2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
Quote: TwoFeathersATLQuote: ams288Has 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 ;-)
I read the link. It is quoting a "who’s who of the George W. Bush administration’s national security apparatus".
Ha! Now ain't THAT the pot calling the bird stoned in a barrel!
GOP senator Susan Collins: Why I cannot support Trump
I know most hardcore righties will just dismiss her as a RINO, but Trump needs the support of so-called RINOs if he wants any chance of winning in November.
Particularly in a handful of particular states.
I'm thinking that all the people that the press can find that say they cannot support Trump, for this or that or two dozen reasons, I'm thinking those people are just supposed to have one vote each at the booths in Nov.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLI could be wrong, but I thought he just needed the support of alot of voters.
Particularly in a handful of particular states.
I'm thinking that all the people that the press can find that say they cannot support Trump, for this or that or two dozen reasons, I'm thinking those people are just supposed to have one vote each at the booths in Nov.
He does need the support of a lot of voters.
He does not have that at the moment.
He is losing supporters.
He is going to lose.
I myself am not so confident in my predictive prowess to assume that I should make such a dumb statement.
The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent."
James Paul Warburg,
February 17, 1950, appearance before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
Quote: bobbartop"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it.
The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent."
James Paul Warburg,
February 17, 1950, appearance before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations.
"You could have the power of the gods! Yet you wear a flag on your chest and think you fight a battle of nations! I have seen the future Captain! There are no flags!"
Johann Schmidt,
March 4, 1945, to Steve Rogers
Trump's response can be distilled into:Quote: ams288Has anything like this ever happened before?
50 Senior GOP Officials Warn Trump Would Be “Most Reckless” President in History
"They're just jealous -- I wasn't going to pick them for my cabinet anyway. Neener-neener."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-letter-national-security-officials_us_57a9d201e4b0b770b1a43baf?section=&
I fail to see how anyone can take that man seriously when he has the rhetorical stylings of an eight year old.
Quote: MathExtremist
I fail to see how anyone can take that man seriously when he has the rhetorical stylings of an eight year old.
What you or I seem to miss on occasion is that the childish behavior of the OO is exactly what makes him popular to a large subhuman, sorry, subset of humanity. It's something they can relate to. If they handle frustration and disappointment by throwing tantrums and screaming, "It's not fair!!!!", then when they see a Presidential candidate doing that very thing, why, they will gravitate to him. For many people, politeness and common decency are annoying encumbrances, and when they see a major media figure like Trump pretty much getting away with it--hell, being ADORED for it--they will likewise abandon any pretexts of decency.
Possibly the greatest benefit of the Trump campaign is that we can identify those who support him and maybe in some way exclude them from human society. Ideally, we put them all together in the same place. Perhaps we can build a thousand-foot high electrified fence around, say, west Kansas and Nebraska, and ship all Trumpers there. They'd love being in each others' company anyway. To feed them, all we'd have to do is heave some raw steaks over the fence every so often. (Or maybe entire cows.)
So that's not helpful. Trump preaches a gospel of division and hatred. Why are you helping him?Quote: JoeshlabotnikWhat you or I seem to miss on occasion is that the childish behavior of the OO is exactly what makes him popular to a large subhuman, sorry, subset of humanity. It's something they can relate to. If they handle frustration and disappointment by throwing tantrums and screaming, "It's not fair!!!!", then when they see a Presidential candidate doing that very thing, why, they will gravitate to him. For many people, politeness and common decency are annoying encumbrances, and when they see a major media figure like Trump pretty much getting away with it--hell, being ADORED for it--they will likewise abandon any pretexts of decency.
Possibly the greatest benefit of the Trump campaign is that we can identify those who support him and maybe in some way exclude them from human society. Ideally, we put them all together in the same place. Perhaps we can build a thousand-foot high electrified fence around, say, west Kansas and Nebraska, and ship all Trumpers there. They'd love being in each others' company anyway. To feed them, all we'd have to do is heave some raw steaks over the fence every so often. (Or maybe entire cows.)
Friends don't let friends vote Trump.
I'm sure his supporters will laugh it off as another "tongue-in-cheek" moment! That jokester!
Quote: ams288Apparently at a rally Donald Trump just suggested there is a "second Amendment" solution for not letting Hillary be able to pick justices....?
