2016 Presidential Debates
Starting this now. This is the second step. All other threads about Trump and Hillary can come to an end. I thought the importance of this event needs it's own thread. I'll start off with saying I won't be watching but will be tapping it. Bedtime comes early for very early risers. Hold on tight it's gonna be quite a show. Who knows what's going to happen?? Waiting for everyone's feedback later tonight or in the morning. Whatever floats your boat. Have fun!!!
auntiel The following should be very interesting and very important at these two face off:
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/follow-the-debate-with-factcheck-org/
pmnsk 
ianimal bloomberg will be televising and fact checking as they go along - ch 105 on cablevision - also online
4catmom and further: HEMPSTEAD, NY (The Borowitz Report)—As the nation awaits the first faceoff between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on Monday night, more Americans are expected to self-medicate than for any other Presidential debate in history.
With over a hundred million people projected to watch the debate, roughly sixty million of them will be barely sentient after ingesting what they deem to be the necessary dose of intoxicants.
Davis Logsdon, of the University of Minnesota, estimated on Monday that the level of self-medication for the Trump-Clinton debate could be seven hundred per cent greater than for the first Obama-Romney debate, in 2012.
“The stakes seem higher this time,” Logsdon said. “There’s a sense that, depending on the outcome of tonight’s debate, all human life on the planet could be in peril.”
Across the country, liquor stores reported a desperate run on their merchandise as Americans fortified themselves for what many called “ninety minutes of horror.”
According to official estimates, by 9 P.M. E.T., the nation is expected to have a blood-alcohol level of .10 and will name Canada as its designated driver.
Andy Borowitz is a New York Times best-selling author and a comedian who has written for The New Yorker since 1998. He writes the Borowitz Report for newyorker.com.
Auntiel: "tapping it?" "Hold on tight, it's gonna be quite a show." And then you will watch the debate later. TMI dear, TMI. :-)
Strangerdanger Yes SD I will tape it. You have a problem with that?? (sorry for the typo the first time) I want it on tape as a reference for my two ears, I don't want to rely on talking points by political boobs. Also, if Hillary can't stay vertical for 90 minutes, or Trump has a melt down, I want it on tape to play at parties. How's that? lol
Rebecka Make sure you have your local "Trigger Warning" crisis hotline numbers available...
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/hofstra-university-provides-trigger-warning-presidential-debate
justintime WTF jit? It's like the entire world is a bunch of people that can't cope or manage to not be offended. Sigh....
Calico696 Smart to tape it, before the media spins it out of control. I'm taping and watching. This is the big family get together... all three of us! LOL And some leftover Chinese food. Hmmm, I still wonder what kind of meat are in those dumplings?
sparksjbc1964 I'm offended, lol! Call me a counselor!
Hillary started out by saying that things need to be "fairer". And threw out the first snide remark. But it didn't take the Donald long to say "many, many, many." If you have to drink shots for each "many", I hope people are calling uber for rides home.
I may have to turn away, and it's only 9:15.
maja2 
kb2755 He sounds like a rambling drunk. She sounds like a high school student who memorized generic responses before her first presentation before her history class.
This is NOT the best America can do!
JerseyWolf Trump already mentioned China 3 times. 3 drinks down.JK. Cant watch it anymore.
Mansfield mama Given the sniffling and running out of gas and them going incoherent on nuclear half way through, how long till the cocaine rumors start.
It seemed to me, like about a tie. Trump had some strong points, notably security, while Clinton had some as well, like birtherism. No candidate had an edge as far as I could tell, I don't believe this will affect polling very much. Though I could be wrong.
1988LJ Trump was a complete idiot and as far as Hillary..fony is putting it mildly.
The bubbly was greatly needed...
positive 
Cha Compilation of post-debate polls...
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2016/09/26/polls-polls-polls-ok-who-won-the-debate/
Even on NJ.com, Trump "won" 56% to 39%
Mark Mc. I get a kick out of HC when she says, We Have to look into, or we Have to check into....
like, ???... Who are these" We Have To's?" ....
What happened to the Czar's that her administration leader ( organizer to be exact ) hired??.....When have any of these Czars ever been transparent, and reported to the people of the United States on anything they had on their watch???
"They all belong to the team, but none had ever hit the ball!"
Her What to Do's are in a Book she wrote?..... Amazing! ....
"They all blow the horn, but No Notes Come Out!"
Ooops! I forgot. .............. "Blame Bush!" That's why nothing got done.
Embryodad e Just in case facts/truth matter to anyone, lol!
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/09/factchecking-the-first-debate/
Loved it , when Chump was so rapped up in who is endorsing him. He was just about to say ISIS endorses him... stopped himself (amazing, but true), at "ice". That's how the close captioning read it. LOL. Still, just a raving, bad tempered, crooked business man, who just wants to put more money in his OWN pockets.
Trickle down economics never worked. It made the economy, for most people, worse. Now, Chump wants to bring it on again?! There will be nothing left of the middle class! Hillary kicked butt, on the first debate. Chump was like a little kid, in school, wiggling around in his chair, frantically waving his hands to shout out and be disruptive. She was the "teacher", who let the "child", shout out and rant. Like when he would interrupt her with "wrong!". His behavior is like that of an eight year old, and most eight year olds have better manners, than Chump. His advisors had to remind him to grow up, and shake the moderator's hand, afterwards. He was going to be a brat, and just walk away.
Hillary held her composure, gave clear, concise, truthful answers and behaved like a lady and a professional. She wants to unite us, not divide and conquer. She's taking this job and the needs of this country, seriously. If any of you are parents, or grandparents, think long and hard, about their future, before you vote. Trump wants to raise taxes on the middle class, and Hillary wants the ultra wealthy to just pay their fair taxes. C'mon, Chump made $654 million dollars, last year and paid NO federal income taxes!? Who doesn't see a problem with this? His answer? Well, that's just good business. Ripping off the very government you want to control, is good business? He's nothing but trouble. Too many conflicts of interests.
I saw a blustering, incoherent, woefully unprepared Trump. And a composed Clinton with thoughtful and on point command of the issues. Trump's flop sweat was obvious. For me, Trump made Dan Quayle look smart in comparison. Really hard for me to imagine that anyone saw this as a Trump win.
yankeefan Yankeefan, I saw it as a tie, but Trump did look pretty strong, and a supporter of change against Hillary. Hillary has some very good points but she looked extremely smug and fake.
Even on Mark Mc's link they are already trying to twist what happened, there is a video on there of Clinton shaking hands and Trump walking away.....I watched this part.....trump circled right back and shook his hand too, but do you see that part......nope.....gotta love how the media tries to change what actually happened ALREADY
Darrin Eight years old is way too generous. They were both the parking lot kids yelling their father could beat them up. Lester Holt was the teacher that just walked away from the start. The whole country is the one who lost that debate.
GC "gotta love how the media tries to change what actually happened ALREADY"
Why do you think they told the audience to "keep quiet"- it wasn't to "concentrate on the issues", it was stop all the hootin' and hollerin' the TRUMP supporters would have given, making him look more popular (and he almost IS, at this point, the polls are trending...)
There's a very large segment of the American people who are tired of being propagandized, "played", lied to, and told what to think by the MSM. Just another reason for Trump's popularity.
JeffersonRepub http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/us/politics/transcript-debate.html?_r=1&referer=
Lester Holt is a Hillary shill - 15 exclusive questions for trump and only 2 for Clinton ?
skippy 1988...You actually think Hillary looked "smug"?!!.. Hahaha... maybe you had better watch the debate, again. Trump scowled and pursed his lips, the entire time, like he was really holding back one of his tantrums. Hillary smiled and kept a professional demeanor.
That was a smile? Looked like she was trying to pass gas unnoticed LOL
The smeller is the feller!
Yup... sounds like a typical Trump response. Hillary genuinely was smiling. Probably trying to hold back her laughter, regarding Trump's behavior and lies. Trump, as usual, looked like he wanted to punch her, or someone... anyone... in the face. But, then again, he does have a pretty bad temper. That is not good for diplomacy. Here and around the globe.
Still undecided, but some thoughts:
Lester did not keep the candidates to their time limit. Not his place to stop them if they don't answer his question and choose to ramble in a different direction, wasting their allotted time. Hopefully listeners will notice that and think about what avoiding that question means. But he should have kept the time under control, even if he had to cut off the candidates mike.
Trump keeps saying he's a businessman, conducting business is his strength. It's clear he exploits every loophole he can to make a profit. Bankruptcy 6 times! At least 2 years (documented) with no federal taxes paid! Nice for him, but have any of us ever even had one year where we didn't have to pay taxes? I was much more comfortable voting for Ross Perot who also ran as a businessman, he came across with knowledge and integrity.
Trump can say he'll make sweeping changes, but both candidates are still trapped in the same political system, they have to deal with congress, they have to abide by the law. Sweeping reform seems unlikely for either candidate. Maybe more realistic to reform the system with smaller steps over time. Neither candidate seems up for that.
Hilary was polished, prepared, she knows the issues and has tried to pull together plans to address them. But her plans don't inspire much confidence, our broken system would just continue as usual with her in office.
I like her idea to tax the richest Americans at a higher rate, reduce the loopholes. But Trump has a point too, companies need some incentive to stay in the US and create jobs. So if not tax breaks then what incentives can be offered? But if he does reduce the tax rate to 15%, where is the guarantee that companies won't just pocket the savings as extra profit and continue to offshore jobs?
Would be better to cut the tax breaks and reward the desired behavior of creating US jobs after the jobs have been created. After the people holding those new jobs are out there earning, spending and consuming goods and services. Only then increase the tax breaks.
On the topic of integrity and trust, I wouldn't trust either of them. But most politicians end up changing their mind, mistaking facts, waffling or lying outright, trying to please all of the people, all of the time.
Like many Americans, I wish we had a valid third candidate with a realistic plan :-(
hktownie sparks,
Blind much? LOL I'm not disagreeing with how Trump looked and acted, and I have said so. But I'm not party-blinded like you apparently are, drinking the democrat Kool-Aid. You and SD should meet up. LOL
The people who will decide this election are those who are NOT blinded by the MSM and party loyalty- those people who find themselves choosing who will do the least damage.
I think hktownie has it right when she says "Hilary was polished, prepared, she knows the issues and has tried to pull together plans to address them. But her plans don't inspire much confidence, our broken system would just continue as usual with her in office." I think THAT is the main reason behind Trump's popularity, and why he will win (if he wins). People KNOW what Hillary is bringing- more of the same. But if people want change, Hillary isn't it. So that leaves them with the unknown- Trump. And I think, this time around, that may just be enough.
Now, all that said-Will it be a good or bad thing? I'm smart enough to know that I DON'T know, NONE of you do, and only TIME will tell that story. Interesting that democrats had ZERO problem voting for "unknown" Obama at the time, and are now trying to use that as a reason to vote against Trump LOL. And the pendulum keeps swinging... black is white! Up is down! Left is right! LOL
You rolls your dice and you takes your chances.
CNBC .... I'm actually surprised.... if this what what CNBC watchers thought.....
Well as expected, it took about five minutes to charge Trump with the cocaine offense. http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/09/donald-trump-debate-sniffles-stephen-colbert-trevor-noah Apparently Howard Dean, who knows about politics, coke, and the darkside of that good old energy boost, called Trump out five minutes into the debate.
You didn't notice after the sniffles stopped his energy lag and the incoherence spike?
Perhaps you are just getting used to filling in the policy blanks with your own facts to cover any semblance to a rational thought from Trump.
My biggest complaint is that Trump cheats --- debate-wise. First he does the ole let me touch you knowingly on the back while I shake your hand invading your personal space for a little physiological domination. Somebody did that to me and I would step on their foot. It's a tried n true male superiority over female thing. The he started the butting in early and used this cheat again to try to unfairly dominate his opponent.
Didn't work, she jabbed back well with her own overrides and frankly she exceeded expectations for a policy-bound intermediate of the air waves, he did not meet exceedingly low expectations for a master of the airwaves.
Won't change anyone's mind except perhaps those few points in undecided land. Might also shake a few party loyalists who question what this man means for your party. Best summed up by a Ohioan Trump supporter before the debate "I am voting for the conservative party. And if this jackass just happens to be leading this mule train, then so be it."
People can say who they thought won the debate bases on a poll. It is amazing to me that someone that looks unprepared and literally can't get into details regarding his policy was determined as a winner. I should raise my son to be a disrespectful loud person that cares less about facts and talks about how great he is. I can see his future now..... Please give me a break. You can like your candidate but to believe he did great while not really debating and providing much substance to the argument is just ludicrous. Also Stop and Frisk will not help America it has been proven before and I the fact that people support that doesn't make much sense either. Both candidates have issues but regardless she out performed him last night. Of course facts don't matter to many anymore either.....
Can someone also explain how cutting taxes and wanting to increase war efforts will help reduce the deficit? Can someone explain how going back into a ground conflict in Iraq would be a situation that would "Help the Troops"? I'm failing to understand this logic.
David T. 
For the record, I don't "believe Trump did great", but apparently the majority of Americans do. And that perception is reality. If they feel he won, he won.
TIME
While I agree that "Hillary outperformed Trump" last night, here's the rub: no one (except her hard core supporters) can believe anything she says anymore. Too many "cry wolfs". We've known Hillary for 30 years, and her "good performance" doesn't wash when you temper it with everything we already know about her as a public servant. HILLARY is Hillary's biggest problem.
By contrast, Trump certainly has issues, from his personal (not elected servant) life, but he is untested in public service. And This time, it's appearing as if people are more willing to go with unknown possibilities vs known detriments. "Give him a chance" rings a bell from an election about 8 years ago....
Can't stand either candidate, but I thought Hillary won the debate convincingly. I'm not nearly enough of a dullard to waste my time voting in online polls. Sure looks like Trump supporters have dullardry in spades though.
Trump is a loud, brash man-child bully. I loved when Hillary said "Apparently just about everything wrong will be blamed as my fault" to which Trump replied "why not?" and Clinton merely nodded her head and reiterated his words. It was like she knew she was dealing with an imbecile, yet she also knew this imbecile has a following who doesn't really care if Trump insists two and two equals five. They are going to follow him no matter how wrong he is on policy or how ill prepared he is to handle the office of the President. I also saw, in that exasperated look on her face in that moment, that she realizes she may well lose this election, simply because there are so many imbeciles in this country who finally recognize a kindred simpleton on the ticket.
eperot 
Old Gent "Hillary was genuinely smiling"
The only genuine thing about Hillary is that she's a woman!
Interesting...
How Trump won over a bar full of undecideds and DEMOCRATS
Reed, 35, is a registered Democrat and small businessman. “By the end of the debate, Clinton never said a thing to persuade me that she had anything to offer me or my family or my community,” Reed said Clinton came across as either smug or as though she was reading her résumé, adding there was nothing on her résumé that touched on his life. “I am a small businessman, a farmer, come from a long line of farmers and coal miners. The policies she talked about tonight ultimately either hurt me or ignore me,” he said.
“I’ve been a Democrat all of my life, but when Clinton mentions her husband and the jobs he brought to the country in the ’90s, it’s not a fair assessment. She is no moderate Democrat the way he was, her policies would not bring back jobs,” said Nathan Nemick.
It burns Nemick when Clinton references her husband, like she did in the debate on trade and jobs. “She is nothing like him,” he said of the Democrat he admired in his youth.
http://nypost.com/2016/09/26/the-best-debate-takes-come-from-inside-the-bar/
" I'm not nearly enough of a dullard to waste my time voting in online polls. Sure looks like Trump supporters have dullardry in spades though. "
And would you have had the same insult for Hillary supporters had she come out the "winner" in the polls?
If anyone's mind was changed by this debate, I'd like to meet them because I don't know how. Trump had some good parts and some bad parts, Hillary had some good parts and some bad parts. Nobody (in my opinion) really excelled.
1988LJ, read the article- they explain why they won't be voting for Hillary. Even life-long democrats.
“Have to say Trump had the edge this evening, he came out swinging but also talked about specifics on jobs and the economy,” Reed said.
Obviously, he was wasted, lol...
Did anyone tell them they will now be new deplorables or white old racists as SD would categorize them.
I DID find it interesting... self-described "undecideds" "life-long democrats" and "moderate democrats"... people who LIKED Bill Clinton, but do NOT like Hillary, and may even vote for Trump over her (hell, even *I* would vote for Bill if my choice was Bill or Hillary!). If that example is an accurate representation of the country at large (well, in "fly-over country" anyway... not inner city, not rich, not elite, not millionaires...), that's a pretty big deal.
"so many imbeciles in this country"
imbeciles? interesting. Half the voters are imbeciles? Did you ever consider that maybe people are fed up with do-nothing politicians?
Perhaps voting for career politicians over and over and over again gets you the fine results we have today? and I do mean fine....
Perhaps Mr. Trump will surround himself with new fresh faces and move us forward?
Maybe you're too afraid because Trump isn't a polished phoney?
Is he too transparent for you? You afraid of him?
If the current administration didn't issue a record number of executive orders while a do- nothing Congress watched would you fear that the Presidency is too strong? BO layed the track on that one.
You're so scared of him that you think more of Obama/ Hillary is better?
I'll never call you an imbecile.... perhaps blinded by fear... but not an imbecile.
Just being respectful like Hillary is.
PrepH"And would you have had the same insult for Hillary supporters had she come out the "winner" in the polls?"
She obviously has some dullards in her corner as well. It's not like she got zero votes. She just doesn't have as many, apparently (-;
MB "She obviously has some dullards in her corner as well. It's not like she got zero votes. She just doesn't have as many, apparently (-; "
So no matter who wins, they were elected by dullards. Got it. Good thing you aren't running.
I never said all Trump supporters are frustrated old white male racists. I said all frustrated old white male racists are voting for Trump. Subtle difference but difference nonetheless.
Trump will restart Stop n Frisk. Never mind that it's been deemed unconstitutional, given he could still appeal the case or fight it anew in another court, don't you find it interesting that the Trump crowd supports Stop and Frisk at the Federal Level? I mean isn't Federal the domain of the President and policing the domain of local and state governments?
Does this represent some expansion of Federal power or a takeover of state's rights? Or perhaps Trump will get the FBI to Stop and Frisk when you cross state lines like the GWB (his crony Christie knows how to stop traffic there), or the Water Gap bridge.
The whole thing is just stupid. The only thing he could do is suggest it to the states and he certainly does not have to be President to do that.
Next he will force countries to pay for our protection. Didn't I see that in the movie Godfather? I mean I am the first to say we need to reign in our world-wide reach but certainly not by turning it into a protection scheme. Next we'll be competing with Putin on who can charge the lowest price.
One thing is certain. Since he will never reveal his taxes, we will never see a potential President's ever again. 40 years of transparency down the crapper.
The Onion interviews people the Post didn't...
HEMPSTEAD, NY—Saying the Republican nominee exhibited just the qualities they were looking for in the country’s next leader, viewers throughout the nation reported Monday night that they were impressed by how male Donald Trump appeared throughout the first debate. “Just the way he carried himself up there on the debate stage, Trump definitely came off very male tonight,” said Amarillo, TX resident Brad Miller, adding that he was repeatedly struck by Trump’s body language, behavior, and vocal characteristics, which he said imbued the candidate with a distinctive male air that he found reassuring. “He conducted himself in an extremely male manner all night long regardless of the topic he was discussing, and that definitely resonated with me. I can easily see him being male for the next four years.” Viewers admitted that while Hillary Clinton seemed intelligent and capable throughout the debate, she failed to project the suitable male demeanor necessary to hold the Oval Office.
No, JR, you obviously DON'T get it. I'm talking about people who actively go out of their way to vote in an online poll following a debate, like they just got done watching American Idol, lol. I'm not talking about the actual election.
Half of the people who voted in that online poll are probably 13-17 years old and won't even have any impact on the actual election at all, but you continue to post about it like it matters.
Do you get it now or should I assume that you went out of your way to cast your vote in the poll as well?
And then there's the "take the oil" thing, even from Libya.
How do you do that?
Really, does anyone know?
Ah, another wonderful post from Ian, explaining how HE is the one who "gets its" and everyone else simply can't keep up. I'm sure he'll be writing HIMSELF in on the ballot, seeing as how he's so ABOVE the fray and has ALL the answers.
VOTE
ianimal
2016
SD, lol I'm with you on that one. Trump has some looney ideas, for sure. But in the end, it's all going to come down to everyone's OPINION on the good outweighing the bad: and even that is not empirical fact, but OPINION. History has shown us the electorate sometimes gets it right, sometimes gets it wrong. Reagan's landslide win after 4 disastrous Carter years is a good example of both, in my OPINON lol.
But yeah- "take the oil" ? While we're at it why don't we just eternally occupy the country? lol See, most Trump supporters won't even see that as a blip on the radar. What Trump supporters see is a sluggish economy, terror on home soil, and an unsecure border. They also see Benghazi, the emails, and the Clinton legacy. THOSE are reasons Trump will win (if he does). Hang the rest of it- those are the biggies.
Not everyone else... just you, apparently.
I mean, you can't even tell the difference between an online poll and an election.
Ah, yes... the internet meme. Last resort of slow-witted dullards everywhere. Well-played, sir...
Yankeefan,
You do understand that The Onion is 100% fiction? It's satire...made up...not real.
At least, I hope you do.
JerryG http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/09/27/conservative-media-figures-hated-trump-s-debate-performance/213350
and the online polls cited have been dismissed as totally unreliable....oh well.................
She gained nothing. He lost nothing. Win goes to the challenger. Look out for the next two debates. Obama blew the first one 4 years ago and the had a big comeback in the final two. This could very well happen again.
Ollie ianimal - American Idol voting?? Sanjaya! Don't you get it? Donald Trump & Sanjaya, have you ever seen them in the same room? That's the reason for the bad bronzer! Have you also noticed Trump never sings? It would give him away!! ;-)
Polls were rogged; you can vote multiple tine, machine vote, etc. Trump rigged early ralley support too. Paid cheering section.
Sorry SD regarding how I interpreted what you said regarding white racists. Howard Dean probably knows about Coke as it seem he was doing a few lines after winning the Iowa Primary back in 2004. Remember this.
https://youtu.be/l6i-gYRAwM0
Forcefed4door Two rallies held yesterday.
Hillary: 1,400 people
Trump: 15,000 people
Spin who won the debate anyway you want but Trump supporters are more enthusiastic than Hillary's.
The rally numbers just keep repeating. It's the same story every.single.time.
I personally don't think the race is as close as alot of people like to think it is, but we'll find out come november.
Frontline's take on Trump and Clinton...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7uScWHcTzk
"It seemed to me, like about a tie." Well, that's one opinion.....
Yeah, I do sound a little Trumpian about those polls but facts be our friends. Those polls are self-reported, not a random sample. You can vote multiple times and you can machine vote. Try it. Vote as much as you want. No doubt that the gamers are second thinking their actions given the 400-lb man on the bed Trumpian description.
Or if you like to avoid facts, just look at Trump whining about the mic, Lester, the audience, etc. etc. etc.
Real polls, and reality, show Hillary as the clear winner but more important ---- Trump as a big loser. In other words, she preformed OK, pretty good, wonkish as expected, but he preformed below expectations. Butting in, bad optics, the sniffles, not to mention the crap he was spewing. More lies than truth. Less facts more fiction.
She may be telling the same old story, robotic, legalize, too detailed, and not entertaining, but he was totally off the reservation both in words and in optics.
She is on a personal high, will get a poll lift but should not get cocky --- he may be stupid but he is not dumb. He will prepare for the next round, probably will learn a few facts, but will undoubtedly sharpen up what he does best --- bash and bully, cleaning up the rough edges of his act and preparing better bushwhacks. I don't expect him to become a fact-database or policy wonk. Hopefully she will prepare twice as hard. So game on ---- round two.
http://fortune.com/2016/09/27/trump-online-polls/
Watched the first five minutes of that video yankeefan. Sealed my decision to vote for Trump.
Once again the arrogance of those in power must be checked. I don't even care any longer that Trump is uniquely unqualified. We need change. This is it.
The Man JIT put it in a nutshell. CHANGE. People don't even care WHAT change (just like after 8 years of Bush). Being the democrat nominee is Hillary's biggest obstacle. Add to that the huge anti-establishment/tea party sentiment that has been growing, and it's a perfect storm.
It's about change. Swinging the pendulum the other way. For balance. 8 years is enough for the democrats, now let's swing back to the republicans to see if they can fix anything. (that's the sentiment at large)
8 years of Reagan
4 years of Bush (which may be Trump's destiny, we'll see)
8 years of Clinton
8 years of Bush
8 years of Obama
...and the pendulum keeps swinging....
Change to a Republican would be great. Too bad the guy you are voting for is not a great Republican.
Hillary is a great Democrat, a centrist, and with the country economically heading in the right direction, she can help us pick up the pace.
unemployment 4.9%, NJ 5.3%
median income up .52% in 2015, first increase since 2007
SNAP participation down 2M participants from June 2015 to June 2016, lowest level in 6 years
savings rate at 5.6%, highest rate in 3 years
Household debt is a mixed bag; credit card and home equity debt is down but other debt like mortgage, student, and auto are up. Delinquency is still there but lowest rate since 2005. And total debt is still lower than 2008 but climbing. So failures, especially mortgage are getting better, but part of that is debt money is harder to get. People are buying on debt but is it because they have to (auto) or since good jobs are tougher to find (student debt). Mixed bag, many questions.
This is not a Trumpian sky is falling picture though.
JIT: " I don't even care any longer that Trump is uniquely unqualified. We need change. This is it."
So...let's just blow everything up and see what happens. As Trump said to an African American audience, vote for me, how could it be any worse for you?
Answer: It could be a whole lot worse...eight years of GWB proved that...and Trump could make GWB look great by comparison.
Thomas Friedman Op-Ed:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/28/opinion/trump-how-could-we.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
Yankeefan are you kidding me... Did you watch the movie GW? He was a man-child for half of his life. You're really going to compare Trump who lived a disciplined lifestyle to that clown?! Just look at Trump's kids and how disciplined they are as well. You people who think Trump is going to lead us into an apocalypse need to take your meds. I'd rather have a man who has created jobs and understands the illegal immigration problem, than some cackling witch who will just keep letting illegal Hispanics in, won't vet any muslims coming over, and will pretty much keep the status quo which is unacceptable!
Metsman Strangerdanger, if you use the word great anywhere in a sentence involving Hillary, then you sound foolish. She's part of the very establishment that has failed us.
SD, this time around, "republican" (and he IS the REPUBLICAN candidate, after all) means "not democrat."
yankeefan, I'm sure you already know that imo the trends already point to everything blowing up. We can get Hillary and try to delay the inevitable or just get it over with with Trump. The pain from either scenario will be there, but will abate quicker the earlier it happens. So as I've said previously this side show doesn't matter in the bigger picture.
Two things do concern me though.
1) Hillary is militaristic, and because she'd be the first woman president I have no doubt she would choose war over diplomacy, if for no other reason than to demonstrate the strength of a woman. That would be foolish.
2) I really believe that the power players already know how screwed we are. It wouldn't surprise me if some scandal plagued Hillary and pushed trump into the White House. He would then be blamed for the coming pain, for the decades of cumulative sins of the duopoly that has been running the show. IOW, he is the perfect scapegoat for the status quo who would then be voted back in by a populous blaming Trump for sins he didn't commit.
Regardless, NJ will go to Hillary so my vote is no more than a vote of displeasure. Nothing for the status-quo lovers to worry about :-)
If elected, how do you see Trump leading change? We'll still have 2/3 of the existing establishment in place. He still has to work within the balance of power and existing laws. Will he do whatever he likes and just use executive override for everything? Is that even possible?
"Trump who lived a disciplined lifestyle." Wow. Disciplined and Temperament all in the same week......
While John McCain rotted in prison, GW Bush partied but at least played around in the National Guard. Trump took deferments, rides in Daddy's limo's, and spent his college summers working for Dad amassing $1.4M by the end of college (in today's dollars.). After college he kept the limos, joined the hottest clubs in NYC where he hung out every night, and got $1M from Dad to start his business and another $13M in a Dad-secured loan (if Don didn't complete the job, Dad guaranteed completion). Self made discipline....
Trump demanded to see Obama's college transcripts but won't release his own. How he got into Fordham and Wharton is a mystery but it certainly was not discipline. He says he was a top student in college, studies Real Estate at Wharton. Yawn. Isn't like lower than Marketing? No one really remembers him, he didn't make the Dean’s List, Honor Roll, and has zero extra-curricular accomplishments of any note.
After college and back in NYC, at first he copped a membership at Le Club: "I met a lot of beautiful young single women, and I went out almost every night,” he added. “Actually, I never got involved with any of them very seriously. These were beautiful women, but many of them couldn’t carry on a normal conversation.”
"A few years later Trump was frequenting “Studio 54 in the disco’s heyday and he said he thought it was paradise,” Timothy O’Brien wrote in “TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald.” “His prowling gear at the time included a burgundy suit with matching patent-leather shoes,” O’Brien wrote.
“I saw things happening there that to this day, I have never seen again,” Trump told O’Brien. “I would watch supermodels getting screwed, well-known supermodels getting screwed on a bench in the middle of the room. There were seven of them and each one was getting screwed by a different guy. This was in the middle of the room.”
The Washington Post
The guy was also a frequent partier with Jeffery Epstein the millionaire pedophile, one of his rape cases comes from that era documenting a series of rapes at sex parties. Vacation's at Epstein's private island in the Virgin Islands (apt), flights on his Lolita Express.
Now this will probably never hit the campaign because apparently Bill Clinton partied there too.
But disciplined lifestyle, not bloody likely. More like silver spooned lifestyle.
As to what Donald may or may not be doing, I would agree he does not drink and for good reason given his brother. I suspect the Dad as well although we didn't talk about those things back then if you did it in your own home (or limo). But I have little doubt that the Don has a hankerin for a little pick-me-up now and then and that all that get up n go is not exactly genetic. Not to the point of Howard Dean's latest jab about cocaine, but more like this:
http://gawker.com/rumor-doctor-prescribes-donald-trump-cheap-speed-1782901680
There's a number of these stories over the years detailing different doctors Trump used who were predisposed to amphetamine diet supplements.
Disciplined, yeah sure.
"If elected, how do you see Trump leading change? We'll still have 2/3 of the existing establishment in place. He still has to work within the balance of power and existing laws. Will he do whatever he likes and just use executive override for everything? Is that even possible?"
How do you figure? Are you talking about Congress being the other 2/3? You know there are a bunch of Senate and House seats up for grabs too, right?
SO then, I put the same question to you: if Hillary is elected, how do you see her affecting change? We;ll still have 2/3 of the establishment in place.
Unless you DON'T WANT change.... then by all means vote for Hillary!
"Will he do whatever he likes and just use executive override for everything? Is that even possible?"
Why yes, it kind of is- just ask W and Obama.
Executive, Legislative and Judicial Branch.
If Trump wins, regardless of what seats are won/lost in Congress, it's unlikely that every Representative and Senator will vote with Trump.
Someone will be appointing a Supreme Court Justice, but that doesn't buy the court.
The Constitution is still the law no matter who wins.
FYI, I actually posted AFTER hktownie- my post above is a reply to her. She must have come back and edited, because her post is below mine now.
Hillary is a great Democrat, a centrist, and with the country economically heading in the right direction, she can help us pick up the pace.
unemployment 4.9%, NJ 5.3%
median income up .52% in 2015, first increase since 2007
SNAP participation down 2M participants from June 2015 to June 2016, lowest level in 6 years
savings rate at 5.6%, highest rate in 3 years.
Using government propped up numbers. Unemployment rate is close to 10% when you take into effect those that dropped out of the workforce. Worst GDP nunbers in 30 something years. Fiscal deficit 600 billion for this year, a 35% increase over last year. Thousands of high paying Wall Street being lost (they pay a huge amount in taxes). I could go on and on but everything is not as rosey as you think.
I said heading in the right direction, not rosy. There's a difference. You bring up some good points KB. I think you mean GDP growth since Real GDP has risen. GDP growth is not the worst in 30 years. It's still positive and obviously it went negative in all recessions, the latest being around 2008. GDP of 2.2% is average and we hit 1.2% last quarter. Projection was 2.6% so bad surprise.
I think what you are alluding to is we are in a very low growth mode and worse yet, we and the world has been low growth for over a decade at our current 50% pace from the previous 50 years average. In other words, heading in the right direction but certainly not rosy. Cause for concern because over time this affects much of our living standards from savings interest to income and even low inflation can be detrimental since it lowers GDP. Couple that with the fact that the brightest spots in the economy are only for a privileged few and the masses get the darker side of any "right direction."
That sparks the rise of things like nationalism or the Trumps of the world to save us, save us. Bring back the good ole days, find some scapegoats to blame, and enter the savior.
But like the debt picture, the GDP picture is a mixed bag. The growth rate is anemic, yet consumer spending is up nicely. Employment (even the uncounted) is up, but business investment is down. And private and residential investment is down after being on the rise. But a major factor in the last quarter's GDP growth rate was inventory depletion. Gets too complex for me but basically that represents a reduction in capital investment and therefore GDP. I'd like to say given consumer demand that we would rebound with new inventories this quarter but not a given.
I'll give you the 10% unemployment but it is down 50% from our recession peak and within a "normal" rate of unemployment. Neither of us mentioned that the employed may not consider themselves adequately employed or paid commensurate with what they made before the recession which is probably true to so probably a mixed bag as well.
Wall Street job losses. Isn't that a good thing :>) I worked Wall Street in the 2000's. First thing I said to myself entering the board room was, "man, these guys have huge margins." Very fine accommodations. You had a fat margin business living high off the hogs while facing internet competition, automation, self-service, lower returns to customers (so why pay high fees), etc. etc. You can't tell me there's less market investment today. Wall Street is just cutting costs to lower margins against higher competition for revenue.
Bottom line on the economy: right direction, not rosy, and I will add that I think you addressed, still should be much concern about what happens next. Mixed bags should be of high concern. One of my favorite adages is: wherever you are in the economy, you have never been there before. In other words, while history can provide guidance, don't ever believe anything except we are in a unique economic place and time.
I think that is more true today than usual. So the old answers alone probably won't work; trickle down and slash (conservative), tax, add government, and spend (liberal), and maybe even Bill Clinton's brilliant: invest, tax, but don't spend (centrist strategy) ---- none of this alone may work. We have a fundamental problem of a low GDP growth world that we need to change ---- and not just with a nationalist inwards US view ---- that will not be enough....
Nuff said, but good stuff you brought up KB. And some backgrounders.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/07/upshot/were-in-a-low-growth-world-how-did-we-get-here.html?_r=0
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/29/gdp-us-economic-growth-is-close-to-zero.html
http://www.wstreet.com/investing/stocks/20987_the_effects_of_inventories_on_gdp.html
Strangerdanger what world do you live in where you think things are going in the right direction? I haven’t had a raise in 5 years. Racial tensions are the worst I’ve seen in my lifetime of 37 years. My insurance is the worst I’ve ever had. I’ll hand you the doctor bills I’m stuck paying because of ridiculous deductibles. You seem to live in a bubble where unicorns and fairies dance around you. Hillary was working in this government when everything took a nosedive off a cliff. What legislation did she put in place to help us? Then she allowed American soldiers to die and lied to their parents. Then she lied about her emails threatening our national security. Trump wasn’t any part of this fiasco. I really don’t care if he was banging hot women during the disco era. JFK used to sneak women into the white house. FDR supposedly had mistresses. Ulysses Grant was reported to be an alcoholic during his presidency. Andrew Jackson was supposedly a racist. Some of them were considered to be good presidents. If they lived in today’s social media world they’d get impeached.
"Trump wasn’t any part of this fiasco. I really don’t care if he was banging hot women during the disco era. "
That actually sums it up perfectly! Why Trump is bulletproof.
“There’s one candidate who’s got me really excited: Donald Trump!” the comedian said (sarcastically and satirically, given Black’s socialist politics) during one of his recurring segments on The Daily Show. “Now, you might say he’d make a terrible president. I mean, the guy bankrupted his own casino. A casino! Where the house always wins! Unless it’s Donald Trump’s house.”
“What this country needs is a crazy Third World dictator, and Donald Trump has what it takes to be that,” Black continued. “He’s already got a plane with his name on it, solid-gold buildings, a harem! … He’s even got the look of a dictator! Now, is [Trump's] hair any less crazy than [Kim Jong-il’s] hair? And he’s got what every good dictator needs: a ridiculously over-sized ego … This is what I’ve been waiting for my whole life! A president who’s not afraid to tell the truth—about being a lying asshole.”
Lewis Black
Yes Metsman, I certainly live in my own world. I am sorry for your economic woes and wish you an uptick soon. Our raises have been commensurate with inflation, OK but not good. Huge surprise bonus last year, insurance spikes disappeared with ObamaCare, deductibles the same. Although pension insurance just went the way of other companies, cut, so will have to work a few extra years and deal with that. Could quit but probably wouldn't get covered anyways. So OK, getting better, but not rosy by any means.
While racial tensions are indeed high and on the rise, in the past we have had riots, mostly over police actions every year since 1908. Remember Rodney King? That was a six day affair. So perhaps you are right but perhaps it's just been a long time coming and our economic malaise affects minorities even worse than you.
Yes, Hillary was a senator as The Great Recession started. Of course she was also part of the administration that put the stimulus into effect keeping us from falling over the fiscal cliff. And yes, G. Bush and company was responsible for some of that stimulus action too.
Allowing soldiers to die, that's not true. Lying to their parents: probably not true although extreme weasel-wording involved at minimum. Emails threating national security -- no proof of hacks. Lying about emails -- in some parts but no hacks. Trump not part of the fiasco --- no, he played his part as a businessman leveraging pain and profiting legally from poor judgement. Even his Iran war support reversal was all about profit to Trumpco, no high moral ground there whatsoever.
I agree, forget the sex, drugs and rock n roll, but mostly bring it up to show he's no angel in his attack on Hillary for "enabling" as if she's responsible for Bill's actions. Melania's actions are none too pure either.
Back to it: like I said, right direction, not rosy, and the masses fair far worse than the elite in splitting whatever small spoils there are. That leads you to one vote and myself (and my unicorns) to another. I just don't see Trump's economic plans as viable and believe they will run up the debt without a reasonable return. And, face it, he has run up debt six times and gone bust so it's not new ground for him at all. To me, voting for radical change will not result in the effect looked for.
"To me, voting for radical change will not result in the effect looked for."
Neither will voting for NO CHANGE, or FURTHER down the rabbit hole, which is what a vote for Hillary is.
CHANGE. This is so ironic. People voted for Obama in 2008 because he was CHANGE, remember? So now the people might elect Trump as president, and why? CHANGE. Apparently change was A-OK when Obama was running, but it's poison now that Trump might win (according to people like SD).
Want change? Vote Trump. Want status quo? Vote Clinton. Either way, there's no guarantee EITHER ONE is going to make things "better". Just different. (and of course we all have our opinions on which would make things "at least somewhat better different" and "at least somewhat worse different")
Reagan: 8 years (R)
Bush41: 4 years (R)
Clinton: 8 years (D)
Bush: 8 years (R)
Obama: 8 years (D)
...and the pendulum just keeps on swinging...
" I just don't see Trump's economic plans as viable and believe they will run up the debt without a reasonable return. And, face it, he has run up debt six times and gone bust so it's not new ground for him at all. "
After posting justifications of why things are just peachy, you know darn well that the negative implication you just threw at Trump is the exact reason for how "good" you think those regurgitated numbers are (which they really aren't, btw, because all that's been done is a rearranging of the deck chairs to hide the problems at the Federal Reserve and in Federal Debt).
So which is it? Debt is good as long as it keeps the economy going, but no good if incurred by businesses? The status quo is to spend more, incur more debt - something that both Hillary and Trump will do - but it's just fine and dandy in your book.
See, this is why you're so full of sh*t all the time. You present half the story without the other half, and the half you're missing you only address when directed at Trump. As I said before, this country is being killed by debt-based idiots. Are you in that club or not?
Change is a many splendored thing.....
Every politician, including Trump, promises change. Not exactly my first choice, Obama promised "change we can believe in." And apparently before the election we did. Now I know you can't believe this, because you may have concluded they are leftist msm scum but: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/
Whatever, don’t matter, because you missed your target: "voting for radical change will not result in the effect looked for." The key adjective was radical and that's what I said and that's what Trump represents. If Trump wins I think we will find what many desire, a burn-it-down radical change will not yield the expected results. In my experience there's more breakage than progress in radical change or ground start efforts no matter how well planned or intended. Even with the massive shift of the founding father's revolution, much was built upon good ideas from other places and cultures. Constitution, Bill of Rights, all modelled after other documents. Even the very structure of our government was built upon something else.
IMHO Trump's changes are too radical to work. IMO the unknown in Trump's case is prevalent in every ever-changeing plan he announces to the point of whack-a-doodle. And his mercurial, thin-skinned, revenge laden temperament is dangerous at the helm of the most powerful nation in the world. He has become unglued in the silliest of situations including this last debate.
So the first debate was about “America’s Direction,” “Achieving Prosperity,” and “Securing America.” Here are all the Trump ideas, plans, and strategic directions from the debate. I left out the “it gonna be OK if you vote for me” stuff and stuck to actionable items. I also dropped the dire admonitions, descriptions, and scapegoating. I warn you, it’s a brief list.
- Steal the oil without nation building. (Oh come on.) Oh, yeah, that means Libya too.
- Fire on very tiny Iranian boats from HUGE war ships for hand gestures (you should see what happens if they stick out their tongues.)
- Enable Stop and Frisk (that's state and local domain dude, your job is federal)
- Enable the rich and big business with massive ncome tax breaks to create jobs. (jobs are created by demand dude, most of the rich don’t have companies, they invest…..)
- drop carried interest tax as a great thing for the middle class (any HLers expect a windfall from dropping this rich man’s tax).
- don’t allow gun sales to those on the “no fly” list (ok, we got agreement on one Trump plan. But he's still your man, huh JR?).
- China should enter North Korea to clean it up for us (think he will offer China the bomb just to help them out?)
And that’s about all the Trump ideas from the debate. The rest was hyperbole, attacks, lies and sniffling.
hktownie - Judging from the past, Trump's choices for cabinet leadership will be Gary Busy, Aresenio Hall, Dee Snider, and Secretary of State will be posthumously awarded to Joan Rivers. But no Harry Potter. That would make more sense. ;-)
As for taking oil, it would be a 30 *year* commitment to occupy Iraq. I thought nation building was a passe idea by now. And people said Sadam was bad for declaring Kuwait one of its states. At a 30 year clip, USA #51 will be Iraq with plenty of casualties to show for it. Nice way to show support for vets.
A quiz to help you decide who who to vote for.
http://www.isidewith.com/elections/2016-presidential-quiz?from=NeeKTDYbw
Which are the good ones? The undoable or the impossible? Oh wait, its the gun control one! Fine and dandy.
"don’t allow gun sales to those on the “no fly” list (ok, we got agreement on one Trump plan. But he's still your man, huh JR?)."
Perhaps you missed the part about due process that he supports. You know, the version Democrats voted against.
Nice try, though.
Wait. So when he said he agreed with Clinton on the no fly, no buy at the debate, Trump lied? He mispoke? It was a clusterfluke of an answer? He had to re-say what he said to peddle back Trump speak the next day?
Nice try indeed.
"Trump lied? He mispoke? It was a clusterfluke of an answer?"
No, you're simply leaving off half of his answer, which was as follows in the debate:
"But I think we have to look very strongly at no-fly lists and watch lists. And when people are on there, even if they shouldn't be on there, we'll help them, we'll help them legally, we'll help them get off. But I tend to agree with that quite strongly."
He supports the version that allows for due process - removal form the list as well as due process for the denials. Sorry if a two sentence rebuttal (when gun control wasn't even a topic for the debate) doesn't meet your standards for lengthy tomes of an answer.
Also note, this no-fly topic isn't even a major portion of his 2nd Amendment positions:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/constitution-and-second-amendment/
Only *IF* there were support/votes on the issue, he would back the one with due process protections built in. I think that's obviously in stark contrast to what Clinton prefers.
Denied the right carry concealed, but he was a gun owner... and wouldn't have been with Hillary's and SD's "watch list".
"William Worthy, a journalist who covered the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, reported that once, during a visit to King’s parsonage, he went to sit down on an armchair in the living room and, to his surprise, almost sat on a loaded gun. Glenn Smiley, an adviser to King, described King’s home as “an arsenal.”
From the Wall Street Journal, hardly a liberal rag...
http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-hatred-derangement-syndrome-1475192121?utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange
That's just another push to maintain the status quo yankeefan. Be misled by it if you want, but bear in mind that we've seen that kind of rhetoric before. Remember the buildup to the gulf war, where every single bit of news was intended to scare us? I do, and I won't be misled again.
So I guess that means I'm both deranged and deplorable, because the truth is that the status quo is all about funneling credit money (debt) to the top 1% while shifting the burden to the rest of us. Keeping the money flowing to the rich and powerful isn't exactly what I'd call a positive move. But if you want to reward that behavior, fine. Just know that the end result won't look anything like you'd hope.
JIT, you can call it status quo, I call it incremental progress. I see substance and an effort to move the country forward, not backward. Many agree, obviously not you. Fair enough.
Albert Hunt: “There’s a lot of real meat elsewhere. No one has offered a more comprehensive proposal to deal with the crushing debt imposed on many families by the costs of college. The same holds for her proposals to establish a sliding-scale capital gains tax rate, her focus on longer-term economics, and initiatives to give financial regulators more powers and to impose a ‘risk fee’ on big banks.”
Austan Goolsbee on her infrastructure plan: “Hillary Clinton’s plan to substantially expand U.S. infrastructure investments would modernize America’s economic backbone and create a foundation for long-term economic success. It’s important. It helps raise incomes for middle- and working-class Americans, saves consumer money with cheaper products and fewer auto repairs and opens access to job opportunities and shorter commute times. It’s a key part of a serious economic growth strategy and a stark contrast to the Republican candidates who keep recycling the discredited idea that tax cuts for the wealthy will fix our problems and make us grow.”
FiveThirtyEight: “There was a single thread running through Hillary Clinton’s big economics speech on Monday: the importance of raising wages for working Americans.”
Huffington Post: Hillary Clinton Promises Crackdown On Tax-Dodging U.S. Companies
Time (Rana Foroohar): Why Hillary Clinton is Right about Pfizer: The Problem with Tax “Inversion” Deals
The Briefing: 19 Key Voices Praising Hillary Clinton’s Economic Vision
Metsman's "disciplined lifestyle"... widely reported.
In the summer of 1990, at the height of his bitter divorce from his first wife, Donald Trump was carrying on a very public extramarital affair with a former beauty queen, Marla Maples.
As part of the couple’s divorce proceedings, Ivana Trump’s lawyers asked him under oath about his dealings with other women and whether he had been faithful to his wife.
Instead of answering, Donald Trump invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. Over the course of five depositions that summer, he was asked approximately 100 questions related to marital infidelity. He pleaded the Fifth on 97 of them.
“Donald preaches about his devotion to the Second Amendment, but it was the Fifth Amendment that was his favorite when he was deposed in the divorce with Ivana,” wrote biographer Wayne Barrett in his 1992 book, Trump: The Greatest Show on Earth. A New Jersey Division of Gaming Enforcement report later verified Barrett’s reporting on those depositions, which are still sealed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs&feature=share
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman ... miss Lewinski"
Much better to commit perjury I guess.
Taking oil is a joke -- just the rich (off oil) getting richer (or staying rich).
All the Trillions of dollars spent on the Middle East could have directed toward renewable energy, maybe even commercial fission reactors; along with improving our roads and bridges, and building a first class public transportation system across this nation.
