# US Election: 2016



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I suspect that America may have to endure, in its own more complex manner, what we did from 1993 - the electoral _destruction_ of the PC Party and the rise of Reform - until 2003 - the _union_ of the Canadian Alliance and PC Party into the Conservative Party of Canada.
> 
> My guess is that the *Real Republicans* will abandon the GOP and for a new party with socially moderate, fiscally conservative, resoundingly secular and inclusive values. The current GOP will wither and die on the vine because angry, white, poorly educated, Christian fundamentalist men are simply too small a base upon which to build or sustain a national party. The new party - let's call it the Reform Party, just for fun - will, eventually merge with the few Republicans that are left and, in the process, will drive out the "religious right" and other assorted fruitcakes.
> 
> I think this may take them the same full decade it took us and it, too, will require two leaders who are fed up with the Liberals' Democrats stranglehold on power.




The 2012 US Election thread had almost run its course and it is in the nature of 21st century US politics that the 2016 campaign is almost underway now. In this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, Jeffrey Simpson speculates on who might carry the Republican banner:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/dont-expect-republicans-to-move-to-the-centre/article5103229/
My *emphasis* added


> Don’t expect Republicans to move to the centre
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




Perhaps we can keep the nasty, partisan insults out of this thread. There are some useful icons you can add to your posts to aid understanding (and I, too often, forget to use them):  :irony:   :sarcasm:    :crystalball:

Ignore Mr Simpson's antipathy towards Republicans and the _right_, in general; take his ideas for what they are worth: the prognostications of a seasoned political observer.

As GAP opined in the 2012 thread, the Democrats will also have a problem selecting thier 2016 candidate: with their base, which has a strong left wing.


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Nov 2012)

I dont even want to think about an election before 2015. We will probably have a global economic meltdown well before then which should make for more interesting discussion.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I dont even want to think about an election before 2015. We will probably have a global economic meltdown well before then which should make for more interesting discussion.



:ditto:

In fact I'd prefer to not think about the 2016 election until about October 2016 ~ but I doubt the media, with its insatiable demand for 24/7 "news," will allow that.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Nov 2012)

The GOP needs to be renewed, very much like the Conservative movement in Canada was; here is a possible scenario for this to happen:

http://libertylawsite.org/2012/11/07/a-constitutional-moment-sometime/



> *A Constitutional Moment. Sometime?*
> by Michael S. Greve	/ 5 Comments
> 
> Filed Under: 2012 Presidential election, Constitutional Moments, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Nov 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> :ditto:
> 
> In fact I'd prefer to not think about the 2016 election until about October 2016 ~ but I doubt the media, with its insatiable demand for 24/7 "news," will allow that.



Nope.  
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2230160/Hillary-Clinton-THREE-times-popular-nearest-rival-Joe-Biden-Democrats-presidential-candidate-2016.html


----------



## cupper (9 Nov 2012)

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

Bad ERC! Bad Boy!


----------



## a_majoor (10 Nov 2012)

Maybe the GOP can take home a few lessons from us:

http://www.vancouversun.com/opinion/columnists/Barbara+Yaffe+Republicans+need+take+page+from+Stephen/7513603/story.html



> *Barbara Yaffe: Republicans need to take a page from Stephen Harper’s playbook*
> 
> The presidency was winnable for Mitt Romney. But he annoyed many women and failed to court the immigrant vote
> 
> ...



Perhaps the biggest problem is the block that votes for "Free Stuff" is large and growing (even in Canada, about 60% of the vote is split between the Social Democrat NDP, the transactional Liberal Party, the National Socialist BQ and the Greens [another Social Democrat party with a different client base]). Campaigning on a straight individual liberty ticket is astoundingly futile, look at the performance of the Libertarian parties in Canada and the US, or the Freedom Party in Ontario.

If arguments can be effectively re-framed (which is essentially what PM Harper's team has done), then the key leadership of many of these voting blocks will move over, and take a large number of voters with them (the "severely normal", who were described on one of the Canadian Politics threads as people who think about the election several months after it happens). I suspect this will be a far more involved process in the United States due to the two party system and the different nature (and internal mechanics) of party politics there, but it can be done.