I'm sure his supporters will laugh it off as another "tongue-in-cheek" moment! That jokester!
WOW, a little more than just suggested
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-second-amendment/index.html
Quote: gamerfreakWOW, a little more than just suggested
http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-second-amendment/index.html
This could be the straw that breaks the camel's back....
How can Paul Ryan, John McCain, et al support this monster?
Quote: ams288I'm sure his supporters will laugh it off as another "tongue-in-cheek" moment! That jokester!
I bet they just switch chants from "lock her up" to "lock and load".
But how about the Orlando shooters dad standing in the crowd behind Clinton during a speech? Can't make that up.
Quote: gamerfreakBut how about the Orlando shooters dad standing in the crowd behind Clinton during a speech? Can't make that up.
It would have been a huge story - had Trump not suggested assassinating Hillary yesterday.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Hillary_cites_RFK_assasination_in_explaining_why_shes_still_in_race.html
Hillary Clinton today cited the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy during the 1968 presidential campaign to explain why she was remaining in the race despite long odds.
"We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California," Clinton told the editorial board of a South Dakota newspaper. " I don't understand it," Clinton added, alluding to the calls for her to quit.
Clinton made the statement after pointing out that her husband didn't lock up the nomination until June of 1992, trying to point out that, by past history, it's not late in the campaign. (See a clip of the interview here.)
But Barack Obama received Secret Service protection one year ago this month, the earliest ever in presidential history, after reports of threats.
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: “Sen. Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign."
Quote: RigondeauxBad taste. Reminds me of when Hillary hopefully suggested that Obama might be assassinated.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Hillary_cites_RFK_assasination_in_explaining_why_shes_still_in_race.html
Hillary Clinton today cited the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy during the 1968 presidential campaign to explain why she was remaining in the race despite long odds.
"We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California," Clinton told the editorial board of a South Dakota newspaper. " I don't understand it," Clinton added, alluding to the calls for her to quit.
Clinton made the statement after pointing out that her husband didn't lock up the nomination until June of 1992, trying to point out that, by past history, it's not late in the campaign. (See a clip of the interview here.)
But Barack Obama received Secret Service protection one year ago this month, the earliest ever in presidential history, after reports of threats.
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: “Sen. Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign."
Yeah... Hillary had basically already lost the primary to Obama at that point so she was desperate.
Trump has basically already lost the election to Hillary so I guess history is repeating itself.
Indeed, and here's the true difference between Hillary in 2008 (or now) and Trump today. From the article you linked:Quote: RigondeauxBad taste. Reminds me of when Hillary hopefully suggested that Obama might be assassinated.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0508/Hillary_cites_RFK_assasination_in_explaining_why_shes_still_in_race.html
Hillary Clinton today cited the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy during the 1968 presidential campaign to explain why she was remaining in the race despite long odds.
"We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California," Clinton told the editorial board of a South Dakota newspaper. " I don't understand it," Clinton added, alluding to the calls for her to quit.
Clinton made the statement after pointing out that her husband didn't lock up the nomination until June of 1992, trying to point out that, by past history, it's not late in the campaign. (See a clip of the interview here.)
But Barack Obama received Secret Service protection one year ago this month, the earliest ever in presidential history, after reports of threats.
Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: “Sen. Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign."
You will never, ever, ever hear Donald Trump say the words "I regret that ____ was in any way offensive." He intends to offend and thereby sow discord. He does not seek to avoid offense.Quote:UPDATE: Clinton's campaign has put out a statement in her name, apologizing for the remark.
"The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Sen. Kennedy and I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation, and particularly for the Kennedy family, was in any way offensive," she said.
And that's beside the more pertinent fact that there's a big difference between Hillary in 2008 bringing up the spectre of candidate Obama being assassinated and Trump in 2016 actually inciting "second amendment people" to assassinate an already-elected President Clinton and her SCOTUS appointees.
As with nuking a country to get at a handful of criminals (a dramatically more offensive position to me), Hillary packages it differently. If you like her, I guess she's more palatable or sophisticated about it. If you dislike her, she's slimier and less honest about it. I don't care too much about the packaging.
It's just kind of funny that, no matter how reprehensible Trump becomes, Hillary has already been there, or at least in an adjacent lot.
Also, funny how she's trumpeting the support of right wing billionaires like Meg Whitman and oozing at the feet of war criminal, Henry Kissinger in hopes of garnering his approval. Now there's somebody who represents me!