Trump is about change, and we need change. A Millennial at work started a discussion about the debate and wow he is a Trump supporter. He said he was a Bernie supporter and agrees with other beliefs I have about this government being hijacked -- Sweeeeeeeeet...
iJay Mark you are right about what he said in the debate, as am I, but I think you might have misconstrued his incoherence filling in the blanks with some excellent thoughts. Although I couldn't find anything related to "no-fly, no-buy" on his well-written web site full of facts but few plans....again. If you saw what you wrote about no-fly, no-buy, perhaps you can update the link.
My statement "don’t allow gun sales to those on the “no fly” list" matches Trump's as you posted from the debate. He really never mentioned, in the debate, due process except for those wrongly placed on the list to be removed. The fact that he wants to install a process where gun buying is a trigger to adjudicate via due process will be after the fact of the blockage and really not mentioned in the debate. But you are right that he has mentioned it before, I think. And that's OK by me because it's still no-fly, no-buy where you are guilty before proven innocent. Funny though that he is adamant about terror list due process for guns but could give a @##@#$ about due process for freedom to fly..... Quid pro quo et tu endorsement backing Brutus?
A more thoughtful review of Trump's foggy position not illuminated with his debate babble from a gun advocate site. Note the Trump tweets. The bottom line: "Regardless of all this, Trump did agree with Hillary on “no fly, no buy” during Monday night’s debate—to what extent, and if he actually plans to try and implement it should he take office, is still unclear. What we do know is that, for those closely following this election cycle, Trump’s debate declaration is nothing new or “surprising.”
Unclear indeed.
The point is that the "due process" will be after the fact, that is, after the gun sale is blocked for being on the terror watch list which is not an adjudicated list. That's OK by me. As to Cornyn’s bill, for the most part the only ridiculous part is the 72-hour window. I mean for a group that never wants a deadline placed on war issues, somehow domestic terrorism needs a hard time line, and a short one for buying guns. I think if the bill gets reworked as to the timeframe, or the ability to allow judges to provide extensions for cause, it might be a compromise we can all live with.
And then no-fly, no-buy will be the law of the land versus today's no-fly, no problem status. Chances are the NRA would agree to this too although they are a bit weaselly when it comes to the mechanics as well.
In either case, Trump agrees to no-fly, no buy like I said. And Martin Luther King has nothing to do with this issue.
It's not ON his website, hence why I said "no-fly no-by" is not a major position of his.
...and the due process version required the government to obtain court approvals/warrants (with quantifiable evidence) BEFORE denying the purchase (beyond the currently allowable 3-day hold period). Democrats didn't like having to actually *prove* anything, so they voted it down.
Say he "agreed" all you want, but the devil is in the details and Hillary would certainly want carte blanche to just say "no" with that being the end of it. No appeals, no evidence, no path to be removed from the list.
I don't know what you're worried about though in regards to guns... if the terrorist watch list is so effective, they'll never get in the country to begin with, right?
Opps, sorry, dropped the link: http://bearingarms.com/ba-s/2016/09/29/trump-agrees-hillary-gun-control-youre-thinking/
"It's not ON his website, hence why I said "no-fly no-by" is not a major position of his." Gee, that's like saying anything not on the site is not a major position even if he notes it as a position. So basically he speaks on non-major positions. Hmm. Point taken, I get what you were trying to say.
But I am not sure whether the Cornyn bil is the same 72 hours or not. Given the government already has those 72 hours anyway, a special bill and legislation seems a bit meaningless like another law for no reason. However, the NRA clearly says: "Anyone on a terror watch list who tries to buy a gun should be thoroughly investigated by the FBI and the sale delayed while the investigation is ongoing" without a timeframe specified.
Trump, of course, has not specified what the heck he means in terms of his plan, much less any timeframes. Like most things Trump, it's in the mind of the beholder as to what he means or if he means it. And his propensity for pathological lying does not help his cause. And yes, Hillary lies, I get it. But Trump is professional, pathological and will even double-down when caught on a lie with yet another lie. Liar of the Year ---- two years running by the fact checkers. And yes I know they lie because facts are not always facts. (Of course, when they are not, they are lies. Facts are funny that way....)
"Trump now leads in Nevada, Colorado, Iowa, Ohio and North Carolina – all states Barack Obama won his first term "
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/09/post-debate-polls-trump-surges-lead-5-battleground-states-following-debate/
NYT front page reports that Hillary has effectively GIVEN UP on Ohio - Ohio has voted for the winner of every election since 1964—that's 13 elections in a row.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/30/us/politics/ohio-campaign-trump-clinton.html?_r=0
Here's your incremental progress yankeefan, shown in random images from a two-minute web search. Irrespective of the datapoint, nearly every trend is the same. Note how the wealth gap conveniently follows the same trend. Like I said, the underlying system doesn't change with the duopoly's figure-head change, no matter how much emotion we put toward it. Real change will only happen when the duopoly of the Republicrats breaks.
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/p3.png
http://www.mybudget360.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/student-debt-sallie-mae.png
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-67F2XHX-vus/UGjHEWg_LvI/AAAAAAAAGTU/geZKU_ftgRk/s1600/total-us-public-debt-outstanding-per-us-household-1967-2012.png
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015/09/total%20credit%20market%20debt.jpg
"Real change will only happen when the duopoly of the Republicrats breaks."
Agreed. Do you think it will happen in our lifetime?
JIT, your charts merely state the statistically obvious but they don't provide context. You're telling me there was no differentiating economic impacts under these "figure-heads"? Reagan, Clinton, GWB, Obama? Having lived under each's tenure, I would absolutely disagree.
"Having lived under each's tenure, I would absolutely disagree."
I get where you're coming from. Economy was a DISASTER during Carter, very good during Reagan, very good under Clinton, starting to go bad under Bush, and worse under Obama.
"Having lived under each's tenure", of course.
"Gee, that's like saying anything not on the site is not a major position even if he notes it as a position."
If someone *asked* me, my favorite ice cream flavor is mint chocolate chip, but I wouldn't make it a political agenda item were I seeking office. You really can't understand the scale or priority of giving an opinion/response?
Fox and friends, said this morning, "billionaires are buying underground, prepper, bunkers, costing millions of dollars, in preparation for the trump-ocalyspe, in case he gets elected. " FOX! I was shocked that they actually said it, LOL.
Hmmm... do his billionaire buddies know something, we don't? Or is it, they can't stand the guy, and know his immature and violent nature.
Just imagine if Trump had access to something more dangerous than a smart phone with a twitter account at 3am. He'd be ordering missile strikes on Rosie O'Donnell's house, lol.
Come on, sparks.... that was FOX.... you know they can't be trusted to report the TRUTH or FACTS, just ask SD or any other uber-lib on this forum...
...OR is it they are only believable when they say something YOU agree with? hmm...
"He'd be ordering missile strikes on Rosie O'Donnell's house, lol."
Only if we're lucky.
JR, worse under Obama? As i recall when he took office we were losing 800,000 jobs a month. GM was about to shut down. The country was not far from total economic collapse. Things may not be rosy but we are way better off than we were when GWB passed the baton. Not even debateable.
Yankee, apologies, you seemed to not want to discuss JIT's STATISTICS, and instead discuss PERCEPTIONS.....at least that's what your quote (that I quoted) implied.....
"Things may not be rosy but we are way better off than we were when GWB passed the baton. Not even debateable."
We'll find out how "debatable" people think it is on Nov. 8
Uber-lib. Is that like a liberal who drives you around? I'm afraid anyone who is not a vested tea partier is uber lib to you jr....
In the debate, Trump alluded to a solar company that the U.S. had invested in as “a disaster” proving once again what a near-sighted business idiot this man is. Trump’s six bankruptcies were not “a disaster” for Trump's company. A disaster for individuals, but Trump and his company “are the best company in the world.”
Like Trump, Solyndra was a disaster for individuals. An uber-lib failure. The big picture is that the stimulus backing for solar energy is a model program and a profitable success.
Solyndra got $535M from the government via a stimulus loan. We lost $500M on that deal in bankruptcy. Solar energy stimulus loans, in total and including the Solyndra loss, have turned a profit for the government. That’s not a giveaway, a breakeven, but a profit. When was the last time you heard government program and profit in the same sentence?
Today, California gets almost 30% of its energy from solar. Up to 14 gigawatts will be installed in the US this year, that’s over 2 million homes or around 14 power plants worth. It’s an 85% uptick over 2015 installations and a 50% year over year growth for two years running. 30% of all new plants are solar. Over 700,000 new jobs industry-wide, lots of GDP adders, clean renewable energy, and a kick-start for a new industry that paid the government and individuals back and then some.
Like Solyndra, Trump went bankrupt. A lot. But like the solar energy business, he came back. Yet when it comes to energy, he scapegoats Solyndra while misses the big business picture. So his energy plan is less rules, dirtier fuels. Less rules, dirtier environment for drilling and pipelines, destroy the Paris Agreement with 55 nations agreeing to global emissions reductions, bring back Keystone XL, destroy global warming regulations, bring back coal, fracking --- all on the table.
He wants to bring back ALL the coal jobs, whatever that means. How that happens against natural gas and solar is a mystery. He wants to end all foreign oil; that’s code for higher prices for you at the pump. At $4 a gallon, much of our oil comes from Canada ---- Keystone XL? Annex Canada? This brilliant businessman can’t see the progress, profit, for the fact forest or the trees.
He misses all business learnings from the progressive solar energy program choosing to buttonhole a single failure within a successful, profitable program that was really, really good for America. For a tall guy, he is short-sighted as to how to really get things going in America by a program that might be extended to other future industry endeavors as a government business model of success.
Ask yourself what you get with Trump energy. Do you want your kids working in coal, gas and oil ------ or solar for their future. Do we go backward or forward?
JR, I clearly stated JITs stats are meaningless without context. For instance, "Damn Obama, i paid a lot more taxes last year. He"s screwing us." Oh, my wife went back to work as an RN and made $60k.
Context.
Ah, ok. got it.
"Things may not be rosy but we are way better off than we were when GWB passed the baton. Not even debateable."
"Context", please?
"JIT, your charts merely state the statistically obvious but they don't provide context. You're telling me there was no differentiating economic impacts under these "figure-heads"? Reagan, Clinton, GWB, Obama? Having lived under each's tenure, I would absolutely disagree."
Of course economic conditions are cyclic yankeefan, but I believe you are mistaken if you think it has anything to do with an R or D. All I am trying to point out is that the *underlying system* isn't set up to benefit the public, it's set up to benefit those in power regardless of political affiliation. Try to step back and not look at things from a short term view. Hard for most of us because generally the view toward government is "What can the government do for *me* today?" Long term though, it's perfectly clear that ALL politicians serve the wealthy and have created a system of laws that continuously benefit them. But if we the common folks are thrown scraps once in a while we tend to forget. Even better if those scraps are thrown by someone with whom we can relate. The income gap is the most obvious indicator because it demonstrates the true reason for having a debt-based economy.
Reagan and all who have come after have had the benefit of easy access to debt, made possible by Nixon's officially removing the restraints of monetary policy. Clinton was immensely lucky to have presided when technology was making huge jumps, i.e. the dot com bubble. GWB liked to use fear to get the powerful what they wanted, and Obama has been the most dangerous. Why? Because he either completely misunderstands economics or he simply doesn't care to, intentionally pandering to the public's emotions without a single thought of the long term consequences. The true cost of his policies, much more so than his predecessors, will be passed onto our children while any perceived benefits are nothing more than emotional band aids to some and extremely divicive to others. The ACA, for instance - the one program most people credit Obama for - is an all emotional program. By that I mean it's structure was created such that it was designed to fail but makes us all feel like we're doing good. As was discussed here many times, all the ACA does is coerce participation in a system but dies little to address the reason why so many couldn't afford health care to begin with: high prices, essentially forcing everyone to pay to support the exiting high cost healthcare system. Now that it's glaringly obvious that's the case, I'm certain the next president (regardless of team) will try to fix things in a way that will also miss the point and use debt to "accomplish" whatever the goal is.
All that aside, just keep in mind that the method supporting ALL of government action for the past 50 years has been buying prosperity today by borrowing from future generations. That's it in a nut shell. It's ALL about debt creation. Sure collectively we've benefitted (the powerful much more so) from new debt, it couldn't be any other way, but those benefits will have a tremendous cost to those who follow - by design. And I truly believe that it's our debt-based economic system that's creating most of the angst in our society, because it is designed to benefit the rich while trickling down to the poor (if you could call the wealth gap a trickle lol).
So while debt issuance has had some positive affects, the negative aspects are coming in a big way. Keep that in mind as the country continues to argue about things that are symptoms of the debt based economic system. I'd much prefer to fix the underlying priblem. So it really doesn't matter whether the figure head's jersey is Red or Blue.
Ijay,
The debt per citizen and debt per tax payer is what really gets me!
Debt per citizen: $60,210
Debt per tax payer: $163,743
JIT says "Try to step back and not look at things from a short term view. Hard for most of us because generally the view toward government is "What can the government do for *me* today?" Long term though, it's perfectly clear that ALL politicians serve the wealthy and have created a system of laws that continuously benefit them."
OK, long view...do you include FDR in your grand philosophy?
It's hard to imagine that government spending does not affect economic conditions. The mere size of the spending would suggest otherwise.
As to economic cycles, sure there are many theories and no absolutes. History might guide us but I am pretty sure we have never had an economic atmosphere and cycle exactly like the one we are in.
To say a President has no effect, like Clinton just got lucky to ride the tech wave or Bush just got unlucky to meet the terrorist tsunami seems to overlook the fact that each of these men had choices --- in decision and direction ---- and each made choices that yielded results. Clinton gave us good times and a budget surplus; George Bush gave us The Great Recession.
Clinton raised taxes in his first budget, reformed welfare, eliminated tariffs via NAFTA, and invested in infrastructure. We got results. Bush slashed taxes, entered two wars, and opened more free trade. We got results. Perhaps these gents did not make the economic cycle, but they certainly affected it via government economic choices.
Sure the rich have more power; they have more resources. And there's a pendulum that currently tilts unfairly in their direction. But to say the system only serves the rich while not benefitting the masses is a dreary conclusion. I daresay Social Security benefits all equally as does Medicare. Perhaps these are just scraps, but they are scraps that the public has paid for and can reap the benefits from in retirement. I am sure I can find more government programs that serve the public and not just the rich.
And if they are just scraps to keep the masses mollified then I ask, mollified from doing what? Changing the system? Changing it to what? Where is the context of the big picture of what is the expected system that would "cure" all this? Galt's Gulch?
You say that the ACA has a structure designed for failure tugging at the emotional heartstrings by making us feel like we are doing good.
I say --- hasn't failed yet. Forbes hates ObamaCare yet they printed this op ed piece: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/03/10/the-real-numbers-on-the-obamacare-effect-are-in-now-let-the-crow-eating-begin/#362d9b3c308d
Emotional heartstrings or progressive progress for the people: "A few recent studies suggest that people have become less likely to have medical debt or to postpone care because of cost. They are also more likely to have a regular doctor and to be getting preventive health services like vaccines and cancer screenings. A new study, published Monday in JAMA Internal Medicine, offers another way of looking at the issue. Low-income people in Arkansas and Kentucky, which expanded Medicaid insurance to everyone below a certain income threshold, appear to be healthier than their peers in Texas, which did not expand."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/09/upshot/obamacare-appears-to-be-making-people-healthier.html?_r=0
I am sure there are things wrong, things that can be improved, and more bad issues on the way but if you believe we will walk ObamaCare back even if Trump is elected, you are deluded. And I don't see the rich lining up to take advantage.
So perhaps the system is not perfect, there is breakage, and the rich have been dealt an unfair advantage for two Presidencies. And yes our debt is a massive problem threatening us with destruction while not being addressed adequately by our politicians, but no one has suggested any viable systemic changes that are better, much less workable. Least of all on this site.
Darrin, yes that is the problem. Some can afford this debt per citizen or taxpayer, but most cannot afford this.
This is why Trump will win. I voted for Obama but he doubled the debt in about 8 years. Hillary has no plans or attitude to tackle this. Just keep giving money away to big oil, wars, Israel, those who don't want to work, etc...
"OK, long view...do you include FDR in your grand philosophy?"
FDR is the great grandfather of big government, and it's my opinion that he went too far too fast. If government is part of the problem (which it most certainly is) then increasing it's size can only exacerbate any problem. Take many of the "problems" we have today - how many wouldn't have even existed if not for the government steering the economy in ways that it shouldn't have any responsibility for? Government is far, far too big today and can only get bigger. There is no "rolling back" as was suggested. The wheels are turning and can't be stopped IMO, which is why the decisions being made today will only make things worse in the future. As to a time frame, no one could possibly know. All we can do is look at the trends and see how obviously wrong things must turn out.
"the rich have been dealt an unfair advantage for two Presidencies"
You are mistaken, of that I'm certain. One look at who the "rich" support politically will tell you all you need to know. The rich absolutely love the debt-fueled spend fest the D's want to embark on. Love it, especially with the added benefit of an agreeable public who think they are getting something. Again, look to the source and it's clear that's the case. The only scenario in which I'd agree with you is if all the tax and business loopholes, aka laws that allow and encourage the wealth gap, were dealt with. Tax increases and tax cuts are just an emotional means to manipulate public opinion when the loopholes are not only kept in place but increased as well. Recall one of my favorite words, obfuscation? ;-) When I see actual movement on the reduction of loopholes, the elimination of laws and smaller government, then I'll agree. But that's no where near the case in today's political environment. And so it goes, the trends continuing...
Wow, the rich love the Dems. Never thought I'd hear that one.....
When I said the rich have been dealt an unfair advantage I simply meant look at the wealth distribution as proof, then just look to taxes, wages, etc. to see why.
Has Government gotten too big and will it get bigger? Well, first I would say that any organism --- organization or organic, needs to thrive to survive so the basic tendency to do that is growth. But as to government growing, it depends, and to it being too big --- that's opinion. http://www.forbes.com/sites/beltway/2012/07/31/has-the-u-s-government-gotten-bigger-or-smaller-yes/#78665cb059db
When it comes to people, Obama has increased the size with his 2017 budget. Most of the growth is in the VA.
Again with the dems leading the spend fest. Between the two candidates I think Trump trumps Clinton when it comes to the bottom line: deficit and debt. http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2016/09/22/Trump-Trouncing-Clinton-When-It-Comes-Running-Debt
Didn't see any answers besides removing loopholes, a good thing, but certainly not the systemic fix you are looking for. So still looking for your "viable systemic changes that are better, much less workable."
"Wow, the rich love the Dems. Never thought I'd hear that one....."
If all you see is "us vs them" then I can understand your comment, but alas that's never been the case at all. The world's a big place, and trying to force-fit every event into an R vs D mold is simple ridiculous.
You're right though, the duopoly will spend regardless of preceding letter. However, the D's just happen to advertise their intention more than the R's. Gosh, just look at any of the chart's I've posted in the past and that would be glaringly clear.
And while you're still trying to validate your choice of team, remember that your particular team has increased the debt more than any previous, just as the last R had done for his predecessor, and so on down the line with few exceptions....
JIT- "If all you see is "us vs them" then I can understand your comment, but alas that's never been the case at all. The world's a big place, and trying to force-fit every event into an R vs D mold is simple ridiculous."
I know I arrived here later than JIT did, but the sooner more of you come to the WISDOM of this realization, the sooner we can affect some REAL change that will benefit ALL of us instead of just HALF of us. SD, you're still a LONG way off, apparently/unfortunately.
Trump behind by just 6 here in NJ- a state Obama won by nearly 15 points! It's close enough for us to win! Be sure to vote in November and VOTE TRUMP!!
I dunno. I work with an awful lot of rich people and all I hear is how much they hate Obama and want a Republican back in the White House. Unless they just say that publicly to save face and then pull the lever for a Dem in the booth.
oh, so THAT'S why wall street is backing Hillary....
http://www.salon.com/2016/05/09/hillary_clinton_is_wall_streets_preferred_candidate_financial_execs_pouring_millions_into_her_campaign_to_defeat_trum/
That's an article from May that JR posted a link to. And it doesn't really go into why Wall Street" is backing Clinton except to say:
"A Republican lobbyist explained to the Journal that corporations fear the uncertainty around Trump. On the other hand, “They know Hillary. And they know that she is not antibusiness.” Nothing surprising about that.
jd2 I think the complaints we see here that Republicans and Democrats are much alike stems from the fact that everyone put into political office has to operate within our constitutional system, under which the rules are quite restraining.
What those who want big-time change really want, even if they are not aware of it, is a new constitution. Personally, I can imagine a constitution that is better than what we have now. Unfortunately, I can also imagine one worse.
"the fact that everyone put into political office has to operate within our constitutional system, under which the rules are quite restraining."
1) THANK YOU Founding Fathers
2) it doesn't matter anymore- both sides find a way to circumvent the constitution at will
A new constitution is not what what need; we just need our existing one FOLLOWED instead of being "interpreted" depending on the zeitgeist of the day, or on which party president appointed them to their judge seat. WE HAVE a way to change the constitution if the issue is large enough to warrant such a change- a constitutional convention. But it's so difficult to get 50 states to agree on something (thanks to the 2 party system keeping us as divided as possible), it doesn't seem likely.
"The world's a big place, and trying to force-fit every event into an R vs D mold is simple ridiculous." Really? Because continuing to say both sides are just the same seems a bit simple as well.
And I certainly didn't see us and them when I noted the rich have been dealt a winning hand for two Presidencies given each party has served the last two Presidencies.
But I do believe Republicans have done some different things with different results than Democrats and vice-versa.
And until I see a better solution to the system, I certainly won't advocate burning it down due to duopoly control or that fact the both sides have run up the debt. Both sides have lowered the debt also over our history.
I might have even gone Republican this time, have done it before, if a Republican was actually running.
But back to the debate. Trump lies:
Sniff, sniffle, sniff
"I did not. I did not. I do not say that." (on blaming the Chinese for global warming, which he did say).
“Wrong. Wrong.” On saying he would negotiate down the National Debt (which would bankrupt us instantly) which he does advocate and has said repeatedly.
On inner cities: "In inner cities, African-Americans, Hispanics, are living in hell because it's so dangerous. You walk down the street, you get shot”
“Murders are up.” Really?
On Stop and Frisk: “They would have won an appeal. If you look at it, throughout the country, there are many places where it's allowed.”
On his birtherism: "I feel that [African-Americans] really wanted me to come to that conclusion. And I think I did a great job and a great service not only for the country, but even for the president, in getting him to produce his birth certificate."
On support the Iraq war: "Wrong." Nope. In the beginning he supported the Iraq War but now claims it was a joke….war….joke…Presidential.
And from the NYTimes, linked below. Sure, the NYT is msm liberal leftist scum and likes to spin the facts. Problem is facts really can't be spun, they're facts. The facts are provided in the links provided for each lie. Most can be second or triple sourced...... Let's Make America Great Again or keep telling whoppers hiding the truth.
"He lied about the loan his father once gave him.
He lied about his company’s bankruptcies.
He lied about his federal financial-disclosure forms.
He lied about his endorsements.
He lied about “stop and frisk.”
He lied about “birtherism.”
He lied about New York.
He lied about Michigan and Ohio.
He lied about Palm Beach, Fla.
He lied about Janet Yellen and the Federal Reserve.
He lied about the trade deficit.
He lied about Hillary Clinton’s tax plan.
He lied about her child-care plan.
He lied about China devaluing its currency.
He lied about Mexico having the world’s largest factories.
He lied about the United States’s nuclear arsenal.
He lied about NATO’s budget.
He lied about NATO’s terrorism policy.
He lied about ISIS.
He lied about his past position on the Iraq War.
He lied about his past position on the national debt.
He lied about his past position on climate change.
He lied about calling pregnancy an “inconvenience” for employers.
He lied about calling women “pigs.”
He lied about calling women “dogs.”
He lied about calling women “slobs.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/opinion/campaign-stops/the-lies-trump-told.html?_r=0
SD, the day I believe the New York Times to report on politics is the day that pigs fly. They are just as biased as any Breitbart, Infowars or the old FOX News.
1988 - did you check out the links? that makes it a little different..... at least for most of the statements
JR, so "We the people" was not an I nterpretation? Because we all know that "We the people" meant white male land owners". If the constitution should be FOLLOWED as you say, well I say they got it wrong in the beginning! Did they not go by what they "intended" and not what it said?
RAS RAS, like I said- we have a PROPER way to change the constitution. We've done it more than once. Perhaps look up the 13th Amendment.
But interpreting and circumventing the words of the constitution from the oval office, congress, or the judicial bench is WRONG.
" If the constitution should be FOLLOWED as you say, well I say they got it wrong in the beginning! Did they not go by what they "intended" and not what it said?"
No, they went by what it said... and when they wanted to change what it said and expand the protections to other classes they continued to follow the "rules" and added things such as the 13th Amendment (to end slavery) and 19th Amendment (women's right to vote). You know, via Constitutional Conventions as JR mentioned.
Sure, hide from the facts. This is a he said, it's not true. Pretty simple, hard to spin. Try the links, he said the lies.
Let's just do the $14M lie..... Trump likes to quote he was rags to riches self-made man with only a $1M stipend. Fact is he had, in today's dollars, $1M graduating school from summer jobs with Dad --- nice job. Dad gave him $1M. Then Dad arranged and basically co-signed the loan taking the "nest egg" for Donald's first project, a project that Dad couldn't get because of his racist reputation. Donald's Dad signed a completion agreement saying that if Donald couldn't complete the project, Dad would. That's one heck of a co-sign.
And for some brain salad ala Trump
Sniff, sniffle, sniff
"I think my strongest asset by far is my temperament. I have a winning temperament,"
I said there’s a person where a temperament that’s got a problem.” What???
“"I will release my tax returns, against my lawyer's wishes, when she releases her 33,000 emails that have been deleted.” A new deal is struck to not release the records because he does not trust her lawyers. Meanwhile we are to trust Trump’s lawyers and personal doctors on Melania’s immigration status, his tax audit, his health records, etc. etc. etc.
On tax audits: "I'm not even complaining. I don't mind it. It's almost become a way of life" So is he smart or is he stupid or does he constantly cheat?
I have a son, he’s 10-years old. He’s so good with these computers, it’s unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very very tough. And maybe it’s hardly doable.
On inner cities: "In inner cities, African-Americans, Hispanics, are living in hell because it's so dangerous. You walk down the street, you get shot”
Murders are up.” Really?
On Stop and Frisk: “They would have won an appeal. If you look at it, throughout the country, there are many places where it's allowed.” This one is a little more nuanced. Stop and frisk as a general sweep program is unconstitutional across the US. But stop and frisk, for reasonable cause, is legal. They would not have won the appeal.
On the DNC hack: “She's saying Russia, Russia, Russia, but I don't – maybe it was. I mean, it could be Russia, but it could also be China. It could also be lots of other people. It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, OK?" Again with the fat people.
On his birtherism: "I feel that [African-Americans] really wanted me to come to that conclusion. And I think I did a great job and a great service not only for the country, but even for the president, in getting him to produce his birth certificate." Yeah, black people everywhere were questioning Obama's citizenship.
On defending his Iraq War lie: "The record shows that I'm right. When I did an interview with Howard Stern, very lightly, first time anyone's asked me that, I said, very lightly, I don't know, maybe, who knows? Essentially. I then did an interview with Neil Cavuto. We talked about the economy is more important. I then spoke to Sean Hannity, which everybody refuses to call Sean Hannity. I had numerous conversations with Sean Hannity at Fox. And Sean Hannity said – and he called me the other day – and I spoke to him about it – he said you were totally against the war, because he was for the war." What????????
Holt: "The quote was: 'I just don't think she has a presidential look….."
Trump: "Wait a minute, Lester, you asked me a question — did you ask me a question? You have to be able to negotiate our trade deals, you have to be able to negotiate. That's right. With Japan, with Saudi Arabia. I mean can you imagine, we're defending Saudi Arabia — with all the money they have, we're defending them, and they're not paying? All you have to do is speak to 'em — wait. You have so many things you have to do, and I don't believe that Hillary has the stamina.” Yummy tasty word salad with extra Trump nonsensical dressing….
The Hillary video/song is pretty funny really. Yet many of those are either wrong or could be disputed. Lots of spin in that one. But still funny.
Point is, sure Hillary has lied some times. Trump lies almost all the time.
From SNL...Baldwin does an amazing Trump.
https://cdn-e1.streamable.com/video/mp4-mobile/0l8o.mp4?token=1476618846_f3ce5c50407c134c8c05a8c3dbeff8e0262bd805
"And until I see a better solution to the system, I certainly won't advocate burning it down due to duopoly control or that fact the both sides have run up the debt. Both sides have lowered the debt also over our history."
The concern is with the trends. Look up the definition of "trend" if you are not familiar with the term. And I'm not advocating "burning it down". What I've said is that I believe the *trends* already point to the system burning down, and since no politician (and very, very few citizens) wants to change the underlying debt fueled system then it *is* going to burn down. I'm assuming you can extrapolate, so go ahead and do so based on the assumption that nothing in the underlying system will change (as neither R's nor D's would care to do). And since the lack of debt-fueled change seems to be inevitable given the mindset of today's society, of course those of us who care to look would rather to just get it over with for no other reason than to reduce the overall pain that will ensue.
BTW, when I say there is no difference between the D's and R's I'll repeat myself by pointing to their common use of the underlying systems of government. Think of a basement with a guy/gal in a red shirt standing across from a guy/gal in a blue shirt. Each one is handing out buckets of dirt to their constituents. The red folks are taking the dirt and building large earthen mounds to prevent their enemy from getting to them (whether real or fabricated), while the blue folks are spreading the dirt around so everyone can plant a garden. Completely different end uses on the surface yet both drawing from a common source. All I'm saying is that they both lack restraint and will both be equally guilty of knocking the house down because both are digging the foundation right out from under themselves. So in the end it doesn't matter if you fear an enemy and want the berm or if you want pretty flowers in your garden. Everyone still pulls from the same source. And once again, that source is debt that we are passing on to our children. That's the legacy we are creating, and it doesn't matter one iota which color shirt you wear.
"I think the complaints we see here that Republicans and Democrats are much alike stems from the fact that everyone put into political office has to operate within our constitutional system, under which the rules are quite restraining."
I suppose, but that's NOT what I've been saying. In fact, nearly all legislation today works around the restraint system imposed by the Constitution by "interpreting" words and phrases to mean things the founders didn't intend. For instance, surely no one can argue that the whole point of the Constitution was to limit the authority of the Federal government (with States rights being supreme for anything NOT specifically written in the Constitution). But can anyone honestly say that that particular intent is remotely true today? Not a chance.
Trump Foundation served with a Cease and Desist order by the NY attorney general.
The New York attorney general has served the Trump Foundation with a cease and desist order that requires it to stop fundraising in New York, alleging it is not properly registered in the state.
"The failure immediately to discontinue solicitation and to file information and reports ....... with the Charities Bureau shall be deemed to be a continuing fraud upon the people of the state of New York," according to a letter dated September 30 that the attorney general's office posted online.
What are you babbling about RAS? The entire Bill of Rights are AMENDMENTS to the constitution. Do you even know what the Constitution and Bill of Rights is?
Sigh. The Emancipation Proclamation did not end slavery in the United States. It was a war measure. The 13th Amendment to the constitution is what officially ended slavery.
"It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in ten states. Because it was issued under the President's war powers, it necessarily excluded areas not in rebellion – it applied to more than 3 million of the 4 million slaves at the time. The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces; it was not a law passed by Congress. The Proclamation also ordered that suitable persons among those freed could be enrolled into the paid service of United States' forces, and ordered the Union Army (and all segments of the Executive branch) to "recognize and maintain the freedom of" the ex-slaves. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not outlaw slavery, and did not grant citizenship to the ex-slaves (called freedmen). It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union."
AMENDMENT XIII
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
Passed by Congress January 31, 1865. Ratified December 6, 1865.
What I'm babbling about oh great one is you declaring that we should follow the constitution as written or as provided in the constitutional amendments. And yes, the 13th amendment says no one shall be enslaved. My point, constitutional expert, is why didn't they follow the constitution as written ? We the people seems pretty straight forward no? It doesn't say cows or chickens, etc. So that's my rudimentary, babbling opinion on the matter.
Oh yeah, and that "comment" is why about four people make posts on certain threads. Go ahead and argue the same tired old arguments day in and day out. You're boring us to death. See, I can do it too!
RAS,
What EXACTLY do you mean when you say "we the people seems pretty straightforward"? What EXACT point are you trying to make?
There was an issue that needed changing (slavery.) They changed the constitution (after having a civil war) to affect said change.
Have to be brief as I'm on the road. I just realized I'm thinking of the preamble to the constitution . My thought was we the people should have meant all the people, but instead it was interpreted as meaning white male land owners. The key being interpretation and what was intended. If you follow the constitution exactly then there's no room for interpretation or what is intended. My mistake is like I said, I was thinking of the preamble and not the constitution itself. It's been a "few years" since I studied it. I will revisit it for sure.
Nice history lesson having absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the EP was an executive order.
So was the WPA an executive order.
I think Affirmative Action was an executive order too.
Wow, you let this one go??? So, Pence won. I say he won on the optics but probably lost on the facts, a fact that might go unnoticed except I expect some Clinton advertising to pinpoint his lies on the facts, most importantly his denial of his own and The Donald's statements and record. But Pence won.
Kaine got away with repeated interrupting. When Pence tried to interrupt he was cut off by the moderator.
What's wrong with that picture?
I don't know. I.came away with the moderator being on Kane's side.
Pence seemed to sometimes protect Trump and other times protect Pence by throwing Trump under the bus. He disagreed on a number of Trump issues with Trump. Most important he denied many things both he and Trump said. And he refused to defend many of the issues Trump is brought up.
But I still think Pence won the night on style and optics just not on the facts. Meanwhile, Kane probably had a bad strategy and implemented it badly. Probably should've waited until Pence showed his bully side before launching all the interruptions.
Sure made for more great Hillary ads against team Trump.
Meanwhile good ole Billy Boy is out on the campaign trail ripping Obamacare. Trying to distance Hillary from it?
Pence seems to be too good to be in Trump's corner or maybe not..selling his soul to the devil?
Pence was going to lose his next race for governor. So we needed a job and is focusing on his run for 2020 if Trump loses. Hedging his bet.
Bill just told the truth about Obama care that there are things that could be made better. Everyone, including Hillary, understands that. She has a plan to make it better.
Why does no one use his full name: Pencewithears? I find it almost disrespectful for such an otophallic politician...
Hillary's plans would just add more costs to an already expensive Obamacare. Aetna and United Healthcare are dropping out of most of the States that they offered plans in. I looked at the plans in NC and SC for this year(only available info) for my wife and I as I was contemplating retiring at the end of next year at 63 and would need to be covered for two years before Medicare kicks in. The cheapest was the Bronze plan which covered 60/40 and was close to $15,000 a year. I am not sure if there was a deductible but there was probably was. That was using a annual income of $60,000 for which no subsidy was given. Guess I'll have to work those two additional years.
Donald Trump not paying taxes is not about not paying taxes. He blames Hillary for sustaining bad tax laws yet she voted for the tax law that closed the loophole he used.
Looked what we learned from a mere three pages of his hundreds of tax pages.
Donald Trump not paying taxes is about a brilliant businessman losing $1B on his PERSONAL income without going broke. How do you do that? The magnitude of his bad business acumen is as astounding as his ability to bounce back. To give you an idea, his loss represented almost 2% of all US loss during that year. One man out of the 500,000 people taking a loss that year represented 2% of the total monetary loss. That's a stupendous loss. It may be the largest personal loss ever, the largest disaster ever, and the largest bailout ever. Ready for that America?
Around then he was losing on casinos, the Plaza Hotel property, his airline and other things. The only public company was the Casino so there it would be only his personal loss; but on the others he can take the full company loss on his personal tax. Worse yet, there's a real estate law that says he can take the loss even if he is losing other's investment. That's the big one. He takes a loss for losing other people's money and could carry it forward for up to 20 years.
Hillary voted to close that loophole.
But how do you lose $1B and not got bankrupt. Simple answer for self-made man rags to riches with only a measly $1M bankroll. Same place: Daddy. First the $1M start is a lie. Daddy funded him or co-signed loans or arranged financing for $10's of millions. Hillary's $14M estimate is way low. On his first deal, Daddy got his a $35M line of credit with a Daddy-guaranteed-completion clause. Daddy bailed him a bunch of times out too including the famous $3M casino chip cash influx where Daddy flushed the chips after purchase. Got fined for that one.
"Trump has steadfastly refused to release any tax returns on his own, but the headline numbers for the eight years of financial returns that have now been disclosed demonstrate that Trump’s self-celebrated business genius is a pose." Newsweek
You just have to read this: http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-federal-income-tax-records-506713
Point is Trump is a success and failure but success has come with a HUGE bankroll and financial safety net from Daddy. Supporters are looking for a change agent from a business expert outside of the Washington Beltway. This guy's business is a roller coaster of highs and lows. During the low's he was protected by someone else's money, a person who apparently would give anything to avoid family disaster though his son's bankruptcy.
So you will get your change. But your success will be very high risk from a man with a track record of numerous total economic failures. Before you vote, ask yourself: who's your Daddy and are you ready to bail out America from a man who scored the largest personal loss ever?
What exactly are you looking for Yankeefan? A list of your Saviors accomplishments. Now keep in mind that most politicians from both sides of the aisle are in it for their own benefit and not those of the American people. Corruption is rampant throughout the system now more than ever.
Here's a few under his watch:
IRS targets Obama’s enemies
Benghazi
Spying on the AP
The ATF “Fast and Furious” scheme
The Pigford Agriculture Department Scandal
The General Services Administration Las Vegas Spending Spree.
Veterans Affairs in Disney World and neglecting vets
Solyndra
New Black Panthers Voter Intimidation
The hacking of Sharyl Attkisson’s computer
Obama’s LIES about the Affordable Care Act
“I’ll Pass My Own Laws”
Spying on American People
Foreign Policy
Lack of solidarity with Israel
Disaster with the Arab Spring
Crimea
Leaving Iraq too soon and letting ISIS take over
Handling of Syrian Red Line
Calling ISIS “JV”
Failing to Recognize ISIS as a Radical (or Devout) Muslim Movement
Returning the bust of Churchill to the Brits
Lack of Confidence by NATO nations
Signing a Disastrous Nuclear Deal with the Mullahs of Iran
kb, I suppose I could respond with my own long list. Everything you listed is either outright false or highly questionable. I'll just refer back to my original post...the "majority" has accomplished nothing.
I would agree: most. For example, Solyndra was a loss, program was a HUGE success turning a profit for the government, the environment, and the American people. Did I say government, profit? OMG though, how will The Duck replace those coal jobs lost to solar? Deport those panels...... This stimulus program is a model program for government. OMG, did I say stimulus, model program? Deport those panels, drill more oil, build a pipeline.....
Now I can understand why someone would point to a single failure in a massively successful program. Sort of like looking at the multitude of business failures from a currently successful Reality TV Star who makes money by putting his brand on hotels, golf courses, models and the like and concluding this surreal character was our savior based on their accomplishments when clearly they have told you that they're in it for their own $3B estate tax benefit and not the American people while corruption runs rampant throughout their various businesses and charitable foundations now more than ever.
Yeah I can see that.
To be fair, the House has been busy. They've voted to repeal AHCA 62 times. With no alternative proposal. So there's that.
Maybe there was good reason to appeal it. It looks like the Exchange in Tennessee is near collapse and 170,000 people will need to look for new insurance. Also, Aetna is leaving 11 of the 15 states exchanges and United Health Care is leaving 26 of the 34 state exchanges. Humana and Blue Cross are also scaling back. This is what those that were against it predicted what would happen. I have an extra box of Kleenex if you need help getting some of that brown stuff of your nose(only kidding).
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamacares-meltdown-has-arrived-1475709560
Thus proving the need for better mental health in American. No Congressman should be allowed to buy a gun.
“The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results”. Einstein.
Gotta admit, when Bill Clinton called ObamaCare “the craziest thing in the world” and Trump responded, gonna be a tough night but he’s been there before…… that’s pretty funny.
Clinton immediately noted he supported the bill but shortcomings need to be addressed. And that’s the key. In a bill this large, with some many compromises and estimates, there’s bound to be breakage when trying to progress. For example, there’s donut holes between Medicare/aid coverage and receiving subsidies where people are trapped with higher costs, no group price leverage, and full payment. There’s other issues needing to be addressed as well.
But with 90% of all Americans covered, we’ve come a long way covering 50% of the ground needed as of 1/2016.
ObamaCare was first and foremost supposed to get us all covered and safe from financial failure due to catastrophic illness. We are close to that and closing. Secondly it was supposed to reduce some costs ---- obviously not enough progress there nor could there ever have been since it addressed coverage and not pharmaceuticals, doctor or hospital fees.
Repealing without a matching alternative or, God forbid, and improvement would be a step back. What about the kid’s ages 18 to 26 covered by ObamaCare, what about the people on subsidies that can now afford insurance, what about pre-existing conditions, etc. etc. etc. You lose all that and much, much more day one of repeal and I have not heard a viable alternative that addresses that. If billions of pages of ObamaCare have issues, puffy words and strategic visions are not going to help.
There is no doubt that ObamaCare has caused financial harm to individuals previously covered. However, it looks like systemically it’s a success at cutting costs: http://fortune.com/2016/06/21/us-health-care-costs/
http://reverbpress.com/politics/aca-saves-tax-payers-1-trillion/
https://www.thebalance.com/cost-of-obamacare-3306050
Sure, there’s still a lot of fog around the numbers and I am sure you can post contrary estimates. It's also so complex to analyze that no matter how you pull together an assessment, it's hard to cover everything and thus look like you are leaving facts out ---- aka spin. And there are definitely people harmed by ObamaCare --- we need to fix that. But I think it’s clear that ObamaCare is not in crash and burn mode except by public opinion fueled by a spin campaign that does not seem to be based on the facts. Sure, Obama told some fibs, got lied to and passed it on, but that still does not change the factual results.
Couple that with a 90% safety net from financial failure due to catastrophic illness and IMO that’s a program to fix and not eradicate without a suitable replacement.
Whats happening in Tennessee, Aetna and UHC leaving the marketplace in many States is spin? Wheres my $2,500 in savings, oops that must have been one of the lies.
Blah blah blah.
Others?
Symptom = expensive healthcare, Problem = not enough money, Solution = forcibly take money from wherever you can
Me?
Symptom = expensive healthcare, Problem = costs are too high, Solution = find ways to reduce costs.
Spin your favored solution any way you want, but it's still the wrong solution.
Which is exactly what Congress should have been doing instead of trying (and failing) to repeal it.
I assume you are for limiting how much money a company can make and not letting the shareholders and Board of Directors decide how much the CEO makes. Granted the CEO pay seems excessive in my opinion but I don't get to vote on it.
Kb as usual wrong on several levels. Individual Shareholders have power? Totally stacked deck. And yes. Pharmaceutical companies should be regulated. They are essentially monopolies. You think they should be allowed to quintuple an epi pen price arbitrarily? Similarly, the companies you seem to sympathize with (Aetna, United Healthcare, et.al) are now forbidden from denying customers with pre- existing conditions. Among many other heinous prsctices. And they are still raking in profits while moaning they can't make a living. Healthcare and Big Pharma are today's equivalent of Standard Oil and for the good of the country they need to be regulated. That any thinking person would defend these bloodsuckers is beyond me.
I am not defending them at all, what I am saying is that you didn't need to be a rocket scientist to know that there would be more sick people getting the insurance without having enough young healthy people getting it to offset the risks. Many people predicted this would happen. Show me where I defended them.
21 million formerly uninsured now insured. My children now covered until they are 26. Pre- existing condition denials illegal. Are there improvements needed? Obviously. Has the House worked to ameliorate? Does the GOP have an alternative plan?
Our demographics demand a bipartisan effort to make additional progress..
Meanwhile, like too many voters, in my opinion, you are very certain about what you don't like, and equally uncertain about how to change. You love to moan but your solution is unknown.
Transcripts of Hillary's speeches have been leaked. Sounds like Bernie was on to something with her love of Wall Street. And then the issue of open borders. Another Friday night document dump. Next debate should be interesting.
KB --- you bring up a good point and apparently either my research was wrong OR timing ---- and what you found has changed the picture --- or a bit of both.
Timing wise, the Tennessee and some other state phenomena is forthcoming as in the insurers are pulling out after this year. Why? Pretty simple really, people were sicker than anticipated. And sure, even a bonehead could have predicted this but I am not sure they did. I mean I would not call insurance companies boneheads but they entered the marketplace. Where they trying to take a loss to prove a point?
Amazingly most of the states affected are in the Southeast, a section of the country where for years, state regulations allowed insurers to sell insurance that wouldn't cover you if you got sick. Now that folks, and in some states much more than expected, have insurance they are using it causing insurers to take a loss, raise prices, and leave.
Somehow I don't see getting sick and using insurance as a failure of ObamaCare. Perhaps a failure in estimation but both the government and the insurance industry made than same mistake.
Probably this is a bow wave and will level out in time, however, fast action is needed to retain insurance, make the market competitive, and move forward. Repealing ObamaCare without an alternative just puts people on the street ---- medically speaking.
jujitsu logic is correct that a big part of the problem is medical some of which we know is crazy out of whack and finding way to reduce cost is imperative. But again, to do that at the cost of putting people on the street ---- medically speaking ---- would be the wrong solution too no matter what you think the spin might be.
Here's a good summary: http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2016/07/obamacare-exchanges-states-north-carolina-000162
Ollie, I don't think, beyond out of context, there's much in there.
Now let's see some Donald Trump paid speeches from the same time. Release those speeches, release more than 3 pages of your taxes (that was a barn burner), release Melania's immigration papers, release your medical records not a DR's "it's OK."
So Trump can visit swing state Florida after the hurricane passes. Clinton and Obama cannot. Be interesting to see if it makes a difference.
You know what it takes when a candidate like Trump or a President visits a storm zone. And for what, votes? Extra police, blocking roads, etc. ---- I think Obama spent his time making decisions to help Florida instead and can visit later.
Meanwhile, back on ObamaCare and spin. Spin in this case being "depends how you look at it...."
In the beginning in a galaxy far, far, far south of the Mason Dixon, dumbshoot bum-f legislators in southern states pass insurance regulations allowing insurers to sell insurance that does not insure. Works well if you're well but if you get sick......good luck getting covered.
And life is good.....if you're healthy
Obama comes along, raises the insurance coverage bar, provides insurance that covers, increase competition, and people in the South cry out "but you made my non-insurance into insurance and it costs more." Yet, many purchase good insurance. In NC for example they roll out of the mountains and up from the beaches to get it.
Obama convinces insurers with estimates on usage to enter the market and after these mavens of business, these genius's of the market, these Trumps of insurance review the information, assess the facts, look at the profit potential, they say ----- "sure Oman, I'm in the game! Let's open those insurance casino's and let the chips fly"
Turns out he's wrong, people are sick. They use doctors, they use insurance. The people get well. Insurance company's get broke. It's a insurance nightmare for the insurance companies. KB, Ollie, and JIT say "poor insurance companies. So sad. ObamaCare bad."
Yes kids, KB and company seem upset that the insurance companies took it on the chin. They can't understand how Obama could fool them into losing money. FoJit is upset because we should have worked lowering costs instead of getting all those people healthy while letting insurance companies take the fall. We should have let them stay sick, insurance companies stay rich, and worked on lowering costs first.
Ironic ain't it.
Obama rules! Insurance companies fools.
The moral of this story is that shoot happens. We need to work together to make it work and if that means subsidizing insurance, opening up the public option (after all, somebody else already paid to get them healthy :>), or something else, we should repair the breakage. And of course, it's time for Congress to help work the cost issue instead of the 50-plus repeal attempts that did even less to help lower costs than ObamaCare.
Hillary has a plan for this.
Thanks for the video 4catmom..shows the zero respect and regard he has for women. An uncivilized pig.....
My brother just sent me that clip of Trump, as if l didn't need another reason to think he's a total scum bag. I'd love to punch him in the face. He'd sue me, no doubt, but it would be worth it.
