2016 Election -- Part II

Quote: SAMIAM

OOOPs Sorry Was looking for the 2016 tread, my bad.

You're hijacking my hijack.

That's ok, I'm done butting in. I'll come back when we can discuss the next wikileak that Julian Assange says will get Hillary arrested. She's going to look good in a bright orange pants suit.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Open your eyes, call up Wikipedia, and look up the Potsdam Declaration and how the Japanese reacted to it. They didn't "try to surrender." For that matter, they didn't even "try to surrender" after we dropped the first one on Nagasaki--the ruling military was willing to gamble that we didn't have another one. Ironically, we didn't have a THIRD one after Nagasaki (yet), so they could have fought on.

The morality of what we did to end the war has been endlessly debated. You have to take things in context:

1. We had already incinerated Tokyo and most other Japanese cities. The casualty count was far higher, and the destruction arguably more complete, than in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Thus, the atomic bombs were really just more of the same. "Strategic bombing" and the mass slaughter of civilians was old hat by 1945, and we should keep in mind what the Japanese did to civilians in Nanking, Shanghai, and other cities. We didn't cross any moral boundary. While killing civilians from the air is awful, you have to realize that all sides in the war had considered it to be a legitimate tactic. War is horrible whether guns, nuclear weapons, or rocks and sticks are the weapons used.

2. As the bombs did force Japan to surrender, they were spared a Russian invasion and subsequent partition of the country. We allowed Japan to regain its sovereignty in 1954. The Russians released East Germany from captivity in 1989. How long would they have held on to, say Hokkaido and the northern half of Honshu, with the Russians and Americans glaring at each other across the "Tokyo Wall"? Don't forget, the Russians declared war on Japan in August 1945 and were already in the process of occupying Sakhalin.

3. Without the atomic bombs, the Allies would have had to invade the home islands. Casualties were expected to be three-quarters of a million or more, and civilian deaths as high as ten million. There was every indication that the Japanese, who still had plenty of guns, would defend their home islands with the same fanaticism we had just seen at Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

There are also those who say we could have done something like tell the Japanese, "Watch this island" and then blown it up--the demonstration of the power of the new weapon might have been enough. Also, we could have simply bombed and starved Japan into submission without the atomic bomb or an invasion. But the Japanese resistance even when the situation was hopeless, and their response to the Potsdam Declaration, suggested that they might not surrender as long as the home islands were intact and the Emperor and government survived.

Yes, one can certainly imagine what it must have been like in Hiroshima that morning, thanks in part to John Hersey's excellent book. But one can also imagine what it must have been like in Nanking in 1936, or Warsaw in 1939 (and again in 1944), or Kharkov in 1942, or Berlin in 1945. To me, those are all tragedies that happen when people don't have any say in their own governance and a ruling kleptocracy comes to power. Fortunately for us, we have a system in place that limits the power of those in charge. That's why Bernie's and the OO's cries to destroy that system frighten me. I don't WANT to be a soldier in a conscripted army, wearing my mandatory orange wig, marching into Mecca or Beijing to slaughter the inhabitants.

We may at some point, as a species, view acts of war like Nanking, Warsaw, and Hiroshima as unthinkable. Are we there yet? No way. All those animals at Trump rallies screaming "KILL! KILL! KILL!" illustrate vividly that we're not.

You responded to bob, not me, but you address part of what further I would have said. I think the context you place around the use of nukes is critically important to the discussion. I don't think they were wrong to drop the first one, based on the situation and their knowledge / ignorance of the consequences. Nagasaki was probably also necessary, not just for American lives, but those of the Asians and Allies, and even the Japanese. My ex, who has made himself a 20th century war expert, explained decades ago about the alternative war plans and the millions more who were expected to die if the a bomb either hadn't been used or hadn't worked. So I'm not advocating a position of revisionist history.

But, now. NOW we know. The strength of nuclear weapons is deterrence, not their use. The threat of them is enough for all but the maddest of sociopaths. Cue Kim Jung IL. Cue Iran. And now, perhaps, cue Donald Trump. Who would nuke Europe. Who would consider it just another war asset. And would be the only person authorized to use it.

NOW we're talking righteous fear.

Quote: bobbartop

You're hijacking my hijack.