I have definitely never heard that happening with the two major parties selected nominees in the last 50 years.
Is that really how you interpreted that? Clinton said something vague and recanted it. Trump said something specific and stood by it.Quote: RigondeauxDid Trump incite, while she didn't? They both said the same basic thing. "Hey, maybe somebody will assassinate my opponent who is beating and frustrating me."
Candidates don't get to pick judges, Presidents do. Trump literally said "maybe there is" something "second amendment people" can do about Hillary "get[ting] to pick her judges". Those are his words. Read them.
Quote:Michael Hayden, the ex-director of the National Security Agency and former head of the CIA, criticized Donald Trump on Tuesday for saying that "Second Amendment people" could stop Hillary from nominating Supreme Court justices. If someone "outside of the hall" said the same thing, Hayden argued, that person would "be in the back of a police wagon now, with the Secret Service questioning him."
"It suggests either a very bad taste reference to political assassination and an attempt at humor, or an incredible insensitivity," Hayden said on CNN's The Lead With Jake Tapper, via Media Matters. "It may be the latter, an incredible insensitivity to the prevalence of political assassination inside of American history, and how that is a topic that we don't ever come close to, even when we think we're trying to be light-hearted."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/hayden-donald-trump-second-amendment
Here's the real bottom line. Do you want to put a man in the White House who is so careless with his words that he starts an incident several times per week? They're just coming like a hit parade these days and he's only a candidate, he's not even in charge of anything yet. What do you think will happen if Trump is in the Oval Office? That he's magically going to transform into a statesman with well-considered commentary on global events? Of course not. He'll keep shooting from the lip, start international incidents, and have to rely on a whole army of spin doctors to play down the word salad that flows from his mouth.
You know who else talks like that? The leaders of Hezbollah, North Korea, and Iran. And you want your President to be in that company?
Quote: MoosetonBefore his death gets totally ignored in this thread, does anybody here think it was Seth Rich who delivered the DNC emails to Wikileaks? I just read about his death, shot in the back, nothing missing, and they're calling it a botched robbery. Pretty interesting. And sad. Thoughts?
Yeah, it's all one giant liberal conspiracy to destroy our nation. Trump is our only savior, and Putin has generously offered his aid to ensure that the right candidate gets elected.
That aside, if I had seen Rich wearing that stupid flag outfit, I would have shot him myself.
Quote: Rigondeaux
Also, funny how she's trumpeting the support of right wing billionaires like Meg Whitman and oozing at the feet of war criminal, Henry Kissinger in hopes of garnering his approval. Now there's somebody who represents me!
They ALL want Henry Kissinger's approval, like he's a god or something. He should be wearing an orange jumpsuit. And not Club Fed, but rather Club Florence Super Max. And take his 101 year old buddy David Rockefeller with him. They should be cellmates.
Good luck with that electoral college, Donny.
"Some, I assume, are good people."Quote: ams288New poll out showing Trump up by only 2 points in South Carolina.
Good luck with that electoral college, Donny.
That quote accurately sums up why he's derailing. I know it's not at all what he meant when he said it (he was trying to soften his claim that the Mexican government is deliberately sending rapists and killers to the US) but the fact remains that most "good people" don't want to vote for a politician if he acts like a jerk, even if they agree with his politics.
There are lots of people who agree with Trump's politics. There are far fewer who agree with Trump's behavior. In order to win this election, Trump needs to demonstrate command of both. He doesn't have that command. It's like asking a flamethrower to start dispensing frozen yogurt. It's not going to happen.
Quote: anonymous Clinton adviser“On other campaigns, we would have to scrounge for crumbs,” says a senior Clinton adviser. “Here, it’s a fire hose. He can set himself on fire at breakfast, kill a nun at lunch and waterboard a puppy in the afternoon. And that doesn’t even get us to prime time.”
http://time.com/4447985/inside-donald-trump-meltdown/
Quote: MathExtremist
Here's the real bottom line. Do you want to put a man in the White House who is so careless with his words that he starts an incident several times per week? They're just coming like a hit parade these days and he's only a candidate, he's not even in charge of anything yet. What do you think will happen if Trump is in the Oval Office? That he's magically going to transform into a statesman with well-considered commentary on global events? Of course not. He'll keep shooting from the lip, start international incidents, and have to rely on a whole army of spin doctors to play down the word salad that flows from his mouth.