Bonv You guys make me laugh, show me where I am crying for the insurance companies. I guess you have selective memories, it was clear and talked about at the time it passed that they needed a whole lot of young healthy people to sign up for this to work. It didn't happen. Why would a young person sign up if all they had to do is pay the penalty which was a small amount and could sign up anytime if they got sick. What is Hillary's plan for this? What I see from her plan is that costs will have to be increased to cover them. And who said the Obama wasn't taking taxpayer money to pay insurance companies. I agree a fix is needed just to toxic of an atmosphere at the moment.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/obama-administration-illegally-diverting-billions-insurance-companies
Yankee Fan... not to make you feel like a real S#@* but yes I am on medication. I suffered a severe trauma not long ago and am now under the care of a psychiatrist and therapist and take 60mg of Lexapro everyday. If you think I'm making this up I have not problem telling you what the trauma was. My father committed suicide and I was the one who found him. So until you walk in my shoes keep your shitty comments to yourself. Running your mouth like that you never know what someone is going through.
I won't be back on this forum.
Trump better not screw up in the next debate or he's done. D-O-N-E.
And anyone claiming to be offended (or actually offended) by those Trump comments, I guarantee your husband, brother, father or adult son, if not yourself, have said similar things. That's how some men talk, maybe even most men.
Historically debates have changed little. At this point in the game, supporters for both sides won't change sides. In fact, each side believes their candidate did better.
Only a complete meltdown might make a difference. I am talking about one of the candidates passing out, etc...
Ollie, sorry for your loss and hope you can move forward through the pain and that time helps. I am sure YF did not want to upset you that way, feels bad, and will certainly improve.
Do debates change things? Yes and no. No because we are so polarized that if Trump ran from either he could get 40% just for showing up. Yes in that it's that last 5%-10% that matters whether it be by showing up or not showing up.
Trump has to swing for the fences now. And more tapes are coming. A brilliant businessman and stupendous showman probably should have known that all mics are hot. I always take the wireless off before heading to "the little room."
Unless Hillary falters or the FBI arrests her, it's over. Question now is does he take the Republican party and down-ticket elections. Distance, Disowning, Disenfranchisement, and most important, De-Endorsements are flowing.
Sure Men are crude and even the polite ones who know better often just go along rather than push back. I am pretty ribald by nature and even more so by innuendo --- it's a gift :>( But there's a difference here. It's one thing to be racy, it's another to be demeaning and physically crude. I would be not laughing as Trump described hunting a married woman or grabbing woman by their #$#E^$^'s or the other actions that are way beyond just ribald talk. Remember, this is a friend of the billionaire pedophile who is in lawsuit for rape of a young woman. http://us.blastingnews.com/news/2016/10/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit-ordered-to-move-forward-by-federal-judge-details-released-001168479.html
Trump's apology: well, Bill Clinton is worse. Now there's an excuse for rationalization.
I liked Trump's earlier retort that "it's entertainment" to demean and objectify women. Stephen Colbert suggested that the best entertainment would be to vote against Trump so we can see the best entertainment in the land: the Trump Concession Speech Reality Show. That's going to get more viewers than Hillary's Inauguration Speech.
Wonder if he will quote "I could have been a contender......"
SD, you're right. I feel deplorable. Sorry Ollie, but Bill Clinton has said worse things.
Both of these candidates are the real deplorable's. Trump's Stupid comments keep biting him in the rear, especially when some real news such as Hillary's pay off speeches to the big banks have just been revealed. Some choice we have here America, a narcissistic, sexist blowhard or a lying,elitist hypocrite.
Mr. Wilson Good post SD. The apology while rare was lame at best since he's the candidate. The problem is that this is not an isolated incident nor is it just words.... this is the same man that has at least 2 rape allegations, the same man that brought his mistress with him on his family vacation(s), the same man that boasted about how many women he had sex with and so on. His words match his actions and give a pretty clear picture of what he thinks about women and their overall value.
“You know, it doesn’t really matter what [the media] write as long as you’ve got a young and beautiful piece of ass.”
“I think the only difference between me and the other candidates is that I’m more honest and my women are more beautiful.”
“ 26,000 unreported sexual assaults in the military-only 238 convictions. What did these geniuses expect when they put men & women together? ”
“All of the women on ‘The Apprentice’ flirted with me — consciously or unconsciously. That’s to be expected.”
“You wouldn’t have your job if you weren’t beautiful.”
“Women have one of the great acts of all time. The smart ones act very feminine and needy, but inside they are real killers. The person who came up with the expression ‘the weaker sex’ was either very naive or had to be kidding. I have seen women manipulate men with just a twitch of their eye — or perhaps another body part.”
“While @ BetteMidler is an extremely unattractive woman, I refuse to say that because I always insist on being politically correct. ”
“My favorite part [of ‘Pulp Fiction’] is when Sam has his gun out in the diner and he tells the guy to tell his girlfriend to shut up. Tell that bitch to be cool. Say: ‘Bitch be cool.’ I love those lines.”
“If I were running ‘The View’, I’d fire Rosie O’Donnell. I mean, I’d look at her right in that fat, ugly face of hers, I’d say ‘Rosie, you’re fired.’”
“I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.”
“Look at that face. Would anybody vote for that? Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?! I mean, she's a woman, and I'm not s'posedta say bad things, but really, folks, come on. Are
“A person who is flat-chested is very hard to be a 10.”
"Her ass is too fat."
"Well, you never get to the face because the body's so good."
"How do the breasts look?"
"And the girls—we're supposed to call them women, but they're girls to me .”
"You have to treat 'em like shit."
Vanity Fair said it this way.. candidate with a few scruples vs candidate with no scruples at all.
But Trump wins on both accounts ---- he's the winningest winner of all winners.
"I've said and done things I regret, and the words released today on this more than a decade-old video are one of them. Anyone who knows me, know these words don't reflect who I am. I said it, it was wrong, and I apologize."
It would be one thing if these comments were made when he was an adolescent. Ten years ago he was practically SIXTY, lol. Lots of leopards change the spots that they've been wearing for six decades.... sure.
Hillary's vision of strategic governing "you need both a public and a private position". That in a nutshell is the only reason there's a Trump in this race at all. The American people are fed up with this garbage, they are tired of being sold a bill of goods and seeing their representatives worrying about their next election the day they get sworn in instead of attempting to fulfill the promises they made to get elected. Unfortunately, Trump was the only candidate on the Republican side to seize on this growing unrest. The others were too entrenched in Good Old Boy politics. whatever way you look at it these are the only two candidates with a chance to win, pick your poison.
Nice rundown of Trumpisms, there, Bonv. I can't wait to see how this pans out in the debate tomorrow. The best part will be if (when) he tries to turn the table on Bill Clinton. Were his actions in the white house wrong? yes. But Trump isn't up against Bill. He's up against his wife.
It is telling that my one neighbor who had a Trump sign in his yard took the sign down this morning. He's finally become too much of an embarrassment. Not sure why it took so long for people to realize this, but at least it's finally happening.
KB et al. I really wasn't saying you were a insurance company groupie, just kidding around by tyying to make the point that rather than looking at it as an ObamaCare crash and burn, in truth it was first an insurance company crash and burn which, being the experts, they should have seen coming in. Also, while non-entry by younger/healthier people, it was caused by people who were really sick but couldn't afford to get well until ObamaCare which seems like a good thing. With or without ObamaCare they would have been sick and a lot would have either died or landed on the ER and we would have paid anyway. The estimates of this were off, either a great conspiracy that insurers didn't see or a shoot happens. I vote the later.
Point is I believe that being sick should not be a financial disaster for a family and we all need to work together to make a system to make that a reality. ObamaCare does that, obviously people without insurance get sick and don't/can't take care of it, so IMO we should make it work.
Social Security for old age had almost the exact same partisan battles and I think the good guys one and it's a good program alleviating a lot of pain in this world. I assume the program had some major start-up issues as well.
I would like to see ObamaCare be the same for illness. I believe it is crucial to our national security to make sure folks don't lose everything they worked for merely because they got sick. I think the solution is becoming obvious: open up the public option for ObamaCare users only, not corporate plan holders.
Good point SD, Bill Clinton's actual actions in the White House and then the false denial are much worse. This might backfire on Hillary...
iJay I think you're right. Neither candidates are in a position to talk about sexism or mistreating women. I wish we could just stick to the issues!
What you think about and how you treat approx. 50% of the country is an "issue" that's pretty important especially when as POTUS you will be serving as commander in chief, nominating SC justices, etc. You want to equate him with Bill go for it but Bill's not running (nor is his history as sick as Trump's and that's saying something). You want to blame Hillary for her husband's behavior - ridiculous - but just like Trump. After all he's on the record for blaming her for "not satisfying" Bill. Because after all if a man goes elsewhere it's the woman's fault... if a man sexually harasses a woman, it's her fault and she should move on... pathetic.
Hillary isn't to blame for her husband's sexual assaults and misogyny, she's to blame for condoning it, and then being hypocritical in claiming that she cares about women. The only women Hillary cares about are those whose husbands give her $$$$$.
The false equivalence here is laughable.
And 1988LJ, if you think most men talk the way Trump did, I feel bad for you.
Gadfly Pathetic 1988LJ - Hillary is still at fault while Trump's behavior, actions, words are apparently admirable. The fact that she decided to stay in her marriage - like millions of other women - is not one I will judge her since I haven't walked in her shoes. The fact that she is a strong woman and has advocated for millions is not diminished by her choice to stay married versus dumping her husband (and say what you want but she's been committed to helping women & children through her career). Just like this criticism against Trump isn't about his cheating and dumping wives for younger versions. The criticism is about his behavior, his deep rooted bias towards women that don't fit his "ideal" and his deep rooted opinion that women are primarily sex toys. I realize that you are either trying at deflection or sincerely believe that his behavior is A-OK but what he has done and said about women is just not acceptable - never was but sure is hell isn't in 2016.
Come back Ollie. These political threads get a bit heated..sometimes people get carried away (myself included) and say things they don't mean. Many good people on here and if you ever need a listening ear..just send me PM.
Funny how this is disgusting here (it is) but when said by shock jocks aka Howard Stern, whom some posters are known to enjoy, it's all in good fun.
Our collective duplicity is quite interesting...
I am pretty sure Howard Stern would face bleak prospects in a Presidential run for that very reason.
A lot of people are put off by Howard Stern, and most of us would never support him as a presidential candidate. On second thought though, I suppose a good number of Trump supporters would vote for him. He would be a comparable candidate.
JIT - not a fan of Stern but as far as I know he doesn't brag about actually physically groping women (aka = assault) and being able to get away with it. This recording isn't just about offensive language but about what he actually thinks he can do to women because he's "special".
Funny how we seem to forget how Hillary led the war room in discrediting women when they decided to speak up about Bill's indiscretions. And let's not forget how many millions of dollars she took from countries that routinely mistreat women. Yeah she's aces when it comes to women rights unless you have a few bucks to throw her way or you get in the way of her political ambitions.
Funny how you seem to equate physically assaulting women, allegedly raping them and overall only valuing their anatomies with her actions. Let's not forget how many millions of dollars Trump has taken from the same countries (loans from Saudi Arabia, outsourcing businesses to countries blatantly abusing children/women). Yea she's aces when it comes to women rights because she's actually done positive things in this country and throughout the world. Trump's record on the other hand is fairly consistent - look a certain way, make sure you satisfy your husband/boyfriend, don't say no and if harassed go away.
I have no illusions about what Donald Trump is, but it always amazes me how Democrats in the tank for Hillary justify her behavior. So she's done none of the things I mentioned, at times as a public servant. Just want to make sure .
Probably has done some of those things and probably a lot better than the ones I mentioned but ultimately what your aiming at is deflection. Trump's actions aren't really about Hillary (or Bill's) they are about him. His latest recording is consistent with his past treatment of women - actions + words. It won't sway those that support him but it does validate his behavior. What I can say is that as a former lifelong Republican at some point it's country before party.
How would it benefit the Republican party if Trump does get elected?
4 full years of being unable to ignore him?
4 years wondering what he'll do next?
How can posters above, and 1000s elsewhere, represent 20 years of innuendo and hyperbole as equivalent to Trump's well documented stream of monumental stupidities?
How can anyone continue to back Trump?
Is it:
a) they are ashamed to state their real reasons for backing Trump.
b) they are just unable to admit the terrible mistake they made backing him in the first place.
His policy positions? Give me a break. You can not rely on anything the man says.
Hillary perfect? Of course not, but we can survive 4 years of her, and probably thrive, in a manner of speaking.
Trump's behavior was classic Frat Boy mentality. Now Trump is a bit older than your typical Frat Boy but his "slang" is not as uncommon as you think when the microphone is off...
The reason I support Trump at this point is twofold:
1. I don't want Hillary Clinton to represent our country.
2. I want the GOP to hold power, NOT the Dems.
4. Clinton is the status quo on steroids, and continuing the status quo essentially means continuation of wealth transfer from the 99% to those in power.
Anyone who thinks Hillary or the d's (or the r's for that matter) are looking out for them is delusional. The only important thing to them, to the political class, is to keep throwing breadcrumbs to the people so that they can keep theiving their way to prosperity.
Politically, Trump is hated because he's not really a d or r, but because he may or may not play the game in favor of those in power. He's an unknown.
Trump apologized for bragging about committing sexual assault on tape. It's over. It was a long time ago. He was young. With his rape charge looming, he has changed from that young impudent 59-year old man. He was just a mankid then, with a kid's mind, making kid mistakes. He likes women now, he hires them. He has a friend that is a woman. Trump would never say demeaning things like abortion should be punishable or sexual assaults are due to living together or being in the services together. Or the terrible things he said but wouldn't say about Rosie O'Donnell, Heidi Klum, Carly Fiorina, and Meghan Kelly just in this election cycle. It wasn't that bad, he was just battling PC and being entertaining. Are you entertained?
Let's move on from the past. Let's talk about Bill Clinton in the 70's, 80's and 90's as being relevant to Hillary's character. I mean she accepted him unlike what say, a Melania would do.
Let's instead talk about how it is Hillary's fault that Bill's Foundation took money from nation's that don't treat women fairly in order for Hillary to personally profit by Bill's Foundation using all that money to help the disadvantaged throughout the world. Trump's foundation does not do this. Trump' Foundation only gives money to politicians so they can drop Trump University fraud cases. It buys pretty pictures of Trump to hang in Trump buildings to help the disadvantaged. Bill's Foundation has never been found guilty of anything, Trump's has been fined and is under an active investigation or two. The Trump Foundation is not like Bill's. It's better, it's not PC.
I mean no one deals with these nations, it's not like any President you have voted for has partnered with them in War and in peace. It's not like every President has made deals with Saudi Arabia with many doing paid speeches there. Heck, Reagan did a million dollars in Japan, not exactly the bastion of equality for women.
I mean it's just frat boy locker room talk. After all, everyone does it in the non PC world. Ask your husband, he probably does it. He is probably doing it right now. We all think about women that way. It's about time we got to go public.
Trump is a professional showman, it was just planned entertainment because he just had to know the mic was always on. He's a pro after all. Women should just shrug it off as being funny. If they can't vote for Trump, vote against Hillary and vote for Trump because this is change, a change you can believe.
Melania stands by her man and she's no enabler. She's a strong independent business woman who would never put profit in front of principle. It's the naked truth. She says he never talks like this when off the mic at home. Honest. I mean he said sorry and let's talk about Bill so that's good enough for her to accept him and his billions.
To prove how normal this is we have more tapes coming. That will show that this is an everyday occurrence, it's OK. But for a quick review of Trump's journey into personal growth: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/politics/donald-trump-sexism-tracker-every-offensive-comment-in-one-place/
Oh boy.
LOL ianimal.
Wrong iJay this isn't classic frat boy mentality but classic rape mentality. He is not simply using "slang" he is flat out saying that he can do anything he wants because he is a celebrity.
"Bush: “Your girl’s hot as s—, in the purple.”
Trump: “Whoa!” [laughing] “Whoa! I’ve got to use some Tic Tacs, just in case I start kissing her. You know I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.”
Unidentified voice, possibly Bush: “Whatever you want.”
Trump: “Grab them by the p-ssy. You can do anything.”"
With this attitude (+ witnesses) his rape allegations look a lot less like allegations.
Also not to forget the first half of his recording:
“I moved on her actually. You know she was down in Palm Beach, I moved on her and I failed. I’ll admit it…I did try and f–k her, she was married… Nancy, no this was, and I moved on her very heavily. In fact, I took her out furniture shopping. She wanted to get some furniture. I said, ‘I’ll show you where they have some nice furniture.’ I took her out, furniture, I moved on her like a bitch. But I couldn’t get there — and she was married. And all of a sudden I see her, she’s now got the big phony t-ts, she’s totally changed her look.”
Keep in mind that Trump tried to fire O’Dell two years later because A) she was pregnant and B) she did not succumb to his advances. Also interesting that not only was O’Dell married, but Donald had just married Melania as well, and many believe this was recorded when Melania was pregnant with Barron.
Bonv,talk is cheap. What Bill did was over-the-top and unacceptable in the USA; but perfectly acceptable in France...
Make all the excuses and deflect all you want iJay. What Trump has done is what's unacceptable - he is an alleged rapist (one is a 13-year old girl), known philanderer, known and now admitted sexual harasser/assaulter. Bill is not running but it's ironic that all those outraged with his behavior give Trump a free pass when his acts are worse. What's really pathetic though is those that stand behind him with the 'boys will be boys' or he was joking attitude. His actions are those of a predator and the fact that you support them says a lot more about you than him. It is not okay to grope or kiss women (or worse as alleged) without their consent, it is not okay to assess their worth based on their anatomy or looks, it is not okay to try to fire women when they refuse your advances. To support him says the opposite though - it says "I/we" think that this behavior is typical or that it's just "talk". To support him validates that sexual assault is A-OK when committed by people like Trump.
I don't advocate the 13 year old rape allegations. Interesting how serial pediphile billionaire Epstein seems to have assisted Bill Clinton quite a lot.
Hillary definitely looked the other way on numerous occasions. Not the person I want to see run this country. Trump is far from perfect but if he is preaching change then that's my preference -- or I vote for Gary Johnson or better yet write-in Ron Paul...
Man is it amazing how people just forget Hillary's role in the trashing of the women her husband abused. For her to feign disgust at Trump and declare he should never be president for the statements he made is a joke. I just don't recall her making those kind of statements when her husband actually took advantage of a 20 year old intern while president. Then again that might have gotten in the way of her future ambitions. I would love to see actual issues discussed tonight but I'm sure Hillary and her cohorts in the media will steer the debate away from actual issues and stick with the salacious material since dealing with actual issues can only hurt her. Neither of these candidates can take the moral high ground stick to policy issues and may the lesser of two evils win.
Trump is a failed businessman only successful because of massive Daddy funding and multiple Daddy failure bail outs. He is a failed human based on his racist and sexist actions and words. He has avoided public service throughout his life. His philanthropic foundation is a scam to funnel money to politicians and himself. His college is a fraud factory. He took 9/11 recovery funds without having any damages because it was good business. He may have taken the largest personal tax loss in history as we all funded his bail out on that one. His wife was raised a communist, supported herself selling her body via salacious photography and went from rags to married to a billionaire.
Trump currently advocates firing on people giving us the finger, advocates torture, wants to kill terrorist families, steal other's resources as plunders of war, and wants to give us the largest deficit ever expecting an economic turnaround by slashing the lowest taxes in decades, giving billion dollar perks to billionaires like the $3B he will give himself, and raising tariff and regulatory walls to international trade. He will kill ObamaCare with the only alternative being to save the expected people dying in the street. The only job he will offer you is the deportee's that his brownshirt deportation SWAT teams will open up. His words for his future.
Lesser evil my sweet patooty.
He's not a change-agent if anything from a behavior standpoint it seems like he is the same of the old and I guess this behavior is okay for him but not others. Continued support for him is validating and even condoning that his harassment/assaults are okay or not that important because it's not a "real issue". Frankly this is not a distraction - the man is on the record for bragging about groping and kissing women without their consent; how his "status" allows him to do anything he wants. This is the person that as POTUS would influence policies/law enforcement/court appointments and what he thinks and how he behaves towards 51% of population is a lot relevant. Neither candidate is perfect but to equate his assaults with Hillary's actions is disingenuous at best. The message though is loud and clear Trump can assault women because Bill did it too, he's special and he's said he's sorry. It's okay women suck it up when this happens to you and follow his advice: quit if it's your boss, ignore it if it's your colleagues, dismiss it if it's your father, spouse/BF, brother, uncle... and don't press charges because it wasn't all that big a deal.
There are plenty of 3rd party/independent candidates including Evan McMullin. All of the deflection and excuses show that Trump can really do anything he wants but again that's not new.
Pathetic attempts to make excuses for Trump and deflect to Bill Clinton. Guess what? Bill is not running. I feel a little bad for the so called conservatives. Having painted themselves into a corner by backing this scumbag, they are now faced with accepting the ever growing evidence that he is completely unfit for office and admitting defeat, or condoning and accepting this despicable behavior. Neither is a good outcome, but only one choice will leave them with a bit of dignity.
Gadfly, have you looked at what behavior is considered ok in our society? Trump epitomizes the direction of our social norms
Bragging about sexual assault is not considered ok, and it is not within our societal norms. It's despicable. I wouldn't vote for someone like that to be president of.....well, anything.
Guess what...Hillary's marriage is a sham.They only stay together for political and monetary gain.
These two candidates just shows how the country is continuing to circle the drain and it's a shame..
Joe I never deflected to Bill's actions, I specifically mentioned Hillary's participation in trying to ruin the reputation of his accusers. I also mentioned her hypocrisy while denouncing Trump and not doing so when her husband sexually took advantage of an intern.It's the Hillary supporters that continue to deflect to Trump without addressing her actions. I'll admit Trump many many flaws as does Hillary, but reading her supporters on this thread they can't admit it. if they do, it's always countered with "but Trump is worse". Trump has not held office, he is not responsible for the deaths of four Americans, running a pay for play scam while holding a political position, and he has not continually lied to the american people to try to cover up these actions. I could go on but then this post would look like one of stranger danger's. got a life to live, peace out.
"Trump epitomizes the direction of our social norms"
Well, since it was 11 years ago we must be well underway :>)
And earlier: "Sealed my decision to vote for Trump."
Well no wonder it's rationalization time even from juJITsu.
Fact is this crap goes on but probably less in our generation and even less in our kids generation. Funny though how not only did they tape it, but they kept the tape.....
More "ok behavior" coming...
Free Kittens
A pretty little girl named Suzy was standing on the sidewalk in front of her home. Next to her was a basket containing a number of tiny creatures; in her hand was a sign announcing FREE KITTENS.
Suddenly a line of big black cars pulled up beside her. Out of the lead car stepped a tall, grinning man.
"Hi there , little girl . I'm Donald Trump. What do you have in the basket?" he asked.
"Kittens," little Suzy said."How old are they?" asked Trump.
Suzy replied, "They're so young, their eyes aren't even open yet."
"And what kind of kittens are they?""Republicans," answered Suzy with a smile.
Trump was delighted. As soon as he returned to his car, he called his PR chief and told him about the little girl and the kittens. Recognizing the perfect photo op, the two men agreed that Trump should return the next day; and in front of the assembled media, have the girl talk about her discerning kittens.
So, the next day Suzy was again standing on the sidewalk with her basket of "FREE KITTENS," when another motorcade pulled up, this time followed by vans from ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, and CNN. Cameras and audio equipment were quickly set up, then Trump got out of his limo and walked over to little Suzy.
"Hello, again," he said, "I'd love it if you would tell all my friends out there what kind of kittens you're giving away."
"Yes, sir," Suzy said. "They're Democrats."
Taken by surprise, Trump stammered, "But...but...yesterday, you told me they were REPUBLICANS."
Little Suzy smiled and said, "I know. But today, they have their eyes open."
Somehow, I hope most people will give whoever is elected president at least a chance to do well for the country.
Difficult for Trump and impossible for Clinton with the strong influence of special interest groups...
My point was that if a larger cross section of the country finds it acceptable to talk openly a certain way (rude, crude "humor"), an undeniable trend born out in today's media, then why is it surprising that those in power do the same? Heck, I've commented myself probably a dozen times about how rude the current president has been toward "the other guys" but the masses seem to find it perfectly acceptable.
Trump is a microcosm of our society, whether you choose to believe it or not. I just hope that his popularity turns things back the other way.
While I do see a lesser of 2 evils here, I find it LAUGHABLE to the extreme that so many of you think there's such a YUGE difference between the two of them, that one is "good" and one is "evil".... you people really need to start paying better attention, drop the blind party loyalty, open your minds, and accept reality AS IT IS, not as WHAT YOU WISH IT TO BE.
There's not alot of difference between them. Yes, they ARE different- on several key issues- but thinking Hillary is "worthy" or "good" or anything else positive, while thinking Trump is "unworthy" or anything else negative, make you naive IN THE EXTREME.
(and vice versa)
JR, it has become very apparent that people are fully willing to turn the blind eye to their parties corruption, flaws, and just down right bad character and spend their time attempting to make the other party look bad, even if they make a dishonest fool out of themselves in the process, essentially stooping to (fill in the candidate)'s level.
This goes both ways, and is why I have mostly stayed out of this discussion.
I fully agree with you, there is definitely a lesser of the two evils, in our opinion. But, what we are looking for may not be what others are looking for, which is actually quite obvious.
Either way we are screwed!
That's not quite fair. I have indeed been exhaustive in reviewing Trump's paltry number of submitted plans. I have also bashed him on his braggadocio personal resume claims and character flaws. Sure, why not. Good for the goose.....
I have not discussed Hillary's plans much. No one brings them up.
JIT The current president has been "rude to the other guys? "
Eight years, not a hint of personal malfeasance. A marriage that looks pretty successful and somehow raising what looks like two pretty well adjusted daughters in the most difficult of environments. I don'r recall him commenting on how hot his daughter is and i certainly don't recall him talking about using his celebrity to take sexual advantage of women. Agree with his agenda or not, he's been a model family man and a thoughtful and dignified representative of our country. Your comparison is ridiculous..You know better.
A sneak peek at the potential ramifications of giving a petulant child like Trump control of the nuclear codes... actually, I think I would vote for Anthony if it were a choice between the two.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=AkJcFGvNgcY
Jr...so deep. Much sound and fury. Signifying nothing. JR short for juvenile rhetoric.
Trump looks defeated. Defensive and lost. Grasping at twigs while drowning. Publically exposed.
He doesn't give any specifics. Just it's going to be great, so many choices, blah blah blah.
Watching the debate..Trump not doing well and what the heck is going on with his snorting?
Feels like a thanksgiving dinner and everyone is looking down trying to ignore the dumb drunk uncle. Painful.
Mellow because she realizes she can't do donald more harm than he's doing to himself.
I do agree with some of what he says but how on earth would you ever let him run the USA . it be like putting a pouting child whose brother over seas stole his chocolate milk in front of the switch to launch nukes. We all gonna die
Feels like a thanksgiving dinner and everyone is looking down trying to ignore the dumb drunk uncle. Painful..
Haha look at her face. uncle Donald stop talking
He says nothing of substance, just everything is a "disaster". Someone should count how many times he's said that.
Every time I read about or hear something from our presidential candidates, I just shake my head. But I will say I thought the debate ended on a positive note. Hearing the two candidates have to say something that they admired about each other, they both gave what I thought were thoughtful answers. Hillary praised Donald's children and his role in who they are today, and Donald praised Hillary's tenacity and the fact that she doesn't give up.
Jersey Girl How anyone in their right mind thinks Trump was coherent, presidential, or "won" drinks gallons of kool aid. Hillary has her issues but at least she has a clue. I get wanting a change from the status quo but change for change sake is not the way to go. Not if it's Trump.
Oh, SD- YOU aren't naive in the extreme.... but you ARE totally party blind. You are clever as a fox, and know EXACTLY what you are doing. You are a spinmeister extraordinaire. If you aren't a political consultant or some kind of media writer, I think you have missed your calling.
Trump represents a Populist movement - people sick and tired of an ineffective bought and paid for Congress, endless wars (oh I mean conflicts), regulation after regulation, a sick economy, stagnant job growth, unemployment, Globalism (look at Europe), trade imbalance, open borders, terrorism, national debt, elites, corrupt RNC & DNC, untrustworthy mainstream media, lobbying and special interests, a destroyed currency, etc, etc, etc…. Trump is a wrecking ball and Clinton is Obama 2.0 – No matter who wins the country is in deep trouble. If we can avoid a currency collapse and a nuclear exchange with Russia over Syria I’ll be amazed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Populism
Rich07840 "Trump is a wrecking ball and Clinton is Obama 2.0"
That is about as succinct and accurate as it gets. And about half the country sees each one as the lesser of 2 evils. And they are both right...and wrong. Depends on how far along the political wisdom timeline you are, and if you're far along enough to recognize and accept reality instead of shaking your fist at it, trying to justify "your side" as the "right course".
I don't think we have to worry about a "nuclear exchange", that's just fear-mongering. But economic collapse is a real threat, as is, imho, armed revolution (eventually, not necessarily in the next president's term). It won't be like the Revolutionary War, it's be much more "guerrilla" than that. But I do believe the day is coming. Especially if the people think their votes don't REALLY matter anymore because regardless of who gets elected we slip further down the sinkhole. And this election will be very telling in that regard- if the people feel like their votes don't really matter anymore.
It's gonna' get worse, probably alot worse, before it gets better.
Body languish says a lot about a person. I already posted the reasons Trump is going to make America hate again, a great depression will do that, which is exactly is what's going to happen, if ANOTHER round of tax cuts for the ultra wealthy takes place. What has me worried is his immaturity. His constant pursing of the lips, pacing back and forth, like a caged animal, interrupting Hillary way to much. He constantly spews lies. Never answers a question with a relative answer.... pivot to ISIS..constantly. He is another Hitler, in the making. Scary, scary, man that Trump. Oh, and his cocaine fueled mike was "broken" again..LOL
Funny how alot of people were comparing Obama to "another Hitler" his first election... that didn't turn out, did it? What makes anyone think Trump will? Nothing but the same back-and-forth BS, fear mongering on both sides, winning at all costs. I thought maybe the forum had come a long way since Bush and Obama... apparently not.... same old BS.
Apparently NJ thinks Trump won last night... by a definitive margin... NJ?????
Incapable of empathy - The most terrifying trait about Donald Trump. He fits all of the following signs.
16 Key Signs You May Be Married to or in a Relationship with a Narcissist.
1.Maintains feelings of entitlement
2.Violates the persona boundaries of others
3.Inflated view of self
4.Conversation hoarder
5.Charming or otherwise engaging
6.Uses manipulation to get what they want even at the expense of others
7.Often makes promises they do not keep
8.Lacks true empathy
9.Feigns concern or affection
10.Overly concerned with both personal appearance and impressing others
11.Embellishes stories or achievements
12.Always giving advice even when they are not thoroughly versed on the topic of discussion
13.Impatient
14.Holds grudges
15.It is never their fault, it is always someone else’s fault
16.Manipulative or self-serving behaviors
just coach "Your comparison is ridiculous..You know better."
But I wasn't comparing the level of rudeness yankeefan, just commenting that Obama has his own way of being very rude through his condescending approach. Didn't you post that video with his quite rude lead-in? Anyway, he's in no way comparable to trump, of course, but rude and divisive none the less.
Btw, besides the childish interactions between the two, this grates on me even more:
https://theintercept.com/2016/10/09/exclusive-new-email-leak-reveals-clinton-campaigns-cozy-press-relationship/
It's not just the D's, but they seem to be much better at it than the R's. Does that give you pause when referencing stories by the MSM? It should IMO.
Oh the irony..... Hillary could win because her opponent is too much like her husband. If THAT doesn't show you the hypocrisy and willful blindness of the electorate....
As JIT has said, "black is white, up is down, left is right".
JR, you call me the spin king. I say just focus on the facts. If you see spin, look at the underlying facts and tell me I am wrong. You are in fact avoidance as your reliance of an unscientific self-reporting survey allowing multiple votes per voter shows. "Apparently."
Last night was the difference with a man claiming frequent continued sexual abuse at age 59, a decade ago, and a couple who went publically through infidelities in their marriage two decades ago with no allegations after Bill he hit the ripe ole age of 50.
In the pre-debate sideshow, Trump presidentially brought four accusers on stage each of who's case has been adjudicated in the press and in the law. It is was it is, it is old news, it has been settled. I mean is this how you use your campaign funds?
Trump claims it's locker room talk. Well, boys, is that how it goes in your locker room? Most of the men I hang with treat women with a heck of a lot more respect than that even in their worst moments.
The telling moment for me was when Trump announced he would put his opponent in jail. Later, his first and last supporter expecting the job, Rudy Giuliani, doubled down on the jailing saying he would be glad to do it. Note to Trump opponents: uh oh.
The rest of the coke sniffles, the pacing, the stalking and looming over, was just creepy. The sniffles are constant. Where are they during the rallies? Don't need the strong stuff when in friendly surroundings? Seems to get sick when under pressure.
But the truth might be how Chuck Todd summed it up to Rudy: "If you believe that Hillary Clinton says one thing in private and that means what she really is is what she is in private, should we assume that what Donald Trump did in that Access Hollywood bus is really what Donald Trump is like in private? That's what you're implying here with Hillary Clinton."
"Giuliani shook his head and audibly "oof"-ed. Yep. That's gonna leave a mark."
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a49420/giuliani-defending-trump/
Given Donald's penchant for strong dictatorial leadership, somehow the Hilter reference gets more delicious when you add in the Ghouliani Italian Mussolini connection. Apparently to prove diversity they were looking for Pat Morita to play Tojo but he is dead, went for Hikaru Sulu but found out he's George Takei and gay......oooops.
Optically I call the debate a tie. Trump was off-topic, rambling incoherently, while Hillary played rope a dope avoiding issues, not taking the bait, and throwing out precious little red meat. In the fact checking, Trump will probably score the highest number of lies in debate history and complete stupidity about international affairs, except his with abused women.
He laid the gauntlet down saying it was only words, braggadocio, and for a man with an ongoing rape accusation and a very checkered past ---- brave words that undoubtedly will bring accusers forward.
Bottom line: he held what's left of his loyal base, no Trump votes were added. He added to Hillary's. She didn't win any Trump supporters over, won some indy's, and will rouse the base more than ever.
Vote Hillary and lower the prison budget.
just coach-
HILARIOUS. Your list describes AT LEAST 90% of all elected officials- including Trump AND HILLARY.
Wtf is up with "coke sniffels" do you know that for sure or are you spreading degrading rumors?
As much as you do, you should know by now what deformation of character is.
"16 Key Signs You May Be Married to or in a Relationship with a Narcissist."
Reviewing that list, i can think of many politicians who would fit the description, Trump being one. But really, we needn't look too far to find some folks who appear to share many of those traits too lol
I love both of them so much! I simply don't know how I'm going to decide between these two amazing human beings come voting day.
JIT, you're outraged that her campaign has a media plan? What campaign doesn't?
Darrin, "deformation" of character? Priceless.
Yankeefan, I'm outraged that so many believe everything they hear, especially when the basis for their arguments comes from the spun "articles" in the msm. Team politics already makes for closer mindedness. Believing the msm at face value doesn't help.
Could you imagine how people would feel if the "fact check" websites on which they rely were created by the campaigns "media plan", aka the website Hillary keeps telling people to use to "fact check" ;-)
"Oh the irony..... Hillary could win because her opponent is too much like her husband. If THAT doesn't show you the hypocrisy and willful blindness of the electorate"
Right, Trump is exactly like Bill Clinton, except for the whole thoughtful rational intelligence part. That not what you need in a president. You need an irrational whackjob. Look how well it's served North Korea...
I'll say the same thing as after the first debate. There are no winners here, and the biggest loser of them all is the American public.
Do you think all her political hacks that came up with that BS line about the Lincoln movie when trying to explain away her belief that you need both a private and public position as a politician that was contained in one of her big bank speeches were warmly received and congratulated by Hillary afterwards, I think not. More telling, it was one of several times during the night were she really looked unsettled either looking dour or having that big fake smile looking like she was ready to blow. she really had a hard time with that one along with the 33,000 bleach bit subpeoned emails, as well as the 600 requests for some help from our people in Benghazi. also lets not forget about that lie about not being Secretary of State while the president made his line in the sand stance. one more thing SD, it's really not about Hill and Bill's marital relationship, it's about the way she participated in trying to take down his accusers. If Trumps past comments are pertinent, which they are, then so are her past actions.
Impressive list developing:
Mitt Romney, Barbara Bush, Jeb Bush, Bloomberg, Bradshaw, Racicot, Gordon Humphrey, John Warner, Milliken, Richard Hanna, Charlie Dent, Kinzinger, Mike Coffman, etc. etc, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Rob Portman, Jeff Flake, Cory Gardner, John Kasich, Sandoval, Gary Herbert, etc. etc, Richard Armitage, Condoleeza Rice, Brent Snowcroft, Hank Paulson, Michael Chertoff, Michael Hayden, John Negroponte, Tom Ridge, William Reilly, Carlos Gutierrez, George Shultz (who said "God help us" when asked of a Trump presidency), Charles Fried, Robert Zoellick, Robert Gates (Trump is "beyond repair … unqualified and unfit to be commander-in-chief."), Michael Chertoff, George Will, Leon Wolf, Max Boot, Michael Reagan, etc., etc..
Now I know that there exists, also, a long list of those in support of Trump - I just wonder if those still supporting him experience any cognitive dissonance over the growing list of Republicans - some highly regarded - who, for whatever their reasons, will not support him any longer.
I also recognize that these lists pro/con exist for Clinton as well - it is the shifting in the GOP and how it affects voters that I am wondering about?
thoughts?
Pmnsk, that list simply confirms that Trum is a true outsider, that he really isn't a Republicrat.
They are scared. And IMO that is fantastic!
"They are scared. And IMO that is fantastic!"
I've been saying this for months! Why the republicrat voters don't get that....
Nice Freudian slip Darrin, but point taken --- sounds like coke sniffles, maybe snorted diet pills, no proof whatsoever, but weird how it affects debates but not rallies.
How did she participate in trying to take down his accusers; I didn't see the tweets...
Mr. Wilson has some interesting facts to check.
The Trump quote was: “Ambassador Stevens sent 600 requests for help and the only one she talked to was Sidney Blumenthal, who’s her friend, and not a good guy by the way,” Trump lies.
First, yes, security was inadequate in Benghazi just as it was in NYC and the USA on 9/11/2001. But think about it. How many Republican investigations concluded lots of serious mistakes by state and other governmental organizations but no evidence of actual wrong doing or misconduct.
So with that in mind, I smell a rat in Trump's statement from the get go.
First, Stevens did not do this nor were there ever 600 unanswered requests. The committee reported there were 600 requests and concerns; a request and concern are two different things and one is usually based on the other so double counting to begin with. Requests are for concrete equipment and can be anything from send me a security lightbulb to the more important things. Concerns are for more systemic things like "we need more security, it's getting hostile out there." Stevens never sent either directly to Hillary Clinton, that's not the process. Republicans have never been transparent on how many are requests, how many are concerns, or how they arrived at the total number. But we do know the conclusion of all of their investigations including this part.
Independent assessments by Democrats come up with 200. When the Washington Post reviewed the Republicans data, they found 17 requests under the same heading, meaning it had become a concern and was being discussed. Many were handled outside of Washington D.C. and never made it to State. Many were responded to as a matter of course. Point is that saying Stevens sent 600 requests for help to Hillary Clinton and she did not reply is a lie on so many levels.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/01/26/600-requests-from-benghazi-for-better-security-what-this-statistic-really-means/
"33,000 bleach bit subpoenaed emails" The acid wash part is a lie. The rest is not totally true. The deletion occurred in December of 2014, the subpoena March of 2015, the bleach-bit deleted emails were not subpoenaed when destroyed. The marking of emails as personal or work-related was done by Clinton Attorneys, similar to the attorney process that sanctified Melania as being legit. Moreover, the FBI found 17,000 of them, many were duplicates that had already been turned over to State. That's why the Donald corrected himself and said 15,000 later in the debate.
Line in the Sand: well, kinda right on this one. She was there for the line drawing, she was gone for the more important part: the crossing. Who knows what Trump meant when he said she was there for the line in the sand but she said she was gone for the line in the sand which is not entirely true.
Ready for the Trump lies? Gonna need a bigger boat.
"Trump is going to make America hate again, a great depression will do that, which is exactly is what's going to happen, if ANOTHER round of tax cuts for the ultra wealthy takes place"
I agree that there are going to be some painful results from the DECADES of economic abuse by the status quo, and if Trump wins they will, internally at least, actually rejoice with joy. Finally they will have a scapegoat to blame for the long term destruction they've layed the seeds for.
Voting for Trump in NJ means nothing, so as a protest vote it'll be nice. But I agree that if he does win then the odds are wickedly high for the "great reset" to happen sooner rather than later. All I'd ask is for folks to look at the real reasons for our woes because blaming trump will only be a distraction from the truth.
Some say that cohesive political parties are necessary for our system of governance to work. The fact that this has been breaking down contributes to paralysis. It makes no sense for someone partly at war with a party to be its standard-bearer. Trump should be running not as a republican but as an independent or maybe as head of a newly-created Trump Party.
As to being a true outsider, Hitler was certainly one of those. The German establishment hated him. No doubt in 1930-1933 they were scared he would take over.
His supporters were thrilled when he did.
You are probably right in some way jd2, but I'd point out that the disfunction we are experiencing has a lot to do with our collective choices over the years. You know my stance on this: If it is completely accepted in society that, when in power, your "team" can - dare I say SHOULD - railroad those who disagree by passing laws that would be immoral in any other circumstance, ie theiving from future generations through unrestrained debt, then we reap what we sow. I sincerely hope that people understand that before things get much worse. As you say, history tells a different story though.
JIT: at the beginning of The Great Recession, massive unemployment, negative GDP two quarters running, banks failing, factories failing, real estate collapse and given the luxury of looking back, what would you have done instead of the stimulus?
I mean what would be your answer for the second half of our debt problem?
SD, I've said it time and again anyone else but Trump and this election would be over right now. She is by far the most beatable candidate the democrats have nominated in years. It's sad who the republicans have put up against her. I'm willing to admit that, but man you have had to drink a crap load of kool aid in your life to continuously defend Hillary and not hold her accountable for anything.
I can't help but laugh at the Hitler comparisons. That man killed millions of people and committed mass genocide. What planet do some of you live on to think this man would become Hitler part 2?!
Not *the* end yankeefan, but certainly the beginning of a change.
There's far too much anger for things to dissipate without incident IMO. But if none of the mainstream dialog is addressed toward our true problems (instead of this silliness of never-ending character attacks) then perhaps the end you joke about may happen anyway.
The answer is to stop participating in the madness, stop rewarding the idiots in charge.
No Metsman, I didn't say that at all. I'm just suggesting that the history of putting a "true outsider" in charge is not a happy one.
"What planet do some of you live on to think this man would become Hitler part 2?!"
Besides, if a president ever REALLY went down the path of a "Hilter 2", the American people would take him down. Because WE CAN. Thanks to our founder's wisdom in drafting the Bill of Rights. And yes- I'm being totally serious. If things ever actually got that bad, the president would not live out his term, no matter how many secret service agents they put around him. Hell, it might even be an inside job. He would not be allowed to live. So in reality, worrying about a US president becoming a "Hitler" is not only extremely far-fetched, but a fear-mongering tactic used by whichever side is "losing".
I wonder if Trump even can win at this point? He's -7 according to Rassmussen. Of course, that was pre-debate, but even with the good performance he would still be ~-3 points. Do you think he can even recover? I'm not sure. It would take no new scandals, more Hillary emails, and a phenomenal 3rd debate to win.
Since no one ever talks about Hillary's plans, all I have to do is show the facts for the feckless allegations you pull off the internet. Most of them like the "600 cries for help" or "where have all the emails gone, long time washing...." have been cogitated, investigated, and adjudicated by millions of dollars like over $7M for Benghazi and how many investigations? The best is half a century of ObamaCare repeals.......how insane is that?
Now if you can't handle the facts, can't come up with factual contradictions beyond allegations and conjecture, don't accuse me of defending Hillary for just presenting some facts.
"She is by far the most beatable candidate the democrats have nominated in years." Really? Last election you had a failed black President deep in the midst of the largest recession ever barely peaking his economic head out, a packed Congress, all the governors, and you still screwed the pooch on that one.
So you went to the losers drawing board, said you needed to become the party of inclusion, not exclusion, you needed greater diversity to win. And then you nominated Trump.......
To your point on anyone but Trump --- nah --- Cruz is the anti-Christ, Rubio the rube, etc. etc. --- most would have been fodder. Early on I said, hope you don't put Bush up because I might vote for him against Hillary. OK, so bad example but if you had put a moderate up, you would be winning IMO. If you had groomed Kasich to be a national force for example. Now that you're the Trump party, wonder where you will go if he loses. Gonna be pretty busted up.
JIT, no doubt we are experiencing change. Every generation does. People have been predicting the end of days since the beginning of days. I believe the Democratic positions can move the country forward. Incrementally. I believe we'd be much farther along had President Obama not been forced to deal with an historic (and inherited) economic crisis and unprecedented obstruction during his two terms. But I do think America is great already. Flawed, but great and we will continue to set an example for the rest of the world. I certainly don't belive we need to blow it up and start over.
As for the character attacks, Trump is clearly capable of shooting his own feet.
JR, the one flaw in your confidence that the American people would never allow a sort-of "Hitler 2" is that he would not rise to that level to begin with unless he had tremendous support. And the intolerance we see among many today would be the basis of that tremendous support. And so the danger is that the very people you are counting on to rise up may in fact be that support.
BTW let me say again I agree Trump is not Hitler.
"Besides, if a president ever REALLY went down the path of a "Hilter 2", the American people would take him down. Because WE CAN. Thanks to our founder's wisdom in drafting the Bill of Rights. "
Unless, of course, the 2A crowd agreed with and supported him rounding up Muslims and Hispanics and shipping them off to concentration camps... then the Bill of Rights turns out NOT to be working, as it allows a despot to recruit his own private army outside of the law and use them to infringe upon the liberty of minority groups. But that could never happen, right?
The beautiful thing about the Bill of Rights is that minorities also have the right to bear arms.
Nah... not concentration camps.... just deportation. Of ILLEGAL and CRIMINAL aliens, yes. Not Hitler-like at all. Simply common sense rule of law. Ditto his proposed moratorium on muslim immigrants. We won't be rounding anyone up, we just won't let them in. It wouldn't be the first time immigration was severely limited in our history. And for very good reasons.
Now, what the govt did to the Japanese Americans in WWII was wrong, and should not have been allowed.
LEGAL CITIZENS being rounded up = wrong. ILLEGAL aliens being rounded up and deported = AOK. Not letting people in for awhile = AOK.
Yankeefan, from a goals perspective I couldn't agree more. But the gist of what I'm getting at is that the path taken matters just as much as the goal. You've read my calling taxation theft before, right? I think it upsets a lot of people to hear it put that way, as it should if they have a sense of morals. But if one doesn't acknowledge that, fundamentally, taxation is nothing more than the forceful taking of property then what is to stop people from believing that the government can take whatever they want from any group they deem appropriate (preferably that you don't belong to, of course)? Where is the restraint? My answer is that's the primary problem today, a near complete lack of restraint by the govt so long as the goal is claimed as "good". It's our job as citizens to say NO, but instead the exact opposite has been true.
So as you're well aware, my view is that most people today only hear the goals - the things they want to hear - and completely close their minds as to what is happening behind the scenes to get us there. I'm hoping It's been apparent that the majority of my posts have focused on the behind the scenes issues.
I'll reiterate for the millionth time that just because we disagree on the path doesn't mean we disagree on the outcome. In fact, I'm more adamant today than ever about trying to get people to *think* about what I'm saying instead of just reacting to it negatively.