That's ok, I'm done butting in. I'll come back when we can discuss the next wikileak that Julian Assange says will get Hillary arrested. She's going to look good in a bright orange pants suit.

Where is this wiki leak? Why is he withholding it?

On bobos world, Hilary is already in jail.Trump is Emperor and the girlie men are suffering paybacks for all the indignities he suffered.

Quote: beachbumbabs

You responded to bob, not me, but you address part of what further I would have said. I think the context you place around the use of nukes is critically important to the discussion. I don't think they were wrong to drop the first one, based on the situation and their knowledge / ignorance of the consequences. Nagasaki was probably also necessary, not just for American lives, but those of the Asians and Allies, and even the Japanese. My ex, who has made himself a 20th century war expert, explained decades ago about the alternative war plans and the millions more who were expected to die if the a bomb either hadn't been used or hadn't worked. So I'm not advocating a position of revisionist history.

It's interesting how so many people think our government was wrong in Vietnam, but so "good" in WWII. What were they supposed to say? "We murdered a couple hundred thousand innocent Japanese civilians because we could"?

Quote: Dalex64

Where is this wiki leak? Why is he withholding it?

I don't know, but that's what he says. Orange Jumpsuit.

Quote: billryan

On bobos world, Hilary is already in jail.Trump is Emperor and the girlie men are suffering paybacks for all the indignities he suffered.

You're a funny guy. Obviously related to Math Extremist, as you have both put me square in the Trump camp when I don't think I have even mentioned his name in any of my posts. You guys are freaking mind readers.

Quote: bobbartop

History is written by the victors. As such, you'll rarely see an accurate portrayal of FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower as the criminals that they really were.

Your "tinfoil" remark was enough, we're done. If I were dictator, I'd just have you banished to eastern Oregon.

Any clown can say anything about people in the past and what they supposedly did. That's easy. What's hard is coming up with evidence--that messy ol' concept that is the bane of conspiracy theorists.

Of course, I'm one of those accuracy fetishists who insists on the definition of criminality as having actually been tried and convicted of a criminal act or acts. I don't view my not liking someone, past or present, as equivalent to their being or having been a criminal.

And history, in fact, is written by the winners AND the losers. That tired old bromide doesn't apply any longer, not with mass worldwide dissemination of information. As an example you'll probably understand, the history of the American West and the Indian wars was indeed originally written by the winners. However, recently it's been written by the descendants of the losers, and is much closer to what actually happened as a result.

Quote: bobbartop

You're a funny guy. Obviously related to Math Extremist, as you have both put me square in the Trump camp when I don't think I have even mentioned his name in any of my posts. You guys are freaking mind readers.

Not hard to figure out. You show the illogic, the extremism, and the right-wing views of most Trumpers. It's not necessary to for you to have mentioned Trump by name--you back many of his views and pronouncements, putting you in AZDuffmanLand as far as we can tell.

However, in the interest of fairness, now's your chance. Do you, in fact, NOT support the Orange Orangutan? Do you, in fact, disagree with at least some things he says? Are you planning to vote for him or not? is your hatred of Hillary genuine, or is it based on your Trump love? Inquiring minds want to know. Say it out loud. Don't be afraid. Be PROUD of your tinfoil hat--or take it off, to rounds of enthusiastic applause!

Quote: beachbumbabs

But, now. NOW we know. The strength of nuclear weapons is deterrence, not their use. The threat of them is enough for all but the maddest of sociopaths. Cue Kim Jung IL. Cue Iran. And now, perhaps, cue Donald Trump. Who would nuke Europe. Who would consider it just another war asset. And would be the only person authorized to use it.

NOW we're talking righteous fear.

As much as it makes me want to vomit to say this, Trump sorta kinda has a point. Much in the way that a million chimpanzees on a million typewriters will eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare, there is an occasional grain of truth in Trump's positions. Or perhaps I should modify the analogy to: with a million orangutans pooping over a million years, one of them will eventually poop out Rodin's "The Thinker."

Anyway, Trump's point--babbled incoherently though it may have been--is that if the use of nuclear weapons is indeed unthinkable, then their deterrent function has failed. The other guy has to think you're crazy/murderous/angry enough to use them. Otherwise, you may as well not have them. Whether that would be desirable is open to debate.