You know who else talks like that? The leaders of Hezbollah, North Korea, and Iran. And you want your President to be in that company?
Not the bottom line for me at all. "Prez puts foot in mouth!" is for the CNN class to mindlessly jabber about. That's like, one of the top lines.
More important to me is reigning in military spending, not starting wars for profit, not commiting war crimes, and focusing on what few actual threats there are to our country.
To that end, I dislike Trump because he wants to increase military spending, openly embrace torture and assassinate children for the crimes of their parents, not because he is a loud mouthed jerk.
Problem is, Hillary's not too far off on any of that.
FWIW, the current guy in Iran seems much more thoughtful than either of them. Probably less bellicose (hard not to be). Still not a fan of things like the treatment of gays, but he could be a lot worse. If your really into they way the candidates present themselves, he's miles ahead of either of these pandering scumbags.
He's nothing like Kim Jong Un. And Hezbollah is nothing like the North Korean regime for that matter.
JBK writes like Trump talks;Quote: JoeshlabotnikQuote: MoosetonBefore his death gets totally ignored in this thread, does anybody here think it was Seth Rich who delivered the DNC emails to Wikileaks? I just read about his death, shot in the back, nothing missing, and they're calling it a botched robbery. Pretty interesting. And sad. Thoughts?
Yeah, it's all one giant liberal conspiracy to destroy our nation. Trump is our only savior, and Putin has generously offered his aid to ensure that the right candidate gets elected.
That aside, if I had seen Rich wearing that stupid flag outfit, I would have shot him myself.
Controversial, Confrontational, and Witty.....
Wait.....You aren't Trump are you ;-?
No, you've missed the point. This isn't just a question of putting one's foot in one's mouth with no consequences. Trump being a loud mouthed jerk is going to have impacts on those actual threats to our country. Hillary is nowhere close to that level of incendiary rhetoric and you know it. Neither was Bernie and neither was any other GOP candidate this year. Intentionally making people angry is not a good trait for a national leader, especially when you're dealing with global rivals who have weapons of mass destruction.Quote: RigondeauxNot the bottom line for me at all. "Prez puts foot in mouth!" is for the CNN class to mindlessly jabber about. That's like, one of the top lines.
More important to me is reigning in military spending, not starting wars for profit, not commiting war crimes, and focusing on what few actual threats there are to our country.
To that end, I dislike Trump because he wants to increase military spending, openly embrace torture and assassinate children for the crimes of their parents, not because he is a loud mouthed jerk.
Problem is, Hillary's not too far off on any of that.
Think about it in global terms. Name me one country on the planet that is both well-respected and has a loud mouthed jerk for a leader. You can't -- the two don't go hand in hand. You don't want that for the US either, I assume. Trump thinks he's going to "negotiate great deals" but, if you've ever run your own business or had to deal with potential partners, you know that people will go out of their way to avoid doing business with a jerk. Life's too short. And imagine what happens when Kim Jong Un threatens the U.S., as it has done many times before, if Trump is President? When was the last time Trump ignored a slight?
http://www.news.com.au/world/asia/north-korea-threatens-us-with-more-deaths-than-911/news-story/69b2603da90eea16bccbe31350e4f45d
Quote: TwoFeathersATLJBK writes like Trump talks;Quote: JoeshlabotnikQuote: MoosetonBefore his death gets totally ignored in this thread, does anybody here think it was Seth Rich who delivered the DNC emails to Wikileaks? I just read about his death, shot in the back, nothing missing, and they're calling it a botched robbery. Pretty interesting. And sad. Thoughts?
Yeah, it's all one giant liberal conspiracy to destroy our nation. Trump is our only savior, and Putin has generously offered his aid to ensure that the right candidate gets elected.
That aside, if I had seen Rich wearing that stupid flag outfit, I would have shot him myself.
Controversial, Confrontational, and Witty.....
Wait.....You aren't Trump are you ;-?
I was thinking of that too 2f when I made my "when will JBK get nuked" thread. He must have some inner turmoil to despise someone he's so alike, yet in a polar opposite type of way. If I was the MSM I would intentionally twist his (JBK's) words too. (See he just admitted to the liberal fantasy of making ours a 3rd world country.). But even a retard could figure out that's not what he meant. Just like these bozos(MSM & our resident libs) do to my hero DT.