If you really stop to consider it, most dialog here and elsewhere is just people reacting to the news story if the day, the "managed message" that someone else wants us to focus on. But regurgitating the MSM talking point of the day doesn't make my view wrong, does it? Thoughtful discussion is needed, not the idiocy that's taking place today...
"The rest of the coke sniffles, the pacing, the stalking and looming over, was just creepy. The sniffles are constant"
How do you know so much about coke sniffles? Experience?
Do you recognize this guy sd?
passage from Dreams from My Father:
I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though—Mickey, my potentional intiator had been just a little too eager for me to go through with that.
“Blow,” in case you weren’t aware by now is another word for cocaine, and “smack” would be heroin. So Obama snorted cocaine when he could afford it but turned down heroin because he didn’t like his potential dealer. Obama has made no secret of his past cocaine use, even liberal news outlets like the New York Times and the Washington Post have written about it.
But...but.... The Man..... he's a DEMOCRAT. So it's ok. As is alleged rape (Bill Clinton) ok for dems, but not for repubs (Trump).
I swear, some of you need to GET WITH THE PROGRAM.....
This entire thing is pathetic - Trump fights best in the gutter and that's exactly where we are and no amount of showering will help take the stench off. Ultimately a lot of people have demonstrated that they thrive on the reality show culture, lack of substance, hypocritical double standard and just downright crassness. Hillary's definitely not perfect but Trump thrives in this environment - it's his business model and his character and why he does so well with Brietbart. If people didn't like this type of culture/behavior the independent and 3rd party candidates would be doing better.
All that was missing last night on the stage was Jerry Springer... It's sad that Trump is such a jackass.. He nailed it as far as getting rid of Obamacare!!! Looks like four plus years of more socialism!!! Also a weaker military and economy!!! Who needs a thriving middle class anyways??? We should all cut out the middleman (goverment) and just give half your paycheck to the less fortunate!!!!Just walk up main st. You should have no problem find someone to help...
Mr. Tone The The Man's topic
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/24/world/americas/24iht-dems.3272493.html?_r=0
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/BothSidesAllSides/story?id=2773754
Darrin. more deformation of character? Obama could have snorted a line longer than your cable run and still would have been more coherent than the sniffling Don. Quite honestly, Who cares?
Metsman, still sticking by your Trump disciplined lifestyle statement? Your credibility is zero. Stick to scholarship hunting.Oh, and if that doesn't work out, the Dems want to help out with tuition.
You bring up a good point that other people like Obama have done Coke in the past or perhaps you're doing Coke right now. I apologize for making fun of Donald Trump sniffles and alluding to the fact that perhaps he's a cocaine user. Yes I believe I need to apologize…to coke users everywhere.
Vote Hillary. Save a prison bed for the needy.
Donald Trump brought up the point that Russia has a new nukes in the United States has old nukes. What's the expiration date on a nuke? What does the newer nukes have that the older ones don't? Are new nukes fresher, riper and do they taste better? If you have enough nukes to finish the world 10 times over, do you know where nukes do a better job?
Really, why are new nukes better than old nukes?
No bit his wife is. A wife that attacked the victims. Let's be clear, Bill Clinton treated the Oval Office like a high-end brothel. No more Clintons please...
My credibility is zero when you stand by a candidate that can just throw thousands of emails away with no accountability? Sounds like the establishment is scared of Trump because he might actually do a good job and take money out of their pockets.
What a difference a month makes...wonder if Trump can turn it around at all in the final month. If not, he could wind up a yuuuge loooo-ser, electorally-speaking.
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/florida/
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ohio/
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/pennsylvania/
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/michigan/
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/virginia/
He'll be swinging for the fences now.
The boys above seem to be thrashing..... And thank you JR for making the P-word part of HackettstownLife humor. Such a gentleman. Teach your children well.
More swill from the debate: Donald Trump on his Health Care plan: "We have to repeal it and replace it (ObamaCare) with something absolutely much less expensive and something that works, where your plan can actually be tailored. We have to get rid of the lines around the state, artificial lines, where we stop insurance companies from coming in and competing, because they want — and President Obama and whoever was working on it — they want to leave those lines, because that gives the insurance companies essentially monopolies. We want competition.
You will have the finest health care plan there is."
Whattttttttt? WTF did he say. 1. less expensive, 2. works, 3. tailored. 4. get rid of state lines........ Wow --- it gonna be magic whatever the heck it is.
Facts: Forbes hates ObamaCare. Always has. "Sorry Trump, Selling Health Insurance Across State Lines Wouln't Lower Costs" is the title of the article. This has been well known for a decade. So wtf is his health plan given the main proposal is a total flop? http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2016/10/10/sorry-trump-selling-health-insurance-across-state-lines-wouldnt-lower-costs/#f82e2255f015
Hello Trump, goodbye 20 million insurance policies, goodbye pre-existing conditions, goodby coverage for those under 26. Hello lifetime limits, higher charges for women, and 20 million uncovered Americans knock, knock, knocking at the ER room door.
Trump has never ever addressed how he would replace those aspects of ObamaCare not how selling across state lines does anything at all.
Now he does have a plan. He has copy/pasted the Republican plan. The planks are
1. Repeal Obamacare (causing everything noted above)
2. Sell insurance across state lines (won't do a thing)
3. Fully Deduct Premiums on Taxes (today it's got a 10% income threshold, so if you make $60K, you can't deduct the first $6K. So this adds $6K deduction in this case. Each deduction saves you your marginal rate, so if you pay 25%, then you save $1,500 on your insurance. Weeeeee hah....... Oh wait, Trump is lowering your tax rate so you will save far less.
4. hsa's should be tax free, allowed to accumulate, and transferrable upon death. (they are tax free today, they do accumulate and rollover today, so transferrable on death is the only thing Trump adds. That's a rich man's benefit.)
5. require price transparency --- (I actually agree to this and feel it will lower costs)
6. block grant Medicaid (stupid idea, again we turn to Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucejapsen/2016/09/08/why-trumps-medicaid-health-reform-plan-wont-work/#311776027b66
7. allow foreign drug sales (I actually agree to this one. Think it will lower prices. Also allows China to sell drugs in America and I own some stock :>)
OK, where's the tailored in this plan? It's no more freakin tailored than today's market. It might lower some cost through foreign drugs and posting prices, but it will not touch the 800lb gorilla --- insurance prices and it will throw 20 million to the street. Works? Not bloody likely.
Nothing in this plan addresses people dying in the street as Trump promised. He lies. Nothing in this plan lowers your insurance cost or covers the 20 million people covered by ObamaCare. Nothing in this plan touches what you will lose when you lose ObamaCare so if you have ObamaCare today and you vote for Trump, you are slashing your own throat.
And his debate support was gobblygook, he doesn't even know what's in the plan he co-opted from the Republican party.
Vote Hillary --- save a cell.
"Nothing in this plan lowers your insurance cost or covers the 20 million people covered by ObamaCare."
I love how people tout that "more people are covered" under ObamaCare as a selling point. FORCING people to buy insurance or face a tax penalty is hardly a ringing endorsement or an improvement in the cost of health care itself.
If we forced everyone to buy an iPad, would that make them cheaper (especially if we told Apple that they were the sole supplier and didn't need to change their price)?
When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority
over an attempt to health care reform.
Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn't get a vote in a Democrat controlled US Congress.
This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million for studies, promotion, and other efforts.
Then, President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general.
Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood - both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration.
Next, she chose Janet Reno - husband Bill described her selection as "my worst mistake."
Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.
Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission.
Lani Guanier was her selection.
When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier's radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.
Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations.
She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department.
Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide,
and Kennedy was forced to resign.
Many younger voters will have no knowledge of "Travelgate."
Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson
- and the White House Travel Office refused to comply.
She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired.
This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation.
Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime
of mixing personal and White House funds.
A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.
Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security.
When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the President denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.
Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.
Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton,
Hillary was put in charge of the "bimbo eruption" and scandal defense.
Some of her more notable decisions in this debacle were: She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation, they settled with Ms. Jones.
She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor.
After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky,
which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.
Hillary's devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath'
to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.
Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, "I do not recall," "I have no recollection," and "I don't know" a total of 56 times while under oath.
After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had "stolen."
What a swell person - ready for another four or eight years of this low-life fool?
Now we are exposed to the unsecure keeping and attempted destruction of beyond Top Secret emails
while Hillary was US Secretary of State and the "pay to play" schemes of the Clinton Foundation.
What "shoe will fall" next?
But to her loyal fans: "What difference does it make?"
Electing Hillary Clinton president would be like granting Satan absolution and giving him the keys to heaven!
jrn Plagiarize much? Is that you, Melania?
http://ncrenegade.com/editorial/mrs-clinton/
"If we forced everyone to buy an iPad, would that make them cheaper (especially if we told Apple that they were the sole supplier and didn't need to change their price)?" No, but providing a subsidy would make them more affordable. 20 million people agree --- or they could pay the max of $695 per adult, $347 per child to a max of 2,085 per family (or less for those earning under $25K). Apparently insurance is the better financial choice for them.
Forced insurance is not exactly a new concept. Can you say auto insurance?
No insurance, no drive. No insurance, no walk.......
JRN: Yeah, but can you source any of that to anything beyond a blog posting and Facebook entry? Will respond to any that you do.
Trump's new rant: Paul Ryan is weak and ineffective. Excellent. Let's burn this house down.
Keep Thrashing Darrin. Let the p-word fly. Sign from Trump supporter at yesterdays RNC protest in VA that got the VA party chairman YOU"RE FIRED: Rather grab some p***y than be a p***y. Oh yeah, we got style. Still got that sign up? Teach your children well.
jrn - That reiterates my prior statement that Trump is functionally equivalent to an internet hoax. That particular email is all over people's blogs, Facebook pages, and forums. It does the thinking for people so they don't have to. Actually look at it and read it.
Otherwise, I think there's little hope here. Even after all the messages about how bad they both are, it's still "but I'm doing everything I can to get them elected". Either you really believe they're both that bad, or not. "But I still think..." has no credibility, and worse it's totally enabling exactly the reason why we got these two to begin with.
mark, what you are missing is that previously those without insurance would receive health care, when needed, ON US, the taxpayer - at a much higher rate. There's some savings, as well as some equity.
"No, but providing a subsidy would make them more affordable."
Oh, so I have to buy half of *YOUR* iPad too? Sounds like a great deal... one iPad for the price of 1 1/2! Where do you think these magical subsidies come from?
"No insurance, no drive. No insurance, no walk"
*Choosing* to purchase insurance as a condition for the *privilege* of driving is different than being forced to buy insurance merely for existing as a human. Plus, I didn't know that me having a broken arm is a hazardous risk to other people or their property.
Justintime....i get told to keep thrashing for posting one sentence after how many essays he has written attempting to rip trump apart ended with a vote for hillary slogan?????
Get real SD your beloved Hillbill has her demons, you know it, but choose not to elaborate on them.
I think Strangerdanger is on the Clinton payroll. He’s paid to hypnotize the naïve with his novel length posts.
Wow, the email leaks today are crazy. The amount of corruption involving the Clinton Campaign and the DOJ is way more disturbing than Trump's stupid comments.this is who SD and the rest of the Clinton lap dogs blindly follow. I don't know how they continue to cover for her, she's despicable.
When Trump is crashing, he start's bashing and hl-boys be thrashing...... "Hakuna matata"
"Where do you think these magical subsidies come from?" asks Mark.
Well Mark, that's a good question and a very special one that's on many people's minds these days.
Most people believe it's from increased taxes and while that is true, Mark, it certainly isn't the whole story. No, sadly not. That story was told many years ago yet most Republican Congress people have still not heard it to this day. The largest portion of ObamaCare payments comes from estimated Medicare payment savings to insurers and hospitals. Around 50%. After that the next 25% comes from a new tax on medical devices and drug companies. And then the last chunk coming from the wealthiest Americans via payroll. Although not wealthy, this is where I got nipped when they reduced the HRSA exemption level. I doubt many here are using the HRSA exemption, passed by G. Bush Sr. as his "health plan." Costs me about $250 a year in extra taxes now thanks to ObamaCare. Hey what G. Bush Sr. giveth, Obama taketh away. I gladly give one for the cause if it helps people avoid catastrophic financial disaster just because they freakin got sick.
And no Mark, I don't buy into "freedom of choice" when choices made can ruin families literally overnight wiping out years of hard work and savings just because someone got sick. I believe healthy living in America is a privilege too and important to all of us because let's face it, being healthy is good.
So sure Mark, some taxes, most of which I am guessing missed you. Sure missed me so far except the one I noted. But the majority of the funding was based on savings. The total should be net neutral to the budget and might have even turned a buck or two.
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2013/11/07/243584170/how-the-affordable-care-act-pays-for-insurance-subsidies
Mark, you are probably saying "hey, those are just estimates, did it work?" Good question Mark and certainly the focus of our next chapter of the ObamaCare story. The answer is so far, so good and if the Cadillac Tax on wealthy-focus gold insurance plans ever kicks in, maybe better: https://www.thebalance.com/national-debt-under-obama-3306293 This is a great piece showing all the adders to the debt that Obama has chipped in as well as the ever-shrinking deficits. And yes, he's good for close to 50% at this point but it was The Great Recession after all....
Again, very good question Mark and I bet the reason you wrote your short little post was that your answer was a tad different than the facts. Then again, feel safe to believe that everyone is probably lying and there's spin, it's MSM and I am thrashing......
And now that you have picked yourself off the floor, here's the killer. High Noon. Shootout at the OK Corral. Grab a drink, belt it down and buckle up.
Repealing ObamaCare will increase the deficit and the debt. Impossible, but think about it. How often have Republicans said they would cut the debt only to increase it? Gets you thinking right. Here's a nice summary: https://www.thebalance.com/cost-of-obamacare-3306050
Vote Hillary: Reduce ObamaCare-Republican-repeal-debt increase.
Commissioner of the Board of Elections, New York City... admitting widespread voter fraud (and he's a democrat)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUDTcxIqqM0
No worries, 4catmom, you just need to grow up with a Welshman born in modern day Tanzania. Having a small word of Swahili when SD brought up the subject.
Sorry, I'm not so skilled at the sarcast wordsmithing as you toward those with opposing views, so you'll have to bare with me as i delve into good ole normal, straight-forward insults: MM is at it again! (actually that wasn't too bad, I'll have to try harder lol)
It's all in the trends my friend, all in the trends. Go ahead and shun blame away from Obama (he's just as much to "blame" as any politician), but the fact remains your justification of the government's cost ignores a few basic things: 1) Much of the cost increases (or profit losses, your choice how you want to view it) are being borne by increases in healthcare costs outside of government (yes, increases no matter how the numbers have been spun for you). Case in point:
"The largest portion of ObamaCare payments comes from estimated Medicare payment savings to insurers and hospitals.",
That implies something other than reality, doesn't it MM? C'mon now, you can admit it that those payment "savings" will be shifted elsewhere, by some other means, won't they? But hey, the picture of the government doing well tells the *whole* story, doesn't it? ;-) MM indeed!
and 2) Intergovernmental debt. As soon as you reference another government program - BAM! - you must include the debt of those plans in the calculations. Why? Because *future* payments are assumed in the analysis, and guess who gets to pay those future payments? Uh huh, our kids. Through Debt. So there you go again, getting all high and mighty by pushing our responsibilities onto our children! Man, you rock! Or rather, you shift those deck chairs so well!
All that aside, the answer is always in the trends because the trends, thankfully, absorb all the short term, big-picture-irrelevant data that you so dearly love and show what's really going on. So far, the ACA trends aren't as good as one would hope, especially considering the shrinking insurance participation rate. But, and I know this will be turned into a positive somehow, fewer insurers will mean movement toward monopoly, and I think everyone knows what happens to prices in a monopoly...
"....more disturbing than Trump's stupid ..." Assaults not comments - he was proud of his groping "privileges", bragged about them to strangers and then tries to deflect his actions as normal. He is alleged to have raped women - one a 13-year old child - his own daughter at the age of 17 asked him to promise her that he would not date any one younger. Seriously?? Pathetic that so many people have opted to give this predator a free pass and pat on the back with their support.
At least there are a few Republican women willing to say enough is enough. https://mobile.twitter.com/MBGlenn/status/785641236392660994
Yankeefan - Nova Scotia is offering deals, but Shawinigan is both summer and winter paradise. Palaces start at only the median NJ house price, and seniors are actually treated with respect and taken care of. Not such a bad place as long as you can adapt a bit linguistically. I know a certain three home property with its own island and river access that's far undervalued. N'est-ce pas? ;-)
GC, The property sounds lovely but I'm a warm weather fan. My comment was more responding to JITs monopoly pricing reference. Single pay healthcare can work and can reduce costs if managed effectively. In my opinion, healthcare in the US and big pharma are effectively monopolies...and JIT knows what happens to pricing in a monopoly.
But we don't have single payer yankeefan. Comparing Canada to the US is apples to oranges.
Funny GC. Christie is still part of the "it was an indefensible audio tape but (insert justification) "
"In my opinion, healthcare in the US and big pharma are effectively monopolies..."
btw Yankeefan, I agree completely with you here.
Yankeefan - I know, but my comment was about Canada's offer of our asylum. While I understand I'm lucky to be a fan of the climate, warm weather sanctuary has a Trump/Putin like price tag on it. ;-)
JIT, which is why I referenced Canada. As the healthcare and pharma monopolies strangle us here, it's only a matter of time. Clintoncare or Trumpcare, it's on the not too distant horizon. And I think a not unpopular move.
Bonv - Interesting thing about politics, no? He knows he's supposed to cut the cord but just in case he can't make himself do it. But he solved the whole state's problem on the first day, right?? What could possibly be wrong with NJ?
Did someone mention Canada?
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/nadeem-esmail/canada-free-health-care_b_3733080.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2014/06/13/if-universal-health-care-is-the-goal-dont-copy-canada/#2910fe6290dd
The amount of corruption with Clinton is just nuts. I hope enough people come to their senses after reading some of these emails. Thanks wiki leaks.
But the difference between my view and yours (I think) is that I simply want to break the monopolies and allow as much competition as possible. With choices, people tend to reward the good stuff all on their own while the bad goes away through attrition. Single payer, just like the ACA, only addresses ways to obtain the money to pay for the system. The only way to eliminate waste in a single payer system would be through coercive force by the controlling entity (the government) - not likely to be well received by those in the system, never mind being unprofitable, and therefore unlikely to happen. One look at any government run system should answer that one lol. Single payer would do little to fix underlying structural problems because, without competition, there is no incentive to do so - all one needs to do is jack up rates to compensate (through force, I might add).
However, if a choice was needed at gunpoint then single payer would be marginally better than the ACA, but that's only because the ACA isn't really a competitive model (even though that was one of it's supposed selling points).
Right. With choices. Unfortunately there are millions unable to choose. Can"t afford that and they aren't having sword fights on HL. How does your world view address that?
And why are the "millions" unable to choose? Do you think that cost has nothing to do with it? I think it most definitely does, and like I said above competitive forces tend to lower costs better than either price controls or forced "contributions". Besides, you've already chosen to help them. Would you not continue to do so? I bet you would, as would I. The difference is that we wouldn't be forced to do so. But I also know why that is anathema to many people, because it means having to choose whom to help, right, believing that a small minority couldn't help everyone. And it also means jealousy and class envy, I get it. But I also get that forcing people to "help" does nothing other than mask one problem for another. It's that resulting problem that we're dealing with today, IMO of course.
Somewhere in there is a balance. I favor "do NO harm" over "harm those who we think can handle it" (aka the theft via taxation you've seen me write before). And I truly believe people having choices will eventually do the right thing. Not everyone, of course, but most. However, what's needed in my ideal society is a fair and honest government that does NOT play favorites but rather enforces laws over people who intentionally harm others, regardless of social status. Sadly I also know that's hard to come by.
Sorry if that's not what you'd like to hear.
Ummm. I think I said "can"t afford". What do we do for them until "competitive forces" make healthcare affordable for them? How is that "Do no harm"?
I too believe in a fair and honest government. One that will eventually make universal healthcare as accepted as social security and medicare. You seem to think unrestrained capitalism will be a panacea. I disagree.
FoJIT, Except for the first sentence which was a response to the thrashers and in form with them. I am not sure where you took insult in my factual response to Mark. You are not a thrasher, never have been .
Now I can understand how you can be insulted by facts given your response has a lot of opinion and unsupported theory but very little factual support.
Let's keep it simple. The savings in Medicare were due to ObamaCare. Without ObamaCare, there would be no savings in Medicare.
The "cost" of ObamaCare is tax subsidies, and the savings in Medicare, caused by ObamaCare offset about 50% of those costs. The rest of the cost coverage, and the results, is covered above.
As to your response: I agree that single payer, in the current environment, would be cheaper, and to all the other things you said. However, none of that has to do with how ObamaCare was funded nor how that funding covered the costs.
The other problem with single payer is that it takes the states out of the insurance regulation business and puts the Federal Government in charge of it which was seen as too much "big brother" to be passable.
This is the problem with the Trump plan also. Once your allow insurance to be sold across state lines, you have taken the states out of the insurance regulation business and replaced them with the Federal Government's version. You know ---- death lists. Somehow more Federal Regulation, abolishing state's rights to regulate, and creating a HUGER government to regulate and monitor said system seems.....well, anti-Trumpian.
This is why, my recommendation, to extend the public option out to ObamaCare enrollees as an option extends the single payer system only to that market, allows insurance to continue to compete in those markets if they so choose, does not intrude on the company-sponsored insurance market (may have to increase business tax incentives there), and simply provides the same insurance program we currently offer to Federal Employees and our Congress. This would cut ObamaCare subsidies instantly just given the fact the program is less expensive (hopefully these folks are less sick now....) Immediately fixes all the problems occurring in the states where lots of sick people picked up ObamaCare and now the insurers are either leaving or jacking prices way up.
This option was compromised away by the insurance lobby supported by our Republican friends (and probably a few Democrats from Connecticut) during the passage of ObamaCare.
This is also part of Hillary's plan so if you vote for her we not only free up a prison cell, we also cut ObamaCare costs and lower the price of insurance for those on the Health Exchanges. (do you hear that all you HackettstownLIfe Health Exchange participants????)
But apparently not perceptive enough GC, because at this point I can only make assumptions about your comments. Hit and run it is then...
Your words JIT, not mine. For someone who has called shenanigans a dozen times, hit and run is hardly reality. You say you want do NO harm but you previously said you're voting to break as much as possible, the more evil of two evils, not the lesser. You say you want to take the emotion out of it but spread "theft" around as liberally as possible. You say you not to believe in pieces of paper but only when you're ready and have planned for it. You say trends are always right, and that's not believable. You say you want to do away with sheople and then start to do everyone's thinking for them. You want to be the MM and accuse others as a passive aggressive move.
The credibility went out the window long ago, the stink is worse and worse. No one has to believe me, just read previous posts.
So that's what you've taken away from my posts, huh? I suppose if you read things without context I could understand that view, but I don't think that's the case here.
You forgot, conveniently perhaps, to mention that my comments about breaking "as much as possible" was in fact no such thing. What I said, in context, was that the underlying systems of govt are fundamentally constructed to provide things today at the expense of future generations, and that problems today are "solved" through debt. In essence we get the illusion of stability and prosperity today all the while the true costs are hidden in debt. And that bill *will* come due, is coming due, regardless of how positively we want to believe. Ok so far?
Now if you shared that view, which I know you don't but humor me for a minute, would you want to correct it sooner or later, knowing that the pain could only be greater the longer we wait? And if you're still following, could you see a point in which the urgency of the situation moved you to call for drastic steps? That's where I am. Call it BS if you'd like, just know that it's a view based on trillions of facts.
We've discussed the "theft" angle before. I use it to describe the act of forcibly taking if property. You don't agree, and that's your prerogative, but again I'd ask you how wrong could I be if the net result of non compliance is a friendly officer at your front door? It's an inconvenient truth, but a truth none the less. I'm not sure why you find that particular tidbit so offensive.
Regarding paper money, I have no plan for its demise at the moment, no gold or anything else. Not sure why you think I do. But since paper money value is what we collectively believe it to be, are you suggesting ignorance is the best course of action?
And trends are what they are. You are free to interpret them as am I, correct? Why are you upset at my conclusions? Is it because there's an obvious truth behind them that, should the trends continue on their current path, is quite scary?
No GC, the issue here isn't my positions, it's your abhorrence to them. Fine, that's ok. But just know there's a huge difference between seeing what may be coming and wanting it to happen. That implication will get pushback from me every time.
All you Clinton supporters bashing Trump for his behavior are delusional. Hillary bragged about getting a rapist off in a case she defended. She tried to humiliate all the women her husband violated. She got 4 Americans killed in Benghazi. Her foundation is corrupt. She conveniently lost emails. People who have dirt on her have conveniently died. The Clinton's are the most corrupt political family in American history. But yea, lets let them back in the White House. That seems like a legitimate idea. Lets have another 4-8 years of nothing getting done.
"The Clinton's are the most corrupt political family in American history."
Well, IDK if they are "the most", but they are certainly in the club. :)
And Metsman's last post covers an awful lot of Trump voters: not voting FOR Trump, but voting AGAINST Hillary, and the exact reasons why.
As "bad" as Trump may be, at least he did his "bad stuff" in his PRIVATE LIFE (and when he was a DEMOCRAT! lol), not WHILE HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE.
"With so much exposed already, why do we continue to follow, allow, and accept people like Hillary and Trump as potentials to be country leaders? Truly think about it. Can we even take a system that puts these two so high up in the ranks seriously?
Is this not the perfect storm to allow us to wake up to the reality of our current state? We should be thankful that this is going on so we can help wake up the world and begin a conversation about what we can legitimately do next.
This isn’t about Trump vs Clinton. That is merely the illusion we are being invited to believe. This is about awakening to the fact that our system is absurd and that it’s time to do something different. What is the answer? That is what we must discuss instead of playing this broken political game of dividing and choosing who to “vote” for."
Quoted from ANONOMOUS, of all places.
If the worst thing he did was talk about groping women, then he's a saint compared to Hillary. Her husband actually committed the deed.
+1000 on JIT's last post. That's it EXACTLY.
And the sooner people WAKE THE HELL UP and realize it, the sooner we can start turning the country around. Or not.... with recent demonstrations of the electorate's level of common sense, I have little faith. Maybe this will finally be the tipping point. but probably not.
Found this.... food for thought....
Hillary supporters:
If you are Gay, why are you voting for Hillary when she wants to bring in millions of refugees that believe gays should be executed?
[this one REALLY gets me]
If you are Black, why are you voting for Hillary when she defends Planned Parenthood and admires Margaret Sanger, who wanted to abort as many black babies as possible and exterminate the black race because they are like "weeds." Most of those clinics are in Black neighborhoods.
If you are a Woman, how can you vote for Hillary when she has buried all of Bill's rape victims under the rug. As an attorney, Hillary also defended the rapist of a 12-year old girl and laughed about it later. She plays the woman-card and acts entitled; implying that she deserves your vote merely because of her sex. How is that gender neutral?
If you are a Miner, Steelworker or have a Factory job, why are you voting for Hillary when she supported NAFTA and TPP, and workers are being laid off because jobs are going overseas? She also welcomes open borders and illegals to get benefits with your tax money and compete for our jobs. Hillary boasts that under her administration miners and steelworkers will lose their jobs.
If you are a Law abiding citizen, how can you vote for Hillary when she is clearly above the law? Hillary deleted thousands of secret e-mails *after* they had been subpoenaed by the courts (illegal). Hillary kept thousands of classified and top secret e-mails on her private server; servers that had less security that g-mail and Hotmail. You can be sure Russia, Iran, and China have those now. The DNC clearly broke the rules by heavy-handedly favoring Hillary over Sanders while they were still competing for the nomination.
If you are a Veteran, in the military, or closely related to a military member, why are you voting for Hillary when she left those men to die in Benghazi and had the nerve to lie about it over and over again? They called for help, but the help was told to stand down.
The only way we ever fix this broken system is term limits for the lifers in the House and Senate. Unfortunately, I doubt I'll ever see it proposed by a major candidate let alone enacted in my lifetime.
But Metsman... Trump breathes through his nose. How is that not worse than mishandling classified information, getting 4 Americans killed in Benghazi, etc...?
"Is this not the perfect storm to allow us to wake up to the reality of our current state? We should be thankful that this is going on so we can help wake up the world and begin a conversation about what we can legitimately do next."
Great question... and yet, people will STILL not vote 3rd party in this election where two of the most despicable people on earth are the two major party choices. It's hard to conclude anything else, but that the sheeple LIKE the current system, even though they LOVE complaining about it. At the end of the day, they're too spineless to do anything about it.
I hope you are wrong, Ianimal. There are a number of decent choices who are Presidential material with sound ideas on the major issues. They have some similar opinions comparable to Trumps, but with a sane, mature take on them. Should a ground swell of the electorate get moving and publically narrow down this selection to one person through various media sources, a valid, reasonable write-in surge could make all the difference on election day. I realize its a long shot, but Imo it is worth a try and I would be willing to take part...
Spring fever spring fever-
Perhaps SOMEday, but not THIS election. Unless both Trump and Hillary are somehow deemed ineligible or die, one of them WILL be the next president of the United States.
Kudos to Gary Johnson for getting on the ballots in all 50 states (he's the only other candidate who is). But until the people realize the 2-party system IS THE PROBLEM and DO something about it....
People may not believe it, but I've been saying this from the beginning... Trump is NOT a republican, he's using the republican ticket to run. BUT HIS SUPPORTERS KNOW THAT. The fact that he's NOT a career politician or a "R" or "D" is a very large reason why he resonates with so many people. He is a populist candidate, despite running on the "R" ticket.
JR, I agree with much of what you have said.
I know a write-In grass roots type surge is a 1000 to 1 long shot, but I just can not bring myself to vote either T or H. I can barely watch them debate. It sickens me after 15 minutes...
I think Gary Johnson is probably a nice man, honest, likable, but I don't think he has the insight, intelligence, or disposition to run a country. So he is out of the question for me.
The only choices I have are to not vote at all
( which I can not do) or pray and vote for a person that my gut and research tells me would be the best choice for the sorry state of affairs in America and the world.
I will be putting my rose colored glasses on, hope for the best, and writing in a candidate that seems to have the strongest backing by Nov 8. and will be able to put my head down at night with a clear conscience.
I am glad when we’re talking Hillary, we’re talking issues……:>(
I will say this about Trump: the man can take a punch.
"As "bad" as Trump may be, at least he did his "bad stuff" in his PRIVATE LIFE (and when he was a DEMOCRAT! lol), not WHILE HOLDING PUBLIC OFFICE." Wow. So an entire lifetime of boom and bust business, un-philanthropic acts, racism, bribery, etc. etc. does not meld into his "new" political brand? Dealings with Mafia for goods, services, and land acquisition --- yeah, no murders there.... Amazing.
As to the rest of your unsupported allegations....really you should source some actual facts.....but here weeeeee go.
Who can say what the refugees believe? Some are Christian. Syria considers homosexual acts illegal, not punishable by death but up to 3 years in prison. That's like 1986 in America or 2003 in Texas. About 45% of Americans currently think it’s a sin…..and the number of LGBT killed in American in hate crimes....well, what do you think some Americans think?
If you are black you are voting for Hillary because Trump is a racist. But that goes for Latino, Muslim, Mormon (sexual predator), etc. etc.
As to Hillary: Do you really believe Bill's "victims" are swept under the rug? Unlike Trump, there's no gag orders here. They can even go on stage together for a Trumpian pre-debate spectacle setting a new bar for political tactics. Even paid-off Flowers can still voice her opinion. As to Hillary defending and demeaning, there’s nothing public she said that's egregious and, of course, she supported going after those going after her husband. Expect different? Did gender even matter? I am sure she had the same reaction to Gingrich, Starr and the like.
Hillary Clinton was assigned the rape case by the judge, reluctantly took it, plea bargained a guilty plea which the defendant's mother wanted to avoid her daughter being cross examined. There were less victim shield laws then. 1-year sentence for fondling which is the state's problem, not Hillary's. Mom was satisfied, as well as could be, at the outcome. Later the daughter had other feelings – it’s her right. Hillary did laugh in an interview about the case, but she did not laugh about outcome or the victim --- it was about technical aspects of the case, polygraphs and the like.
Hillary supports miners with a plan. The statement was unfortunate, she walked it back with a plan, but get real ---- do you want to bring back coal or more forward with alternative energy. Do you actually believe you can bring back coal? 30% of CA’s electric comes from the sun. Where do you want your kids to work --- in the mine or on the panel? I come from coal. We ran from Europe, we ran from Scranton --- as soon as we could.
Trump says he’s bringing the miners back. He’s deleting environmental regulations to free up oil, gas, etc. production on-shore and off our coasts. He wants pipelines, smokestacks, you name it. Do you really want that? What's the price of oil? How cheap is natural gas versus coal? We don't even consume electricity like we used to. Give me a break.
He’s opening up nuclear and knows what solar is with a passive nod but no plan. He’s going for clean coal. It does not exist, how can he do that? How can he do all these things and bring coal back at the same levels we had before we had natural gas like we do today? What does that even mean? It’s impossible. Natural gas is here, it’s cheaper and cleaner than coal. Solar’s on the rise. Bring it back, give me a break.
Hillary supported TPP until it was published where, upon final reading she does not support. She does support free trade. NAFTA was good but needs repair.
Most factory jobs ended due to technology advances, not factory exportation. Ford is hiring factory workers, not exporting them like Trump claims in his lie.
Illegals pay more tax than they take in benefits. She wants to provide a pathway for those here, not open borders. Trump wants to storm trooper deport all that are here opening job vacancies that cannot be filled ruining the economy. Matter of fact, you don't even know what his plan is, it's on a pivot carousel.
Deleted emails before subpoena, half of them recovered, most were duplicates to what the FBI had. See above. You know the FBI conclusion: wrong but not prosecutable, hacking possible but not detected. Just like any government server: hacking possible. Actually you are sure Russia, Iran, and China have them, the FBI finds no proof..
Yes, the DNC has issues.
Hillary on Benghazi --- see above but you are wrong --- totally without facts and sources.
I would love to vote for anyone other than C or T. Remember Ross Perot in1992? That was the closest we came to getting a third party candidate in, and it wasn't close at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot_presidential_campaign,_1992
"On Election Day, Perot finished in third place behind Clinton (the winner) and Bush. Perot received 19,743,821 votes, which accounted for 18.91% of the popular vote. He failed to win any states in the Electoral College because of the relatively even distribution of his support, but did win over 30% of the vote in Maine and 27% in Utah, finishing second in both states.[100] Perot was the first third party candidate since George Wallace in 1968 to finish first in a county, winning in Alaska (divided into boroughs), California, Nevada, Colorado, Kansas, Texas and Maine. He won his largest percentage in Matanuska-Susitna Borough, Alaska and Loving County, Texas with over 40%.[101]"
You say that like any of it matters with respect to busting up the Republicrat duopoly, JR. You may think that Trump is a populist candidate, but all history will remember is the R after his name. That and the fact that he's a scumbag.
No one is naive enough to believe that Gary Johnson is going to win the presidency (nor to believe that he should, hopefully), but the important thing is to get a viable third party recognized as a "major" party so that they can get equal access and enough cache to attract quality candidates who are sick of the two party system and are qualified to serve.
If Johnson can get 15% of the popular vote, it will go a LONG way toward getting equal access to ballots and debates in 2020. If he can't, in THIS, of all elections, I think it's safe to assume that the duopoly will NEVER be broken, at least not via the ballot box.
"Remember Ross Perot in1992? That was the closest we came to getting a third party candidate in, and it wasn't close at all."
Unfortunately, Perot didn't run as a "third party" candidate; he ran as a "no party" candidate. So, there was no party to benefit from the almost 20% of the popular vote that he received. If there were, there could possibly be a different political landscape today.
So a guy changes his stated beliefs to match a party, he runs on a platform of tough immigration, increased defense spending, repealing the (D) Obamacare, business above all else, and taxes breaks for .1 %'ers, and has Jeff Sessions (R) write his foreign policy, has the NRA create gun positions for him, has an (R) think tank put together his SCOTUS nominees for him, has the (R) party put him on all the ballots, has the (R) PAC paying for ads instead of his own campaign - but even though he absolutely has the (R) behind him, he's no Republican?
It's totally true he's no career politician, but if he was not (R), then why did he run so hard and even threaten them if they didn't give him the nomination?
I have seen no reason to change my mind, so I voted for Trump. I see nothing has changed. He ran against all the RIno’s that are running for the hills now to protect their jobs supporting the liberals. This is the group Trump ran against and beat in the primaries. Now I see the woman acting Holier than Thou, as I watched Howard Stern make a fortune using similar language, with many women supporting him. My main concern is the future of the country is being made Big time on this voting day. Are we headed to European type socialism as the Builderburg,s desire, or save the Freedom of the Constitution, with the Supreme Court Picks, and” Make America Great again” It’s that simple.
Spring Fever,
For the reasons ianimal posted above, PLEASE consider voting for Gary Johnson. He's not actually going to win, but your vote will go towards voicing a protest to the two-party system.
JIT - You're trying to inject emotion in here again, "abhorrence", "offensive", "upset", "scary", etc. That's not me. And if I so abhorred the positions, why would I even entertain them? I completely understand and agree that continuously running debt based government is a road to ruin. What I don't agree with is the solutions. You already mentioned a supposed "reset". That's what the biggest BS is all about. Of course you're not ready to get rid of currency, you're positioned with "the trends" to profit from it. But what did JP Morgan prove? What happened to the Euro? What will happen to the other Europeans that proved tied with the Euro anyway? What will happen to the Chinese and Japanese holders of all that debt? All the years of derivatives and junk bonders and hedge funds have shown it's more twisted than a Möbius strip. You can't reset what's gone. That's what's wrong with that solution.
Which is exactly why ianimal asks his question. If you're so against playing the broken system, how would you actually endorse one of these candidates? You talk a lot about a bunch of things, but you don't carry through.
Sorry if that's not what you'd like to hear.
MB, Trump is destroying the two party system. This election is to important , to just make a statement. It will change the direction of our country.
Old Gent -
No, he's really not and I think you're mistaken that the direction of our country will change.
I've never voted for a Republican or a Democrat, simply because I never liked any of the candidates enough. I'm not about to start with this election!
"If you're so against playing the broken system, how would you actually endorse one of these candidates?"
I am, and I don't.
Voting in this environment is as much about preventing one party from gaining power as it is putting one into power - the infamous "lesser of two evils" dillema - right? At least that's what everyone seems to be saying.
Truth be told, without significant internal strife there is no way I can see myself actually pulling the lever for Trump. Clinton would be even harder. I wouldn't be holding my nose, I'd be cutting it off.
I do like Ian's thoughts about voting for a third party, Johnson in my case, if for no other reason than to help position that party as a valid opponent in future elections.
MB, I hadn't thought of Johnson in that light. Will give it some thought. Thanks.
Interesting conversation, regarding whether or not Trump's election (if he wins of course), could re-tack the republican party back onto the right course. Maybe. It'll take alot more then a president Trump tho. It'll also take more sweeping "non-RINO" elections in Congress.
On the bigger point of whether or not Trump's election will break the 2-party system, I think that's being overly optimistic. However- I DO think that, much like ianimal's "Gary Johnson 15% theory", that if Trump gets elected DESPITE the resistance FROM HIS OWN PARTY, he truly is a populist candidate, regardless of the (R) beside his name, and if he does what says he's going to, they will re-elect him in 4 years. IF Trump can get elected, despite ALL the democrats hating him, the mainstream media trying to destroy him, and his own party trying to stop him, then the people will recognize that the VOTE STILL COUNTS. That they CAN'T shove a candidate down our throats if we don't want them.
And by "we", I mean a majority of voters (that's IF Trump gets elected).
“Hillary Clinton was assigned the rape case by the judge, reluctantly took it, plea bargained a guilty plea which the defendant's mother wanted to avoid her daughter being cross examined. There were less victim shield laws then. 1-year sentence for fondling which is the state's problem, not Hillary's. Mom was satisfied, as well as could be, at the outcome. Later the daughter had other feelings – it’s her right. Hillary did laugh in an interview about the case, but she did not laugh about outcome or the victim --- it was about technical aspects of the case, polygraphs and the like.”
Strangerdanger, what parent in their right mind would be satisfied with that? The answer is none. I would be outraged with the sentence that scumbag got if that were my daughter. If that were part of Trump’s history, his campaign would be over. Stop trying to come up with ways to make this evil wench look good.
As far as "not voting" here's Mike Rowe's take on it:
(sorry, couldn't post it here, it's too long. How SD gets away with his novellas not being too long is a mystery; perhaps he is close friends with the mods and has special privileges...)
Summary: voting is NOT a "civic duty" or obligation. It's a right, that you can choose to exercise or not. And people who exercise it should be informed. But I'll let him tell it:
https://www.facebook.com/TheRealMikeRowe/posts/1254500967893377
" I would be outraged with the sentence that scumbag got if that were my daughter. "
...and so would strangerdanger. But he's got a criminal to elect, so.....
Right now I am more concerned as to why Putin is calling ALL his people home to the motherland. Anybody else?
I'm certainly not against voting 3rd party; but to think your vote will "wake up" the republicrats, or make them "concerned" that a future 3rd party candidate will be taken seriously.... that's not how it worked out for Ross Perot, is it? Most successful 3rd party candidate in a long while, and he just...disappeared, as did any notions of more "serious" 3rd party candidates. And I don't think the fact that Gary Johnson is a politician (Perot was not) makes any difference to the equation.
And I disagree with ianimal's "no party" caveat above. Perot got almost 19% of the popular vote... doesn't matter if the votes "went to" a party or not, it showed the people that they COULD, in the future, continue to vote for VIABLE candidates that don't have an (R) or (D) beside their name. But it didn't help, did it? Nobody's gotten anywhere remotely near 19% without an (R) or (D) beside their name.
And as I've already said, despite the (R) next to Trump's name, he's as 3rd party or no-party as Perot was... but with ALOT more support. IF he was truly an (R), his own party wouldn't be trying to stop him. THAT IS THE "TELL" that he truly is a non-2-party candidate. An outsider. He's also possibly an asshole LOL, but that's not the point- I've said it from the very beginning- the #1 thing his supporters like about him is that he is NOT of the establishment. He's NOT dug in to the 2-party system.
This is just plain REDICULOUS and i am tired of keeping my mouth shut about it!
All this gabber about what trump said in private, or so he thought, to annother guy.
To all the people and women alike who are uht so offended by this, if you had any, and i mean ANY, IDEA how the majority of men talk to other men, you would all have a divorce......get real people!!! Its not like he said it to her face or did it....
I work on many different job sites with many different people, in many different places.....they ALL talk like that!!!!!! OMG what a outrage !!!!
Let me know when you are back in reality.....maybe this post was better for the venting thread....idk....
Darrin,
You talk about how you would sexually assault a woman? I wouldn't brag about that if I were you.
I guarantee that in less than 30 days either Hillary or Donald will be elected President. As crazy as that sounds, it's the only possible outcome. Go ahead and vote 3rd party, but all that does is take your vote away from one of the only 2 people on the planet, that WILL be the next President. I don't like either of them, but will vote for one of them. To not vote because they both suck is a cop out and weak imo. If you plan on not voting, I encourage you instead to put your big boy pants on and make the hard choice.
Scottso According to Jake Tapper on CNN, him and his fraternity brothers never spoke that way about women… excuse me if I call BS on that…
Metsman, can't say that I recall anyone in my fraternity bragging about sexually assaulting anyone either.
MB at the end of the day has he done it? Who knows. Talk is cheap. Bill Clinton has been proven to be that kind of person.
Been in plenty of locker rooms over the years, have never heard anybody brag about sexually assaulting someone. Stuff like, "hey, somebody wrote a song about Valerie (a popular girl in high school in my day) Whole Lotta Shakin Goin On" ... stuff like that,
but sexual assault?
If anyone had said they'd done that, I would have reported it, moralist that I am.
Andy Loigu MB, that is not what I said, do NOT put words in my mouth.
If you people cannot admit that you have heard other guys say what the would "like" to do to a good looking woman you need to truth check yourself.
Its not like he made a plan to rape the woman, he was fantasizing
Dont get me wrong, I am in no way saying it was right to talk like that, what I am saying is many more people then you would ever think talk like that.
I have heard women speak like that too.
Now his choice of words were a bit rough, but we all know trump does not have the best choice of words.
Darrin,
I didn't put words in your mouth - you didn't need any help from me there.
He clearly talked about sexually assaulting a woman and you said you talk like that.
what is up with strangerdanger, is he the owner or operator of this site? why is he allowed to post such a long diatribe when us commoners cannot?
"I guarantee that in less than 30 days either Hillary or Donald will be elected President"
Crap, how do you know that?! Do you have a crystal ball?! Thank goodness we have you here - what insight!
MB....quote me where I said "I" talk like that......go ahead and try
"they all" is very different then what you are trying to portray...I did not include myself in that
"All this gabber about what trump said in private, or so he thought, to annother guy."
If you are wearing a microphone, why would you think that anything you said was private? He was a 59-year old man at this point; I'm sure it wasn't his first recorded interview.
I can tell you for a fact when I played baseball in high school, some of the guys said some pretty vile things about women when we were in the locker room. The problem now is everything is PC. You wouldn’t dare say these things now or risk being expelled or thrown off a team. Information gets out easily now so you have to be careful about what you say. I think we can all agree it isn’t proper, but when Trump’s conversation is making more news than all the corruption of the Clinton’s, I have a problem with it. I’ve heard some people say, well he was 59 years old when he said those things. He should know better…. Yadda yadda yadda… Ok and Bill Clinton was like 50 when he was banging interns while holding the most important job in the country. Then he lied about it. What’s worse, fantasizing or committing the act…
I agree Ogent, that’s why I am voting Hillary.
FYI – Defense budget. Another scare tactic to get folks to give additional money to the strongest, best financed, military in the world. We dwarf all comers in spending and results by a ten times factor. We own the air and the sea and only have issues with land-based control and nation building. We can destroy any infrastructure literally in minutes with conventional weapons. The fact is plenty of money is being spent on the military even with the sequester. Trump lies: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/fact-checking-gop-candidate-statements-on-obamas-military-spending/ Source something that says different.
Historically our defense spending is in fine shape, the highest estimate for 2016 was a $580B asked for, Obama budgeted $560B. Cut me some slack. http://dailysignal.com/2015/02/14/history-defense-spending-one-chart/
JIT: couple of points. “You've read my calling taxation theft before.” I will go with legal theft, give you benefit of the doubt.
We had a little dust-up over taxation without representation. It was not about taxation. That was minimal and pretty much justified, but about taxation without representation.
Local taxation always existing in the US. First Federal personal income tax was 1861, it is historical
Taxation is Constitutionally allowed. That’s why it is legal. Theft is not legal. Your argument is with the Constitution.
So, theft – no. Legal theft – to some.
The debt. We are in basic agreement here but you still haven’t answered the question of what you would have done given the circumstances in 2008. That’s the bulk of our current debt, what remains is previous Presidents, the wars, the tax cuts, etc. Bush’s tax cuts alone cost $1.5T in debt in his years and Obama continuing them (a huge mistake in my book) has probably doubled that number. Sure, we could have cut services but that’s the effect of not taxing the rich fairly IMHO. We all complain about high taxes, we are paying the lowest amount in decades and it shows. Especially for the rich who now own more US assets than ever and have taken any gains that the Obama era has provided. It's time to chip in for all of us, especially the rich. Two wars, The Great Recession, War on Terrorism, cut me some slack --- we should be having scrap rubber and metal drives to pay for this......