I have wondered many times, what would a President--of the US or of Russia--do if the phone rang and he was informed that 500 missiles were inbound and everybody in the targeted cities had about twenty minutes to live? Would the President spend the last twenty minutes of his life ordering the slaughter of hundreds of millions and the likely extinction of humanity? Or would he/she spend those last minutes praying, and NOT push the button? I'd like to think that would actually be the case, but if either leader actually SAID that, well, that would be inviting total destruction. It's actually one of the oldest problems in game theory. Also the subject of a short story by Arthur Clarke (the Russian premier, already dead by the time the recording is heard, orders his forces to stand down rather than retaliate against a massive nuclear attack by the US).

I can certainly envision scenarios where we might be forced to use nukes against a rogue nation if that nation becomes a direct and proximate threat. For example, I actually hope that if Kim Jong Foo Nutcase, or whatever his name is, ever does acquire a nuclear weapon, that we incinerate Pyongyang rather than looking for a diplomatic solution; such solutions are only available when dealing with sane people. The same goes for Tehran, and Las Vegas too for that matter. Teach THEM to cut off my comps!

I actually expect a major Western city to go up in a nuclear fireball within the next 20-30 years, whether as a result of direct military attack by one of the Crazy Nations or by terrorists that they sponsor. Trump's response to that would be to nuke SOMEBODY. Who knows who that would be. Maybe Guam or Winnipeg. But odd as it sounds to say, having a crazy, homicidal psychopath in the White House would actually be a stronger deterrent than having a sane, human, rational person there, for the reasons I implied in the doomsday scenario I painted above.

And isn't THAT a depressing thought.

I suspect Russia and the US are allies at the highest levels. See the International Fake Station.

Can someone explain to me why we would give Iran $400m, whether we owe it or not, when we know they fund terrorist organizations???

Quote: gamerfreak

Can someone explain to me why we would give Iran $400m, whether we owe it or not, when we know they fund terrorist organizations???

Cause all of the flat earth's governments are in cahoots. They like to watch us serfs kill each other.

Quote: gamerfreak

Can someone explain to me why we would give Iran $400m, whether we owe it or not, when we know they fund terrorist organizations???

Because we are a nation of laws, and the courts made us, after decades.of dispute about it. I suspect the nuclear agreement and its attendant detente had something to do with it as well.

I could be wrong.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Because we are a nation of laws, and the courts made us, after decades.of dispute about it. I suspect the nuclear agreement and its attendant detente had something to do with it as well.

I could be wrong.

But if a couple of blackjack players are pulled over by the Highway Patrol on Hwy 40 with $12,000 in their trunk, ooops, so much for a nation of laws.

Quote: gamerfreak

Can someone explain to me why we would give Iran $400m, whether we owe it or not, when we know they fund terrorist organizations???

We didn't give Iran anything. We returned money of theirs the U.S. froze back in 1979. Back then, the U.S. was the Shahs source of weaponry. He had given a large sum, in advance, for the purchase of, amongst other things, F14s and Anti aircraft systems. When he was deposed, we canceled the deal and kept the money.
As part of the multinational nuclear agreement, we agreed to return the funds. If Iran went to court, it would almost certainly won and not oh gotten the money back, but almost forty years worth of interest. Keep in mind that interest rates in the 80s were well over 10 percent much of the time.
It was pay back less than two billion now or many times that later.

Quote: bobbartop

But if a couple of blackjack players are pulled over by the Highway Patrol on Hwy 40 with $12,000 in their trunk, ooops, so much for a nation of laws.

Be careful, one more vague counterexample and the whole country might descend into anarchy.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Because we are a nation of laws, and the courts made us, after decades.of dispute about it. I suspect the nuclear agreement and its attendant detente had something to do with it as well.

I could be wrong.

It does not appear that the courts actually made us; this was a negotiated settlement to a case we were on our way to losing. That part actually makes sense--millions instead of billions. Two things make it look bad to most reasonable people--the timing of the payment and the fact that it was done in the dark. The hostages were released in concert with the payment--and the Iranians seem to think they got us to pay ransom for the hostages in some ways, according to the article. The court case was known and they settled "privately"...but how much "privacy" does the government get when disbursing $400 million? Why does that need to be secret and handed over at the same time as the hostages? Why not just give it to them when you finish the deal?


http://fortune.com/2016/08/05/money-america-iran/

Quote: Dalex64

Be careful, one more vague counterexample and the whole country might descend into anarchy.