Quote: Mooseton
I was thinking of that too 2f when I made my "when will JBK get nuked" thread. He must have some inner turmoil to despise someone he's so alike, yet in a polar opposite type of way. If I was the MSM I would intentionally twist his (JBK's) words too. (See he just admitted to the liberal fantasy of making ours a 3rd world country.). But even a retard could figure out that's not what he meant. Just like these bozos(MSM & our resident libs) do to my hero DT.
I doubt that anyone with six or more functioning brain cells has any trouble figuring out why I despise the OO. I don't think I'm like him at all. For one thing, I don't have and constantly express disdain for people who aren't white/of my religion/etc. etc. I also am a nicer guy than he is, which admittedly isn't saying a lot. I don't have an ego the size of a blimp hangar, and I'm not trying to get elected to public office by finding all the human crud in this country and getting them to vote for me. AND...I know when the %^&%$ to give up!! (Though some are saying that's exactly what he's doing.)
It was interesting to hear him give a kinda sorta rational and reasonable speech the other day from somewhere in Redneck Land. I wonder how his handlers brought that about. Did they force-feed him two bottles of Valium? After all, I counted only eight misstatements of fact and four insults, which is like Charlie Brown pitching a no-hitter.
I assume it would take years to complete and would still be as screwed up as the FBI trying to audit Clinton's emails, both present and missing.
The term 'you've been trumped' does predate this guy doesn't it ;-?
Any expenses for his campaign can be written off as PR expenses for the various Trump enterprises right?
Just 2F morning murmurings.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI don't think I'm like him at all. For one thing, I don't have and constantly express disdain for people who aren't white/of my religion/etc. etc.......
......from somewhere in Redneck Land.
Hmmm
Quote: TwoFeathersATLSo let's say you're an audit team supervisor for the IRS and your boss calls you into his office. He tells you your team needs to do an audit on Trump's tax returns for the last 5 years or so. Do you slit your throat, or the boss'?
I assume it would take years to complete and would still be as screwed up as the FBI trying to audit Clinton's emails, both present and missing.
It wouldn't take years to complete.
Trump has also conveniently never provided any evidence the he is actually being audited. He just says he is. He could prove that he's being audited - but he hasn't.
Hmmm....
So, OF COURSE...
Bill Clinton was paid more than $1 million in 2015 by Laureate Education, a global operator of for-profit colleges, according to tax returns released today by Hillary Clinton’s campaign.
The new figure brings the former president’s total compensation from Laureate to more than $17.5 million for his five-year role as an “honorary chancellor.”
Laureate says that its international operations represent the largest global network of degree-granting universities in the world, enrolling more than 1 million students across 28 countries. In the United States, the company owns Walden University, a Minneapolis-based online school that the Education Department has placed on a list of colleges that officials are more closely monitoring because of concerns over its “financial responsibility.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/bill-clinton-laureate-for-profit-college-pay-226971#ixzz4HEUKafeK
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook
But these people really want to fix the horrible situation with higher education in this country. You just have to be intellectually superior to grasp how that works.
Quote: TwoFeathersATLSo let's say you're an audit team supervisor for the IRS and your boss calls you into his office. He tells you your team needs to do an audit on Trump's tax returns for the last 5 years or so. Do you slit your throat, or the boss'?
I assume it would take years to complete and would still be as screwed up as the FBI trying to audit Clinton's emails, both present and missing.
The term 'you've been trumped' does predate this guy doesn't it ;-?
Any expenses for his campaign can be written off as PR expenses for the various Trump enterprises right?
Just 2F morning murmurings.
You can't mingle campaign expenses with your business expensesm
Giuliani forgets 9/11
What a moron.
Quote: ams288As if the Trump campaign wasn't enough of a joke, one of Trump's most enthusiastic fellators surrogates, Rudy Giuliani, claims there were no Islamic terrorist attacks before Obama came into office.
Giuliani forgets 9/11
What a moron.
Well, there was Christian terrorism, tall people terrorism, left-handed terrorism, advantage player terrorism, etc. etc. long before WASHINGTON took office, so it's an asinine debate.