I feel neither candidate has addressed the debt adequately. Trump pushes fear while grandstanding it saying his happy days are here again will pay it down supported by economic plans and HUGE tax cuts that will probably do the exact opposite adding TRILLIONS to the debt --- especially in the short term meaning if we are on the cliff- get ready to jump. Hillary gives it lip service, says it’s a national security threat, but her plans are debt neutral at best. Here’s the comparison: http://crfb.org/blogs/clinton-trump-where-will-our-debt-be-10-years
So I will take neutral over collapse but I agree, they both suck on this. So did all the rest except maybe Rand Paul. My recommendation includes: killing the tax cuts, putting in the “Buffet” tax, and erasing the tax code to be brought back from a ground start . On the cost side re-engineering SS/Med-care/caid, lowering the defense budget and putting in a balanced-budget law for a specified number of year caveated by GDP growth escape clause in case things get better. No Constitutional amendment, just a law to be reviewed at the end of the specified time. All additional taxes mentioned should be earmarked to the debt under the same caveat.
Bottom line is I think we actually agree the debt is our largest national security threat, a sword of Damocles, that no one really knows when exactly it will fall. We are at historic highs and if it falls, the entire world economy will fall and no one will be able to fix it. You thought a little gas line for Sandy was bad......this is end of days stuff. With Hillary you got someone who knows what it's like to give and take to move the economy ahead --- she has lived it. With Trump you get a guy who thrives on boom and bust relying on Daddy to bail him out when it happened to him. News to Trump --- there is no Daddy here. America is the economic Father to the world.
@MB insight is something you lack. I'm sure you think you're a special snowflake not ever voting for a Democrat or Republican and all, but by voting 3rd party you are irrelevant.
Scottso -
Do you think the two party system is working well? I don't think so at all and my vote is the only way to express myself to the powers that be, unfortunately. So I'm doing what I can while you do nothing.
If that makes me a "special snowflake", I'm ok with that.
Actually, Scottso, voting for the Libertarian Party isn't entirely irrelevant in that they will receive campaign funding in 2020 for percentage of popular vote over 5%.
Now, you want to know what's REALLY irrelevant? Living in NJ and voting for Trump.... he's gonna lose by double digits, whether you vote or not, snowflake.
There's probably more "vulgar" things being printed in an average issue of Cosmo (that a lot of women here probably enjoy reading) than what Trump said 11 years ago.
Heck, just do an image search for "Cosmo cover" then try to explain how/why some of these same women complain when men view them as sex objects.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/12/fbi-doj-roiled-by-comey-lynch-decision-to-let-clinton-slide-by-on-emails-says-insider.html
Yeah lets elect someone who should have been indicted... You’re better off having Ronald McDonald and the Hamburglar be the Attorney General and FBI director than these two worthless pieces of crap.
"There's probably more "vulgar" things being printed in an average issue of Cosmo "
You mean like this......
Raising the bar for first lady attire.
At least she's not a sexual predator like Bill Clinton. The Clinton's had their time. We don't need them back in there.
Hey, keep posting those pics, SD.
I'd rather look at Melania for 4+ years than either of the Clintons.
Contradiction? How so?
The Republicans are not in danger of receiving less than 25% of the popular vote (and thus losing "major party" status) and they have no chance of winning the State's electoral votes... so yeah, votes for Trump are essentially wasted.
But Libertarians, even if they don't win, still stand to gain by posting a reasonable showing in the popular vote.
At 5% they achieve "minor party" status and become eligible for campaign funding, said funding increasing with increasing popular vote percentage. At 15%, they earn a seat at the debates in the next election cycle... so yeah, votes given to the Libertarians are definitely relevant if your goal is trying to end the Republicrat duopoly.
The problem with all the rules (that ianimal is talking about), is that they EXIST.
Who do you think writes these rules? WHO says those are the rules? If ever there was a system to keep corrupt people in power and corrupt, it's the election system in our country. Gerrymandering, campaign finance, the 2-party system, the debates... ALL OF IT.
WHY should it require 15% of the previous election's vote to get the current candidate in the debates? Why are voting districts drawn like a jigsaw puzzle? The system needs to be BLOWN UP (figuratively speaking, of course). The democratic (yes, I know we are a republic) vote that we have is of course wonderful and the best way, but everything else that's been ADDED to it has but one purpose: to keep those on the gravy train, ON THE GRAVY TRAIN.
JR, do you want to have to listen to Lyndon Larouche and the guy from the "Legalize Weed" party every four years? It makes sense to have some sort of minimum requirement, although I don't know that 15% is the correct number. Maybe 5% should be enough.
Mark,
I read Cosmo as a teenager and I don't recall any articles talking about sexual assault, unless it was in a negative light.
I'm shocked that so many people are defending this as "locker room talk". Why should we have to accept it? Why can't those of you who participate in this sort of thing stop being disgusting pigs? How come that isn't an option?
MB, it's about the double standard/hypocrisy.
Browsing through the Google images of Cosmo covers it appears that each issue is chock full of articles teaching women how to become/behave like sex objects, then they get offended when it works.
The difference is that the women on those covers had a choice. There's no way any decent human believes that what Trump "said" was only words. He lays out how he sexually assaults women and they just "let him do it" because he's a celebrity.
Marky (happiness is a warm gun) mark...so your analogy must include Playboy. Penthouse. Hustler. Too many people on this thread are mentally and emotionally forever stuck in junior high school. Not surprising that the rabid gun lovers are also in the blame the victim camp. There's a clear relationship.
I'm not talking just about the cover models RAS. There is obviously a "market" for women who, for example, want to know how to have a guilt free one night stand.
How "decent" of them...
So... Yankeefan is a stereotype-er. Nice. I thought liberals were supposed to be anti-stereotyping, and "tolerant"
You guys are so upset about what Trump said and what his wife dressed like way before he had intentions about becoming a candidate.
What about Clinton using the white house as a freaking brothel....then Hillary defending him and demonizing the women that he DID sexually assault (not just talk about it)
Like I said before.....keep turning the blind eye to the Clintons and trying to demonize Trump for doing something that can;t even compare to what the Clintons have already done....while acting as President/first lady.
RAS
" they just "let him do it" because he's a celebrity"
Is their any credibility to him actually "doing it" or was he fantasizing and talking a big talk but not walking the walk???
Come back to reality and look at what actually happened......I can say anything fiction I want....but did it happen?
Maybe Monica was "sexually assaulted", she just "let him do it" because "he was a celebrity"...
The hypocrisy of the left has REALLY come out gangbusters this election!! Love it!!!
Metsman - Trump has more than 1 rape allegation and one by a 13-year old girl with pretty credible witnesses in those cases so enough with the Trump just said "words" BS. Trump admitted to actually assaulting women - he bragged about it, he relished in it. Drag Bill all you want but last I checked he isn't accused of raping a child - hell Ivanka saw that he liked younger girls when she made him promise not to date anyone younger than her 17 years.
You think the Clintons are corrupt well the Trumps are just as bad; Clinton lies well Trump's a pants on fire liar. Trump's also a failed business man, manipulator of every possible system (courts, tax, business, immigration). He's also someone that hasn't spent 1 single moment in his silver spoon life working for anyone else but Trump - not a damn thing to help his locality, State, Country. Not a damn thing to help charities well he's actually misappropriated charitable donations so I guess that helps the charity of Trump. His ghost writer described him as toxic and that's exactly right - he's a malignant cancer that thrives on destroying everything around him as can be seen by this election and that describes a lot of his supporters too.
Lewinsky was never sexually assaulted but then again the zealots on the right already know that. Her intent was to "hook up" with someone powerful by her own admission - wrong of her and especially wrong of Bill since he was older, in a powerful position and married but she went into it with consent. Trump doesn't bother with consent because he's a millionaire celebrity who can and has done anything he wants. The rules don't apply to him.
I am sure the family of this man will never forget Mrs. Bill Clinton's legacy as Secretary of State.
Hysterical considering there's blatant support for the man that wants to kill innocent family members of terrorists and wants to nuke countries. But that's right many zealots are selective about who gets killed.
Omg? You're not serious. How many things does Trump claim are true and aren't? More importantly how many true things does Trump claim are false? And so what if there's a market for guilt free one night stands by either men or women? That's no reason for sexual assault. It actually sounds like you're justifying sexual assault.
enough with the phony trumped-up outrage. the hypocrisy of the left is stunning in it's cognitive dissonance:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/trumped-outrage-14777.html
BrotherDog "Her intent was to "hook up" with someone powerful by her own admission"
-oh.... probably like all the women who accompanied Trump up to his room... ok...
"-oh.... probably like all the women who accompanied Trump up to his room... ok..."
Exactly like the women that accompanied Trump since consensual affairs or whatever are not at issue for Trump despite the fact that he was married (we are well past cheating and lying about the cheating). Just like consensual affairs related to Bill are not at issue - especially since he's not the one running; especially since he's not the one caught bragging about assaulting women and especially since he's not the one accused of attacking a 13-year old.
You still haven't proven that Trump assaulted any women. We'll wait.
Trump saying what he said equalling he committed sexual assault, is like angry mother telling her child "I'm going to kill you!" when in fact, she is not.
"enough with the phony trumped-up outrage..." Sorry BD but there's nothing phony about it. This is a man that has felt entitled to pursue women aggressively, has been accustomed to getting away with what he wants because he's a millionaire and a celebrity. There have been allegations for decades so these are not new; what is new is that he's on tape bragging about what he's done and what he can do because of his status. This is a man that claims he's about law and order and yet shows time and time again that the laws don't apply to anyone named Trump. The fact that his supporters are trying to diminish his own statements by going with the "locker room" cop-out or it was only words is just pathetic. Simply his actions downright wrong.
good link, BD. And it's not lost on the populace... just the blind and deaf liberals....
Allegations? Since when do allegations stop someone for running for president? Didn't stop Bill Clinton (many women), didn't stop Hillary (emails, benghazi, not to mention her cover-up OF the Bill affairs), why should it stop Trump?
Oh right- because he's a REPUBLICAN. Sorry.
...and that article was written by a woman.
Clearly her "Manufactured Outrage" circuit isn't working properly.
So, cheating on your wife, in the oval office, with a semen-stained dress as evidence, then lying to America's FACE about it on television..... (and we're not even talking about the rape allegations from before he became president), less worrisome than a rich guy talking shit.
OK.
Oh wait, sorry... I left out two very important identifiers:
DEMOCRAT and REPUBLICAN. You lefties are so transparent it's embarrassing. Like shooting fish in a barrel.
"You still haven't proven that Trump assaulted any women. We'll wait." Well by that logic neither has Bill. A couple of lawsuits are out there regarding Trump's assault so we'll have to wait for the courts to decide but ultimately what you're saying is that the women's allegations don't count for anything.
"Trump saying what he said equalling he committed sexual assault, is like angry mother telling her child "I'm going to kill you!" when in fact, she is not." No, Trump saying "...I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.” is admitting to assault. That's right Trump's excuse now is I wasn't telling the truth then, I'm telling the truth now and I didn't do any of that. Trust me now but not then.
Nice try at twisting things around. Cheating on your wife with an intern and lying about it (Bill) is the same as cheating on your wife with a young woman, bringing her with your wife and children on the family vacation to Aspen and lying about it (Trump) is the same. Assaulting and allegedly raping women is not the same as the above.
auntiel - You do know that picture is a hoax, right? It's not Christopher Stevens, and not even Libya.
"Well by that logic neither has Bill."
EXACTLY. Now you got it!!
ALLEGED = YOU GOT NUTHIN'
Bonv, has it ever crossed your mind that when Trump was saying these things he was full of shit?
You act like there is evidence that he has done this.....get real already, he was talking a big talk to another guy.
No women have came out and said "Oh i was the one he just started kissing" or "Trump grabbed my pus****"
your basing your argument off a statement that has no merit made over 10 years ago.
Protect her husband, sure. A one women hit squad, hardly. But hey, they had Ken Starr on a McCarthy-like witch hunt talking to anyone who even got a wink from Bubba.
Bill Clinton affairs -- sure. Abuse, assault --- not that has ever been proven. The record: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_sexual_misconduct_allegations
First, Trump bragged about committing sexual assault as well as planned sexual assault. He wasn’t in a locker room, he was on a bus, under mic, about to make a public appearance where he said he might practice what he preached. His ex-wife is on deposition claiming rape. She said he did it and recanted after the settlement.
Go figure. He has a court case going now for alleged rape of a minor with his pedophile billionaire buddy. There’s a HUGE difference between an affair and sexual assault.
Here’s twenty Trump/Trump company mistreatment against women cases: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/10/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-viciously-attack/
Here’s a recent one for Trump attacks: http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/turns-out-donald-trump-attacked-woman-who-accused-him-of-sexual-assault-this-year/
Donald Trump has over 3,500 lawsuits against him over the years. He is a smart predator and gag orders come with the out of court settlements. This stuff will not stop, it is just starting.
Second, only three of the four at Trump’s pre-debate spectacle claimed abuse by Bill. The Shelton case was not Bill and Kathy Shelton was paid to appear with Trump. “Strangerdanger, what parent in their right mind would be satisfied with that?” I probably could have said that better. From Newsday: “The victim says it was her mother, who had recently been abandoned by her husband, who pushed for a quick plea deal to avoid the humiliation of having her daughter testify in open court. The mother, who died several years ago, was so eager to end the ordeal she coached her daughter’s statements and interrupted interviews with police, Sgt. Dale Gibson [the department’s lead investigator] recalls.
“We both wanted it to be over with,” the victim told Newsday. “They kept asking me the same questions over and over. I was crying all the time.”
Since then Kathy Shelton has not had an easy life and I can see where resentment over her mother’s choice and the legal system, including Hillary (whom she couldn’t even remember) would grow.
Who knows how much the others got paid by team Trump. Broderick denied under deposition being assaulted by Bill. She never went public. Only when Ken Starr approached here 20 years later did she talk. Starr concluded that he could not prosecute. Broderick said, in interview, she was never pressured not to talk. If Paula Jones was so aggrieved, why did she settle for a mere $200K plus legal fees (got abused there for sure). There is no proof Hillary even took any action against Jones.
Sure, Hillary would have wanted Bill protected and investigating your opponent is part of that. But for most of this, they had James Carville. With James on the scene, do you really think Hillary managed the investigations or mudslinging?
Just another fear tactic by the king of slime: Donald Trump - http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/10/donald-trump/donald-trump-says-hillary-clinton-viciously-attack/
Yanker....
No bill is not running, but you have been so concerned about what potential first lady has done, why not be concerned what the potential first man has done?
RAS states
" I don't so get off your D and R rants. I have never brought party into this"
and then states
"Do you notice it seems only the republicans bring that up? What's up with that?"
............IMMEDIATELY doing what you just said you don't!
yankeefan, I would ignore my gross hypocrisy too if I were you. Must be SO embarrassing for you.
Oh please, since when is Trump a republican? And who says I condoned what Clinton did? I don't so get off your D and R rants. I have never brought party into this . Do you notice it seems only the republicans bring that up? What's up with that? Oh and btw, I voted for Bush the first time around so stick that in your republican pipe and smoke it.
Sorry JR but last time I checked Bill isn't running for POTUS but you guys are hysterical with the old stop blaming Bush/Reagan but have no problems going back in time. Also, last time I checked Bill wasn't recorded bragging about assaulting women, he wasn't alleged to have raped a 13-year old but had he .... well most likely the same outrage would have occurred during his run for office.
This is the Election of the False Equivalence. Donald Trump brags about actually performing sexual assault, and somehow Hillary is now supposed to defend remaining married to her husband who may or may not have assaulted other women. Since of course women are deemed responsible for their men’s misdeeds while men are not accountable for “mere locker room talk” or for "allegations".
Finally, the republican candidate cannot be soiled with his own voters, because they are now playing the same game the democrats have been playing for decades- THEY DON'T CARE. Just like all the democrats think about their candidates, the republican candidate CAN DO NO WRONG.
THERE'S your "level playing field" LOL
Thought for the day:
"Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality."
Bertrand Russell.
"Bonv, has it ever crossed your mind that when Trump was saying these things he was full of shit?" No but if that's what you want to believe go for it. Trump was bragging and quite proud of what he has done and could do and not because he wanted to impress Billy Bush (LOL). Trump has a history of this BS going back decades; so for many it's not even new outrage.
"No women have came out and said ...." Some have and maybe more will but I don't envy them because Trump is extremely vindictive and has some pretty delusional fans.
Jr. How you doing with those 100000 illegals coming in to New Orleans? Umm...paranoid gullible much?
Of the alt right paranoics on HL you rank slightly above Darrin and are closely followed by Brother Dog. But the message you promote is essentially the same. Just varying levels of crazy.
At any rate I say America isn't dumb enough or self destructive enough to elect Trump. If he wins, in the end, i think we'll both ultimately regret it. Meanwhile, look out for that porous New Orleans border!
Bonv,
Sounds like you are strongly believing it because you just want to and it fits your agenda. There is no factual evidence that it has actually happened other then Trump running his mouth.
guess what, I have a bridge to sell you
"....Just like all the democrats think about their candidates, the republican candidate CAN DO NO WRONG." Actually that's not true on many fronts - Trump can and has done a lot of wrong. Many decent Republicans recognize this too.
Darrin - "Sounds like you are strongly believing it because you just want to and it fits your agenda. " Seems like this applies better to you. You don't want to believe what Trump said because it wouldn't fit your agenda and because as others have attested to Trump can do no wrong. Trust me I'd prefer not to have a sexual predator as one of the 2 candidates for POTUS but that's where we are.
Deluded you say we are.
Why is it Trump says he assaulted women and everyone agrees it's locker room braggadocio that all men say but never actually do? Why is it Trump says he will deport all illegal aliens and everyone agrees that he really does not mean that. Or that his tax plan will net his family $3B but we say, "nah- it will never happen." Or when he consistently lies on almost every single thing that comes out of his mouth, we say --- it's just hyperbole, grandstanding and he doesn't really mean it.
His debate answers are often gobblygook and we say: "but we know what he means...." When he says: "Philli voters will be cheating" we know he doesn't mean "it's the blacks." It just sounds like that.
I mean he has spewed some of the most hateful, demeaning, lies against other people and we just shrug and say "anything's better than Hillary."
You can't tell me his plans for education, welfare, housing, drug abuse, criminal system, or his big ideas on how he will actually fix America's infrastructure. You just don't know and it doesn't matter. His big economic plan is to lower the lowest taxes in decades to pay off the debt. It's gonna cost us Trillions in debt..... For trade he will start by punitive tariffs, forcing companies to move factories back, --- basically everything to increase the price of what you are paying for things. Are you waiting for that factory job to be able to pay more for what you buy today? For HealthCare he will remove any benefits you get from ObamaCare and replace it with the myth of insurance across state lines that does not do anything plus cheaper foreign drugs while 20 million lose their insurance with Trump's offer to give them a tax refund worth pennies. Hey, idiot ---- insurance companies won't wait till I get my tax refund for their insurance payment. Wanna bet Trump will be buying those foreign Rx's.
I mean the man has virtually no plans and the few he has are so faulty on so many levels. But we see change, the break-up of the Washington power elite and an outsider. What Washington elite do you think he is breaking up? Ain't no flipping Trump law ever even hitting the floor of the Congress unless Paul Ryan says OK and that's looking slim now. Even as President he's a dead man walking when it comes to getting anything done now. Think he will have a mandate? Only with Putin.
His plans, what little there are, have been pretty well covered and slammed by conservatives and liberals alike but we say "eh, MSM lies" and move on.
If he had any good plans to back up his marketing slogan that would be one thing. But this man is as vapid as day old beer. And yet we continue to fill in the blanks where he says nothing, change the narrative to our liking in his plans of lunacy and totally discount the lies, hate speak, and vulgarity he spews.
Enabling to the nth degree.
Make America Great --- grab some .........today.
Bonv, are you listening to yourself? You are claiming he is a sexual predator just because of a verbal "potential" joke was said.
Not for nothing, but Trump did clarify that the "let him do it" if you want to be technical.
Darrin, leave Bonv alone . She doesn't need defense and she's a breath of fresh air and honesty which is unusual on HL.. Samantha is calling. And Endora. BTW, Which Darrin are you? I mean which Dick? Sargent? York? And why can't you come up with an original thought with all that witch power in your new house? Which is unfortunately a mile from an internet provider. Smart guy like you didn't think about that?
Darrin - you keep diminishing his statements as a joke or just words. His words described his actions - sure now that he's running for POTUS he's claiming that he didn't mean those words. So, was it more important to lie then or to lie now? Obviously now.
"Not for nothing, but Trump did clarify that the "let him do it" if you want to be technical." Actually to be technical, he says that his kisses them - he doesn't even wait. He doesn't bother to wait for consent because he's Trump after all.
Yankee, we are discussing the presidential candidates here, leave personal out of it....no reason to stoop to that level. We are having a debate.
Bonv, personally I just feel you are thinking way too into this. Someone can say all they want, they can make up stories they had sex with someone when they didn't. The only reason I am signing it off is because there is no creditable facts backing it up, to me, it is just Trump running his mouth as usual Trump does.
Here it comes: groper gate. They're coming out of the woodwork. What a perv.
The funny thing is, I fully expect this to create a whole mess, worse then already.... We have seen similar instances where people jump aboard the "gravy train" women all around who have never even seen Trump will be claiming Trump sexually harassed them.....you watch
Darrin, I'm not really thinking about this too much - I know that he flips flops a lot and can understand why you think it's just him running his mouth but there have been complaints/allegations for a pretty long time about him plus now his own words which I don't buy as just "chatting". Unfortunately a lot of women don't pursue the types of things he bragged about doing so outside of their allegations there won't be a lot of "facts".
He's on tape on Stern talking about entering the Miss Teen changing area at the most appropriate time. Just Stern talk.......
Uh oh, here they come out of the woodwork.,...
Bonv, all we can do is await trials. In America you are innocent until proven guilty.
If you were only so concerned about classified emails as you are about sexual suggestions.
"...jump aboard the "gravy train" women...." Wow - what really happens is that women who thought they were alone in the harassment or assault realize that they are not alone and come out with their stories. Women that hear their abuser or harasser lie about what he did also emboldens them to come out with their stories.
"Bonv, all we can do is await trials. In America you are innocent until proven guilty." Wait, what? You mean Bill and Hillary are innocent? Well that's a relief.
Bonv, while some stories are true, it is no lie that certain people make stories of their own to try to pursue money.....happens all the time, look at the Toyota gas petal thing that occurred a few years back....do you know how many people were found to be purposely creating a problem to try to get money from Toyota?
I know that's a little off topic, but I am tired and it's the first thing that came to mind.
"Bonv, all we can do is await trials. In America you are innocent until proven guilty." - unless your last name is Clinton, lol
A bit OT, but if you look at social interactions in today's society what's more true is actually "guilty until proven innocent". Totally sad, but true none the less.
Words don't necessarily equate to actions, but words do convey thoughts. Trumps words convey what he's thinking, so even though he may not be guilty of an actual crime he comes across as if he could be, and that speaks to his character. He's a jerk, but not necessarily a guilty jerk.
Besides, there always seems to be "groupies" on the other side of the equation willing to do the things Trump talks about, so the better view IMO is to ask questions about mutual consent. Uninvited acts are bad, consensual ones are not.
Ian,
I may be crazy, but your belligerent arrogance takes the cake, friend.
As for this:
"At any rate I say America isn't dumb enough or self destructive enough to elect Trump. If he wins, in the end, i think we'll both ultimately regret it."
I don't disagree, believe it or not- I have said from the beginning Trump was not my choice. However, your statement is equally valid substituting Hillary.
Darrin-
"If you were only so concerned about classified emails as you are about sexual suggestions."
Ain't that the truth.
Bonv-
"Bonv, all we can do is await trials. In America you are innocent until proven guilty." Wait, what? You mean Bill and Hillary are innocent? Well that's a relief.
Yes, and to use your words... "by that logic", SO IS TRUMP. You're getting it! Keep going!
Ian-
"Bonv, all we can do is await trials. In America you are innocent until proven guilty." - unless your last name is Clinton, lol
You do realize you're gross hypocrisy is showing you for who you really are, right? Oh, of course not- you're "Omnipotent Ian", my bad.
SD-
"suddenly no one cares about taxes"
Every harvest moon, you and I agree. This whole thing is ridiculousness. But you have to admit: you have long been a democrat apologist. Rape allegations ok for Bill, locker room talk not ok for Trump? Come on....
My belligerent arrogance? Look in the mirror, my friend.
"Rape allegations ok for Bill, locker room talk not ok for Trump?"
This is about the 100th time you've ignored the fact that there are multiple rape allegations against Trump... not to mention the fact that Bill Clinton isn't running for any office. But we wouldn't want to contradict the narrative you've been spoon fed by Breitbart, would we?
Bill's up for a third term? Didn't think it was possible. Yes... it's all about taxes. If Trump pulls off yet another tax increase for the working people and decreases taxes on investment income, or more loopholes for the ultra wealth, we will go into oblivion. I can't believe how many people get distracted and just watch or listen to one source. Unless you're earning millions of dollars a year, you're voting against your own best interests, especially young people, who hope there's still SS to fall back on, since most large corporations have frozen, and no longer offer a core pension, since Junior. Trump can afford anything he wants.... except his OWN military. He now wants the ultimate power, to get "even" on anyone who ever makes Trump angry... which we all know is very easily done, and to add billions to his own pocket. Did everyone have amnesia during the dubya days? This is dubya on steroids... yikes!!! Hillary can, and WILL be our next president!!
Breitbart? You're funny. I don't follow Breitbart, they went off the deep end. I don't watch Fox either. Or listen to Rush.
And yes- your hypocrisy continues. The point isn't whether Bill is running, the point is multiple rape allegations for DEM Bill = AOK, multiple rape allegations for REPUB Trump=evil
Ian, I know you have tried very hard to paint yourself as a non-party/3rd party, above-it-all, smarter-than-all-of-you kind of guy, but this thread has shown you for what you are: a liberal. Own it, don't own it, but we all know it now. A liberal who hides behind a moderate facade. Unfortunately (for you), your facade is transparent.
and BTW- I agree with all of you that Bill has nothing to do with this election. I'm just using the example to demonstrate liberal hypocrisy. But you know that, you justkeep dodging it.
I am much more concerned with America's future than Bill OR Donald's past- which is why Hillary cannot be allowed to be president (unfortunately, America may be blind and ignorant enough to elect her). But no worries- if she does anything wrong, we'll just blame Bush. Or the republican congress. Because it's ALWAYS the republicans fault and NEVER the democrats fault, right?
The point about Bill, is that Hillary should have left this glorified trailer trash serial womanizer but she did not because of her power dreams to become president herself.
She knew that if she divorced Bill her chances of becoming President in the future would drop to zero...
"Ian, I know you have tried very hard to paint yourself as a non-party/3rd party, above-it-all, smarter-than-all-of-you kind of guy, but this thread has shown you for what you are: a liberal. Own it, don't own it, but we all know it now. A liberal who hides behind a moderate facade. Unfortunately (for you), your facade is transparent."
LOL, if anyone has tried to "paint himself" as someone who's tired of the 2-party system in this thread, it's you. My views have been consistent in this regard since I've been on this Forum. And I actually VOTE 3rd party... something you've ridiculed consistently. And now, in this of all elections, where BOTH candidates reek of corruption and unfitness to serve the Office, you still are going to vote for the Republican Party. You're the one who isn't fooling anyone with your lip service. If you won't vote third party in this election, you never will. Own it, as you say.
iJay......100% agreed!
JR, why shouldn't Bill be part of this? The dems are so concerned about what Trumps wife has done so shouldn't we be looking at what Hilary's husband has done?
We especially need to look at Bill since he was once president. Hilary's actions are sure to follow suit of what Bill did.
Make you a deal Ian:
On nov 9th, I'll tell who I voted for if you do. :)
And, in case you haven't figured it out yet:
1) I'm not a republican (party). Haven't been for years now. I've said it many times. That doesn't mean I can't vote for the republican candidate, just that I don't do it by rote... you know, like you democrats.
2) Voting for a 3rd party candidate who do not feel would make a reliable president, for the express goal of getting them 15% of the vote for the next election cycle, is just as foolhardy as voting for Trump to keep Hillary out, or vice-versa.
JR - Have you ever read Don Miguel Ruiz? If not, you really should, the Four Agreements in particular.
http://www.miguelruiz.com/
Bill Clinton's escapades were mostly consensual and have been communicated, investigated, adjudicated, with nothing criminal happening.
Hillary is guilty of protecting and selecting to stand by her man, just what many of you are doing today......
The Don has said what he did and now others are coming forward saying he did it to me. Lots of them. More every day. We gots your groped upon, we got your peeped upon, we got rape on deposition, we got another in the works (probably false....but)....
I say, let's stick to the issue but the Don is trashing and bashing so game on. So what's up with the groping? I mean, when it comes to sex crimes, where's the fun it that? I mean even on a consensual basis, does anyone go for a lot of groping on a regular basis? I can understand a touch, maybe a pinch here and there, but routine grabs and gropes? That's just weird man, what a perv.
But hey, it's all in the past. Or is it? Allegations run all the way to 2013 ---- so far....Here's the time line: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/10/12/all-of-donald-trump-s-accusers-a-timeline-of-every-alleged-grope-and-assault.html
Rumor has it Putin saying up all night typing new emails......
Now we know what those big hands really mean....
How many Republican candidates do you guys poorly vet? This time around feels like "An Officer and A Gentleman" with Hillary playing Mayo and The Don playing Sid. Mayo is a deeply flawed character, her closet relationship being a whoremonger, and while being grilled as a cadet for his shortcomings, finally breaks down and cries "I got no classified emails, I go not classified emails...." After admitting her faults, she moves forward to reach her goal helping many others along the path as a true team leader and patriot. Sid is a rich kid, forced into a race he never really wanted to run by his family, but is passionate about life, love and his country. We all know what happens when things grope, I mean go a bit South, even if alleged...... In the end Mayo does the right thing and rides off into the sunset with spouse and a new position as our governmental top gun aviator..........
Prepare the shower scene.......take one!
GC, never heard of him. But I'm not sure if you're being serious, or somehow trying to make a point? LOL
But seriously, never heard of him.
Be Impeccable With Your Word.
Don't Take Anything Personally.
Don't Make Assumptions.
Always Do Your Best.
In the early years of our democracy, elections meant something. On the local level, perhaps they still do. At the Presidential level, they are nothing more than carefully crafted circuses designed to distract the American people from the bleak reality of our situation. They uphold the cherished illusion of democracy while defocusing the public from our pile of major issues which Americans neither grasp, nor care to, let alone have the wherewithal to address.
The design works. Look at what you and the country are all focused on.
The two people being discussed here are one in the same: power-hungry megalomaniacs with strong signs of sociopathic behaviors. Rather boring and pathetic human beings if you ask me. That the media has managed to keep you and everyone else engaged with the most ridiculous minutiae (because there is nothing more to talk about after 18+ months of ad nauseum "news" coverage is there?) proves to me that this country is lost.
Not that I needed more proof, mind you.
What a monumental waste of everyone's time.
Just my 2c of course. Carry on.
The unintended consequence of voting 3rd party is that it can swing the popular vote majority to the candidate you were LEAST likely to vote for in a 2 way race. 3rd party candidates pull primarily from one of the major parties. The Republicans that voted for Perot gave us Bill Clinton and the Democrats who voted for Nader gave us Bush #2. Grats.
The media is running this election and I find it sickening. I stopped watching CNN because it was clear they were not fairly covering both candidates. Every day it’s always about Trump, and Hillary gets a pass. How about these Wikileaks that have been coming out about Hillary’s emails? Are we supposed to take that with a grain of salt but automatically believe Trump raped women and is a sexual predator? And you have to look at Bill Clinton, because he will have an influence on this administration if he is the First Man or whatever you want to call him.
Mark Mc. - there's nothing wrong with a one night stand as long as both parties are in agreement. Comparing that to these recent allegations is apples to oranges.
You honestly can't grasp the distinction?
JR - "YES".
Rebecka - If it worked at one time but doesn't now, don't blame it on the process. And don't divorce ourselves from it by using third person. It's the people, there's no reason why we can't have 12 different parties, there's no reason why we can't vote for someone not even on the ballot. The people in the parties have to be cleaned up, the people running need to be cleaned up, and we need to clean up our own votes. The biggest part of the process is to realize we are doing this to ourselves and stop blaming someone else. We need to be active participants not just go "oh woe is me somewhere" on line. Real life calls.
"the bleak reality of our situation." Xanax please :>)
Yes, the game is rigged. The media is owned by the Clinton's. That's why Trump won the primaries without spending any ad money.... They even own FOX. They won't even cover those boring emails because Trump's movies are in color. My goodness, even Putin can't save him. Philadelphia is rigged, "those people" all cheat. Gonna get some poll watchers from Western PA to "monitor" those people --- that ought to be fun. The RNC is rigged, they all are running just after some locker room talk.... The debates are rigged, Trump had to overcome that to win the second debate that he lost. Clinton got all the questions up front and he got surprised by every question. He is now seriously considering missing the third debate hosted by corrupt Clinton media outlet FOX.
Give me a break. The day this guy brings a fact to the table.......
I am betting this guy does not concede the race when he loses. Riggerism will go on for at least four more years after rigor mortis sets in.
Oh GC, you know me better than that. ;-)
I choose my words carefully and mean exactly what I say. Third person was a deliberate choice and the correct use.
I divorced myself from the process several years ago. This won't be the first election cycle during which I maintain a near-complete news blackout.
Not implying that anyone else is divorced from the process, nor suggesting they should be. In fact I'm trying to point out how seemingly everyone else is not divorced from it. But I **most definitely** am.
The point is not moot MB. The popular vote in each state determines who gets the electoral votes for that state (I know technically it doesn't have to be that way). Ralph Nader caused Gore to not win the popular vote in Florida, consequently Florida's electoral votes went to Bush. So keep up your cute protest and help elect the candidate that is furthest away from your beliefs.
"The biggest part of the process is to realize we are doing this to ourselves and stop blaming someone else."
Agreed. But do you really believe that the growing majority of citizens who "get" something from their government are going to choose to cut off their source of free stuff? The trends are, once again, our friend when trying to put our current situation into perspective. Here's where we are today (plenty of other links if you don't like this one):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/merrillmatthews/2014/07/02/weve-crossed-the-tipping-point-most-americans-now-receive-government-benefits/#3518632e6233
The problem is most definitely "us". But it's more than just accepting that we are the problem, it's admitting that the solutions we constantly hear are not necessarily what we want them to be. It's about accepting responsibility for the bad choices of the past and finding ways to fix them. Yet the Republicrats do the exact opposite... Go figure.
there never has been 4catmom.
Since there is no "good" president and both candidates are not presidential material, nobody is going to agree!
Everyone is wasting there time trying to show how their chosen candidate is less of a liar, less of a criminal, less of a pending disaster then the other.
Round and round it goes until election day
Seems to me that more people enjoy the "game" than dealing with the hard stuff. It's only important if it can be sensationalized.
Rebecka,
I'm THIS close to feeling exactly the same way. This will undoubtedly be my last election, unless a WORTHY candidate manages to somehow gain major public support. No one on this ballot is worthy- including Johnson.
I actually began a near-news blackout since before the primaries. And I'm much happier for it. Until recently, I wasn't sure I was even voting this time around. But I think I will. One last hail mary before heading off to Galt's Gulch.
GC - "OK"
My main concern is that when shit hits the fan I still have my rights to protect myself and my family. I have come to acceptance that it may one day hit the fan, and accepted that as my primary concern.
"Real life calls."
And when the rest of you catch up to us, we'll check back in.
Apparently we have left the thrashing phase and entered end of days.
May the force be with you.
"My main concern is that when shit hits the fan I still have my rights to protect myself and my family. I have come to acceptance that it may one day hit the fan, and accepted that as my primary concern."
As have I. When it all comes down to it, that's the one issue I'll vote on, because without it, the others are irrelevant. So while I have been in a near-total new blackout, I will always remain in the loop on THAT issue.
At least now you guys have stopped being disingenuous. You aren't supporting or defending Trump for any other reason except the fact that you think Hillary will appoint Supreme Court justices who will erode your 2nd Amendment rights. That's a perfectly legitimate concern, IMO and was quite obvious the second Mark Mc entered the fray. He's usually above these political discussions, lol.
None of you have children, AFAIK, and have the luxury of single issue focus. Others may look at a potential Trump presidency and rue the day when the have to explain to little Joey what the President meant when he told Angela Merkel to suck his "wherever"...
Metsman? He's a true believer. He thinks Trump is going to harken us back to a time when baseball players can use locker room talk anywhere they want with impunity (-;
Disingenuous? We aren't "hiding" anything, if you haven't figured out by now that me, Darrin, and Mark (and a few others) are firearms enthusiasts and constitutionalists, then you haven't been paying attention.
And if I'm not mistaken, this is the first time in this thread 2A has even come up. Well, the 2nd time- but YOU were the FIRST one to mention it.
By disingenuous, I meant pretending to defend Trump rather than admit that you would vote for him even if he killed someone because you're afraid that Hillary will take your guns away. Mark Mc even went so far as to imply that the existence of Cosmopolitan magazine made it ok for Trump to sexually assault women.
Nope, my bad Ian. Looks like it was Mark lol.
So, STILL... not hiding anything. Right out there in the open. Disingenuous?
And, for the record- I'm not "defending Trump", my whole point is illustrating how the liberals are hypocritical... but being a liberal, you must be blind to that. No way am I defending some of the crap Trump has done and said- but watching you libs defend Bill, then Obama, while vilifying Bush and Trump - priceless.
Bush lied, people died.
Obama never knew Bill Ayers, and is not a radical progressive.
Hillary didn't do anything wrong by keeping classified emails on her private server- then deleting them. And lying to the FBI. Benghazi? Where's that?
Trump said "grab 'em by the p***y" ?!?! OMG he should castrated and then jailed forever as a verified sexual predator.
It's like a comedy show. I know I'm laughing at all you liberal progressive democrats.
Ian, if you actually think I would vote for Trump if he killed someone, you are an idiot. But that wouldn't surprise me.
And Skippy- sorry for leaving you out, Bro! :)
Oh- I totally forgot:
Romney put a dog on top of his car and drove!!! He should be fixed and is unqualified to be president!!! (I actually agree that he needed the hell beat out of him for that.)
"ditto here - I think we are pretty apparent about it"
Really? This thread is two weeks old and as JR pointed out, this was the first time the 2nd Amendment issues were mentioned. He posted in this thread approximately 100 times and yet never mentioned the "one issue he'll vote on"?
I haven't personally defended Bill Clinton for anything, except to debunk outright lies. I certainly haven't said anything nice about Obama, either, lol. So, if you think I'm a "liberal" that can only be because your perception is skewed by being somewhere to the right of "bat-shit crazy whackjob who alludes to Ayn Rand way too much to be in his right mind."
"Nope, my bad Ian. Looks like it was Mark lol."
Actually, SD was the first to bring up guns (surprise, surprise...)
http://www.hackettstownlife.com/forum/763017#t763384
ianimal, personally I thought it pretty much went without saying.
If Trump "killed someone" then in Trump's words...."you'd be in prison" ;-)
"bat-shit crazy whackjob who alludes to Ayn Rand way too much to be in his right mind."
Says the guy who is voting for a libertarian candidate IN HOPES of MAYBE being able to be included in the next debate cycle. Talk about bat-shit crazy... you're dreaming on that one.
(I think it would be a GOOD thing, as I have said. But Gary Johnson? LOL. Not only is he NOT a libertarian, he can't "git 'r' done".)
"But I still think..."
In Trump's words "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters,"
Continuous enablers.
So, Trump's supporters continuing to support him is going to "enable" him to shoot somebody. Got it. Liberal logic 101.
So did the Bill Clinton supporters who continued to support him after having an extramarital affair (and he ACTUALLY DID IT, he didn't just TALK about it), "enable" him to have more affairs?
"Says the guy who is voting for a libertarian candidate IN HOPES of MAYBE being able to be included in the next debate cycle. Talk about bat-shit crazy... you're dreaming on that one.
(I think it would be a GOOD thing, as I have said. But Gary Johnson? LOL. Not only is he NOT a libertarian, he can't "git 'r' done".)"
So, you're saying that it's a good thing to get a Third Party eligible for the presidential debates, but it's bat-shit crazy to do the thing required in order to make that happen? Is that Right-Wing Nutjob Logic 101?
This thread is ridiculous. It's all about character assassination instead of the issues. I'm voting over issues not because someone is a good person. Hillary doesn't get it done for me. She's Obama 2.0.
And we're back to thrashing......
Folks, last time round you anointed a moderate leaning right under the pressure of the TPers. He was born with a silver spoon, stumbled on some wordsmithing, but wavered right losing his center meaning he was dependent solely on the far right to win. He lost to a uninspired leader with a shaky economy and a lower turnout than 2008. And the party said: we can't win being an exclusionary club, we must become inclusive of other people and ideas. Only needed 4% points to win --- wouldn't have to be that inclusive....
So this time around you anoint Trump --- the fiery change agent without a name who excludes vast constituencies with a single insult. No public history, no public works, no work at all on behalf of others, secret business success story fraught with failures and all for personal gain using embedded silver spoon to get there and be saved from disaster --- multiple time. Total lack of transparency and total lock of plans, bullet point ideas and a vociferous liar, foul mouthed, bigoted, fear mongering, hater who told you America sucks and I can fix it. Pretty exclusionary stuff targeting a minority constituency for inclusion. Have to admit, the guy can take a punch and he certainly has a lot of weak spots to take a shot at. But himself a sucker puncher, bully boy, that frankly, not many like as a person. I mean when your only two friends are Rudy Giuliani and Chris Christie --- "Hello, McFly, anybody in there...." Some folks just like the TV brand. Others put up with him given there's no where else to turn. And lots of us love a good ole time chest thumpin rally. People were bringing pic-a-nic baskets.
What did you expect? Even the Koch Bro's who bought, I mean brilliantly brought you the Congress and the Governorships in 2012 walked away from Trump to the point of threatening a Clinton vote. You can't win if you don't broaden the appeal. You can't broaden the appeal with 100% exclusionary policies and plans.
You can talk all you want about rigged this, broken that, cheating everything. Fact is you screwed the pooch and you knew it even before you started down this path. Unless Putin has a email nuke for Hillary or some other total surprise happens, reap what you sow.
I, for one, like conservatives in the mix. Don't mind the two party system. Keep's the ultra left at bay for one. Has some good ideas like forcing us into the sequester (I actually thought that a good idea), welfare reform (Bill Clinton stole that one), and many others. Even the dreaded tax cuts have their place, Reagan showed us that (just stayed too long at the fair...).
Sure add some more parties, more diversity. The same will be true though --- the inclusion party will always beat the exclusion party. We may not be a democracy, but generally plurality rules.
Have a feeling it will be absolute majority this time making "rigged" sound pretty funny.
+1 Metsman. That is also why I am NOT voting for Hillary: issues, not character. It's also why I voted for who I voted for in the primary, and why I'm going to vote for who I'm going to vote for in the senate: ISSUES. Politicians HAVE NO character.
Yes GC the picture is a hoax, but the crime is not. Mrs. Bill Clinton as Secretary of State blew off the cries for help from an "American" Ambassador plus 3 "American" navy seals, allowing them to be slaughtered in cold blood. Lying to the families at their funerals, lying to the American people about what factually happened. If Mrs. Bill Clinton can get away with such a heinous crime as this, she can get away with anything. If she becomes POTUS her crimes could be countless and she would be untouchable. She is a ruthless human being, who IMO should not be given the privilege to be President of the United States of America.
"Yes GC the picture is a hoax" - How could anyone get past knowingly posting a hoax and talk about others lying. Shenanigans.
Metsman - about issues and your reasoning is all about the "First Man"'s character assassination?
These candidates aren't so horrible because we've become complacent. They're so bad because this is the trash the uncomplacent have actually dreamed up.
SD, you got it exactly backwards.
The GOP has been moving center since Bush. Actually, Bush was left of Reagan. ALL the "smart" campaign advisors say "you have to move to the middle".... and it's failed. Twice. If you think McCain and Romney were "right", your view of the political spectrum is leaning to left about like a drunk gay democrat on election day. McCain and Romney were both left of Bush, and they both LOST.
So this time around, the PEOPLE (not the party- IN SPITE OF the party) picked someone who (appears to) lean further right than even Bush. Let's see what happens. I admit they could have picked a BETTER "righty", but we got who we got.
JR - "McCain and Romney were both left of Bush". Romney was definitely true, but McCain is what gives you even less than zero credibility. The GOP doesn't know what they want, they just want to win, and are so fractured they don't know how. In addition Reagan himself was left of the Reagan that was initially elected. His views changed midstream.
PS when you talk about being against two parties, how do you reconcile that with the "we" in "we got who we got"???
Oh good grief, talk about picking nits...no "reconciliation" necessary. I WAS a republican for McCain and Romney. I'm not anymore. McCain was the last straw for me (well, technically Romney was, but I would have preferred Romney to McCain)
If an ACTUAL libertarian (like Rand Paul) were on the ballot in all 50 states, I'd vote for him. But Johnson is an idiot. And no libertarian. Which makes me wonder what in the hell THAT party is thinking... maybe they're thinking ianimals's 15% theory... ain't gonna' happen. Not with Johnson.
The obvious flaw with a three, or four or five or 20 party election is that the divisiveness and obstruction gets worse. Three parties- candidate 1 gets 38%. Candidate 2 gets 35%. Candidate 3 gets 27%. Candidate 1 wins although 62% of the people voted against candidate 1. Solves nothing.
Hey yankee, I actually agree with the logic there. BUT THEN... how do we break this 2-party system that MUST be broken?
BTW, George Washington warned us against political parties,
http://www.thirty-thousand.org/pages/Baneful_Parties.htm
I think it's way too convenient that all this stuff, the tape and women making accusations, is coming out now. How is it none of the Republican candidates could dig this stuff up during the primaries? It's further evidence that the mainstream media is corrupt. These women making accusations were probably paid off. Anderson Cooper is interviewing a woman tonight who is making accusations from the 80's. She waited 30 years to come forward? I don't find people like that credible.
"SD, you got it exactly backwards." I think on this one we agree more than disagree but between my writing and your comprehension, a miss. I said Romney was a moderate who stumbled with his wordsmithing oops but also wavered right of center then. For example --- the guy invented ObamaCare but to cater to the right, he disowned it under the guise of "states rights." Exclusionary move. His original platform would have been a winner IF he could hold the right and not stumble on those unfortunate words forcing him to move right of center to hold. But I agree, certainly not hard right at all.
Bush I maybe but Bush II was just confused.
But I was talking about the party that itself said it needed to be more inclusive if they planned to win the Presidency. Look at it this way. You get 30% if you nominate a turd and 45% if the turd leans tea party. But to get higher than that, you need to include those outside that circle. You need a piece of something you don't have: independents, minorities, women, educated, and even liberals ---- something. And just a piece.
Yes, the people chose Trump. What was it, 50% of the Republicans meaning 25% of the whole (or something like that). And then the other Republicans begrudgingly got on the train (let's face it, Trump was not even that inclusive to his own party at his convention) for the ride against Hillary. During the primaries, no one vetted Trump like he is being vetted now. Just held their collective noses. They blew it because they were scared of the Trump backlash or believed he would implode. Guess the clown car episodes from earlier primaries didn't teach them about who the Tea Party driver wants and how fast they can turn the car. Now that the proverbial has hit the fan, the Republican portion not in the core is wavering and he still can't get outside his party for that last 5%.
I would say you were close with Romney, too bad about the stumbles, but once he stumbled and shifted more right all was lost. That's what the party said too and supposedly were moving to fix it going forward. I figured against Hillary they had a pretty fair chance.
I like Rand Paul but like all libertarians --- I really like 80% but 20% is bat shit crazy IMO. I mean turning FEMA over to the states --- that's just a really bad idea. The international stuff --- some weird ideas there too. Kasich was good too but no national sizzle and Jeb just didn't have the fire in his belly. Too bad. Against Hillary, good chance I would have voted Jeb. And then you were left with the rest. Fire and brimstone and exclusionary to that Tea Party vocal core.