I'm sorry, I figured anyone here would know what I meant. Highway 40 is known for pulling people over to look for stuff, like cash. Blackjack players have had their bankrolls seized as they've gone to different casinos, especially if driving Hwy 40. No due process. Seems like it can happen anywhere in the country, not just Hwy 40. Sorry for my vagueness.

The secrecy was because having that much cash on a plane is a target from everything from common criminals to the intelligence agencies of countries opposed to the deal. What would have happened if someone from somewhere simply lol y shot the plane down?.
The timing of the flight is problematic.

Quote: bobbartop

I'm sorry, I figured anyone here would know what I meant. Highway 40 is known for pulling people over to look for stuff, like cash. Blackjack players have had their bankrolls seized as they've gone to different casinos, especially if driving Hwy 40. No due process. Seems like it can happen anywhere in the country, not just Hwy 40. Sorry for my vagueness.

Aside from the fact that I've never been pulled over by a highway (cops, definitely), this sounds dubious to me. First of all, it isn't illegal to have a large amount of cash in your possession. Under what pretext would the cops seize it? Furthermore, is that highway absolutely flooded with people carting cash around to the extent that it warrants extra enforcement efforts just to nab them (for whatever offense they are supposedly committing)?

I don't know--that doesn't pass the smell test. I think it's more like various wannabe/unlucky counters explaining to their girlfriends why they are coming home broke: "Well, babe, I won twelve grand, but the cops grabbed it all when they pulled me over for a busted brake light." Or alternatively, explaining to Spike and Vito why you can't pay this week's vig.

I seriously doubt that the cops can or would just grab someone's money without cause to do so, Citizens have remedies against police misbehavior, and the hypothetical cop would have to grab the guy's cash and stash it where it couldn't be found before the victim complained to any authorities. I think we can put this one in the same drawer as the story of the microwaved poodle.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Aside from the fact that I've never been pulled over by a highway (cops, definitely), this sounds dubious to me.

Are you talking to ME?

" First of all, it isn't illegal to have a large amount of cash in your possession. " Don't print things like that. I almost choked on the soda I was drinking at the time.

/how-police-officers-seize-cash-from-innocent/

I cant post link for some reason ??? just google it, but expect to see unreliable sources, like FORBES.

Heading out now Somebody post that link please. I will just post one sentence and hope I don't get in trouble:
" Plus, part of the “drug courier” profile for Sheriff Vogel “was that cars obeying the speed limit were suspect—their desire to avoid being stopped made them stand out.”" The Orlando Sentinel later found that in three out of every four cases, no charges were filed. Ninety percent of the seizures involved African Americans or Latinos."

Brings a new meaning to the acronym DWB

Quote: SAMIAM

" First of all, it isn't illegal to have a large amount of cash in your possession. " Don't print things like that. I almost choked on the soda I was drinking at the time.

/how-police-officers-seize-cash-from-innocent/

This can't be, I must have been wrong. I am sure JoshLobotomynik, or whatever, must be right, he seemed to know everything when I was previously having such a pleasant conversation with him.

Quote: Dalex64

Where is this wiki leak? Why is he withholding it?

I assume if he has anything he is trying to create some chaos in the political process.

If he had something damaging and released it there might be a better chance to simply replace a candidate.

If he holds on to it and delivers it in October, no telling.

Of course I think it is one thing to out the bad actors in politics, but it's another matter to manipulate the process in doing it.

Quote: SAMIAM

" First of all, it isn't illegal to have a large amount of cash in your possession. " Don't print things like that. I almost choked on the soda I was drinking at the time.

/how-police-officers-seize-cash-from-innocent/

Sorry, like all conspiracy theories, this one needs evidence to be credible. Under what law, in what jurisdiction in the US, is it illegal to possess large amounts of cash? (NOTE: I am only really debating whether it is or is not illegal. I think that BobConspiracy is misinterpreting one or two incidents as "it happens all the time" and doesn't know the context of those incidents, but I suppose the cops COULD be stopping cars at random and looting the contents without any outcry or publicity other than some random clown reporting it on the internet (that treasure house of truth)).