The Idiot Right (the bottom 97%) labels terrorism committed by a Muslim as "(radical) Islamic terrorism," implying that the reason the person(s) carried out the attacks was religious extremism--which, apparently, in the minds of Trumpers is defined as "being a Muslim." In reality, most if not all acts of terrorism are committed by crazy or borderline crazy people who have an ax to grind with the world, regardless of their religious views.
To use the term "radical Islamic terrorism" is to imply that there is something inherent about being a Muslim that makes a person gravitate toward terrorism. If that were true, we would see daily--hourly--terrorist incidents from the 1.5 million Muslims that live in this country. The more accurate term should be "batshit crazy a**hole terrorism," but the Trumpers don't want to see it that way, because The Dumbald doesn't have any strategies for protecting us from batshit crazy a**holes. Heck, there are always thousands of such people at his rallies!
And yes, Giuliani is a moron. Making him an ideal Trumper.
Thread terrorism. Why are you so hateful?Quote: JoeshlabotnikQuote: ams288As if the Trump campaign wasn't enough of a joke, one of Trump's most enthusiastic fellators surrogates, Rudy Giuliani, claims there were no Islamic terrorist attacks before Obama came into office.
Giuliani forgets 9/11
What a moron.
Well, there was Christian terrorism, tall people terrorism, left-handed terrorism, advantage player terrorism, etc. etc. long before WASHINGTON took office, so it's an asinine debate.
The Idiot Right (the bottom 97%) labels terrorism committed by a Muslim as "(radical) Islamic terrorism," implying that the reason the person(s) carried out the attacks was religious extremism--which, apparently, in the minds of Trumpers is defined as "being a Muslim." In reality, most if not all acts of terrorism are committed by crazy or borderline crazy people who have an ax to grind with the world, regardless of their religious views.
To use the term "radical Islamic terrorism" is to imply that there is something inherent about being a Muslim that makes a person gravitate toward terrorism. If that were true, we would see daily--hourly--terrorist incidents from the 1.5 million Muslims that live in this country. The more accurate term should be "batshit crazy a**hole terrorism," but the Trumpers don't want to see it that way, because The Dumbald doesn't have any strategies for protecting us from batshit crazy a**holes. Heck, there are always thousands of such people at his rallies!
And yes, Giuliani is a moron. Making him an ideal Trumper.
I've said it before, and stand by it, the Republicans will have to pull him somehow before he wins, or find a way to impeach him afterwards, or nullify the results on some technicality (It's rigged!)...you'll see. There's no way we can have him be our leader on the world stage. The fact he has any followers at all speaks poorly of the American people.
Quote: zippyboy
I've said it before, and stand by it, the Republicans will have to pull him somehow before he wins, or find a way to impeach him afterwards, or nullify the results on some technicality (It's rigged!)...you'll see. There's no way we can have him be our leader on the world stage. The fact he has any followers at all speaks poorly of the American people.
This is the problem they have. They can't un-nominate him. If they could do that, they probably would, as while that would make the entire party a laughingstock, they're arguably well down that road already. Furthermore, they do have the problem that he was nominated by a popular vote process. Throwing The Dumbald under the bus would be telling all those primary voters that their voices don't count! Those redneck knuckle-draggers WANT Trump! They LOVE him! Taking their pet orangutan away at this point would alienate many of them irrevocably, and they'd probably vote Nazi in the next election.
If Trump was elected President, he'd have to commit an impeachable offense before he could be impeached; being a complete douchebag and a moron to boot aren't such offenses in and of themselves. And would enough Republican senators defect to reach the 2/3rds necessary to impeach? Problematic. Though if it could be pulled off, it would be a way to replace Trump, but not with Clinton. Again, though, the knuckle-draggers and those who pander to them have enough Trump love that it probably wouldn't happen.
Like you, I'm appalled and disgusted at Trump's success so far. Our country and people have been made worse by his candidacy. Our image abroad is eroding, and our friends and allies are wondering nervously what will happen if he gets elected. Another really sad thing--there are many, many issues that should have been thoroughly discussed during this election season, but all we ever saw on the news was that bloviating buffoon and discussions of the latest rotten thing he'd said. On the Democrat side, we didn't hear much about Clinton's views and policies--we just heard BENGHAZI BENGHAZI BENGHAZI EMAILS EMAILS EMAILS. What should have been a serious discussion among adults was reduced to drunken Uncle Donald stripping to his underwear and dancing on the conference table.