Paul Ryan is a really good guy. Too far right for me but I respect the man as a patriot and public servant. Hope Trump doesn't burn him too badly in this dust up. Actually liked Cruz in Texas (as I said here oh so many years ago) but something happened when he got to DC. Presidential run went to his head and he turned so ugly even Tea Partiers didn't like him on character.
I think my point is that the Tea Party runs the party but does not represent 100% of it and most certainly does not represent the rest of the country. Can't win the big one that way. Like I said, even the Koch Bro's who bankrolled the Tea Party's success ran away from this candidate. That's saying a lot about who "the people" chose.
Without greater inclusion you just won't add votes above your 45%.
Yankeefan, you're missing the bigger picture. Say eventually, Congress is made up of Republicans (Social and Fiscal Conservatives), Democrats (Social and Fiscal Liberals) and Libertarians (Social Liberals and Fiscal Conservatives) in the proportions you mentioned. The Libertarians can form a coalition with the Dems on social issues and the Repubs on fiscal issues and break the gridlock that occurs with a 2-party system that doesn't adequately represent the will of the people.
Metsman - Convenient like Gennifer Flowers or Paula Jones years later that you dismiss out of hand? Or is it just hypocrisy?
ianimal - The word "coalition" is from a different place. In the US they can vote one way one minute, another the next. Other places they're pretty well bound and the party can replace the individuals if they don't vote right because the party wins the seat, not the person. We'd have to change more than the party to have it work that way.
Maybe it was, but Monica Lewinsky was legit so now those other women seem legit. Find credible evidence that Trump has a Monica Lewinsky hiding in his closet then come talk to me.
That's easy Marla Maples is Trump's Monica Lewinsky equivalent. Both married men, both consensual affairs with young women.
Bonv are you kidding me.... Bill brought Lewinsky into the White House while on the job for us and did this. If any of us did something like this on the job we'd get fired. If your argument makes any sense than half the men in this country are unqualified to hold public office.
Metsman, do you think Bill Cosby is innocent, too, just because it took so long for women to come forward?
Look at the public bullying Trump has unleashed on people like Rosie O'Donnell. Do you think the average woman is going to choose to bring that abuse on her self when she thinks she's all alone against him? There is strength in numbers, as they say. Doesn't mean they're lying, nor does it mean they're telling the truth.
It's similar to when a long time pedophile finally gets busted. Former victims begin telling their stories because it's less humiliating when you aren't the only one.
"Monica Lewinsky was legit" - as legit as Nancy O'Dell or Adrianne Zucker? As consentual? Or do you join BD's "confirmation bias"? You can't have it both ways Metsman, it's either all or nothing. Personally I find it all awful and don't figure time has anything to do with it. It's either illegal or not, amoral or not. There's some of each floating around and I figure I'll let the courts decide instead of being a hypocrite and choose based on which candidate is running.
I couldn't tell you if Cosby is guilty or innocent. But why wait till now for countless women to accuse him?
Rosie O' donnell is white trash. Don't even bring her up.
Ok, but where's the evidence to bust Trump? Anyone can make things up if they don't like a candidate. No one has explained why the republicans didn't have this info. There were a lot of candidates in the primary.
Metsman - Trump had you at Mexican so there's no point for facts or rational arguments. Those two cases are the same except for 1 really big difference ....Bill is not running. But just to play this along Bill brought Monica to the White House where he lived. Trump brought his mistress to his family vacation and home. Same exact thing.
So, Russia says "vote for Trump. If you vote for Hillary, it's war."
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-russian-trump-idUSKCN12C28Q?il=0
Bonv you're nuts. If you think President of the United States and Private Citizen are held at the same standard then you live in a bubble. The sad thing is Hillary is pathetic and stayed with him.
GC, you're right in that I wasn't talking a binding coalition like you would find in the Bundestag. Anyone would be free to vote any way they wanted on any particular bill.
My point is that a majority of Americans are socially liberal and a majority of Americans are fiscally conservative... which isn't the same as the majority being Libertarian. Many are strictly liberal and many are strictly conservative. It's when you add the Libertarians to either aspect that the scales begin to tip.
JR, it doesn't need to be broken. It needs to be changed. Term limits for Senate and House. Overturn Citizens United. Boom.
Ian, I think you're way overestimating the level of cooperation unless we first make the two aforementioned changes. No career politicians and no corporately funded politicians. Take away the ridiculous financial incentives and you might wind up with dedicated public servants who have careers but answers. Or at least good intent.
Desperate attempt at deflection and camouflage. The behavior with Lewisnky & Maples is exactly the same - the location not so important. The fact that Hillary stayed with him like millions of other women that stay with their cheating spouses not so pathetic but then again your desperate. So the differences are: (1) Bill is not running for POTUS (2) Trump has a ton of allegations and has had them for years (3) Trump has been accused of questionable behavior with young girls and has been accused of raping a 13-year old girl.
"the same standard" - You mean alcoholism, slapping the crap out of your kid and domestic violence are only applicable if you hold a high public office? Others have told you as well, but when you live in a candy glass house, throwing mega ton boulders may not be the most constructive idea.
Amazing how people are so concerned with talk but don't talk about being 20 Trillion in debt.
How people are not upset over corrupted government sending us to wars abroad, wasting Trillions and thousands of US lives.
Special interest groups hijacking our democracy.
This is a very sad state. Is the country numb and stupid???
I thought Metsman was focused on the issues. Seems obsessed with illicit sex. Just saying.
A quick fact check: I don't think Bill brought Monica into the White House. I recall she was an intern on staff, and that she first made a play for George Stephanopoulos (also on staff then) before an older lady on his staff got her away from there. So she was sort-of an aggressor but of course Bill was president and should have resisted.
It was easier in the day when everyone on staff was male!
Why come forward now? Here is an article about that for Metsman:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/why-are-so-many-trump-accusers-suddenly-coming-forward-now-222248534.html
Jd sure, easier for the homosexual predators. Of which there are many documented . Sex crimes aren't about sex, they're about power. Bill was wrong, Cosby was wrong, Donald is wrong. Period.
Metsman, agreed. Anyone talking to you is a moron. (This does not constitute talking to you.)
GC I'll gladly explain myself. I raised a son and a daughter on my own for several years. Their mother rarely took them and even lived out of state for at least 3 years. But in the meantime she would call DYFS at least twice a year for several years. My daugher was diagnosed with ADHD. She was in contained classrooms through 4th grade. Her and her brother fought constantly and she would taunt me as well even when I used non spanking methods. I spanked her ass one night when she was 11 and left a red mark, next thing I know the Warren County prosecution team accused me of bruising her. Kelly Shelton of that team overstepped her boundaries and charged me with 4th degree abuse over a red mark. The detective who talked to me said it was based on the BS DYFS calls. Case was dismissed. I got tired of the nonsense and let my daughter live with her mother, big mistake. Meanwhile my son holds a homerun record and will go down as one of the best hitters in Hackettstown history. Yeah I did a horrible job.... You're as bad as my useless ex-wife.
Metsman. You're right. Not about the moron part, but about the control part. That's the 800 pound gorilla on the table. I mean what's up with this groping. That's just weird behavior. It's like rape without the sex. Really weird stuff.
So, no one cares that if Hillary wins it will be "Hiroshimas and Nagasakis everywhere"? LOL
The donors are leaving, the donors are leaving.
Pence cancels donor rallies due to lack of interest.
Major donors backing out, some asking for money back. Good luck with that.
Hillary's war chest largest in history.
Priebus at the tipping point whether to back down, tell Republicans to head for the hills, save his job, or hang tough.
Trump has talked about the grand conspiracy of the confluence of Washington power elite, global special interests, the MSM, the FBI, the FED all conspiring together to bring him down. “They will lie, lie, lie, and then again they will do worse than that; they will do whatever is necessary.” Next he will target Carlos Slim, Mexican billionaire and part owner of NYT --- ah, a confluence!
He has also ranted on the Paul Ryan and other leading Republicans as being in a scheme together to discredit him.
Thousands of Muslims on the rooftops in NJ, Ted Cruz's father, millions of fraudulent PA voters all are conspiring against Trump.....
Yes, after he gleefully admitted to serial groping, said it was locker room talk, and over a dozen women stepped up to say it wasn't, Trump determines it's a conspiracy. Meanwhile, Melania who was near him during a number of the gropes joins the ranks of enablers..... And yet she stands by her man.
Dear Lord: Please make this a record landslide so no one will believe the vote was rigged and we can move peacefully forward in this great, yet divided, nation.
Metsman - How come you got a pass for calling me a moron? I got no pass at all.
This whole thread just like the debates shows the funny thing about the world of public opinion - one person's BS is another person's truth.
I called you a moron, because you’re trying to label me. This thread isn’t about me. If you’d like to have a personal discussion about me feel free to contact me directly. I’ve had several people in the community tell me what a good job I’ve done with my son. If I were so horrible that wouldn’t be the case. I’ll get to see him play college baseball next year and maybe beyond that. So how about you stay on topic buddy.
Labelling is what happens, be it true or not. Only each of us knows what we are, and in that it is a biased nonetheless. Drink some red wine and chill...
are we done yet?? time to end the thread - not a damn thing productive left to write -
http://www.infowars.com/bill-clinton-son-tells-hillary-step-aside/
Give them your DNA Bill...
I'm hearing all over the news that Trump is destroying the Republican party. That's great news. It needed to be destroyed. One party down, one to go...
Heidi OK issues. Here's how the Trump tax plan gives to the rich, takes from the Fed, and gives a token to the middle class. Hillary takes from the rich and leaves the middle class alone........ As to the effect --- Somehow you got to cover double the drop that Bush took (and we know one result of that) in the Trump plan. In the Hillary plan, you got to pray she just doesn't spend it all away.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/presidential-candidates-plans-would-carry-tax-code-in-different-directions-1476205202
Here's more of a bottom line view of the tax plans; http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/latest-trump-tax-plan-adds-trillions-national-debt-clinton-plan-trims-deficits-taxing-wealthy
IMO the point is the Trump plan depends on massive cuts to the rich and corporations to fuel above average growth and GDP. It gives lip service pocket change to the middle class. First, you have to take the deficit while you wait for that to happen, massively cut the Federal Government by trillions to cover, and pray it works. We are talking doubling and tripling the Bush Tax Cuts and we know how that worked out. Makes Reagan look like a piker. The Clinton plan taxes the rich while leaving the middle class and the corporations alone (may close some loopholes). First you get some cash to the Federal Government and you have to pray she doesn't piss it all away by useless programs and expansions.
Bottom line --- her's has a chance to reduce the deficit and debt, no miracle needed, just hard smart work. His will at least initially increase it and if rich folks and businesses decide to pocket the profits, we will fall off the cliff. PS: that's what they have been doing so far........
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/14/bill-clinton-accusers-slam-wifes-candidacy-hillary-is-only-for-one-woman-and-thats-herself.html
Lets see the Clinton supporters downplay this
um... KABOOM? lol
Green Party candidate Jill Stein says HILLARY is the one who will start nuclear war with Russia...
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/10/12/jill_stein_hillary_clintons_declared_syria_policy_could_start_a_nuclear_war.html
Frankly, surprised (not) that all you libs saying you don't want Trump "near the nuke button" have nothing to say.... first a Putin ally, now Green Party candidate. Who's next?
Hillary will just go with far left agenda and the US will continue to spiral down and become Europe and have other issues.
Especially with her open borders policy.
Hillary will do nothing to change....
1. an economy that is not growing - primarily from government interference.
2. pitiful state of our education system
3. $20 trillion in debt
4. Government spending is about 150% of revenues.
5. Southern border is essentially non-existent and we don't care who overstays their visas.
She wants open borders.
6. Welfare state has destroyed the black family and the rest of us aren't far behind.
7. Military has shrunk to a scary state.
8. Bringing in tens of thousands of undocumented, unverified Muslim "refugees". See Europe. See Islam. See Sharia. See Jihad.
Europe is not too far away from being a Muslim ruled enclave.We'll be next.
I could go on, but I'm starting to get depressed.
Sorry GC I didn't use proper posting etiquette that meets your standards. I still stand by what I said. Talk is cheap. Actions speak volumes. The filth that came out of his mouth as a private citizen did not kill anyone. Her actions while holding public office killed 4 Americans. I find it pretty funny the chauvinist using the term "stand by your man". That went out the window in the sixties. Just check the divorce rate in the US. I am all for a woman being President, but not that woman. It's something how this election has brought out the worst in all of us. Something so important to us, our children, our future, especially our Nation has become so ugly. It's a shame.
That is the problem. To crucify someone for "talk" but then give a free pass to those who have actually committed wrong or done nothing when action was warranted.
Hillary has done nothing but "go with the flow" for decades. If that is what you like, then vote for her. I care more about things like our 20 Trillion debt and sending us to wars abroad for no reason (for this country) costing thousands of lives and Trillions of dollars.
I am tired of politics as usual where Special Interest groups are the winners no matter who gets elected...
Metsman: It's their right to have their feelings about these encounters. It's an unfortunate truth that he is a cad but only allegedly worse. That's Bill. Hillary is accused of staying with him: judge that as you may. Hillary is also accused of demeaning women, especially these "victims." There is not much if anything overt beyond a desire to protect her husband by understanding the backgrounds of his allegers. In all cases they have been communicated, investigated, and adjudicated. The courts, Ken Starr, the press --- it's a pretty open book. From the early 90's, there are no later allegations against Clinton.
Trump's last allegation is from 2013. Trump is an alleged serial groper, rape without sex. He has admitted it on video, on taped recordings and he dared anyone to come forward and we are up to a dozen.....so far.
For the women you mentioned:
Brodderick: Alleged rape. Signed a deposition saying it didn't happen which she recants. Claims Hillary threatened her. No proof.
Jones: Alleged Sexual harassment: Filed Federal suit. Cased dismissed for lack of evidence. Appealed. During impeachment proceedings, Clinton/Jones settled out of court avoiding deposition and testimony. $850K which basically covered Jones' lawyers. So she basically settled to get out of debt with her lawyers rather than proceed to verdict.
Willey: Alleged Groping: Given immunity for other transgressions, Willey was seen as not prosecutable by Ken Starr. Tripp, the Clinton hunter who exposed Lewinsky, said Willey told her it was consensual and she was happy. A half dozen others collaborated the story.
Hillary's vicious attacks as described by Trump: hardly: http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/11/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-bill-clinton-accusers/
http://www.dcclothesline.com/2016/06/12/longtime-mistress-says-bill-clinton-had-2000-sex-partners-hillary-is-a-lesbian-it-was-a-marriage-of-convenience/
disturbing if this is real...
"Hillary will just go with far left agenda and the US will continue to spiral down and become Europe and have other issues.
Especially with her open borders policy."
Yes, yes- all part of the plan. Not an accident.
found on FB (liberals and democrats, time to put your blinders on now)
I was asked tonight how I could ever support Trump after the comments he made over 11 years ago about women and if I would still support him if he made those comments to my daughter? My response was this....If he had put our nations security at risk, I would not vote for him. If his organization received large donations from countries that killed women and gays, I would not vote for him. If he boasted 30 Years of government experience, but still could not discern if an email was classified or not, without someone letting him know if it was or not, I would not vote for him. If he boasted about how he has defended children his entire life, but is for abortion, (even late term, when the child can feel pain) I would not vote for him. If he wanted my 3 year old Granddaughter to go to restrooms with men dressed as women, I would not vote for him. I have taught my daughter and will teach my granddaughter to disregard sexist remarks and move on, especially when they were made so many years ago and, also to forgive those who say they are sorry. If he caused lives to be destroyed in Benghazi and then lied to the faces of the parents as they stood at their child's casket, I would not vote for him. If people who came against him mysteriously turned up dead, I would not vote for him. If he suddenly developed a southern accent when he was in the South, campaigning, I would not vote for him. If he continually broke the law and that was ignored, I would not vote for him, but right now, the only person who does all these things is Hillary. Right now, the fact that Donald made these remarks over 12 years ago, does not move me. I'm bigger than those remarks and we all have said stupid things throughout our lives. To me, the fact that Hillary lies continuously, is a much bigger problem. We can see the effects of her lies by the state of our poor country right now... Rant over... Still voting for Trump.
(ok, you can remove the blinders now)
Yankee!! I told you you could take your blinders off now... apparently yours are built into your psyche, shame for you they're permanent.
"I just grab their pussy. I can do anything I want".
Caught on tape.
Not Cosby, not Clinton, not Sandusky (different genital goal), just Trump.
Verified admission of predatory behavior.
Impossible to spin.
http://conservativetribune.com/rush-michelle-perverted-past/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=THENewVoice&utm_content=10/14/2016&utm_campaign=manualpost
Gee the Obama's cater to people who talk like this. Hypocrites.
You are the spin Yanker....you obviously have no clue.
Call Trump a liar about one thing, but no, this is *obviously* him admitting sexual assault....are you F*in serious????
All about your agenda....morph everything to fit your agenda......whatever makes you happy!
Liberal logic 101
I find it amazing how much you and every one else *try* to ignore about Hilary
so much has been posted and not a single person defends....must be true!
Even if the allegations were true, I don't see how it effects the policies he's imposing. Hillary wants to create a suicidal mess of a borderless country. Her tax plans suck. She has just terrible ideas and judgment all around. It's horrible that fox is the only network covering the leaks of her crooked emails. All the networks know she would be 100% screwed if they had to actually talk about the mess. But they were prepared to fabricate the harassment thing to counter the email's that show her true color. Very sad.
I still can't figure out what's up with the groping. I mean what kind of person gets off on that. Rape without sex is what that is. Coping a feel under someone's skirt. Defines ambush. When does that become fun or even funny. Just a flippin weird perversion. And he's still doing it in 2013 and, who knows, perhaps beyond......
I mean grabbing a peak at the Miss Teen pageant, hey, at least that's a recognizable fantasy. You know the one: being alone in the room with a bunch of naked people. But groping? You would expect that perpetrator to look like Aqualung or something.
Gonna bring pant suits back big time.
Now Trump is whining about the moneyed elite cabal conspiring against him. Hey, I thought he was the main guy in the moneyed elite, I thought these were his peeps. What's up with them turning against him? I mean he's buying them off with his tax plan, he's giving them all their corporation tax dollars back. Why do they shun him now and try to bring him down. Oh wait, it's the groping I bet......
Ode to Groper Duck.....
"Sitting on a park bench
Eyeing little girls
With bad intent
Snot running down his nose
Greasy fingers smearing shabby clothes
Drying in the cold sun
Watching as the frilly panties run
Feeling like a dead duck
Spitting out pieces of his broken luck"
Hundreds of posts later and the rabid Trump supporters continue the denial, deflection and decade old lies. Gotta give it to him though he knew he'd be seen as a God by his supporters and instead of saying that he could shoot someone on 5th and not lose any votes - he should have said he could have raped and shot someone and not lose any of his supporters.... down the rabbit hole they went.
I noticed Hillary mentioned something about cats in her speech? Is she really going that far to pander?
Trump has now made fun of the great actress Marlee Matlin.
Making fun of her disability, Donald Trump mocked actress Marlee Matlin for being deaf, made fun of her voice, and said she was "retarded".
Bonv, can anyone compare the eloquence and class of this presidential couple to any in our history? Somehow successfully raising two daughters in the ugly environment they faced. Pure dignity and class. We will miss them.
Bonv states:
"Rabid Trump supporters continue the denial, deflection and decade old lies."
And Hilary supporters are doing the same thing.....
If you don't agree or can't see it, it's probably because you are one of them!
I have been pretty open in admitting they both are horrendous.......yet some of you think Hilary is a saint and lie so much about her actions that you actually have yourselves believing those very lies.
Trump just destroyed the global media. Oh wait, he just trashed his teleprompter. Wow, political rock star bad boy. Or maybe he thought the teleprompter had a ......
I will say it again......
Call Trump a liar about one thing, but no, this is *obviously* him admitting sexual assault.... two way street only when it fits your agenda?
But the Hilary supporters will ignore it....just like they ignored Russa's threats, just like they ignored the multiple witnesses that ended up DEAD prior to Hilary's trial.....yup Hillary is a saint!!!!
Keep lying to yourself until you believe it, whatever it takes, at all costs!
Yes, absolutely pure class. Her speech was so heartfelt and positive - so important in these very dark times.
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/hillarys-biggest-email-leak-just-happened-smoking-gun/
http://www.anonews.co/leaked-hillary-clinton-emails/
http://fortune.com/2016/10/14/hillary-clinton-wikileaks-emails/
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/10/12/leaked_hillary_clinton_emails_could_bernie
Keep supporting her, you guys are just making fools out of yourselves.
HILARY FOR PRISON!
They endured eight years of hatred and bigotry and were held to an impossible standard because of race. And they outclassed everyone. I will miss them greatly and history will judge us harshly for failing to take advantage of the greatest president since FDR.
Bring it on, haters.
Feeling the need to genuflect? ;-)
Obama is the same as all before him. He just pretended, better than most, that he cared about the little people...as he perpetuated the same old same old. Not to worry, the story has been the same for nearly 50 years now. I'm hoping we can go another 50 before that generation realizes how utterly selfish their elders were...
I hope you don't think that counts as hate (it's not) but just a friendly reminder of an uncomfortable truth...
"history will judge us harshly for failing to take advantage of the greatest president since FDR."
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Bring it on, haters."
Oh boy, pot meet kettle.
really, this post mostly just jousting back and forth and very little (though some) ability to really think about what is being said by both sides - we all just play into the scenario - with increasingly juvenile and vitriolic rants "your guy (woman) is worse" "my person did something awful, but don't forget that your's was worse and what mine did really was (insert spin here) anyway"
truly, is this the best we can do?
are we really just reduced to simple, sometimes delusional attacking of each each other's leads?
those of you ready for another, different, alternative? Maybe one thing this ridiculous election cycle can accomplish is a uniting of people against what got us here - if we can have the ability to step aside and stop joining in the reflexive defense/offense.
Write-in the name "Ron Paul" when you elect. A man of honor who truly cares about this country unlike every President since Jimmy Carter...
We need this election to be over with. And then maybe give whoever wins, the benefit of the doubt for a while.
Hope I can follow my own advice.
Did Yankeefan seriously call Obama the greatest president since FDR... What kind of crack are you snorting...
"really, this post mostly just jousting back and forth and very little (though some) ability to really think about what is being said by both sides."
OK, think about this. You hear stuff. You decide to believe, check, or toss out as wrong. I say, check the facts, are they facts, and then decide what to think. So here's what I think when you say:
" I care that he sent a plane to pick up 200 Marines who were stranded after desert storm." First think I wondered was which plane since his charter wouldn't cut it, not enough seats. And then, because I tracked his failures --- and airlines is a biggy --- I though the timing strange. And guess what I found: big fat lie that, like his "I went to Wharton Business School" rumor, he just never corrects. The truth: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/08/11/too-good-to-check-sean-hannitys-tale-of-a-trump-rescue/
Police officers, first responders, guns, military, supports the death penalty, against abortion, enforcing immigration laws, destroy radical Islamic groups, supports COAL.
In his 69 years on this planet, when has Donald Trump done anything about any of this. He has spent his time personally profiting from catering to the very rich and has only offered bad books, cheezy pandering TV, and gambling to the rest of us. Somehow he has taken $10B in profits from all this leveraging of Daddy's money and credit. He has failed a bunch of time leaving Daddy and us to bail him out from failure. It's all talk, but where are the plans........
Police Officers --- can't do his stop and frisk. First it's a local, not Federal issue. So WHAT'S HIS PLAN from the Federal Government to help (WHP?)
First Responders ---- WHP?
Guns --- you really don't know his position on background checks, some days it's Universal.
Military --- From our height of 566,000 Army in 2011, today we are at 490,000. Trump wants to go to 540,000. What do we plan to do with them? Navy: 271 ships, he wants 350. Airforce: 1,113 fighters, he wants 1,200.
Just looking at one: airforce. 1,200 planes needed for two major regional conflicts, however, powers that be say 1,100 will do. So is 1,113 that bad off?
Or look at it this way: we currently have the largest military in the world. We outspend Russia by over 8 times each year. You would need to take the next 15 superpowers combined to match our military budget. And a number of those are our friends. I can understand needing new planes ---- but more money? That's Trump's plan --- add money, add taxes (from where???) Give me a break.
Supports the Death Penalty ---- state issue Don....
Abortion --- wants to punish those who have abortions.....
Immigration laws ---- WHP? Really. I ask what is his immigration plan today since he has spun over 720 degrees on this one.
Destroy radical ISLAM: who doesn't want to and who, running as President has not used the words ---- and that's important you know. But along the way The Duck wants to torture, kill the families of terrorists, carpet bomb civilian areas, boots on the ground (20K-30K....at least to begin with....) and use Trident missiles (that's tactical nukes), let Aleppo fall, team with the Russians to let them destroy ISIS (how's that worked so far), ban all Muslims from entering US certainly helping us in obtaining their aid, not. But certainly helping recruiting efforts by the bad guys.
And Don, Russia has not been destroying ISIS, they have been destroying the rebels......idiot. Yeah, this is a plan for success.
COAL: WHP? Really. How can he bring this back and to what level?
I say his plans are as full of.....rumor....as the plane story.
Then......."I met him on a Monday and my heart stood still
Da do ron-ron-ron, da do ron-ron"
You know my stance on this: Facts without perspective is the real problem.
You see positive results from certain facts, and your right (some of the time anyway ;-)), from the "give me something" perspective. Others see the same facts as being destructive , from the "taking something" perspective. Who's right and who's wrong? You'll say you're right, but you'll be wrong lol. Both perspectives are right within the perspective one takes.
That's why this election cycle is complete bs, because somewhere along the line Americans have learned to take sides and close their minds to anything other than the propaganda they hear from their "side".
"That's why this election cycle is complete bs"
They're ALL complete BS.
"Americans have learned to take sides and close their minds to anything other than the propaganda they hear from their "side"."
Yes, they have learned well from their "masters."
I may not fully understand what you're saying but let me try to put some facts and perspective together on one Trump issue: the military. And both taken and taking seem to apply.
We spend about 597B this year on the military. At the height of the wars, I thing it was about $670B. Trump wants to add about $50B a year for ten years bringing us to $650 but he hasn't picked next years number so figure 650 or higher. Question: given his tax cuts that are 2 1/2 times LARGER than the Reagan tax cuts and this is on top of the lowest tax rates we have had in decades ----- how do you reconcile a $50B+ adder against a $440B tax cut (in the first year).
Trump basically wants to put us on a 2011 war time status with manpower and materials yet his ISIS/Syria plan is 20K-30K boots on the ground. Really? Seems to me when you are funding a war time status army, one might be really predisposed to exercise what you built.
Against Trump's $670B military budget, Russia spends $71B, China spends $129B. I think you can count the next 15 countries combined don't match our budget and that includes UK, France, India, Germany, and Japan....
Our airforce inventory exceeds the combined inventory of the next 8 largest country inventories. Again, half of those countries are our friends. The inventory Trump wants would put us on a war time status for two major simultaneous conflicts.
Our navy only has 1/4 of the boats of the two larger navies --- North Korea and China. However we are still the most powerful navy due to our aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines. Our navy fields the second largest airforce in the world (and we're first too). We not only have more carriers than all the countries in the world combined, ours are larger too. We have the most naval manpower in the world which gives you the idea ---- they're gonna need some bigger boats.
So here's my perspective: how do you reconcile our standing with the need to expand the budget and the manpower for our armed services? Especially when gauged against our largest tax cut in history?
And given the new battlefield, how many terrorists are you going to polish off with a fighter jet or an aircraft carrier? What are we building this military for: defense or offense. Will it stop Paris, Istanbul or San Bernardino?
IMO this is a fear-based policy leading to deficit and debt without increasing our protection. Sure we should modernize, we should re-energize our military to face the terror threats we have today. But there is plenty of budget and certainly new fighter jets or large-scale naval ships are not going to hit the target.
I don't know justintime. In any election or other competition people are going to take sides or abstain. Not sure how that is a problem.
I look at both candidates compared to my core beliefs, which by the way don't change based on what either candidate says about one another, what the press says about both of them or what anyone on HLIFE says. I then vote for the major candidate that is close to those beliefs.
They are both immoral as are most people quite frankly. The election isnt about morality. No election is. There are plenty of people on both sides that take the bait from the media and get lost in unwinnable arguments.
Rand is good but unfortunately not the same caliber as poppa Ron. Ron could have brought this country back in the right direction. Unfortunately with special interests running the show they don't care about the future, or to better state it -- they care about today, this month, this year...
http://www.usatodaypolitics.com/doctor-who-treated-hillarys-blood-clots-found-dead/
Yeah I'm sure you Hillary supporters will immediately ignore this. Typical...
Metsman: Actually a lot of it comes from Trump's web site. A lot of his plans are "cobbled" together from either Republican planks or other right-wing sites. I give him credit for brief bullet points but a lot of it is clever cut n paste.
I think most of this originated from the Heritage Org; that's the web site you will find most, and most is verbatim on the Trump site: http://index.heritage.org/military/2016/assessments/us-military-power/
Other stuff like for other countries you can google, a bunch of similar sources, similar estimates. Perspective obviously is mine but the main points: we spend more than any one by a HUGE amount so spending more against a huge tax cut seems disingenuous with avoiding deficits and only putting 20K - 30K boots on the ground. I would think a brilliant businessman would look at those numbers and say: "hey, if you guys can't get your act in gear TODAY I'm gonna slash your budget and fire you all" not "sure, we are pissing our cash away with you all, do you want some more......"
You know Metsman that perhaps you should actually goggle something before you take your "Yeah I'm sure you Hillary supporters will immediately ignore this. Typical..." from Russian sources. That's just insensitive rumor mongering in this case.
one thing this ridiculous election cycle can accomplish is getting rid of the obama's and kerry and the rest of the staff.
Trump wants drug testing before the next debate. Maybe they should have salary caps and draft picks too.
Roywhite Metsman, awful funny how much stuff can be ignored by the Clinton supporters
I find it 100% hypocritical that Trump is called a liar, everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie, according to Hilary supporters, except "grabbing them by the pus**, they just let me do it" that is truth and obviously admittance to being a sexual predator.....but everything else is a lie........GET REAL PEOPLE YOU SOUND RIDICULOUS!!!!!!
Russian sources, American sources-does it really matter? It's all propaganda anyway, and we all have to discern fact from fiction regardless. RT, for instance, has both good and bad, which is better than some mainstream news outlets we have here that are all bad.
" http://www.usatodaypolitics.com/doctor-who-treated-hillarys-blood-clots-found-dead/\"
Link is dead, as is the website this morning
"I find it 100% hypocritical that Trump is called a liar, everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie, according to Hilary supporters, except "grabbing them by the pus**, they just let me do it" that is truth and obviously admittance to being a sexual predator.....but everything else is a lie........GET REAL PEOPLE YOU SOUND RIDICULOUS!!!!!!"
EXACTLY EXACTLY EXACTLY.
When you're dealing with this kind of blind willful hypocrisy, the country is doomed.
This hypocrisy exists on Trump's side as well, but the democrats have definitely cornered the market on it this election.
We are currently witnessing the power of the media to NOT REPORT. There is power in not reporting news; not just what you report. Wikileaks of Hillary are not getting reported with any energy level, but when someone comes out of the closet years ago to defame Trump it gets high levels of reporting...
Get real you ghouls, it was a suicide. The guy was alone, on camera..... He was under indictment for a huge kickback scheme. The police that are ready to rule suicide are NOT Democrats. Not in Frederick Maryland.......
http://www.snopes.com/doctor-who-treated-hillary-clinton-dies/
This one was really wrong and insensitive. Not as bad as Auntiel's sodomy story, but really wrong.
iJAY....spot on!
Look at the link Metsman posted 17 hours ago...it was removed from the internet. some places are saying its false others are saying it's true.
What we do know though is that people directly follow what the media says......it has become VERY apparent that the media is trying to hide the wikileaks of Hilary's emails. I read through some of the transcripts directly from Hilary and they are astonishing!!!!
I have posted some here, but they were ignored by the democratic blinders.
America needs to wake up, and if this looser of a presidential race does not do it, we are definitely doomed.
I find it really funny how each side - BOTH - "sides" say the same things "the media isn't reporting our opponent's flaws as vigorously as they do ours" - when it really is all over the place and highly dependent upon which faux "news" source you look at - understand, if you "FEEL" and evaluate by your "feelings" - as we all do to some degree, then OF COURSE it will always SEEM like "your" person is getting the short end of the stick - seems like there is enough crap being spread around both sides - what is really missing is FACTS, PLANS, IDEAS, THOUGHTS - ugh
Because true change will require sacrifices over many years and perhaps decades. These changes would not be popular. So you get what we get, complete bullshi!...
"Metsman, awful funny how much stuff can be ignored by the Clinton supporters..."
Hillary is the pubic hair in the punch bowl. 9 times out of 10 the conversation will be about how disgusting she is. However, in this case she's lying atop of a giant orange TURD and her ability to cause disgust pales in comparison.
And don't say you hadn't had plenty of warning that this was the way it would ultimately end up. What you all portrayed as "fear of Trump" by the "Republucan establishment" turns out to be pretty accurate foresight. The man is toxic and unfit for the presidency. The fact that Hillary is ALSO unfit will just wind up as one of those statistical quirks. Like last week, I had the second lowest score in my fantasy football league but was fortunate enough to play the team who scored the lowest and got a win anyway.
So because your base is such a train wreck, you are where you are. Looking forward with dread to see who Madame President nominates for SCOTUS. Somehow, I don't think he'll be anywhere as moderate as the guy Obama nominated...
Darrin, its the Maryland State Police not the media.
At the point you are the one spreading the lie spotlighting a family that probably does not want to become embroiled in your heartless, shamful lie.
Enough.
Gotta' love those tolerant democrats....
Cars vandalized, GOP HQ firebombed....
http://www.allenbwest.com/michele/breaking-gop-hq-firebombed
Video security cameras showed Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney running from the scene. Rance Priebus driving the getaway car. Large dog strapped to the roof of the car.
Must be true. A friend of a friend of an acquaintance saw it on the internet.
4catmom, I'm sure he thinks the latter. People tend to assume that others think like they do, so in turn he must think that everyone is as stupid as he is. This is one of the reasons why many uneducated/ill informed people are for him.
I emphasize "many" not all Trump supporters.
*disclaimer: Not putting people down who are not college educated, I know many people without a degree that are very successful, but in instances like this more knowledge=power.
"Video security cameras showed Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney running from the scene. Rance Priebus driving the getaway car. Large dog strapped to the roof of the car."
Now THAT'S funny!
Ron Paul educating a "Top" democrat on economics:
https://youtu.be/-0VXwXJCg7E
Good stuff...
Lunatic revealed. Fan of lunatic previously revealed. Confederancy of Dunces comes to mind.
This is long - but it might be worth reading - seems to me
"Overnight on Friday, the local Republican Party headquarters in Orange County, North Carolina, was firebombed. Donald Trump couldn’t wait to blame liberals, but in less than four hours Democrats managed to completely crowdfund the rebuilding of the office.
During the late night/early morning hours, someone threw some kind of flammable material through the front window of the building. A swastika and the message “Nazi Republicans leave town or else” was spray painted on an adjacent building. The statement issued by authorities also stated that “the flammable substance appears to have ignited inside the building, burned some furniture and damaged the building’s interior before going out.”
Trump’s response was reprehensible. Even though the investigation is ongoing and no one has any idea who is responsible at this point, he took to Twitter to point his tiny finger. The GOP nominee wrote that “Animals representing Hillary Clinton and Dems in North Carolina just firebombed our office in Orange County because we are winning.”
Meanwhile, here in the real world, Democrats started up a Go Fund Me campaign and surpassed their goal in a matter of hours. The following message accompanied the fundraiser:
On October 16, a North Carolina headquarters of the Republican Party was firebombed , and an abhorrent threat was painted on its outside wall
As Democrats, we are starting this campaign to enable the Orange County, North Carolina Republican office to re-open as soon as possible.
Until an investigation is undertaken, we cannot know who did this or why. No matter the result, this is not how Americans resolve their differences. We talk, we argue, sometimes we march, and most of all we vote. We do not resort to violence by individuals or by mobs.
So, let’s all pitch in , no matter what your party affiliation, and get that office open again quickly.
The campaign’s goal was $10,000 to cover the cost of rebuilding the GOP office, but in less than four hours they had raised a total of $13,167. Having shot past their original goal, the fundraiser has stopped accepting donations. Like usual, even with all of Trump’s bluster and “billions,” it was liberals who saved the day."
A terrible thing but until we find the culprits, hard to say who and why. Choices: democrats, republicans or neither.
Given the closeness of the race in NC, would be a very bad move by democrats to do this. Then again, whoever did it is not too smart to begin with. Really doubt it will keep folks from voting, probably quite the opposite. Hmmm, conspiracy?
"It was liberals who saved the day"
Truly a great gesture to start the fundraising site, but not sure how does anyone know that it was liberals who donated. Just throwing that out there, as journalism is another word for opinion anymore.
I hope they catch and punish the idiot who decided to put firefighters lives at risk.
I was talking to a friend of mine over the weekend. These polls are BS because they're not taking into account all the newly registered voters. There are millions of people who never voted before that will be voting for Trump. And I've yet to see a Hillary sign in anyone's yard in NJ. I even watched a guy walk down rt 46 in Budd Lake with a Trump sign.
Back to the plan
Trump has a couple of original ideas, but most of his plans are cut n paste from the party or other conservative think tanks. His defense plan that I just covered seems to be pasted from The Heritage Org. Nothing wrong with that, unless you count Heritage as being funded by hundreds of corporations as well as the military-industrial group. But did Trump look at it? Why would he advocate a funding level equal to the 2011 level needed to fight one war in Iraq and one war in Afghanistan.
Last time we funded at this level, over 4,000 of our kids did not come home alive.
I mean does it make business sense when you are the strongest military in the world, when you outspend most countries by like 10 times each, when your war machine inventory is the largest in the world, does it make sense that you spend $50B to make it larger than it was for the height of the Iraq/Afghan wars when your tax plan will cost over $400B in the first year.
I mean he wants to build a conventional military with carriers and fighters to take out small groups of terrorists. Will a fighter jet stop Paris, will a carrier stop San Bernardino, how would thousands of new recruits stop Istanbul?
I mean look at the enemy. Do more aircraft carriers and fighter jets really make sense? That’s what he wants. He wants to build machines and manpower to 2011 levels --- when we were fighting two wars in two countries. Oh yeah, and new nukes. I mean when you look at this stuff, it sure seems really crazy. But he snags the airwaves with the outlandish and along the way pipes in: our military is in its worst shape in a decade, it’s outmoded, it’s too small.
When he explains his plan, does it really look like a world terror fighting machine? Or a standing army capable of two major conflicts simultaneously since he’s bringing us past our capacity for simultaneous Iraq/Afghanistan wars. Just waiting. Sort of like those clone army scenes from Star Wars…..
I say look at this plan and does it really make sense to spend $50B this way on top of the $600B we spend to make the largest military budget in the world even larger? Especially when you're going to be $440B in the hole, year one of Trump's tax plan with another $440B to cover the next year, and the next.....
Does this really make sense to you?
Why would polls not count newly-registered voters?
In any case, it is indeed difficult to poll scientifically. The only poll that counts is now not far off, thankfully.
Losing, Trump has declared the election rigged.
“It’s a global power structure”
Trump self-proclaimed one of the richest elite leaders in the world. A cabal of moneyed elite conspires with Democrats, the cheating inner city blacks, the media and Republican establishment elite to bring him down. Trump is the moneyed elite. What happened, Donnie get kicked out of the club house? Or is he rocking the boat trying to Make America Grate again for the little guy.
The cabal wants the status quo that profits them. Didn’t Trump leverage the status quo better than any of them? Suddenly Trump wants to stop being evil moneyed cabal taker and help the little people make America Grate Again. Then why does his tax plan net him $3B to his family? Very cabal like that is. If elected he’s the big money winner.
For the first time in his life, Trump will be helping the little people 24/7. To do that he will be at arm’s reach with TrumpCo turning it all over to the kids. Arm’s reach, kids? No business talk at that dinner table…… Trump is creating the largest most powerful world order political-business cabal in the world. You think Hillary had quid pro quo and access problems as SOS with Bill’s foundation. How about President Trump combined with his family running International TrumpCo for quid pro quo and access problem potential. Not like he leveraged the election to pitch his Scottish golf course.
Trump, the self-proclaimed media master, says the media is rigged. NYTimes reporters are in with Carlos Slim, a 17% owner. Carlos owns the Larry King show, another piece of leftist media scum. Trump outperforms Hillary’s media’s coverage by three to one. You can say, “but they’re bashing him,” but they are responding to Trump’s words, many so outlandish that fact checking appropriate. If the media is rigged, why does Trump go out of his way to not only court it, but literally monopolize it? It’s his media plan. Block out the sun. Give no one else access. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/donald-trump-vs-hillary-clinton-in-media/
He says Republicans are turning against him proving he is up against a rigged party. He is the leader of the Republican party, why is there a coup?
Now he wants debate drug testing claiming Hillary was on drugs at the second debate.
She was secretly being fed answers in the first debate, did you see the picture?
Foster, Scalia, and now Hillary’s doctor all met mysterious deaths.
Hillary has secret meetings with bankers to open borders and ruin America’s sovereignty in a conspiracy between bankers, corporations the media and other power elite.
If Trump wins, he will jail Hillary Clinton.
The Russians releasing private emails to rig the election in Trump’s favor --- well, that’s OK with him.
It’s off the rails. The wheels are coming off with Trump screaming false allegations and flakey innuendos while his surrogates pipe in: “let’s talk about the issues….” It blocks the sun.
Trump is the master of the airwave mass marketing through braggadocio totally monopolizing the airspace. He is not stupid; he preys on the stupid. And by stupid, I don’t mean in the conventional sense, I mean not willing to look, or willing to overlook, or just pretending that what he says he does not mean what he is saying (won’t really deport all those illegals, use tactical nukes or target terrorist families of women and children; he just says that).
He has style. He has a marketing plan. Fill the airwaves. Monopolize the air waves. Block out the sun. Put outlandish impossible allegations, slander, and innuendo out there. Sow doubt and fear. Complain about the media while acting so outlandish in public that he controls the airwaves. It’s a tactic. Find bogeymen, lash out with bizarre accusations, fill the airwaves. We’ve seen it work in the primaries, he’s pretty consistent (except in the facts). In facing his loss, he and his “handlers” have unleased untethered Trump, no pivot, no acting Presidential, just ready-for-Stern Classic Trump. Forget the plans, “Release the Kraken!”
The really bad thing about Trump is how his being an idiot is being used to validate and pump up the egos of the other team. Very dangerous indeed.
Time to come to terms with the fact the SMHTF in the current environment for anything to really change. And so it goes...
Seriously SD, stop holding Hillary on a high pedestal. You literally try to downplay every scandal she's been a part of and act like she's the second coming of Christ. I respect the people who can see both candidates are flawed.
Gee Mets: I didn't even mention Hillary on a pedestal in recent posts. But I am glad you tespect me.
Tell us how Hillary offed that doctor again.
There's only three more weeks of this nonsense to go. I think we can all agree that the sooner it's over, the better.
Wow, he was getting ready to testify against Hillary in a case yet to be brougjt to court. You really got all the facts on this one.
Was he telling all just to get a deal on his kickback indictment?
What was the all the good doctor was telling? Was this the Hillary is really sick with no stamina all?
Hillary is really good at this. The guy was caught on tape, totally alone. Then she got the state police to cover even though they endorsed Trump. Wow, you're amazing to see rigjt through all the facts to the real truth.
As Melania starts her stand by your man media tour claiming DJ's words "boy talk" and "unappropriate" when know she didn't plagiarize that one.... She claims the Donald was "egged" on, the accusers are lying, and we will know all once we see the background on these women. Sounds like enabling 101 to me. Why does she stay with this man? What kind of woman does that? Heh, heh..
Meanwhile, Trump SIL is trying to broker a Trump Network Deal I guess to prove the media is rigged. Rumor has it the network will be a mix of news, opinion and entertainment. Just like the campaign. In the center stage news show, Donald will come on completely unprepared and grope for the truth from interviews. Joining him will be a panel of his friends -- Christie and Giuliani -- that's it. New dramas include Donald Trump's Law and Order -- GVU (groper victim unit) where each week they will tear a current Trump grope story right out of the headlines. Another one will be "Trump's Stop and Frisk Camera" where unsuspecting blacks will be detained and frisked. They'll be made for TV movies to like "Prelude to an Unwanted Kiss," and "Kiss Kiss Grope Grope," and Trump's autobiographical, "Kiss Tomorrow Goodbye."' And then there'll be TQVC where you can buy anything Trump, all made in China.
It will be magical.
Meanwhile Trump is on the stump again this time in Paul Ryan's home state where he is bashing Paul Ryan......hard. In what world do you gain votes bashing Paul Ryan in his home state?
Other Trump news is the new collusion between DOJ, FBI, State and Clinton to get her off the hook with a quid pro quo. Completely debunked, there is no State involvement much less DOJ or Clinton, he rants on.
Nice to see he is lining up work post his campaign.......
Where’s the video SD?
You’re like Obama, you can’t admit your candidate has serious flaws much like he can’t say radical Islamic terrorism…
The Maryland State Police have it.
“We are ready to officially call it a suicide and we’re confident that the medical examiner’s office will determine the manner of death was a suicide,” Alcorn said. “There was video inside the business that we reviewed that [shows] the doctor was alone at the time of his death and leading up to it, and he also left several notes.”
Obama can't say Islamic terrorism. Actually it's that you can't look. http://wonkette.com/602958/obama-says-radical-islam-three-times-in-terrorism-speech-are-all-the-terrorists-dead-yet
"There has not been a moment in my 7.5 years as president where we have not able to pursue a strategy because we didn't use the label ‘radical Islam.’ Not once has an adviser of mine said, ‘Man, if we use that phrase, we are going to turn this whole thing around,’ not once."Obama said June 14. "So, there is no magic to the phrase ‘radical Islam.’ It is a political talking point. It is not a strategy."
I have admitted what I see as Hillary's flaws. I just don't agree with the fabrications that you smear around.
I note how you haven't risen up to support Trump's defense spending boondoggle. Has he got you scared too?
Yeah and what are Hillary's flaws? If you can say them in 3 sentences, I might actually read it...
I can tell you Hillary’s:
1. She got people killed that didn’t need to die in Benghazi, then lied to the families.
2. She carelessly exposed classified emails that most definitely are now in the hands of other governments.
3. She is for open borders. Yea let’s just let more heroin get in here and kill more people. Or more illegals who are decimating our economy collecting benefits they shouldn’t be getting.
4. She degraded Monica Lewinsky who was taken advantage of by her husband while President. There’s proof it happened. Blue dress with his DNA on it.
5. She does not want to impose stricter vetting of muslims. What do we need another 50 people shot up at a nightclub?
6. She is extremely unlikable. Just a nasty human being as far as I’m concerned. No wonder Bill cheated on her.
7. She started the birther movement during the 2008 primaries.
8. Every official she appointed during her time as first lady was a disaster.
9. Got a rapist off on minimal jail time. Yeah she’s really for women and children…. If that were true you don’t take the case.
10. Laughs in a late 80’s interview about the rape case.
11. Obviously only cares about her political career if she’d stand by Bill and his infidelities. If she divorced Bill her political career would be dead.
12. Concerns over where money is coming in from her foundation. Some places being where women are treated horribly.
13. Concerns over pay for play within her foundation.
14. Obvious bias within the mainstream media. Is she paying people off with her corrupt foundation money?!
15. Never built anything in this country, just collects big checks for speeches.
Trumps flaws:
1. He has a big mouth.
2. He got divorced twice for cheating.
3. Took advantage of the laws in place to save money on taxes. Can you blame the guy? Not even sure that’s a flaw. I think I’ll give him a high five.