But I guess it's more fun to believe in massive global conspiracies than it is to be objective or rational. BobConspiracy does love his theories. It's more fun than the real world, after all. Boring: a couple of cops stopped a couple of people, and they turned out to have a large amount of cash in their car. They were arrested for something else, and the cash was taken into police custody rather than leaving it in the car for the tow truck driver to steal. Fun: a regiment of aliens from the planet Dweemo has landed in the eastern US and has set up shop on Highway 40, polymorphing themselves into traffic cops and using their alien Money Vision to pull over and loot the cars of unsuspecting casino patrons. They plan to use the funds to further their plans for galactic conquest, as the shop on Bloviatus Five that sells the Apocalypse Ray Guns only accepts American dollars, the most valued currency in the galaxy. Oooooooo! So much more fun than reality!

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

They plan to use the funds to further their plans for galactic conquest, as the shop on Bloviatus Five that sells the Apocalypse Ray Guns only accepts American dollars,

ameros, duh

Quote: rxwine

I assume if he has anything he is trying to create some chaos in the political process.

If he had something damaging and released it there might be a better chance to simply replace a candidate.

If he holds on to it and delivers it in October, no telling.

Of course I think it is one thing to out the bad actors in politics, but it's another matter to manipulate the process in doing it.

I agree.

To put it simply: he should put up or shut up.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Sorry, like all conspiracy theories, this one needs evidence to be credible. Under what law, in what jurisdiction in the US, is it illegal to possess large amounts of cash? (NOTE: I am only really debating whether it is or is not illegal. I think that BobConspiracy is misinterpreting one or two incidents as "it happens all the time" and doesn't know the context of those incidents, but I suppose the cops COULD be stopping cars at random and looting the contents without any outcry or publicity other than some random clown reporting it on the internet (that treasure house of truth)).

But I guess it's more fun to believe in massive global conspiracies than it is to be objective or rational. BobConspiracy does love his theories. It's more fun than the real world, after all. Boring: a couple of cops stopped a couple of people, and they turned out to have a large amount of cash in their car. They were arrested for something else, and the cash was taken into police custody rather than leaving it in the car for the tow truck driver to steal. Fun: a regiment of aliens from the planet Dweemo has landed in the eastern US and has set up shop on Highway 40, polymorphing themselves into traffic cops and using their alien Money Vision to pull over and loot the cars of unsuspecting casino patrons. They plan to use the funds to further their plans for galactic conquest, as the shop on Bloviatus Five that sells the Apocalypse Ray Guns only accepts American dollars, the most valued currency in the galaxy. Oooooooo! So much more fun than reality!

There have been numerous media investigations into this, with many documented cases of police agencies abusing the forfeiture laws, sizing cash for people coming and going to casinos.
I'm rather surprised you are not aware of this.
Forbes had a big write-up on in May 2014.

Quote: billryan

There have been numerous media investigations into this, with many documented cases of police agencies abusing the forfeiture laws, sizing cash for people coming and going to casinos.
I'm rather surprised you are not aware of this.
Forbes had a big write-up on in May 2014.

So you think that because some police abuse some of the laws, that we are not a nation of laws?

Quote: Dalex64

So you think that because some police abuse some of the laws, that we are not a nation of laws?

What I was getting at is that if the government can steal the money of some poor AP driving to a casino, without due process, then why do we have to honor some agreement to give $400 million to Iran? KEEP THE MONEY. They're an outlaw nation.

Here's an idea. Hold free elections, free your people, THEN you can have the money.

Quote: Dalex64

So you think that because some police abuse some of the laws, that we are not a nation of laws?

Where did I say that? Joe said he doubted this was happening, and I pointed him to articles confirming it was.

US v. $124,700 (US Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 8/19/2006)
Anybody know if this was overturned on appeal. Judge ruled police could confiscate 124K, despite man never had a criminal history and was not charged with a crime.
Federal Appeals Court: Driving With Money is a Crime

Still can post a link ? So just paraphrasing

Report: CIA Veteran & Republican Wonk Evan McMullin to Enter Presidential Race

Democrats this morning:

Quote: billryan

The secrecy was because having that much cash on a plane is a target from everything from common criminals to the intelligence agencies of countries opposed to the deal. What would have happened if someone from somewhere simply lol y shot the plane down?.
The timing of the flight is problematic.