At least that asswipe won't win. He seems to be doing everything in his power to make sure that won't happen. He's found out that the other kids won't let him be the quarterback, so he's taking his ball and going home.
Quote:The person picked to be Hillary Clinton's sparring partner in her upcoming debate prep sessions is expected to confront her about the death of Vincent Foster, label her as a rapist's enabler, and invoke the personally painful memories of Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers.
She will be ready for any mud Trump will try to sling at her.
I can't wait!
Quote: ams288Clinton preps for Trump’s Lewinsky attack
She will be ready for any mud Trump will try to sling at her.
I can't wait!
It sure would be nice if there wasn't so much mud available for slinging...of course, the pat answer is that there is nothing there and it is just all part of the "vast right wing conspiracy"...
Quote: RonCQuote: ams288Clinton preps for Trump’s Lewinsky attack
She will be ready for any mud Trump will try to sling at her.
I can't wait!
It sure would be nice if there wasn't so much mud available for slinging...of course, the pat answer is that there is nothing there and it is just all part of the "vast right wing conspiracy"...
That is the correct answer.
...but this debate prep may all be irrelevant.
We don't even know if Trump will show up to the debates. He might chicken out.
Or he might not even be the nominee at that point. Who knows? His candidacy is such a disaster... anything could happen.
Quote: ams288Quote: RonCQuote: ams288Clinton preps for Trump’s Lewinsky attack
She will be ready for any mud Trump will try to sling at her.
I can't wait!
It sure would be nice if there wasn't so much mud available for slinging...of course, the pat answer is that there is nothing there and it is just all part of the "vast right wing conspiracy"...
That is the correct answer.
...but this debate prep may all be irrelevant.
We don't even know if Trump will show up to the debates. He might chicken out.
Or he might not even be the nominee at that point. Who knows? His candidacy is such a disaster... anything could happen.
No, it is the incorrect answer. Hillary Clinton and her family are sleazy; they will likely win because the other candidate is sleazy, too--certainly not because a person like her deserves to be President. If Trump had Hillary's record (and none of his own). the media would be going nuts about all the sleaze. Nuts enough that she likely would not have gotten nominated dog catcher in a two person race.
Quote: RonC[ Hillary Clinton and her family are sleazy; they will likely win because the other candidate is sleazy, too-.
Too sleazy
how about more sleazy
How about more stupid
Benghazi Mom went after Hillary hard at the Republican convention. No response from Hill is the smart move
Gold star Khan goes after Trump at the debates. Dumb and stupid Trump takes the bait
Quote: RonC
If Trump had Hillary's record (and none of his own). the media would be going nuts about all the sleaze. Nuts enough that she likely would not have gotten nominated dog catcher in a two person race.
Foxnews is all over this. If there is any anti Clinton info out there, fox is on it.
As to the traditional media, very little influence.
Millennials are not scheduling their day around the 630pm news.
Very few are
They are not watching CNN either (unless major story breaking)
These days, its the internet
Its kind of funny Trump complaining about the media. Its the internet
If you want to listen to Trumps latest gaffs in a speech, you go to youtube, no media filter needed
Trump should be complaining about youtube and the internet crashing his campaign.
Quote: RonCQuote: ams288Quote: RonCQuote: ams288Clinton preps for Trump’s Lewinsky attack
She will be ready for any mud Trump will try to sling at her.
I can't wait!
It sure would be nice if there wasn't so much mud available for slinging...of course, the pat answer is that there is nothing there and it is just all part of the "vast right wing conspiracy"...
That is the correct answer.
...but this debate prep may all be irrelevant.
We don't even know if Trump will show up to the debates. He might chicken out.
Or he might not even be the nominee at that point. Who knows? His candidacy is such a disaster... anything could happen.
No, it is the incorrect answer. Hillary Clinton and her family are sleazy; they will likely win because the other candidate is sleazy, too--certainly not because a person like her deserves to be President. If Trump had Hillary's record (and none of his own). the media would be going nuts about all the sleaze. Nuts enough that she likely would not have gotten nominated dog catcher in a two person race.
Speaking of "sleaze" - Donald Trump is bringing on Roger Ailes to try and save his failing campaign.
Roger Ailes, the serial-sexual harasser of pretty blonde women who work under him. That should help Trump win over women voters who already hate him!