4. Employed overseas workers. Again can I call that a flaw? Those were laws put in place by people like Hillary who have been in office too long.
Trumps flaws:
1. He has a big mouth.- UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE YEAR!
2. He got divorced twice for cheating. - BUT TOTALLY RESPECTS WOMAN?
3. Took advantage of the laws in place to save money on taxes. Can you blame the guy? Not even sure that’s a flaw. I think I’ll give him a high five.-YES, BECAUSE AS A BUSINESS MAN HE'S SO GOOD - BANKRUPT HOW MANY TIMES?, LOST JOBS FOR THOUSANDS OF WORKERS, DIDN'T PAY CONTRACTORS, ETC.
4. Employed overseas workers. Again can I call that a flaw? Those were laws put in place by people like Hillary who have been in office too long. SO HIS "THEY ARE TAKING OUR JOBS" DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING TO YOU? HE GAVE HIS JOBS TO ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS!
YOU ONLY LISTED 4.....THERE ARE SOOOO MANY MORE
HOCKEYPUCK In a current column Charles Krauthammer adds the following to Metsman's list of Trump flaws:
- His views on women that have been on display for years
- Habitual mendacity
- Pathological narcissism
- Profound ignorance
- Astonishing dearth of basic human empathy
- Incendiary talk that is an affront to elementary democratic decency and a breach of the boundaries of American political discourse.
It's pedestal time. Or what we like to think of as facts.... You have mostly falsehoods here and a number of whoppers.
1. Benghazi investigation led by Republicans said no maleficence of duty, just lots of mistakes all around. Lie to parents are he said, she said, but publically even when she noted the tape, she cya'd with terrorism. I have said extreme weasel words, but she never 100% committed to the tape. I really doubt she slipped with the parents even if that's what they believed they heard..
2. No prosecutable actions on the emails and you have zero proof they are "most definitely are now in the hands of other governments." That's a lie.
3. What the heck do you mean by open boarders and where did she say she's for that. Link please.
4. Lewinsky of age, advantage is a judgmental thing. The only time she bad mouthed Lewinsky was to a confidant, in private, when she called her a "narcissistic loony toon" based on Bill's description of what happened as he tried to break off the affair. The Blue Dress is proof of neither abuse or degrading speech. It is proof of being "looney toons" or at least shabby dry cleaning habits. .
5. He was American wise guy, or does Trump want to vet all US Muslims too? She is for appropriate vetting for al immigrants, not just Muslims.
6. This one is personal. Not everyone thinks she is a nasty human being. Never been accused of groping anyone, not paying contractors, leaving investors to hold the bag, racist renting practices, bribing politicians in office with charity funds, using charity funds to buy self portraits, taking chips under the table, hiring illegals, defrauding students with a fake college, raping her spouse, raping underage kids, walking in on naked pageant contenders, admitting she likes to grab genitals, grabbing genitals, grabbing mummeries, abusive spit swapping,
7. No proof and she certainly didn't continue it for a decade.
8. Does the first lady appoint anyone? Lie..
9. When the judge volunteers you, you take the case. And yeah, he got minimal time. As much the prosecutors screw up as it was her expertise. She did her job. As to women and children, unlike Trump she has a record including starting state-centers (still in operation) and CHIP..
10. Laughs in a late 80’s interview about the rape case about technical aspects of the case, not the victim. .
11. Each marriage is unique and if she decides to stay, so be it. Seems to have worked in the long run. Unlike Trump whose abuse runs to 2008 as far as we know so far, Bill's seemed to stop in the 90's.
12. It's not her foundation. She does not work there, she does not earn any money there. It's Bills. As to where the money comes from, it comes from the same place the US deals with under any President, and most of it goes out to the needy with a reasonable overhead to help mostly women and children.
13. No proof on pay to play whether foundation, SOS, First Lady, Arkansas, New York whatever. Trump however paid a fine for improper charity funding of the FL AG who dropped the Trump College Fraud case.
14. Define media bias. Trump gets all the coverage. Are you arguing spin? Or are you upset that they call him a liar when he tells lies. No proof to payoffs. Lie.
15. Trump makes more per speech than Hillary. Can we get transcripts? It depends whether you call public service building America. Since you blame her for everything Obama, can I get you that list?
Hockeypuck, the only difference between Trump and other guys like Warren Buffet is that his name was on the buildings of these places. Buffet sold his shares at a loss from Energy Future Holdings Corp. before they filed bankruptcy 2 years ago.
The only difference between Trump and Buffett is a name on a building?
Metsman, you're a natural comedian and you don't even know it. Thanks for the laugh.
Thank you SD. I don't have the energy nor enough memory cells to keep refuting the same old crap. The one where she's killed everybody is a hoot. There's a "list" that has like 40 names on it - that's a whole lotta killing without getting caught. And to think regular folk can't get away with even one.
The 4 people she left for dead in Benghazi are the only deaths I need to know about.
Jr. That's just an asinine statement with zero substantiation. And "left for dead" is even more ludicrous. Read the report before you lie.
Exactly JR. People who are worried about Trump talking about boobs and private parts are missing the point. Hillary has shown herself to be incompetent. People died and she can't even send emails appropriately yet some of you want her to be president? Give me a break. That is enough in my mind not to vote for her. She's shown herself to be worse than Trump.
Metsman: if Hillary was personally solely responsible for the deaths in Benghazi, then you and your believers are the most ineffective, incompetent, and incapable people in America. Why can't you make these charges stick? All you can do is spread your little feckless conspiracy theories and bay at the moon.
The charges don't stick because of the usual crap. The Clintons have pull and can get out of crap. Bill should have been removed from office but wasn't.
Hillary on open boarders.
http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-open-trade-open-border-immigration-policy-for-migrants-2016-10
SD, "That's just an asinine statement"
LOL. You of all people would know asinine.
Metsman proviides insight and depth and attributes the inability to prove crimes committed by Clinton the succubus to the "usual crap".
Remind us again where you got your law degree? Or even your GED?
Yeah, the old usual crap.
And JR makes a funny. To a third grader. No you. No you
SD you're only in 3rd grade? Well, that would certainly would explain alot of things...
Trump for term limits for the House and Senate, now that's what we really need to take our country back from the political elite. Nice one kb, SD asked for proof you gave it to him I'm sure he will find some DNC talking points to try and debunk her own words.
"In a current column Charles Krauthammer adds the following to Metsman's list of Trump flaws:"
And on the non-flaw side, he's NOT Clinton. For some, that's enough all by itself.
Tough decision for sure :-)
I cant help thinking about this video when I read an SD post.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8U-aPsni6Ow
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY - Part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs - Part 2
"video from Project Veritas Action, a Democratic dirty tricks operative unwittingly provides a dark money trail to the DNC and Clinton campaign. The video documents violence at Trump rallies that is traced to the Clinton campaign and the DNC through a process called birddogging. "
Bob Creamer stepped down hours after second video released.
https://twitter.com/Pamela_Moore13/status/788504855790751744
So i discovered something this week. For every 10-15 trump signs I have seen 1 Hilary sign....totaling three thus far
Seems like people are more proud to support Trump then they are Hilary.............
Consistent jr, very consistent.
KB: interesting piece showing Hillary saying open borders and then having positions and actions viewed as being against open borders. A conundrum. Perhaps because it only answers half of my "What the heck do you mean by open boarders and where did she say she's for that. Link please." The link is there but a definition of open borders, especially what the heck she meant in the speech snippet is left open to the reader.
Here's another take on the statement: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/oct/12/donald-trump/trump-ive-been-proven-right-about-clinton-wanting-/
I have no issue with the free trade, common market, and open borders if by open we mean lack of protective tariffs and other protectionism actions. That's what has gotten us lower prices, greater competition, and greater access to goods. However, a level playing field is needed on both sides of the border for this to happen. Her concept of open borders, from the article, seems to be to humanly follow deportation laws, the humanly part being sure to deport children to families, and not just deport as Trump would in massive numbers. As the article states, she has softened on this providing more exemptions for some folks to stay who basically met certain criteria.
I have said this before and it becomes more true every day; you can't backfill the jobs if you deport all illegals. Even if you have the right number of people, and you don't, they are in the wrong places. For example, where you going to find a couple of hundred thousand people to come to NJ to work minimum wage?
On trade borders, Trump by contrast wants to penalize Americans by 35% punitive tariffs on American companies with Mexican factories to force them to return jobs to America. Guess who pays the 35% tariff or about $30 an hour more for labor when factories are moved back to the US? He wants to rebuild coal and steel industries. You can't even rebuild coal, it's been replaced by cleaner, cheaper natural gas. This would raise the product price for all Americans and probably not result in good paying Union jobs for Americans. Remember, we basically killed the Unions and most of the new factories are in the Southeast right-to-work non Union states that pay about $2,000 less per year but still scads more than foreign labor. So you pay more for goods while working your new lower paying job.
He wants to immediately smack China for monetary and trade shenanigans with world court lawsuits which is like suing your mortgage holder and if that does not work, hit em with punitive 45% tariffs resulting in higher prices to Americans. It's a nuclear solution against a company that holds a good percentage of our debt. Subtle.
Lastly, Trump's often a total idiot on trade issues, his chosen field of expertise. Trump, from the second debate: "Let me give you the example of Mexico. They have a VAT tax. We’re on a different system. When we sell into Mexico, there’s a tax. When they sell in — automatic, 16 percent, approximately. When they sell into us, there’s no tax. It’s a defective agreement. It’s been defective for a long time, many years, but the politicians haven’t done anything about it."
Most know that a VAT tax is applied to foreign and domestic goods; it's a sales tax. In other words, a level playing field for domestic and foreign suppliers. You don't even have to be a world-class businessman, all you have to do is travel to learn this.......
So sure, how do you define "open borders?"
"For example, where you going to find a couple of hundred thousand people to come to NJ to work minimum wage?"
My idea.....how about you start at the unemployment office. I don't care that it may be less then they used to make, how to make it work is up for debate, but my idea would be to pay the difference from the job to their unemployment benefits....its that much less money out of the governments pocket.
Most minimum wage jobs are not a technical skilled job, meaning almost anyone can be reasonably trained to do the job.
I believe, due to the violence shown by some Trump supporters, that many Hillary supporters are afraid to post signs......as I would be if they were allowed in my complex
Violence shown by Trump supporters? You mean the violence INSTIGATED by Hillary supporters? Gotta' love them "tolerant" democrats....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IuJGHuIkzY
"I believe, due to the violence shown by some Trump supporters, that many Hillary supporters are afraid to post signs......as I would be if they were allowed in my complex"
You can't be serious You should look for a new dealer.
4catmom
I was going to say the same thing. Totally agree! Trump supporters (even on this forum) have proven to be "unstable".
hockeypuck1 Project veritas is part of a global conspiracy between peeper cam msm, the billionaire groper cabal, russian intelligence, neo nazi racists, military industrial complex, wall builders, mexican bounty hunters, torturers, off-shore child labor factories, and kissing bandits. The New Deplorable Order has the dream of a white walled America with freedom for all.
Whenever I check out this thread, I get the strangest feeling I'm back in the classroom, a first grade classroom...
Whoever runs it SD - one of the key political advisors on team Clinton resigned over it. And nobody on her staff is denying the statements
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/10/18/politics/project-veritas-action-robert-creamer-donald-trump-rallies/index.html
In all seriousness, you may have one here, still time will tell.
Creamer quit and the operative on tape was fired. Not sure they worked for or even with the campaign but ties to DNC at some level.
Yes, they talked about inciting and placing protestors but no proof anything happened especially on the inciting side. And then there's the thin line between freedom of speech and inciting.
On the Project Veritas side, this guy is the king of the cherry picked sound byte, cutting and pasting to make a narrative. I think the one of the City Committeeman alleged voter fraud has already been debunked. He settled for $100K for one of the Acorn tape "victims," 100 of community service and $1,500 in Kentucky for something and I am sure more.
So, there may be something here, time will tell. Or it may just be locker room talk.
Meanwhile you have Trump admitted abuse, describing the exact manner, and laughing about it. Then you have, I think 10 now, folks who were abused in that manner, some as late as around 2008. A few have witnesses, others have collaboration from folks they talked to on the scene at the time of the abuse. Still early to tell but we have a crime, a multi-decade track record and an admission of guilt. Even Howard Stern today voice in saying he's heard a lot of things in boy talk, but this one is way beyond the normal banter.
I never laughed about anyone being abused for the record and I have said before my personal interest is in 2A. They both have moral compass issues but I believe Clintons fall more towards the criminal than Trump quite frankly. And I agree with you the questions were leading and it was sensational journalism but Clinton's campaign has engaged in the same type of sensationalism.
Clinton involved in sensationalism? Is that like Trump bringing Bill's alleged accusers to the debate? Worst election ever.
"Worst election ever"
1000% AGREED!
I couldn't count the trump signs on Mt Rascal Rd with two hands!
think it's funny that people are afraid to post Clinton signs - maybe this will give you a hint... http://www.jta.org/2016/10/18/news-opinion/politics/jewish-reporter-targeted-with-anti-semitic-tweets-from-trump-supporter?utm_content=buffer073e3&utm_medium=social&utm_source=jtafacebook&utm_campaign=social
Is it any coincidence they're showing "Toy Story" before the debate???
We're a country of Misfit Toys.
Forget the issues. Can I please get the numbers of Hillary's makeup artists and plastic surgeons? How the heck does someone who is 70 look this good after being on the Presidential campaign trail for 2 years?
Hillary takes a weekly bath in a soup of the blood of 16-year old virgins and the stem cells of thousands of aborted fetuses... or so I've heard from Alex Jones.
Trump: *GIBBERISH NONSENSE*
Hillary: "Let me translate that."
Trump: "You can't."
FACT CHECK: TRUE
Rebecka, she looks that good for 70 because she is only 68 :) Saw Cher on TV tonight. Now she looks awesome for 70. Hillary does seem fresher this debate.
Someone close to me says Trump looks like a sick turtle.
Note, however: we are watching the debate for entertainment purposes only.
JIT feeling superior while watching children on the playground and posting to HL Really.
Rebecca said:
"Forget the issues. Can I please get the numbers of Hillary's makeup artists and plastic surgeons? How the heck does someone who is 70 look this good after being on the Presidential campaign trail for 2 years?"
What a strange comment. Trump
Is even older and looks about the same age. Why comment on Hillary's appearance but not the Don's?
Point being then why are you watching and posting? I see one child. And a flawed but very competent adult
Tonight's debate: Hillary so well rehearsed, didn't believe a word. Trump, a complete idiot, didn't believe a word.
We are in big trouble....
"I got a rock."
Oh, was the debate on last night? I was busy losing far fewer minutes of my life watching "It's The Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown"
As a nation, we are getting a rock.
Only upside to Trump is MAYBE he can help continue the movement started by the Tea Party, by showing the people it's IS worthwhile to elect non-politicians (similar to ianimal's theory of voting libertarian)... oh, and maybe he can get a handle on immigration and the economy. Oh and gun control can remain at a standstill, and maybe even take back some ground, with the nation-wide CCW movement. Note I have been saying maybe.
Only upside to Hillary is.... sorry, can't even make a satirical joke about that.
4cat...I wanted SO bad, to put up a Hillary sign. Warren county always votes red, anyway, but in this case, I was literally afraid of repercussions from Trump supporters. I've seen the behavior of both sides of the coin, with voters. Trumpers, GENERALLY are more apt to lash out. Notice I capitalized the letters, as not all are likely to behave, in that manner. I'm just hoping, that for every three Trump signs, I see, there are 7 homes, that have Hillary supporters. Unfortunately, most of us Hillary supporters are afraid of Trump, and the mind set of his supporters.
I suppose we see what we want to see yankeefan.
What goes in front of the camera is an image - clothes, make up, stature, delivery: a scripted message. So first of all if you don't understand that it's all fake, for the show, that's a problem IMO. Second, what didn't happen is more important than what did: a complete lack of civility between the two. No cordiality whatsoever, families (Clinton) asking for, and getting, separate entrances, avoiding even the possibility of having to speak with each other. That's not childish, even for the two on stage vying for the most powerful political position of our country? You bet it is.
sparksjbc1964, I guess you missed yesterday's news story. If true, and likely it is to an extent, Democrats incited a lot of the violence the news reported at Trump rallys.
I did think Hill started out presidential. Made some poibts i liked, some not. Trump kept up the annoying spoiled brat attitude, but made good points to remind us of things about Hill that I disagree with. She had some good saves. Not sure if they were truthful. And forget Russia. The content if the emails screams of the character of her minions. It mostly disturbsbs me that the only criteria they seem discuss for judges is abortion and guns. How about liberty and property ownership rights? Disclosure - I gave up and went to bed before 10.
Thank God, it's close to over!
I believe Donald won the debate last night. Too little too late, Hillary's lead is too big to overcome by election day.
Larry M Darst Sparks, in my neighborhood it's about three to one in favor of Trump signs. The only vandalism has been towards the Trump signs. Add that to the news yesterday that it was the DNC and Hillary's campaign that incited most of the violence at Trump rally's and It's probably not you that should be worried. By the way did you see how petrified Hillary looked when Trump brought up the criminality of her campaign inciting violence at his events. Unfortunately, the moderator didn't follow with a question and of course Hillary side stepped it. She really is a nasty woman.
https://youtu.be/h5iWqEFVOgw
May not be easy to steal an election, but to "steal" Trump signs is much easier...
What ever happened to the freedom to vote for any candidate?
JIT, civility? That's your focus? You can't be serious. That ship sailed months ago. Although Hillary continues to outclass Donald in that area. And of course the debate format is flawed and a made for TV event. Given that, with Trump's media experience, one might think he'd be better at it than Hillary. But he is revealed again as a petulant, whining and essentially incoherent person. Yes, some people see what they want to see, but I think most people see what is in front of them.
Spoken like a die-hard team player yankeefan. Can't you see that?
Btw, do you forgive Hillary for being misleading with the national debt subject? Trump for once was correct and she was misleading, intentionally of course just to make things sound better than they are.
I stand by my claim that we have children in politics, the only thing important to them is how manipulative they can be to get the office. How completely sad.
Tracy JIT, spoken like a true "I'm to cool to be on any team player". Team Trump(evidently a team of one ) sure does whine like a child, though.
If sexual predation and a veiled threat to incite post-election violence doesn't matter to you, It does to most Americans.
As for the debt, the majority of non-partisan economists declare Trump's economic plan a disaster that would add Trillions to the debt over a few years. All bluster, no substance, that's team Trump. I heard a lot of accusations, and not one real fix...not on healthcare (repeal and replace with what?), not on the Middle East, not on global warming, zero. I'm far from being a Hillary fan, but really, he's simply in way over his head.
I never understood the desire to place signs on your lawn in favor of one political candidate or another. I thought the whole idea to elections was a certain anonymity...that's my goal in life. It's also why I have zero bumper stickers on my car, because aside from ruining the appearance of a perfectly beautiful car, I don't want anyone to know anything about me. I want to be a total mystery. (And furthermore, does anyone really think anyone else gives a crap that they love their Haflinger Horse or help America pray the Rosary or how many people and pets are in your stick-figure-family?) So you have people sticking political signs in their yard as if it is going to change anyone's mind (it won't) and the only thing it does is make me realize that the guy with the huge "Hillary for Prison" sign in his pickup truck bed is someone I probably don't want to know. We are a very odd lot, humans.
Let's see. On one side you have a self admitted serial abuser, rapist without sex, who has had 9 women, so far come forward telling stories that match Trump's confession. He says its locker room talk, the accusers are debunked, it's Hillary's doing, look at the timing... OK, the timing started with his first confession in 2005 to sneaking into Miss Teen dressing rooms to peep on naked contestants, hardly Hillary's fault. Debunked, hardly. We have witnesses, folks who where there and collaborate that the accusers told them the story at the time, and other evidence. Locker room talk, come on, who really believes men talk like this. Ribald yes, self admitting sexual abuse --- not likely.
On the other side, we hear out-of-context cherry-picked sound bites with locker room talk about protests to incite violence and it's a de facto: "it was the DNC and Hillary's campaign that incited most of the violence at Trump rally's." That's a huge leap and you are not alone: Trump made the same leap. The truth is the tape comes from a group who has settled out of court for $100K to one Acorn tapee, has many other fines, and has been accused many times of selective editing. The guys on the tape were fired or resigned for their words. Here's a good summary of the events: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/20/trump-says-clinton-and-obama-caused-violence-his-r/
Again, there is a thin line between protest and inciting violence. And inciting violence is not necessarily violence; that's in the hands of those being baited. So on one hand we have a confessed abuser with numerous accounts of abuse collaborated and witnessed. We can expect more to come forward. On the other, we have locker room talk with a not-quite-proven quid pro quo for services rendered, no direct proof to Clinton or Clinton campaign involvement, nor a direct line to the Trump rally violence. It is early yet on this story, direct involvement or folks being tied to inciting violence could still appear. But factually, that's where we are IMO.
re: Stealing and vandalizing Trump Signs
I guess anti-Trumpers don't know about tree-mounted trail cameras. I caught two vehicles (perfect photos of license plates) and video of passenger/driver stealing my sign and the other smashing it.
Can't wait to share their names here on HL!
Near as I can tell, and I confess to having only watched bits and pieces. The folks who like Trump think he won, the folks who like Hillary think she won. The folks who have even an inkling of neutrality and are actually listening to both of the candidates realize its 3-0 in favor of Hillary, with pretty much everyone except the Russians thinking Hillary won and not just by a little.
As to stealing signs, you folks say it like this has never happened before. I for one never put signs on the lawn, especially when the two choices are this bad. I for one would rather know which of my neighbors are misogynistic bigots, and which are socialist shills. I would like to get one of the "Giant Meteorite 2016" but am afraid it'll get stolen by both sides.
Agust HAHAHA preph....good for you! Do share with the POLICE too!
Looks like Trump supporters are so violent they are smashing their own signs......wait....why would they do that
So they can make funny video's Darrin. Just like they incited violence at Trump rallies and killed that Doctor in Maryland. It's a grand conspiracy by the New Deplorable Odor, a cabal of less educated frustrated old white men :>)
Seriously, stealing signs is stupid mean, not to mention trespass, theft, etc. Arrest them all.
In over three decades I have never posted a sign in Warren County after my experience the first year. Just didn't have to dump the liter when they took the sign. Then again, whenever I get a new mailbox, I dent it first to help avoid being part of Warren County's mailbox baseball. They like the new ones.
trump has no plans. Nothing. He cannot even speak intelligently about any of the issues. His "I know you are but what am I" crap, and his blaming Hillary clinton for HIS giving away jobs to the chinese and taking them away from Americans is juvenile and not presidential.
ChristIsRisen If only everyone realized that the media is inciting the tension, and nothing would delight them more than to cover politically-fueled violence.
We have become a nation of citizens whose minds are being unduly influenced by televisions and news coverage, and it seems that about 99% or greater of Americans do not realize it. It's extremely scary for those of us who do. How strong are the ties that bind the news outlets to the American citizen-puppets? I know there is at least one other poster who is wondering this.
Please do not buy in to the media's game by hating each other based on political leanings. It IS their game, and anyone who does is their pawn.
They sought and will continue to seek to divide us to maintain ratings. They want us all glued to our televisions 24/7 to find out what happens next in the soap-opera-election.
They have succeeded in keeping us all tuned in. The side-effect is a fractured nation.
The more hatred a person feels towards the other side, the more that person has been played by the media.
How are you faring?
Please become aware of the puppet ties that have been attached to you.
And then for G-d's sake cut them.
"JIT, spoken like a true "I'm to cool to be on any team player""
Hardly. But since I refuse the check my brain at the door I would admit to feeling confusion as to why so few others appear to do just that. The team mentality doesn't leave room for individual thought, does it?
Clinton comments about free college, then later says she'll reign in entitlement spending and fix what's wrong, while at the same time minimizing, literally, our national debt by claiming it's a measly $16T vs Trumps correctly stated $20T. If I were any other poster I'd say she lied, but truth be told (I'm not a politician lol) her number is a partial truth, enough for her to project the appearance that the debt is better than it is while ignoring intragovernment debt that, in our deficit spending norm, is just public debt waiting to be rolled over. That's your team player right there, obfuscating reality and trying to comment on the subject in such a way that we actually think it's a good thing!
Sorry, you can keep your team politics. I happen to like *thinking*, something that is highly discouraged by taking sides in our duopoly.
"We have become a nation of citizens whose minds are being unduly influenced by televisions and news coverage, and it seems that about 99% or greater of Americans do not realize it."
Except for the medium, nothing has changed throughout the course of American history. It has always been thus. Whether Hearst's and Pulitzer's yellow journalism or CNN's 24-hour news cycle; it's always been about ratings and making money with some political corruption and propaganda thrown in.
JIT, sorry. You sound like Trump to me. A list
of what you don't like (in your case evidently debt, duopoly, media et.al.,) with no alternatives, no solutions. Easy to stand back and throw rocks. Some *thinking* people haven't given up on improving our admittedly flawed but still best in the world system.
I disagree, ian. I believe much has changed throughout the course of American history.
@JIT - we were posting at the same time saying much the same thing, simply using different words. Interesting. ;-)
"with no alternatives, no solutions"
Correct, but you can't solve a problem if you refuse to even acknowledge it, wouldn't you agree? And why would you think that I'd have all the answers? Is that your expectation from a discussion forum? I can guarantee with 100% certainty that no one here has the answers.
The majority of our collective problems stem from the underlying systems of government that allow the malfeasance to happen in the first place. Fix those underlying problems and the symptoms (what nearly everyone thinks are the problems) magically go away all on their own. The trick is to come up with a solution that would prevent the negative aspects of today's debt-based "solutions".
"JIT, sorry. You sound like Trump to me"
Well, there may be hope for him yet! ;-)
"When/where Hillary say 16T?"
It was an interjection (twice I think) after Trump made his $20T comment.
"I disagree, ian. I believe much has changed throughout the course of American history."
Only the technology; not the fundamental truth about the American public being unduly influenced by "the media". Newspapers have been around in this country since the 1700s and have always been a source of political influence. Before that there were messengers and Town Criers. Yellow journalism of the 1890s influencing the Spanish American War; the Red Scare of the '50s and '60s. Pro-war propaganda films leading up to WWI and WWII. "The Media" has historically had far more control than most people care to remember. It's not a new phenomenon.
*Obviously* it's not a new phenomenon.
The EXTENT of the influence is what has changed. I'm sorry you (and most others) are unable to perceive it, or unwilling to acknowledge it. (And I truly can't figure out which it is.)
Rebecka, since you can see what most others can't, make us blind people happy and share the winning pick- six numbers?
What's changed fundamentally is the ability for a-holes to go online 24-7 and be an a-hole anonymously whenever they want to. Historically they needed to suffer in silence or go out and accost people in person. Now they have no such restrictions. They've always been out there; only now they can spread their disease more effectively.
Rebecka, I do think that there have been important changes in media in media's impact. ianimal, I agree that newspaper, yellow journalism, etc. has existed as long as we have and have had influence, but in my lifetime I can clearly recall a wider range of press options, investigative journalism, with the goal of monitoring government was far more the norm... either that or I perceived what I thought should be there... it certainly was possible for discussion of opposing views in the same space/column, in fact that was more the norm for news... perhaps the bias was more hidden, I suspect that is true, but there was at least the acknowledgement that more than one view was possible.
At this point, news, media, etc. is really in the mode of reality TV, give 'em what they want - sensational, conflict ridden sports approach to news... stir up the emotional responses - pit people against each other - eliminate consideration of ideas... dumb it down... etc
I think that is what you are describing Rebecka?
Remember the Morton Downey, Junior Show? That was almost 30 years ago and there isn't anything on TV today that compares in terms of sensationalism and vitriol. I still think it's the impact of social media that's driving the bus. Every idiot has a microphone, essentially. Imagine if Twitter existed during the Vietnam War Era... the resultant Civil War would probably still be raging.
Omg, Trump & Clinton are at a Catholic fundraising dinner. Yes, it is a roast-type deal, and some politics zing are expected, but jokingly. He is being a total d!ck. I'm embarrassed for everyone there. I'm not a Hillary fan, nor a Trump fan, but I hope she gets him back.
That's certainly true animal, and it might be my historical rose colored glasses, but it seems to me that even in the face of such sensational garbage, there were many alternatives and "real journalists" that sought to report and investigate. Today it seems that there is little else, and most importantly, that "news" has become all about dumbed-down, over-the-top, conflict-enciting crap throwing, in which FACTS really are irrelevant. Moreover, the Public desires, even Demands this level of "news", not seeking to know or understand, or to work collaboratively, but seeking to diminish others and to have their own sense of superiority confirmed..... an unfortunate positive feedback loop that halts all progress.... hence the gridlock...
"Thinking back about 35 years, I think I met Hillary Clinton once, and she groped me........Does anybody have Gloria Allreds phone number? I need a good lawyer"
"I still think it's the impact of social media that's driving the bus."
Excellent point. Social media is one of my blind spots (I don't partake) so it very well be one of the primary reasons there is such vitriol surrounding this election cycle. I don't really know what is being said on FB and Twitter... I can only imagine it's not pretty!
No, what you need is an optometrist, that was BILL Clinton groping you!!!
and it still brings a smile to your face...............
CBGB Here's a different take on how we got here. Yes, he's a liberal but it is a learned view of our government, the Constitution, and our challenges.
It's Supreme Court Justice David Souter in 2012. I first heard it on Maddow last night but this is just the speech, no Maddow opine. All four clips are good, but it's the third and fourth one that might give you a different take on why were are where we are. It's 7 minutes plus....and afterwards you might better understand where my fear comes from. And it's not just a blind allegiance to my party and it's candidate. Perhaps that's your fear too. Only looking from the other side.
The first tape speaks to the two possible readings on the Constitution that we will debate till the end of time. The first, what he calls "fair reading" meaning the definition of the words at the time he says works well for the obvious like the structure of the government The second, which he calls the Liberty Constitution, deals with changing definitions over time for broad concepts such as "unreasonable searches and seizures" or even "free speech" the application of which has to be defined over time. Thus, the purpose of the Supreme Court is to decide those issues for the Constitutional issues of the day.
The second asks: how would you have voted on ObamaCare.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/conversation-justice-david-souter/
"No, what you need is an optometrist, that was BILL Clinton groping you!!!"
You could be right neither one of them can be trusted.
You were there?
Iman: I do believe there is no difference and there is a difference.
No difference in the way you say it: the press has always had opinions, outlets that incite and smear, and the rest. And the press has always been mixed between profit, nonprofit and those funded by others. Profit press has to make news that sells, with high professionalism or low --- either can work. Non profit generally has a cause, and a reason to spin the facts to the cause.
Today we are different because of availability and access. Anyone can be "the press" today by simply opening an internet page. Virtually no cost to have a platform. It's available to anyone person to start. Access in that we can send a real time message 24/7 if we choose which is a lot of need to find news that sells if you are in it for the profit. So we get blasted by sources, high and low, rich and poor, and sometimes in search of something new to sell on a 24/7 basis.
Therefore IMO while the "professionalism" may be the same for the majors, there are some many more entering the market that the "minors" may play a little looser. Plus the amount of sources combined with the 24-hour cycles means we are inundated with "facts" and opinions sometimes from the same outlet.
For example --- much of FOX news is not news but opinion/analysis. MSNBC is really mostly opinion/analysis. And opinion and even analysis sure can be spin. It's the only way so many allegations seem like facts.
So while at the core I agree Iman that it's the same, the availability for anyone to play and the 24/7 access are very different today.
"And opinion and even analysis sure can be spin. It's the only way so many allegations seem like facts. "
You mean like how you have attempted to turn Trump's bravado talk into actual sexual assault?
Well jr...... I think it was actually Trump who turned it into sexual assault when he claimed he did it and then seemed surprised when a baker's dozen stepped up and said ---- yup, he's right and I'm living proof.
And no one has responded to my query on "so what kind of person gets enjoyment from reaching up some women's dress and groping her?" You hear a lot of that in your locker room jr?
I mean what is going on with the kissing bandit moves and serial groping? I just have never heard of such a perversion. Am I too sheltered?
You've never heard of Bill Clinton? That was beyond "groping", that was rape. I mean, if we are going to automatically believe all the allegations like YOU are doing about Trump...
And please, stop with the "Bill isn't running diatribe"... you said you have "never heard of such a perversion", "am I too sheltered." So you've apparently never heard of Bill Clinton, and HIS WIFE who at the time called them "bimbos" ("bimbo eruption" I believe were her actual words).
So when it happens to a democrat "didn't do it, nobody saw me do it, can't prove anything", but when it happens to a republican they are guilty until proven innocent?
I weep for our country with intentionally-blinded hypocrites like you helping choose our leaders.
If that's the point of view you want to pursue, JR, then Trump's guilty not only of a dozen acts of sexual assault but also multiple acts of rape, including a statutory case against a child of 13 in addition to the forcible rape of his first wife.
Donald and Melania have been "attacking" his victims all week. One Trump said he couldn't have assaulted because she wasn't attractive enough.
Melania blamed Billy Bush and Howard Stern for the comments that Trump made, saying they "manipulated" Donald. Is that who you want to be President? Someone who can be manipulated by Billy freaking Bush?
Hey Ian, I'm not defending Trump. I never have been. I'm pointing out the extreme hypocrisy of the left on this issue in this election. Allegations against Bill were from "bimbos", yet allegations from anyone against Trump MUST be true.
Surely someone with your high intelligence level can see that.
Bills transgressions stopped decades ago. They have been communicated, investigated, and adjudicated. There is no rape that is prosecutable.
But Bill is not running for president today. And Hillary's alleged crime is enabling and demeaning. I am not sure these are even crimes. And again, most are allegations and not proven. Somehow this makes her not be an advocate for women.
Trumps transgressions are self-confessed. And now victims are alleging that his confession was true. He has one rape charge against him in deposition and another currently on the court. In some cases there are witnesses, and others there is collaboration from people on the scene at the time. They were not all decades ago, some were as late as 2008. They are allegations though. Trump says that no one has more respect for women that he does. I beg to differ on his own self potrayal.
I just don't see the hypocrisy between a cad and a pervert. In my opinion, there's a difference.
"Bills transgressions stopped decades ago."
No. You just stopped hearing about them.
JR, of course I see hypocrisy on both sides. But weren't you the person who told me that pointing out the flaws of both sides made me an arrogant know-it-all who thought he was smarter than everyone else? I've been working on that (-;
SD,
Who's the rapist in your scenario. You need an alleged rapist for it to be accurate.
Yeah Rebecca, the critics impressed stop looking and the women stop coming forward. Yeah, sure, whatever.
Jr. I don't have a clue what you mean in that last entry but I liked earlier where you put each offense of sexual abuse on a scale like one is less bad than the other. Like you're saying Trump is less bad that's OK. I say its rape without sex and it looks like the guy is a setial offender.
So this thread has devolved into who's the bigger predator, Trump or Bill Clinton. Meanwhile in an unprecedented event, Trump gets booed at the Al Smith dinner last night. Can any thoughtful person say "hey yes, I want Donald Trump to be the face of our country" ?
Taxes, Infrastructure, cyberhacking, isis, healthcare, we have a number of problems that need thoughtful attention. OK, Some men are pigs. Some women protect them. We have bigger fish to fry.
@SD - friends of mine are neighbors of the Clintons in Chappaqua.
President Clinton's 'transgressions' did not stop decades ago.
You did indeed just stop hearing about them.
Did you really imagine that a man with his proclivities would *leave* the spotlight and then become a faithful and dedicated husband, when he couldn't even control himself in the Oval Office?
Come on. You're not that naive.
To be fair, though, it's not just Bill who has proclivities. Ask anyone in Chappaqua who Secretary Clinton's partner is. I'm assuming many people beyond their hometown know as well by now? Anyone?
This is so stupid and off-topic though. Who honestly cares? We should really steer the discussion back to whatever important things the candidates posted on Twitter last night. I'm sure it was mind-blowing. ;-)
"So this thread has devolved into who's the bigger predator, Trump or Bill Clinton. "
No, this thread has turned into exposing the extreme hypocrisy of all you democrats. You want to change the rules - or the morality- as you go along, anything to win, at all costs. But that's nothing new.
What has Hillary accomplished over the years to deserve the title of President? Sounds to me like she has made a few bad decisions herself! The democrats waited to just the right time to degrade Trump the way they have.....she is no better. It is time for a change in the White House. I am voting for Trump!
JR, Jesus. Both sides do it. Democrats don't hold some special corner of the hypocrisy market. Republicans do the exact same thing. I'm so tired of this tit-for-tat, I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I bullsh#t. Everyone is guilty. It's all finger pointing like little kids. Grow up. Everyone.
eperot:
Yes. THAT'S BEEN MY POINT. I have not said the republicans don't do it, I'm merely pointing out that in this election, the democrats are doing it because it suits them. The hypocrisy this election is mind-blowing.
And I have also stated:
-I'm not defending Trump
-I'm not a republican anymore
But to read all these liberals trying to crucify Trump for WORDS, while turning a blind eye to Hillary's ACTIONS, no wonder out country is in the state it's in. The 2-party system needs to be broken. No, not fixed- thrown out! As long as the 2-party system exists, we will get nowhere. It's good cop/bad cop. The sooner you people realize that, the sooner we can maybe start holding BOTH parties responsible, and start making some actual progress. But no- the paradigm is still "my team is better than you're team!" "Win at all costs!" Even turning blind eyes to voter fraud, as long as their candidate wins. It's sickening and disgraceful.
I'm not seeing anyone on here defending Bill or in general. There is a lot of hypocrisy on both sides - those that defended Bill (primarily democrats) and those that condemned him and spent millions digging up dirt (republicans). Ultimately though Bill isn't running. Trump is the candidate and how he has handled all of this is very telling of his temperament, judgment and overall bias - in addition to the denials, he opted to whine and attack them for coming forward and as usual he weighed the worth of these women and their accusations by their looks. If he wins we might as well change the P in POTUS to pr**k.
"The 2-party system needs to be broken. No, not fixed- thrown out! As long as the 2-party system exists, we will get nowhere. It's good cop/bad cop. The sooner you people realize that, the sooner we can maybe start holding BOTH parties responsible, and start making some actual progress."
So, you're voting third party after all? Or are you a hypocrite, too?
Oh geez JR get off your high horse and come down to us little, hypocritical people. How the hell do you know it's all libs and democrats crucifying Trump? Biased much? Everything out if your mouth is libs, dems, and hypocrite all in the same sentence. As a contrast I have rarely seen anyone on here denigrating republicans nor do I see anyone calling you out on your over use of these terms and the demeaning way in which you use them. But hey it's your right to do so, so carry on as usual.
The chains were removed from old Bill once he left the office. A weekend comes up, let's see... someone wants to limo/helicopter me to a Hamptons compound with a few hot and willing women, etc., etc., etc...
Ian, I'm voting for the person I think will do the best job, regardless of party. Which is how EVERYONE should be voting.
"And I have also stated:
-I'm not defending Trump
-I'm not a republican anymore
But to read all these liberals trying to crucify Trump for WORDS, while turning a blind eye to Hillary's ACTIONS"
Really....I think you meant to say his words, his confession backed by a multitude of alleged actions collaborated by many at the time and witnessed by others. Do you think no one noticed the huge orange man in a room full of half-dressed teenagers? Hey, but I hear about 50-year olds doing that stuff all the time in the locker room.....
Hillary actions have resulted in zero prosecutions, zero fines, and for the most part leaving nothing but conspiracy theory. You are part of Trump's birtherism R2.2 movement with little more than a Tarmac exaggeration, some he-said, she-said, and some non-prosecutable mistakes.
You claim you are not being a hypocrite, love the man for being a brilliant businessman and not a politician and fault her for making money on speeches legally or even the far reach that she profits from bad countries contributing to her husband's foundation. Legally. So as a public servant, if she makes money legally, she's evil but he's OK being evil because he's a businessman.
Donald J Trump first considered politics in 1987. He entered the 2000 primary as a Reform Party candidate in California at least. In 2003 he talks about entering the 2004 race but does not. He actively enters politics by 2011 becoming the front man for the birther movement but decides not to run. In 2013, he forms his exploratory committee for his 2016 presidential run. He is a politician, but as to when he became one ---- probably 2013. Just not a good one.
Trump's actions have resulted in a number of bankruptcies (you do understand that it will be bad when he bankrupts America), he has left many an investor, contractor, and worker holding the bag while he takes massive write-off on their loss, he has settled for rental racism charges, for his foundation's improper pay-offs to the Florida AG for to drop his Trump U fraud case, his ex-wife recants after deposition declaration of Trump rape (nice divorce pay-off though), Trump plaza fined for keeping Blacks away from tables for Trump's mafia associates, settled with tenants over intimidation case, settled for paying undocumented workers substandard wages, fined for his casino buying 9 fancy cars for mafia buddies, fined for illegal lobbying against Indian casinos, fined for Dad buying millions in chips and then not redeeming them (floating Trump with operating cash with another Daddy bail-out), fined for buying stock for a hostile takeover, settled with swindled investors in Mexican condo deal (no wonder he hates Mexicans), and yes, there's more.....
That's the fines and settlements. Where's Hillary's?
Now the ongoing current allegations: Fraud at Trump U court case gears up in November. Probably will lose or settle on this one. Rape case for the 13-year old he used his buddy relationship with the Pedophile Billionaire to abuse will start in December. Probably will win this one. Trump Foundation New York investigation underway. Trump asked for extension for his disclosure of financial documents. Apparently the great businessman is having difficulties digging up the money paper trail.....
Allegations on Hillary. None in court. Most of the big ones vetted in Congress, the FBI or other legal entities with no prosecutable offenses based on the facts.
"Ian, I'm voting for the person I think will do the best job, regardless of party. Which is how EVERYONE should be voting"
Not those who think the most important thing is to tear down the two-party system, especially in an election year when any NJ votes not for Hillary won't matter for anything else at all. Does it really matter if Trump loses by a million votes or a million and one?
So, put up or stop talking about tearing down the 2-party system when you apparently have no idea of what needs to be done to do it and/or no inclination to do it if you do. Hint: it involves NOT voting for either of the two parties of the duopoly. Otherwise, you're just as big a hypocrite as anyone else you apply that label to...
It would be easy if Ron Paul was a bit younger and running now for the Libertarian party, my vote would go to him whether or not people followed. Now we have Gary Johnson who is a good person but arguably not of President caliber, but a damn good Governor. I could vote for my true party (Libertarian) and cast for Gary but I am still undecided at this point. I will vote, for sure, and it won't be HC...
'So, you're voting third party after all? Or are you a hypocrite, too?"
How people are going to vote is nobody's business but their own.
Even those who ridicule others for maintaining the status quo of the 2-party system and then essentially confess to preparing to vote for the least qualified candidate ever put forth by either party? You may be right, but much less right than you would be in any other situation.
Ianimal, I wouldn't call Hillary the least qualified candidate ever. The most dishonest, corrupt, hypocritical and self entitled yes, but least qualified,no.
Sadly Mr. Wilson your description also fits Trump well with the exception of qualified.
"The most dishonest, corrupt, hypocritical and self entitled yes, but least qualified,no."
Exactly. If she loses she will probably kill Bill (ha) then commit suicide...
The duopoly is the only way to maintain a democracy in which the majority selects leadership. We don't need a different system. We do need to change the elements that are paralyzing government. Strict term limits would be a good start. Overturning Citizens United would also be a positive. The current system gives us career politicians beholden to big money interests. Eliminate that and I believe we could actually have a working. government and representatives that want to work together to solve our serious problems.
Splinter the vote with three, four, five candidates and the majority isn't represented.
YF: while I can see term limits on the House, the people's house, unless the term limits are pretty long for the Senate, like four terms, the only effect you will get there is a basket of incompetents. By incompetent, I don't mean in terms of vision, passion, or the knowledge of what needs to be done. I mean incompetent in terms of the process and procedures of making law. The founding fathers made it very hard to make law; the process is complex and painstaking. This allows a minority to pretty easily gum up the works, procedurally (and sure the majority can do that as well).
You could simplify the process but IMO that would defeat a goal of the founders, and that was to make making laws that restrict someone a difficult thing so that lots of thought and persuasion and, most important, process, would have to be on the table before anything happens ---- if anyone wanted to slow things down. It also stops a new majority from slamming a multitude of new laws like a tsunami radically changing things at the speed of light. IMO it's a good thing not to have an overnight legislative coup.
Therefore, a huge and constant churn of new faces in the Senate would probably result in a chamber incapable of doing anything. You saw much of this as the Tea Party took on Harry Reid. Basically he tied them in knots procedurally forcing them to learn a lot of process before getting anything to the floor, much less passed. And since most were not experienced, it took a long time to come up to speed, if they are even there today.
Hillary screwed up her job as Secretary of State and some of you want her to be President?! Makes me laugh. Donald Trump gets caught on tape talking about boobs and p*ssy and he's automatically unqualified. Some bring up his bankruptcies as another reason he's unqualified to deal with our economy. You do realize every billionaire businessman has had to lay people off, lost money in some of their businesses, etc. Fact remains he still employs thousands of people, has women working in high positions, and has a drive to succeed. We need a leader who has that drive to succeed. Hillary has done nothing but mooch off the taxpayers. She's never created anything and only has money because her and Bill got paid big bucks for speeches they've made over the years. A big chunk of her voters are people who collect a check from the government and are just idiots who want to see a woman elected. The same idiots that voted for Obama.
Interesting assumptions Metsman - but none of your assumptions about Hillary's voters describe any of the people I know voting for her - and I know quite a lot of people - Where do you get your facts?
Latest SNL, best yet…. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAb5ODpWl0M
Today the 11th woman has come forward alleging sexual misconduct this time in 2006 with two other women there at the time. Allegedly after leaving the room, she was asked to return for $10,000. Trump has responded that he will sue all of his alleged victims. Cool.
Number 10 was allegedly groped while waiting for a ride: "He said, 'Hey, look at this one, we haven't seen her before. Look at those legs.'”
Not expecting votes for Hillary but what does it take to not vote Trump?
- Making fun and demeaning the disabled, Mexicans, women, and his opponents.
- Making money off 9/11 recovery stimulus without a building to damage.
- Saying he lost hundreds of friends on 9/11. Hundreds....
- Claiming he now has the tallest building at ground zero (after the taller ones fell)
- Muslim ban
- Offering to give nukes to Saudi Arabia
- Would give the order to shoot Iranians who gave our Navy the finger
- Desire to kill the families of terrorists
- Advocating torture much worse than waterboarding
- Verbally demeaning women based on looks because of their political opinions
- Does not respect American election process, basically says our Democracy is rigged.
- Claiming the press is biased for printing his words.
- Knows there's a cabal of MSM, rich democrats, rich republicans, Clinton, dnc, conspiring together to bring him down using his own words to do it.
- Will jail his political opponent, that “nasty woman.”
- A decade of birtherism
- Ongoing fraud case, rape case, and 30-years of getting a multitude of fines and offering cash settlements to avoid court.
- Small hands, big hands
- Mexico will pay for the wall
- Global warming is a hoax perpetrated by China
- I will fire all the generals for incompetence because he knows more than the generals about ISIS
- Even though I said I did, I did not molest those women, you can believe the second time that I lied the first time, trust me
- It was an off-mic conversation, locker room talk, but off-mic emails released by the Russians are the gospel proof of bad things that happened.
- I have great respect for women. More than anyone else
- How could I have molested her; believe me she would not be my first choice.
- Grab them by the p**sy.
- Take their (Secret Service) guns away and see what happens to Hillary
Unlike Hillary allegations that can’t be prosecuted, these are what the man has said. Really, what does it take. I can understand not voting for Hillary, but this guy is really the face of your future?
Don't believe the that Hillary is ahead by 12 points. "Traditional" Trump voters are underrepresented...
4catmom a friend of mine posted something on Facebook asking people who they are voting for. I didn't see one person type in Hillary. A lot of people responded. I think the polls are BS.