Okay...but they could easily have released the information earlier...

Quote: RonC

Okay...but they could easily have released the information earlier...

Apparently they announced they were doing this almost 6 months ago, and I can't remember anyone taking issue with it then. Not that I completely agree with what was done.

Quote: bobbartop

What I was getting at is that if the government can steal the money of some poor AP driving to a casino, without due process, then why do we have to honor some agreement to give $400 million to Iran? KEEP THE MONEY. They're an outlaw nation.

Here's an idea. Hold free elections, free your people, THEN you can have the money.

The act you describe is not "the government stealing." It is "a government employee stealing." The distinction is not all that subtle, but I apparently needed to explain it to you.

The reason why we have to "honor some agreement" is that we made that agreement. We had been holding on to that money for decades. IT WASN'T OURS. Your moral stance here is kind of strange. It's OK to steal from a sovereign nation but an outrage for a cop to steal from an individual?

Telling another nation that we won't replay a debt until they change their political system to our liking is ridiculous. We didn't GIVE them the money. We paid it back. And without interest, I might add, even though we had the money for more than forty years.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

Telling another nation that we won't replay a debt until they change their political system to our liking is ridiculous. We didn't GIVE them the money. We paid it back. And without interest, I might add, even though we had the money for more than forty years.

That's the only redeeming thing about this, 400 million in 1970's money was a lot more than 400 million in 2016 money. Plus the lost opportunity to invest/spend the money.

I just think you shouldn't hand out money that kinda sorta might fund terrorism under any circumstance.

LOL - check out FiveThirtyEight's election forecast:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Georgia is leaning Dem now!

Thanks, Donald!

Quote: ams288

LOL - check out FiveThirtyEight's election forecast:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Georgia is leaning Dem now!

Thanks, Donald!

that popular vote is closer that I would have thought

Quote: billryan

Where did I say that? Joe said he doubted this was happening, and I pointed him to articles confirming it was.

Let's draw a needed distinction here. To say that something "is happening" is essentially meaningless. Earthquakes "are happening" in California. Should everybody abandon the state before it's too late? Closer to the present, cops "are shooting black people." Does that mean that law enforcement is now hunting black people like deer and gunning them down wherever they see them? No.

In fact, this kind of language is just what Trump and Trumpers use to stir up fear and hate. Terrorist incidents "are happening" "all over the country." Let's ignore the fact that they are still about as rare as, well, massive earthquakes. Let's pretend that they are a bigger threat than they are and divert billions of dollars to combat it and yeah, destroy our civil liberties while we're at it. More people have died in the last decade from texting while driving than from terrorist attacks. I'm not going to look it up, but I suspect that would be something like ten times more. Yet, is Trump raving about that?

We are terrible, with our barely modified ape brains, at evaluating the frequency and/or likelihood of an event, especially one we don't want to happen. That's why people drive somewhere instead of flying, especially after they read about a plane crash in the newspaper--perhaps unaware that they have increased their chances of dying during the trip by a factor of twenty.

A couple of isolated legal cases where money was confiscated don't amount to a trend, or even something noteworthy. Did it happen once or twice? Very likely. Was it a case of the cops swooping down on some poor unsuspecting dude, grabbing his money, and then driving off cackling, like pirates? Not bloody likely. For one thing, such incidents are always recorded, and the victim wouldn't just shrug and abandon the money. Quite frankly, if the government wants to get money from us, there are lots of easier ways to do so than by hiring cops to be pirates.

All that aside, what kind of moron carries thousands of dollars of cash in the trunk of his car? Cars crash. Cars catch fire. Cars are stolen. Any ACTUAL AP would have a contingency plan for safeguarding a large cash win. Also, any ACTUAL AP would be aware of asset forfeiture laws and be aware that driving around Florida with a huge wad in the truck DOES INDEED make you look like a drug dealer. Isn't this exactly what a drug dealer would say? "Officer, I won all this money at the casino." Therefore, a REAL AP would have the casino cage convert his winnings into a check. It's not as if he could conceal such a win from the casino or the authorities. So anyone with a pile of cash in the trunk is either a moron or a drug dealer.

