit will be concluded by 1/20/2017.

Quote: MrV

That may or may not be true: please cite to authority.

Assuming it is true: so what?

That would apply only to new leases, and no doubt The Don and his consigliere can and will find a work around.

Sorry, but the people knew what he was when they elected him.

No, it doesn't only apply to new leases . No idea why you would think that.

Again, please cite to your authority.

I could be wrong, but my understanding of these things leads me to recall the expression "grandfather clause."

Anyway, Trump says he will live in NYC / Trump tower, not the "leased" white house.

Do his businesses involve the leasing of extensive federal property?

I bet not.

His new hotel, the one he is encouraging visiting diplomats to stay at is leased from the G.S.A.

Quote: MrV

The US Constitution states:

"7: The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them."

Please cite to your authority.

Federal law requires presidents to disclose their financial and real estate holdings, but nothing forces a president, vice president, House member or senator to sell off assets upon taking office, nor must they divest same.

That's not the clause I was referring to. Read this:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-21/trump-s-hotel-lodges-a-constitutional-problem

Quote: JimRockford

I hesitate to post this because I'm not a conspiracy guy. Election security expert, J Alex Halderman is urging the Clinton campaign to call for a recount of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan. Some media outlets have picked it up, but the best source is Halderman's blog post.
https://medium.com/@jhalderm/want-to-know-if-the-election-was-hacked-look-at-the-ballots-c61a6113b0ba#.4c5iiqn10

I doubt Clinton will request a recount. After a painful lengthy process and millions of dollars spent, the results would probably not change. Clinton would be remembered for her petty attempt to flip the election. However I find the scenario that Halderman describes fascinating and I wish they would investigate.

Jill Stein is trying to raise the money to challenge results in those 3 states. Deadline for 1 is Friday, the others next week.

There is a direct correlation in paper ballot precincts and states with the polls as reported. There is a large discrepancy in the results of those precincts in those specific states that used electronic voting machines ,and the poll results. The statisticians say it's well outside normal. That's all I heard as I was driving today.

Latest Trump outrage: Don Trump Jr met in Paris on Oct 11 with pro-Assad Russians as an emissary to try and negotiate, 1 week after the US had broken off relations with Russia over Syria because of their increased civilian bombing. Who the hell does he think he is?

Quote: beachbumbabs

Who the hell does he think he is?

He's omniscient and clairvoyant: The Don knew he'd win, and he wanted to cement the Russians' fealty by having them kiss his ring.

As Mel Brooks said: "It's good to be the king!"

Quote: MathExtremist

That's not the clause I was referring to. Read this:

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-11-21/trump-s-hotel-lodges-a-constitutional-problem

Interesting article.

I see the clause in question contains the solution:

The clause itself says that “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

Hello, Republican controlled Congress!

Quote: tringlomane

The white and older person percentage might be higher here than the "average voter" as well. Dunno for sure, but I am thinking our active female forum members are all for Hillary. But depending on your definition of "active", that could be as few as one? I can only think of the the most obvious woman on the forum. MustangSally hasn't been too active lately...Hot Blonde? Nareed? (and many of the trumpers will call her a he) Who am I missing that used to be a regular? Just writing this out reminds me how much of a "boys' club" this place is. Hell, I used to post here a LOT more myself. Hell "Even Bob" stopped posting on this forum as well...I thought he would never quit!

But general bickering and less gambling discussion has made me and some other notable members a lot less active. I'm now much more active on forums where political discussion is expressly prohibited. Wizard tried to separate this discussion by starting "Diversity Tomorrow", but it failed because people still talked about it here and he didn't explicitly punish people for it because he still believes in "free speech", which is noble. However, constant political discussion helps drive this forum off course significantly. I also have a bad feeling it won't significantly tail off after November 8th either here.

P.S. And let the record show this terribly long thread that was forced into a Part II was started by a hard-core Republican now banned from this forum for his numerous insults toward others.

I have learned the hard way that if one goes back in the thread historically and then attempts to read it all the way to present, it's not always a good idea to make comments in the midst of doing so half way through. I've looked like an idiot more than once being caught up with a thread.

That said, I thought it would be very interesting to go back months before the election to read the ebb and flow and then read up to present. I haven't got to present yet. But, this comment I felt would not be hindered by the content. "However, constant political discussion helps drive this forum off course significantly. I also have a bad feeling it won't significantly tail off after November 8th either here."

Now I don't know about his prediction, but my response to how one board would effect the whole forum site is, I don't believe it does. This board and subject are just but a microcosm of the whole WOV site. And only a minority of people are actively posting. And maybe not a huge number of people are reading it.

I see this like a big mall. I go to the mall, visit my stores and sit in the diag watching people during lunch or something. I then over hear some people commenting how atrocious the Adult novelty and clothes store is at the end of the north wing. "It's going to ruin the mall". Don't think so, I've been going to the mall for years and didn't even know the store was there. I just tell them, don't go in the store. And if the political seems to upset too many, just move it off to the off topic parking lot.

One board don't break a site. If people don't like the thread, why even read it.

And since this may show up at the end of this thread in the present day, I didn't care who won.

Anyone follow Donald's twitter?

He had a meltdown last night over CNN (again).

Quote: @realDonaldTrump

.@CNN is so embarrassed by their total (100%) support of Hillary Clinton, and yet her loss in a landslide, that they don't know what to do.

Only an idiot like Donald could think that losing the popular vote by more than 2 million votes is a "landslide" in his favor. Sad!

Quote: @realDonaldTrump

Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!

This is one of those tweets that is so stupid that it is clearly meant to distract the media from something else he is doing.

For liberals, we just gotta sit back and let the man self-destruct. He's in over his head. Why waste time whining and protesting before he's even President?