We need a leader who doesn't cry foul when he's losing and threaten the very fabric of our republic, we need a leader who can speak coherently and stay focused, we need a leader who doesn't treat women he thinks are beautiful like they are his playthings, we need a leader who is not anti this group or anti that group ( you know, like Jews, Blacks, Muslims, Mexicans, immigrants), we need a leader who doesn't stiff the working man, we need a leader who won't give our country to our enemies, and we especially need a leader who doesn't threaten to throw his political opponents or those who dare to speak out against him in jail like some despot of a third world country.
Well said, RAS - Metsman - of course your buddies will agree with you ...and those who disagree will not post on your friend's page......
You see what you want to see - with blinders on. Fortunately this will be over soon.
We'll see how much BS is in the polls.
"Don't believe the that Hillary is ahead by 12 points. "Traditional" Trump voters are underrepresented..." Yeah, you got a count on that? Is this like the silent majority? That worked well. Or maybe it's the embarrassed to admit it majority.
I like Bill Maher explaining the GOP (grab our p****y) Immortal words and now your new brand.
The lengths to which the American right-wing will go to craft false narratives for their twisted political agenda is truly astounding. Their two-year long attempt to assign the blame September 11th, 2012 terrorist attack on the United States embassy complex in Benghazi, Libya on then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been one of the most despicable partisan political witch-hunts our nation has ever seen.
Those feelings are shared by Dr. Anne Stevens, sister of slain Ambassador Chris Stevens, who spoke out against right-wing conspiracy theorists and Republican budget-spenders in an interview with the New Yorker, absolving former Secretary Clinton of blame for the attacks and placing it squarely where it belongs – with the House Republicans who slashed embassy security funds in the name of austerity.
Dr. Stevens said that “I do not blame Hillary Clinton or [then Secretary of Defense] Leon Panetta. They were balancing security efforts at embassies and missions around the world. And their staffs were doing their best to provide what they could with the resources they had. The Benghazi Mission was understaffed. We know that now. But, again, Chris knew that. It wasn’t a secret to him. He decided to take the risk to go there. It is not something they did to him. It is something he took on himself.”
When asked if she thought the issue was politicized, she replied “Yes! Definitely politicized. Every report I read that mentions him specifically has a political bent, an accusatory bent.” She then went on to place to blame for the attacks where it truly belongs: with the Republican-dominated House of Representatives.
“It is clear, in hindsight, that the facility was not sufficiently protected by the State Department and the Defense Department. But what was the underlying cause? Perhaps if Congress had provided a budget to increase security for all missions around the world, then some of the requests for more security in Libya would have been granted. Certainly the State Department is underbudgeted…It would be much more useful for Congress to focus on providing resources for security for all State Department facilities around the world—for increasing personnel, language capabilities, for increasing staff to build relationships, particularly in North Africa and the Middle East. I would love to hear they are drastically increasing the budget.”
In 2009, the House of Representatives cut $1.2 billion dollars from the State Department budget. In 2011, Secretary Clinton warned Congress that continued cuts to the State Department security budget would be placing Americans at risk across the world – and she was promptly ignored by House Republicans, who slashed security funding by $128 million in 2011 and $331 million in 2012. ..."
Not exactly:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/21/fact-checking-the-benghazi-attacks-2/
4catmom they're not my buddies. I know only the guy who posted the original comment.
RAS are you kidding me, kind of like how Obama and Hillary are allowing illegals to walk across our border and kill countless people with the drugs some of them bring across? Or how a Saudi Arabian woman was allowed in this country and went on to shoot up a work luncheon in San Bernadino? You PC people are the ones that are going to allow the enemy to destroy us from within because your feelings get hurt over dumb crap. You're more worried about a President saying every little thing right instead of doing the job we need done. What's Mr. Obama done for us with his well spoken demeanor? Nothing. He added to the national debt and makes us look weak to every one else.
And I do believe the system is rigged. I was already registered to vote and never cast one in my life. I never clicked a box on anything in my life that would register me to vote. And conveniently the same can be said of my GF. So for all I know, they used my vote and hers last election to re-elect Obama. I guess when I go to vote and get told I already did, I'll know for sure.
"And I do believe the system is rigged"
Please keep in mind the crowd you're addressing here. If favoritism is codified into law then nothing is "rigged". Semantics IMO, but reality is a bit different though.
Oh, yeah... well aware of the crowd. Warren county has traditionally voted red, for years. It's different now. We are clearly dealing with a sociopathic, narcissistic, unstable person.
Now most say that's Hillary, around here. They are so dedicated to the GOP, that they can't see just how dangerous this man really is. Trump is an expert into tapping into the subconscious and branding(that's his ONLY talent). When it was all Trump, 24/7, with little news coverage of the other candidates... then, nothing was" rigged", and his numbers went up. When all he did was talk about how bad Mexicans and Muslims were, and talked about the wall, and nothing else, his numbers went up. (that's the subconscious part, we dare not say). When his true personality became more apparent, his numbers dropped as Hillary has maintained her composure and just let Trump implode.
Hillary only wants to raise taxes on people making over 250k. Trump wants yet ANOTHER round of tax breaks for the ultra wealthy and raise taxes on the middle class. If every voter actually watched ALL three debates, instead of relying on Fox or what others tell them, maybe they could make a more educated decision.
"Hillary for prison" signs are scary. Didn't Hitler pull similar stunts, to gain popularity? Trump is very dangerous to our country. I've never been more afraid of any candidate, in my 50 years of voting.(don't let the handle fool you, not my birth year).
Hopefully, we will continue to be helpful and friendly to each other, regardless of politics. I've always found this site to be very helpful, in regards to everything else. The "potty talk", is the LEAST of our problems, if Trump is elected. I've witnessed racism up close, here. Any one with tan skin is a drug dealing, rapist from Mexico. Anyone with darker skin is a Muslim terrorist, unless they are obviously African American. Sounds a little "Hitler-ish", no?
Hillary for POTUS!!!
et tu, HuffPo? Eating their own... or is it just, finally, a little objective journalism?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-morocco-emails_us_580cd86be4b0a03911ed5e27?section
"if Trump is elected. I've witnessed racism up close, here. Any one with tan skin is a drug dealing, rapist from Mexico. Anyone with darker skin is a Muslim terrorist, unless they are obviously African American."
Holy crap, talk about stereotyping, jumping to conclusions, and not having a clue... no wonder the electorate is divided... ignorant thinking like this. Which is, of course, the way your party WANTS you to think.
Interestingly, I recently listened to an interview of Jeffrey Goldberg the new editor of The Atlantic. He said that his Twitter account is filled with mostly anti Semitic insults by Trump supporters. And how does he know they're Trump supporters? Because they all have some kind of meme or symbols that say they support Trump. Of course this an anectodal account but it's real for him in any event. He doesn't denounce hate speach or inappropriate behavior. For example, at a rally for John McCain one of his supporters said she couldn't trust Obama because he's an Arab, to which he said no ma'am, he's not, he's not Arab. He's a good person, a decent person and a gentleman, we just disagree on the issues. That is the kind of behavior that is admirable, not Trumps.
There are a lot of weak minded people out there RAS. And plenty on the other side too you know.
Using their support for a candidate is a weak excuse no matter R or D
Anyone see the newest emails concerning the Hillary Campaign and DNC manipulating polls. It's amazing how corrupt and dirty her campaign is. First, Paying people, some mentally challenged to violently disrupt Trump events now manipulating polls. why wouldn't people think elections are rigged, it's not like the Democrats are against voter ID cards are cleaning dead names from voter rolls. Someone please explain to me how having some type of voter identification card is racist, that seems to be the go to for democrats against it.
Yes. And there's always more to the story it seems.
But I'm sure this is just the Dems "managing their message" lol
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples
For what it's worth...
Ugh, I just wish politicians could be ethical, both sides. I suppose though that an ethical or moral politician is an oxymoron. Again, just ugh.
Hillary has created lots of things. Unlike Donald, she has not just catered to the rich and famous for self-profit. She was instrumental in CHIP providing health care to millions of kids, Donald just wants to date kids constantly telling young girls he does not know that "I will date you in a few years." Sweet ole grandpa. Hillary worked on long term health insurance for 9/11 first responders; Donald avoided the site but took recovery money without suffering any damaged buildings. Hillary got a cease fire tween Israel and Hamas, an agreement to end abuse in Burma. Her China speech advocating woman’s rights was extremely brave; Trump likes deferments and bone spur 4F notices. With Obama, Hillary made a non-PC risky move that got Bin Laden, Trump looked for birth certificates. Toughest sanctions on Iran leading to the end of their nuclear program except in Trump world where they will drop the bomb any day now. Author of Pediatric Research Equity law forcing drug companies to research children, not just adults. Drove Adoption and Safe Families Act. Played a major role in the Foster Care Independence Act.
Short list: http://addictinginfo.org/2015/04/13/heres-a-list-of-hillary-clintons-accomplishments-so-quit-saying-she-doesnt-have-any/
But most folks who worked with Hillary as Senator and SoS, either side of the aisle, say she is qualified, competent and able to work with others. The B-word is not often used by peers. Often the hardest work as a Senator is for things that you don’t get credit for. It’s the nature of legislation. Here’s a sample of GOPers: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/republicans-we-can-work-with-president-hillary-clinton
Job Resume:
- Children’s Defense Fund
- Director of the Arkansas Legal Aid Clinic (think she is credited with creation of this)
- Law Professor at the University of Arkansas School of Law
- First Lady, made a stab and set foundation for Romney and ObamaCare
- Senator (two terms, guess they liked her)
- Secretary of State (after contentious primary, guess Obama respected her accomplishments)
Here’s a thoughtful piece: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/was-hillary-clinton-a-good-secretary-of-state/2014/05/30/16daf9c0-e5d4-11e3-a86b-362fd5443d19_story.html?utm_term=.d6702534b950
Trump was not “talking about boobs and p*ssy” as some have imagined. He was confessing to crimes and yeah, that makes him unqualified based on character.
And yeah, four bankruptcies should give one pause to think since each one is based on taking too big a loan while failing to forecast market conditions. His first bankruptcy almost destroyed his personal assets --- a business 101 bonehead move he never made again. After that he focused on losing other people's money. And self made man my sweet patootties. Approaching $20M hand-out for his first start-up, not the mere million dollars he quotes, plus the 4 taxpayer bail outs and numerous Daddy-help me bailouts. Real question given that backing is: how could he fail?
And what did he build. Not much that any of us can enjoy except to look at from the outside.
Fact is he hires thousands of people, women working in high places. Who says? Trump? Everything else has been an exaggeration or outright lie. He's not even worth $10B; $3B of that is magical "good will" based on the Trump name which is about to suffer a downturn. Didn't forecast that either. You can’t get a profile on how many people work for Trump, or how many women. Maybe it’s all outsourced to India. Somehow believing all his financial braggadocio from a man who consistently lies seems naïve.
Sure, you can say Hillary lies too, but in the scheme of things, compared to Trump, she does not lie at all......
“A big chunk of her voters are people who collect a check from the government and are just idiots who want to see a woman elected. The same idiots that voted for Obama.” Wow. I must be in the little chunk until I age into Social Security but I am sure you believe, deep in your heart, that I am an idiot too. And soon I will be in your big chunk of idiots. Can't wait to meet you --- not. But I will tell you that I did not vote for Obama just to see a woman elected. Rest assured.
I've only been saying for YEARS (about the poll manipulation, as well as voter fraud). And it seems to be mostly the democrat side using such "methods." Hmm.....
And people wonder why Trump, who is NOT a republican, he's not even a career politician, is so popular. It's not because he's a racist womanizer and all supporters are too LOL. I've been saying from the very beginning of this mess it's because as people learn more and more how they are played and manipulated by the parties and the mainstream media, they are getting more and more fed up with all of it. Trump may be running on the republican ticket, but he's an outsider - when compared to HER or anyone else who ran in the primaries.
Oh no, Podesta might have made a recommendation to pollsters. Illegal, no. Did they follow the recommendation? Don't know yet. Illegal to follow the recommendation? Probably not. Rigs the election? You got to explain that one to me..... Weren't you just saying polls don't matter, Trump has the silent majority not showing up in the polls.......
Sounds like Podesta was doing his job.
If this was a rig job, makes you wonder why the pollsters released the information on the oversampling. Really stupid? Self confessing?
Or maybe there's nothing there.
Time will tell but a blizzard regurgitation of the same story from the vast multitude of right wing internet media outlets is un-MSM propaganda, not news.
Meanwhile Trump relies and reports out self-reporting polls which are rigged by definition. Well, at least inaccurate based on the process. Could be rigged too. But no issues from the conservative right on that one.
And amazingly while what spews out of Trump's mouth off-mic is inaccurate boy talk, if it comes from off-mic emails churned through the Russian workshop, the contents are gospel and just the mere mention of impropriety is proof of guilty actions. Hey, it was just boy-email, locker room email, get over it.
The funniest part is I am sure that Podesta and Clinton would rather not have these double-digit leads in the polls. That's tantamount to low voter turnout, especially if the weather turns bad.
Keep the faith, faithful. Don't put money on it though.
If the new season of Scandal hadn't been delayed, we would know who would win the election and how it happens!
Not a commentary, just an observation: drove route 81 to NC this weekend. All campaign signs, except for 4, we're Trump Pence. Of the 4, 2 were in a single town, promoting the local Democrat ticket. 1 was in Clinton,NJ. That leaves 1 rural Clinton sign that was for the Presidential only race in 1100 miles. I'm sure the suburbs and cities would have a much different sign count.
"Illegal, no."
Sorry, didn't realize you were discussing Trumps tax deductions ;-)
"Illegal, no."
"Sorry, didn't realize you were discussing Trumps tax deductions ;-)"
Snap!
Exactly. So unethical/dishonest/immoral - ALL on the table, as long as it's LEGAL, everybody's good. That takes out about 95% of the discussion on BOTH sides.
That's why we vote.... if the weather is crappy in many key states on Nov. 8.... Trump wins.
Book it!
Metsman,
I was registered to vote, but for one presidential election, I was denied that right.
A relative, who was a registered republican, had moved out of state. But instead of removing her name, they removed my name.
Seems like rigging the system has been around for a long time.
PBM "Hillary has created lots of things. Unlike Donald, she has not just catered to the rich and famous for self-profit."
No, she's catered to whoever she had to at the time to get her husband and herself elected, and appointed, for self-profit. Definition: POLITICIAN.
And she created "things" alright: 4 dead bodies in Benghazi, and the huge lie and coverup immediately following.
PBM they are stealing votes from people who don't vote. I wouldn't have been registered otherwise. I never registered until this year. There's no logical explanation as to why I'd be registered in 2012. I can't wait to hear what the Hillary lovers have to say about that. I'm sure Strangerdanger will downplay it.
One thing about Trump's taxes he's been filing for years and been audited many times, if there was anything wrong or illegal I'm sure we would've heard about it. We might not know what specifics they contain but the IRS does.
Ah, the lies and conspiracies of the day.....
The great Reagan/Carter poll is true. Polls look backwards, not forwards. Carter had been in the tank earlier, made progress with conventions. Lost it totally with really bad economy, very late debate and last second bad news on the year-long bad news hostage crisis. The election was the next poll after the debate and the breaking Iran hostage news Don't think we have those events this time around so you're left with silent scared-to-admit it majority and some late breaking event. Here's the upshot: landslide electoral victory and 10% higher in the popular vote....hmmmm, electoral rigging? Here's the story: http://www.snopes.com/carter-reagan-polls/
Next....no one said the tax was illegal; it was a loophole closed shortly thereafter, with a yea vote from Clinton. Clinton is using it as a means to prove how little Trump, and by proxy the upper class, pay in taxes as political spin. The proxy part is true. IMO that's an issue. Also, the magnitude of the loss is interesting for the business maven.
Whether he's paid taxes, we know the answer. He told us: nada. On the audit, you don't know if he's being audited and you certainly won't know if he's cheated unless Putin changes sides. That's not the issue. The issue on his release of taxes is the transparency regarding conflicts of interest, character, and lying about his financial worth. We have this transparency for every Presidential candidate for the last 40 years. Instead, in Trump we trust. Or at least you do.
Poll manipulation thus far seems to be a myth. So prove it. Gerrymandering is real and practiced by both sides. Individual outages, mistakes, certainly occur and probably have zero effect. The fact there was a typo removing a record after someone else moved out of state is not manipulation, it's an error. It's not rigging, it's an error. And for all you know, it was your relative that screwed the pooch.
The fact that someone is registered who never registered means you really don't know what it means. There are a number of ways to register and it's possible to literally register yourself when you are doing something else like DMV, Armed Services Recruitment, Welfare Office, Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, Social Services, Colleges, Marriage License, Blood Drives, --- lots of places depending on the state.
In your case, since it sounds like they are using your current address and must have your driver's license or last four digits of your SSN, that's a healthy amount of work for voter manipulation of one. However, here's your test. When you go to vote, as they mark you down in the little book, just ask if you ever voted before. That would be telling. Then you'll have more than you just don't know.
Yes there are all sorts of inaccuracies, typos and errors in the registration information. But that's a long ways away from overt manipulation of which there is little evidence of occurrence.
Before I go, I will throw you one for manipulation: Benghazi. I bet you love that one. Benghazi, the tape, and the dragging of the administration's feet to come round to terrorism helped Obama get elected by removing the event as a possible voter issue to galvanize the right and demoralize the left. Didn't hurt that Romney is a true American gentleman who avoided confrontation on current matters of national defense, especially tragedies where Americas made the supreme sacrifice. IMO that's the conspiracy behind those events did not change the election per se but may have avoided a major change issue.
Another one: Gulf of Tonkin incident, August 1962. Johnson elected November 1964. You do the math for one major reason we escalated the "conflict" and the voter effect for Johnson's election. "Hey, liberal man's got balls...."
Give a sec and I can do the same for Republicans....
IMO, that's major manipulation versus the onesie-twosie of moving out of state or being registered when you're not registered.
When you look at that level of manipulation, given the magnitude of Trump fabrications, conspiracies, fear mongering and lies, lies, lies ---- IMO he is out manipulating Hillary 100 to 1 weaving untruths to cater to an audience ready to be manipulated that America is not great, our military is broken, your government is HUGE, wasteful and totally corrupt, your police are hamstrung, you're taxed to death, your troubles in life are due to factories in China, Mexicans stealing your job, and we're coming for your guns if Hillary does not poison, strangle or shoot you first.
"your government is HUGE, wasteful and totally corrupt,"
It is. No matter who is in office.
And I don't see Trump changing the size or corruption of govt. But if he can actually get 2-3 things done that he says he's going to, that's the best anyone can do anymore. And if he's elected, a majority of the people WANT him to get those things done. Just like with Obama, and just like with Bush.
The bottom line is this: an awful lot of Americans don't like Hillary, either as a politician or as a person, and aren't happy with the last 8 years - don't want Obama 2.0. A majority? We're going to find out.
Ironic that the dems WANTED to run against Trump... thinking he would be easy to beat. Well, you know what they say... be careful what you wish for...
You just don't really get it, do you jr.
Both parties, when you including the "leanings" of independents are around 42-45% usually within four points or so of each other. Dems might be in the lead as of 2014, but who knows right now. Might be up to 40% independent in that number.
Point is, either party probably get 40% of the vote if they elect a turd which in this case the Republicans truly have. Now 40% may win you a number of states, in the case of the Republicans, down south and out west before the Rockies.
Obama beat Romney with 51% or 5m more votes. He beat McCain with 53% and 10M votes. Bush beat Kerry at 51% and 3m extra votes. He beat Gore with 48% of the vote and lost the popular vote by 5 Supreme Court Justices....no, lost it by .5M votes. The last "landslides were Reagan (second term), Nixon (second term and he cheated) and Johnson at 60% of the vote.
Even Kennedy only had 49% of the popular vote.
Do you get it now? That's American politics, especially current events. And every politician running for the office of President know this. Donald J. Trump is not a politician, he is a political idiot, abuser, and personal tyrant.
Cater towards your party's audience and you get 40% but attract a majority of that 30+% unaffiliated and maybe a few from the opposing party to win. Donald J. Trump focused on catering to the far right of his party. Those uncompromising vocal energetic, now a majority, folks who think the way he does. Or at least the way he's acting right now which is quite different than he acted a little bit ago --- problem number one. Now those people would have voted for a turd just as the same can be said for a core community within the Democrats. Beyond the candidates, beyond the rigging, the manipulation by the powerful, beyond the parties, that's who we are and what we believe, At it's core, it has been that way since the founding fathers --- two different core beliefs on the role of the Federal Government.
The goal is to get beyond your core believers and attract those outside the core. If you believe strongly is something else, the chance of turning others to that narrow a belief system is nil. That's the politics of it.
So what did Trump do? Doubled down on the core exciting them to no end. Accused, abused, and lied about those outside that group to the delight of the core and the dismay of those outside the core in and out of his party. Denied or amplified all of his portrayed faults. What did Hillary do? Pivoted at the convention to first attract those in the party outside her core (the Bernie's) by co-opting his platform and reached out to those outside the party where she could. Mitigated or deflected all of her portrayed faults. Yeah, she's a politician but the game is politics and to get the votes you must do the will of the people --- most of the time. That's politics.
And sans any late breaking news, the result could be expected. So yes, we couldn't ask for anything better than Trump although many of the candidates would have suffered the same fate. Unless you have some complete societal breakdown like in the economy, security, etc., good luck playing only to the vocal, energetic core alone. Numerically it's a tough go unless you get electorally lucky like Bush v. Gore. And Trump the political idiot just doesn't have the savvy or the ground game for that one.
The big question for the Republicans will be the future of what is now Trump's party. It's not bruised, it's broken, and since they knew what to do this election and failed miserably, there's a big question as to where they go from here.
But to be honest, I don't think Hillary has broken much of a sweat over this one. Perhaps a flash here and there but it might have been her stamina....... After all, Trump may be a bully but she's one nasty woman when there's a fight.
Today Trump announced that many, many of his employees have problems with ObamaCare.
Hey, Duck, you have thousands and thousands of employees. Why don't you offer them a healthcare package? Can't deal the deal with that one?
Wonder how many get the tax credits because he does not pay them enough.
Oh wait, someone who actually knows Dumald's business corrected him on stage telling him that he covers 95% of his employees.......Well, I guess he just misspoke because you can be damn sure he didn't talk to the 5%..........they're probably illegal.
Obama said this 8 years ago:
"Well, I tell you what -- it helps in Ohio that we've got Democrats in charge of the machines," Obama said during a September 2008 campaign stop to applause. "Um, but look, I come from Chicago, so I want to be honest, it's not as if it's just Republicans who have monkeyed around with elections. Sometimes Democrats have too. You know, whenever people are in power, you know, they have this tendency to try to tilt things in their direction."
So don't tell me there's no election corruption SD... Wake up...
On a local scale, there's a huge amount of corruption and voter fraud in the big cities and has been all the way back to Boss Tweed's Tammany Hall days if not all the way to the Roman Empire and Ancient Greece before that. And that's what that guy was talking about when he told how he was bussing people to different districts to vote several times. You can affect a local city council election in that manner, but not a national election like the President.
Obama won New York by 2,000,000 votes in 2012... that's a whole lotta buses, lol. And NJ was just as disparate... do you really think someone was trying to "steal" YOUR vote, Metsman? Illinois is the same way. So, regardless of how much voter fraud goes on in NYC and Chicago, it doesn't mean a thing for the Presidential race (not that I'm condoning it in any way, just looking at it as a practical matter, overall.)
Swing states are a whole different ballgame though. When a few thousand votes (or a few hundred in the case of Bush v. Gore) could potentially result in a 50 electoral vote swing, the utmost in scrutiny needs to be applied to keep things above board. Luckily, in those states the two parties do keep very close eyes on each other, typically.
Hey Metsman: It's just locker room talk. But glad to see you drinking that Obama kool aid when it fits your agenda. Finally you are a true believer. God Bless.
Think you missed the part where Obama invented the word rigged though, not Trump...
How come when Obama is being a little tongue in cheek and a little sarcastic, it's gospel to you but when Trump confesses his sins, it's just boy talk, guys joking around about abusing women like we all do, or at least you all? Even after those sinned upon come forward over and over you speak up that Trump was all braggadocio? And while you just can't believe him the first time, you believe him the second time when he tells you the first time wasn't true even though, uhhh what we at now.....I think 11 women out to 2006 have come out and disagreed with Trump the second time, but agreed with Trump the first time.
And gee; didn't I provide two examples of rigging the election....And big time rigging, not the chump change stuff talked about in voter fraud that no one can prove, especially on a Presidential level. That's the point, not enough, if any, voter fraud to rig the election.
Now as to a unified, organized, energized GLOBAL cabal of establishment democrats and republicans, rich people (except Trump), the press, bankers, wall street, Mexicans, Muslims, microphones, teleprompters, and pollsters all working in concert to defeat Trump, well I do believe that is true. Except for the working together in an organized fashion part.
Big time rigging so far this time around. Only it Trump's mind and words. Mostly he has rigged the election against himself shooting holes in both his feet.
Otherwise why would be adding "stay in my hotel" to his rally speech. Or launching a Russian quality Facebook live Trump TV Network channel.
That’s a load of crap that it doesn’t affect a national race. If a candidate wins a state by a few thousand votes or fewer like the 2000 Florida results, then you could easily manipulate the results. I would know if I registered or not. You don’t just automatically register. Same with my gf. So if they do that with enough people it could very well influence a race in states where in it close.
So, Metsman, is the issue reading comprehension or a short attention span? Go back and read my last paragraph again...
Sure, anything is a possibility. But the fact remains that many have looked and no massive fraud has been found. Darn global cabal must be quite good at covering its tracks. Makes it hard to believe that government officials were involved though.
Iman is correct that is far easier to a rig an election via voter fraud on a state, local basis. However, I will note that I believe the man on the tape was debunked. Another project Veritas edit job.
But what I find humorous is that many find deep seated, ugly, evil reasons for declaring the tape the reason for the Benghazi attacks and miss the glaringly obvious; that it safeguarded Obama's election. Now that's a rig job.
If this election is rigged, I believe you'll find it's the largest rig job in a long, long time. A virtual rig landslide. A bery good chance the rigging extends down ballet as well. If Garrett goes, you'll know how deep the conspiracy runs You ought to be able to find proof of that.
Or that you got suckered-Trumped.
Latest Wikileaks show just how corrupt the current administration is and how Hillary lied about the server.
Also shows Comey is corrupt.
(1) Obama lies and says he didn't know about Clinton server
(2) SAME DAY Mills tells podesta they need to "clean up" the e-mails between Obama and Clinton using her private server
(3) SAME DAY McCauliffe meets with McCabe and his wife, tells them wife should run for the STATE house. McCauliffe ends up giving half a million. For a STATE race, not US congress.
(4) Comey promotes McCabe to his #2 guy AND gives him oversight of the Clinton investigation. So now not only is the FBI director himself someone who has been favorable to the Clintons (he found no wrong doing with the Rich pardon. A move ALL of the Clinton's inner circle advised against because they knew it was wrong, including Podesta), but the #2 guy is also someone now in their pocket and he gets put in charge of the Clinton "investigation"
Joe, the mainstream media is influencing this election. If the networks covered things fairly like Fox does, Trump would be destroying her in the polls. I think it’s really sad that these corrupt organizations are more worried about lining their pockets than the long term future of this country. If you ask Strangerdanger he’ll say that isn’t the case, but then again he’s full of hot air. I’m boycotting networks like CNN. Guys like Van Jones I just want to punch in the face because it’s so obvious he’s on Hillary’s payroll…
Have you seen the stories out of Texas where voting machines (company linked to Soros) is changing votes to Clinton?
"The following report also surfaced in Arlington, Texas from a person who voted a straight republican tickets only to find just before submitting her ballot that her presidential choice had been switched to Clinton/Kaine. After reporting the error to polling officials, the voter was told that these errors "had been happening."
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-25/texas-rigged-first-reports-voting-machines-switching-votes-hillary-texas
Soros link:
http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/concern-grows-over-soros-linked-voting-machines/
The thing is, whether or not there is any actual conspiracy, this stinks to high heaven, and is exactly the kind of crap everyone is sick and tired of. Just another form of voter fraud... there have been ALOT of stories recently on it, and they all seem to lead back to the democrats. It's not for nothing that "the joke" is the democrats have an awful lot of "dead people" voting, for years now.
Metsman,I agree.The MSM is now like Pravda.
It's really a shame how the country is circling the drain.
America is turning into Europe.
"America is turning into Europe."
That's the plan- especially on the Democrat side.
So the very liberal leadership of Warren County fraudulently registered Metsman and his girlfriend so that they could it could manufacture votes for Obama. Is that why Obama won Warren County so decisively? Oh wait....he didn't. Seems more likely that if Metsman's vote was stolen, it went the other way. Then again, it's far more likely that he just forgot that he had registered previously.
Conservatives never forget. Never. They just imagine. A lot.
Today we funded protection for Trump's marketing event at his new hotel. Swell. Nothing like mixing politics with business.
Gadfly we know for a fact that we didn’t register till this year. I recommend others who just registered this year to look it up as well. Perhaps they used our votes in a congressional or senate election. Point is, I'm smart enough to know whether I registered or not.
https://voter.njsvrs.com/PublicAccess/servlet/com.saber.publicaccess.control.PublicAccessNavigationServlet?USERPROCESS=PublicSearch
You can just check a box when you renew your license.....see if you are registered here....facts...not bs please
Metsman, when did you move to your current residence? It's very easy to register to vote when changing your address with the DMV. So easy that you may have done it without realizing it.
http://www.state.nj.us/mvc/Licenses/VoterRegistration.htm
I'm impressed that you are so confident in whether or not you checked a box on your driver's license application 8 years ago. But you say that you are sure...... so, I guess you're saying that your think the Republicans who run Warren County are committing voter fraud?
Don't know what to tell you then... except that out of all the votes everywhere in the country, yours (and mine) is the one that the powers that be would LEAST worry about stealing.
We're in an overwhelmingly red district in an overwhelmingly blue state. Nobody cares about our vote; it just doesn't matter.
"Perhaps they used our votes in a congressional or senate election. Point is, I'm smart enough to know whether I registered or not." Uh, correct me if I am wrong but if you vote at the state level, aren't you registered?
when you go to vote you sign a register - you can see the previous times and dates you signed - I suggest you see if it looks like you - or if indeed there are any previous signatures under your name
Did a survey of 3 people here at work. None of them like either candidate. 2 are voting for Hillary because of the fear mongering campaign going on with the media. They think we’ll get nuked if he is elected. The other is leaning Trump because despite some of the stupid things Trump has said, he thinks Hillary and Bill have done far worse things than Trump is being accused of.
Well, after much soul searching over the extent to which I dislike both candidates, I finally made a decision based on probability.
Both candidates stand the chance of being impeached for one or many of their accumulated possible Illegal shenanigans or outrageous Presidential comments should they be elected.
There is no chance for a third party candidate to get elected. (Imo, faulty though it may be).
So I am voting based on the Vice Presidential candidate that I believe would best represent the United States if anything happened to the President, and that is, of course, Mike Pence.
Whew! I'm done! Time to tune into anything but the news now.
Well Pence is better than Trump but take a really good look at his record (in his home state he's about as popular as Christie is here) and some of his views are interesting to the say the least.
Voter fraud in the last ten plus years has been relatively non-existent although voter suppression especially of non-white voters has been on the rise. Good thing some of the courts have recently struck down some of the attempts by the Republicans.
Polls are tightening, libs are scared. They figured they could suppress trump votes with the rigged double digit leads going to Clinton. But as it it gets closer they have to start presenting the actual poll numbers. Otherwise the pollsters will be crucified next election and no one will believe them when trump wins. Anyone else have enough common sense to see what's happening?
Only one that's scared is Trump and extremist supporters with all of the whining but again that's not new for whiny Trump. Speaking of rigging boy those conservatives are still at it with trying to suppress voters and gerrymandering voting districts in their favor - easy to see what's been happening.
Michael Moore gets it, unlike many of you. I'm sure he doesn't LIKE it, but he GETS it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKeYbEOSqYc
"are still at it with trying to suppress voters and gerrymandering voting districts in their favor"
lol just another day in duopoly politics
Spring fever, I really like Pence too..I wish he were running for president. However, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think he'd have much influence as a VP.
Gadfly, this is just a suggestion, if you are serious about discussing your topic, you
might get more responses if you start a new thread. This thread is most likely going to dwindle out in a few more days... Your new topic could go on for ... well, Who knows how long. ; )
Spring, My post wasn't a new topic, it was a comment on the suitability of a candidate who was already being discussed. You like him, I don't. I was providing one of my many reasons.
That was a strange position from Michael Moore JR. I agree with his assessment, but coming from him it means there is some sort of ulterior motive. He's one of the biggest flaming libs out there, arrogant to the nines about it too, and he just happened to push all the right buttons for Trump supporters? No, there's something fishy about this, something weird.
Strange days these are.
It's called selective editing. They played the part of his show where he explained why Trump supporters existed; they left out the part where he said that a Trump presidency would be a high speed train wreck into a dumpster manufacturing facility. So, JR is right... Moore "gets it".
http://www.snopes.com/michael-moore-endorsed-donald-trump/
As I stated in my post: Moore doesn't LIKE the fact that Trump is going to win (or so he thinks), but he UNDERSTANDS WHY he is.
Moore is no Trump fan! I'm quite sure he's a Bernie fan. But not all Bernie fans are foolish or stupid enough to automatically switch to Hillary after the primary. He, like many, is not happy with his choices. But he understands why Trump is resonating with the American people. And it's absolutely no different than any candidate resonating with the electorate: Reagan did, Clinton did, Bush did, Obama did. Hillary... does not. She's just the best of a bad lot. Trump does have people voting for him because they see him as the lesser of 2 evils, but many more of his supporters are voting FOR him because he's resonating with them.
Who knows... maybe, just like Obama, he WON'T resonate after he's had 8 years to try his policies. Only time will tell.
Positive, even if Pence's only influence were to be a sounding board for Trump's narcissistic rants, he would be doing the country a great service. The way I see it, rather in private with Mike, than public to the world! Here's hoping he follows through with at least some of his campaigning promises, should he become President.
Bonv do you have statistical evidence to back your claim there's been no voter fraud in a decade? And if you're calling Trump voters extremists, then that just goes to show you're stuck up. That's the vibe I get from you every time you post. Keep your snooty comments to yourself.
Gadfly, I got your point last night. You and I both know where bringing in that particular topic would lead. And if you read any of my posts in the past, you already know the direction in which my my opinion would go, so there is no need for me to discuss evolution any further. But I am pretty sure there are others who would like to dive right in.
But for the record, I could vote for someone who believed in evolution IF the rest of their professed initiatives did not infringe on my rights as a citizen of the US. I would also pray for them a lot. Have a nice day.
Spring Fever,
I'm afraid that you are not correct. I did not expect to start an argument about evolution. Frankly, I don't think it's generally a controversial topic, not in this area at least. You have a nice day too.
"As I stated in my post: Moore doesn't LIKE the fact that Trump is going to win (or so he thinks), but he UNDERSTANDS WHY he is."
I think I get it now. That video, that portion from his speech, was a rallying call to the self-proclaimed do-gooders, aka anti-Trumpers, that if they don't get off their butts and vote that the world will end in a big, fiery mush of immorality brought on by Trump's egotistical personality emanating from the throne of power. Lol, he's definitely an a-hole, but he's an a-hole who would be checked by others in power should he win.
Besides, it's not like fear-mongering has ever been used to sway public opinion before, has it? ;-)
Who gives a crap about evolution.... Geez.... Evolution is not scientific fact it's a theory.
If you are a woman who wants to make your own decisions about many areas of your life, you might have a hard time supporting Pence.............
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/27/emails-show-close-clinton-allies-in-dark-shocked-over-insane-server-setup.html
Go home and make cookies for your grandkids Hillary.... You should be in jail...
The only reason Hillary wins this election because she has a vagina and most with a vagina will vote for her for that reason only.
Sad.Very sad.
Actually most will vote for her because she is mentally stable, competent, intelligent and understands the seriousness of the position. Sure there are flaws but nothing compared to the flaws off her competitor - his are off the charts.
"Actually most will vote for her because she is mentally stable, competent, intelligent and understands the seriousness of the position. Sure there are flaws but nothing compared to the flaws off her competitor - his are off the charts."
As are yours, apparently- if that's what you think of her.
And I'm not defending him- but to be SO blind as to her "flaws" is laughable.
What a surprise the GOP is promising more obstruction and investigations if (when) Hillary wins. Just like they promised to make Obama a do nothing president for eight years. So, so honorable of them eh? Nice to see them working for all Americans. At least they don't stab you in the back, they just spit right in your face.
I have to admit, Trump has lots of areas he needs to work on and yes they could be considered flaws, some might use stronger language for both candidates.
But there is a striking difference between the way his followers react to these "flaws" and the way Hillary followers react to her " flaws".
Republicans let Donald know their displeasure in no uncertain terms and call him out on it even those at the highest level of their party. Democrats go with the flow and cover up her flaws whenever and wherever possible, especially those at the highest level of the Party. ( For the record, I am an Independent.)
Actually Spring Fever that's not accurate. His supporters don't admit to any of his lies/misstatements/misdeeds/etc. They rationalize, deflect and attack but never call him out for anything. Some Republican politicians may say they do not agree with his statements but don't really call him out.
JR - I doubt anyone is blind to her flaws but the reality is that a lot of people refuse to believe the BS condemnation and lies that have been repeated time and time again.
You people are funny- certifiable. I actually think some of you are worse than strangerdanger.... he seems to be connected to reality, at least a little more than several of you...
Actually of anyone on this forum, I find Bonv to have some of the most rational and well thought out considerations of anyone.
If MSNBC is spending over ten minutes discussing how bad the latest email leak is for Hillary, you know it can't be good. But I'm sure her mind numb followers will find some excuse for her corrupt pay for play style of politics so they can justify their vote on the 8th.
It's tough for people to come to the conclusion that someone that they have been following and spellbound with for so long is just a scam artist...
For any highschool or college students out there reading this thread, please consider watching, listening to, and reading information from a variety of different party sources regarding this election. It is vitally important that you see the whole picture. To rely on only one party source is like walking around with blinders on. Our country's future is at stake.
Joe you may have a point. There is a chunk of women voters voting for her just because she is a woman just like there is a chunk of black voters who voted for Obama because he is black. It is sad. She should have been put on trial for what she has done. Every day more stuff comes out about her emails and people who support her just ignore it. I listen to Trump rallies every day on Facebook. He's way more sincere than her when it comes to this country. And he sounds way smarter than her when it comes to business dealings about the economy and healthcare.
Hell, there was a chunk of WHITE voters who voted for Obama just because he was black. But yeah, Kapernick- you keep kneeling....
You're right JR. You take away the idiots who just want to make history and Trump wins easily.
Metsman, I'm sure you're listening with the utmost impartial ear, too. Give me a break.
For every "chunk" of voters voting for Hillary because she's a woman, there are many more chunks NOT voting for her BECAUSE she's a woman. Same with Obama. What is your point?
But all the racists vote for Trump....
Only the "mind numb" vote for Hillary. I mean how can we NOT believe uncollaborated emails released by the Russians through a child-molesting pervert holed up in an Embassy. It's a rigged system, get strapped and down to your local polling place ASAP.
I mean even though there in no direct email implication to Hillary, even though it could all be boy talk, even though it's like a hot-mic for text, this stuff proves she's a scam artist. It's a rigged system, those inner city folks are cheaters willing to face a hailstorm of bullets, drug pushers every 10 feet, and the certain death of being on Mosul streets after dark to get that fake vote in.
But hey, when a guy admits to sexual abuse, and a dozen folks step up and say --- sure, it happened just like he said, well that's a different story.
- boy talk
- hot mic
- didn't mean it, meant only what he said last
- women are liars
- their friends are liars
- I will sue after being elected, it's the high road
- hey, bill had sex so what's a little abuse
- its not even sex (that one didn't work for Bill:>)
- she's too ugly to grope
- she's so cute she deserved it
Something's rigged all right.
Except Trump isn't going to win. And not because "people with vaginas are going to vote clinton". People with common sense are going to be voting for Clinton, because while far from perfect, she is much more capable, intelligent and stable presidential material than Trump. And if you have any money invested in the stock market, you should probably hope Trump doesn't win either. Markets LOVE stability and predictability, neither of which Trump even hints at. If he were to be elected, you'd see a huge collapse in stock prices as a direct result...billions upon billions of market share wiped out affecting institutional investors, anyone with a 401K, IRA, pension funds, and more.
Trump's NOT a criminal? You don't think rape, sexual assault, fraud and bribery are crimes? As far as I know, Hillary has never been convicted of anything either, so she's no more a "criminal" at this point than he is.
O heck Eperot, it elected and he goes forward with re-negotiating our debt (code words for "you gonna get less money back than we promised you China...."), you will witness the collapse of the entire US economy followed by the world. We talking economic zombie apocalypse time. Would make a stock market collapse look like a bad day. Would make The Great Recession look like a minor correction. Would exceed The Great Depression in death and despair.
Put it this way: once this idiot whispered it, he stopped and never again. Think about it. Donald Trump said something that he went mum on hours later. What kind of phone calls did he get to make that happen. Yeah, he got those calls. Calls that make Trump shut up.
That's the danger of this man. That he would even say it to begin with.
Actually Trump has been fined many times, settled many more times, so while no court convictions, plenty of fines and pay-offs.
ianimal do you have proof of those things? No. Hillary's leaked emails are enough to show she should have been indicted. Her foundation is a corrupt organization. Yeah she's real stable... She can't even stand on her own 2 feet without help...
Eperot give me a break. I think I’ll trust a billionaire who knows how to make money over a woman who somehow lost 6 billion bucks while secretary of state and has no clue where it went.
Today's wikileaks allegedly (which means it MUST be TRUE, right?) links Hillary with knowingly funding the Saudis to fund ISIL.
Oh, wait- my bad- allegations only "count" for the republicans. For the democrats, they're "lies". I keep forgetting the "rules."
JR, Democrats don't care about hacked emails unless they cast doubt on a Republican candidate. Sad
Trump is guilty of "....a number of bankruptcies (you do understand that it will be bad when he bankrupts America), he has left many an investor, contractor, and worker holding the bag while he takes massive write-off on their loss, he has settled for rental racism charges, for his foundation's improper pay-offs to the Florida AG for to drop his Trump U fraud case, his ex-wife recants after deposition declaration of Trump rape (nice divorce pay-off though), Trump plaza fined for keeping Blacks away from tables for Trump's mafia associates, settled with tenants over intimidation case, settled for paying undocumented workers substandard wages, fined for his casino buying 9 fancy cars for mafia buddies, fined for illegal lobbying against Indian casinos, fined for Dad buying millions in chips and then not redeeming them (floating Trump with operating cash with another Daddy bail-out), fined for buying stock for a hostile takeover, settled with swindled investors in Mexican condo deal (no wonder he hates Mexicans), and yes, there's more....."
So sure, no criminal guilty actions but plenty of fines for wrongdoing and even more settlements which may or may not been based on guilt or a nuisance pay-off -- or both.
And plenty of ongoing cases with civil liabilities for fraud, rape, and improper use of foundation funds.
Hillary --- none of the above except allegations. And the hacked emails don't touch her, just some of her staff and at this point, they are all allegations, no one has even proved what is said in email ---- happened. So sure, best case is she is tainted by all the emails, don't see worse case happening even if Trump elected to be Litigator in Chief.
"I think I’ll trust a billionaire who knows how to make money over a woman who somehow lost 6 billion bucks while secretary of state and has no clue where it went."
Careful, Metsman, your misogyny is showing.
The Clintons will take money from anyone that pays their minimum speaking engagement price...
You are worried about Trump bankrupting America, how about all the promises SHE is making to buy their votes. What about all those in her pocket and Bill's pocket? What he did regarding his business dealings, good or bad, were done while a private citizen, what she has/is doing has been as a politician. No, she is really really dirty. Of course, jmo
justwondering The polls continue to close.... as someone said above, at some point the pollsters have to start adjusting their numbers for REALITY, so they aren't made fools of on election day, and will be trusted in future elections...
Can you see Chelsea's husband doing this:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/donald-trump-jr-helps-woman-push-stalled-car/index.html
FBI re-opens Hillary email case:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/28/james-comey-fbi-director-reopens-clinton-email-inv/
iJay, what does that have to do with ANYTHING? Do you know Chelsea's husband? Why can't one candidate's kid do something nice without bringing up how you ASSUME the other candidate's kid's husband would not? It's so ridiculous, even for you.
Maybe Chelsea's husband helps little old ladies cross the street every afternoon, but doesn't need a photo op to go with it. Who honestly gives a crap?
iJay...first, why ask if Chelsea Clinton's husband would be doing that? Are you assuming he's a lout who wouldn't help out in a pinch? And who the hell cares? We aren't voting for Chelsea's Husband or Donald's son...what is your point?
We don't know what emails still may come.Could be just Comey/FBI trying to save some face.
You have to be very naive,stupid or a Hillary Homer to think this woman isn't corrupt.
Even though nothing will happen fast,this will cost her some Independent voters.
The whole Obama administration is corrupt.
Our wonderful hand picked,tow the line,perfect for the cause AG Lynch pleads the fifth to questions from Congress on the $1.7B ransom cash payment to Iran.
So true, ianimal! If Donald keeps acting like an
idiot I may change my mind yet again. Pence or no Pence! ;-)
Could be worse things than not knowing Aleppo... not caring about the Syrians, our soldiers, etc...
Gary Johnson 2016 - I Might Smoke a Little Weed But My Opponents Are Obviously Smoking Crack
He might have more success at the Presidency if he removes the "r" from his first name...
Weiner, Huma, Hillary..... tsk tsk tsk.......
Just when you think that guy is gone, they pull him back in!
more democrat voter fraud with the electronic machines... first in TX, now 5 counties in NC...
http://www.charlottestories.com/3-charlotte-area-counties-report-voting-machines-picking-wrong-candidates/
No information regarding anything incriminating. Have to wait and see. But with this and the Bundy decision I'm wondering how you conspiracy screamers spin this.
On a side note, all the more reason to believe Hillary doesn't like Wiener.
All of you who are interested in behind the scenes political shenanigans should catch up on ABC's SCANDAL.
Not sure which season voter fraud was in, but:
**********
In fictional Scandal, the election was rigged via the touchscreen electronic voting machines in Defiance, Ohio; we saw this earlier in the "Defiance" episode. Thursday night, in the flashback, viewers learned that the vote in three counties in Ohio - Defiance, Franklin and Summit - could cause Fitz to lose Ohio. In the real-life 2004 presidential election in Ohio, Franklin and Summit went to Kerry; Defiance went to Bush.
House of Cards is an equally interesting view of how crooked politics "might" be.
Trump is for entertainment purposes only . Hillary is the next president of the United States!!!
True yankeefan there's nothing to see yet and probably more of the same. If there's something substantive I plan on voting 3rd party because ultimately Trump is as unfit as they come. Fascinating that he is whining about the "rigged" system when there is an entire "entity/country/group" trying to influence the election in his favor with the leaks.
Saw this in Hackettstown today! Glad to see somebody gets it!!! Awesome! Right where she belongs!!
Bonv, don't jump off a ship that isn't sinking. All I can tell so far is that There are e- mails on Huma's laptop. Not surprising because Huma is Hillary's de facto chief of staff. The public so far has no idea what the e- mails represent. And likely with 11 days left we won't know until after the election. In this unbelievably disgraceful campaign, both sides, now Comey's motives are suspect. In the end, one of these two flawed people will be elected. So we get a racist, ill prepared sexual predator or a career politician that has made mistakes but has a depth of experience and command of the issues.
As President Obama has said, referring to different issues, "sometimes you just have to eat your peas".
Not jumping Yankeefan - seems like more of the same. Here's a good read: http://theconversation.com/in-a-post-truth-election-clicks-trump-facts-67274
Commenting is no longer available.