Quote: ams288

LOL - check out FiveThirtyEight's election forecast:

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Georgia is leaning Dem now!

Thanks, Donald!

Not only that, but measuring Trump's poll numbers now is like measuring the altitude of a crashing airplane. "I'm doing OK--I haven't hit the ground yet!"

I really, really want the OO to stay in the race. I don't want him to be replaced by a sane candidate. I want him to drag the Republican party down with him into the black hole of history. First take the White House, then the Senate, then the House. Then we can have a government of compassion, decency, and human rights that will actually be able to DO something, and Joe Trumper Sixpack can slink back to his trailer, slam the door, and sit fondling his guns and mumbling.

Even better would be a splintering of the Republican party into a bunch of fringe groups based on who they want to oppress: the Kill All Mexicans Party, the Poor People Can't Vote Party, the No More Uppity Bitches Party (which some women would actually join, given that there are female Republicans), the No Medical Care for Anybody Who Can't Afford it Party, etc. etc. etc. And perhaps one day, we will view Republican conservatism the way we view slavery today--not just outmoded, but immoral as well.

Quote: Joeshlabotnik

<snip>

The reason why we have to "honor some agreement" is that we made that agreement.
<snip>
Telling another nation that we won't replay a debt until they change their political system to our liking is ridiculous. We didn't GIVE them the money. We paid it back. And without interest, I might add, even though we had the money for more than forty years.

Got to the party late today, sorry.
But stepping back to the post above;

Who else we got deals with that are sheltering their money here?
US banks, financials, seem to be a good place to stash your bankroll if you have one. We stable, relatively.
Let's renig on some of those agreements.
You know, just AP the jerks. We can negotiate a payback without interest in ten or twenty years.
Well, only if they still exist ;-)

You , for some reason, are ignoring the facts. This isn't a case of a few rogue cops. You might be able to say it's a case of a few rogue police departments , but it's wider spread then that. In fact, it's so widespread that the Justice Department just changed the rules on civil forfeiture so that the money isn't retained at the local level anymore.
Sure, the few APs out there may be aware of this, but the occasional casino visitor wouldn't be. I've driven home from AC. with thousands of dollars in my car. You haven't?
Aside from that, don't morons have equal protection under the law?

Has anything like this ever happened before?

50 Senior GOP Officials Warn Trump Would Be “Most Reckless” President in History

Quote: ams288

Has anything like this ever happened before?

50 Senior GOP Officials Warn Trump Would Be “Most Reckless” President in History

Not sure when or why Trump inspired confidence in the first place. He inspires a lot of other thoughts, I'll admit that.

Maybe they're just having their "Come to Jesus" moment. Or the four horsemen.

Quote: rxwine

Quote: ams288

Has anything like this ever happened before?

50 Senior GOP Officials Warn Trump Would Be “Most Reckless” President in History

Not sure when or why Trump inspired confidence in the first place. He inspires a lot of other thoughts, I'll admit that.

Maybe they're just having their "Come to Jesus" moment. Or the four horsemen.

He never did inspire confidence. He tapped into a bunch of really pissed off people who think life is unfair and nobody's listening to their complaints about it. And they'd be right.

But the leadership thinks the way to go is to filibuster, block, refuse to bring bills to the floor, and waste endless expensive hours on repeals. The leadership is so busy standing in the way of the opposition that they've forgotten how to be productive, creative, or collaborative.

In his way, Trump is doing America a huge favor, making them look like the idiots they've been for the last 16-24 years. Should clean out the do nothings about as well as could be hoped. Most of the useful, conscientious Republicans have left, anyway.

Quote: ams288

Has anything like this ever happened before?

50 Senior GOP Officials Warn Trump Would Be “Most Reckless” President in History

Without looking at the link, I think I heard the gist on the radio on the way home from soccer practice for my son;
I would answer "Nope" to your question.
Uncharted territory is alluring.
What if the world isn't flat?
This election could become a blowout in either direction, with these same tickets that are now in place.
Time will tell.
Of course everyone is welcome to type their fingers off daily between now and Election Day.
It has traditionally been a free country, well most of the time, and yea just for most of the people. At least once or twice someone thought they were free!. I think they wrote a book, think I read it, forget the title or author ;-)