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Nov 2012)

Immigrants are not going to vote for republicans.Reagan signed the first amnesty bill but the votes didnt follow. Look at the jewish vote. They vote democrat even when their man in the White House is openly anti-Israel. The biggest loser in this election was Israel.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Nov 2012)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Immigrants are not going to vote for republicans.Reagan signed the first amnesty bill but the votes didnt follow. Look at the jewish vote. They vote democrat even when their man in the White House is openly anti-Israel. The biggest loser in this election was Israel.




I agree that immigrants and Jews and other "groups" will not vote for the Republican Party you describe here:



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I suspect that Romney being a Mormon and a moderate may have been the reason he lost. The former would have been reason enough for southern Baptists.As for being a moderate against Obama I wouldnt think that would have been much of a problem. Onward to 2016. I do hope that the GOP learns a lesson by closing the primaries to Republicans only.



The very immoderate candidate you appear to want (e.g. Santorum this year) will lead that party into oblivion.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Nov 2012)

Mark Steyn lays out the issue in his usual brilliant way. Frankly, if we have reached the point where there are more voters who are willing to vote for "Free Stuff" than the ones who vote against, then the tipping point has been reached and the only end is calamity. Does anyone really believe the US will continue on with yearly trillion dollar deficits until 2016? 

History tells us that the most common result after that will be the apperance of "The Man on the White Horse". Styen does offer one small ray of hope, telling his readers to tend to their gardens of local governance. America, alone of the nations of the world, was built on the idea of small governmetn and local control, not big government dictating the size of soft drink you can order. This is a reprise of an idea first articulated in "Democracy in America"; that America is a nation of associations, so when the calamity happens, the people who can pull through by creating pockets of order might well be the members of the Rotary Club or congregation of local churches (and gangs of criminals are also examples of local associations that are well equipped to function in the absence of order).

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333116/edge-abyss-mark-steyn



> *The Edge of the Abyss*
> The default setting of American society is ever more liberal and statist.
> By Mark Steyn
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Nov 2012)

One of the interesting features in 2016 is going to be the lack of an incumbent.  Sympathetic media have successfully run interference for Obama's past for two elections.  Conversely, they've gone beyond parody seeking dirt on Republicans.  Romney was about the high watermark for scandal-free candidates; both parties will have to work hard to find respective candidates with as few skeletons as Romney.  The question is whether the Democratic apology machine is going to be as effective at throwing blocks for the Democratic candidate and attacks at the Republican candidate if their influence becomes increasingly confined to their own echo chamber.


----------



## Nemo888 (11 Nov 2012)

The reality TV gong show this time around was definitely second string bench warmers. I expect a real Republican candidate in 2016. Next election Dems won't get the cake walk they had this time against Magic Underwear Mitt with all the human warmth of an ATM machine. The Republicans better have learned that misogyny, racism and homophobia will kill you on election night. From just the misogyny alone they were 38 points behind Obama in the single woman demographic. 38 is unbelievable. STFU and never touch that issue again unless you want to be irrelevant. Women vote, as do minorities and gays.

Too bad Petraeus is out. Some are saying McChrystal. Powell blew it, but he would have been a good choice IMO. Bush doesn't have a chance in hell of winning after his brother destroyed the country. He'll play well to the base, but never get elected. Republicans need a winner next time.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Nov 2012)

Romney was a winner, but selected members of his party were stronger losers.

I think I understand what you mean by "misogyny, racism and homophobia" (in terms of who said what to antagonize voters) but each of those labels overstates the position and glib demonization generally halts meaningful discussion before it can begin.  Opposition to compulsory provision of contraceptive care in insurance packages is not misogyny.  The position that abortion is only wrong if the life at stake is human, but is always wrong if the life at stake is human, is entirely uncontroversial - it is the simplest and most logical ethical position.  A desire for controlled immigration is not racism.  An objection to SSM which is founded on the needs of children rather than the desires of adults (ultimately, the point of the contract is to bind fathers to children; and if government has not that interest, marriage should be purely a ceremony delegated to whoever cares to perform it) is not homophobia.

However, few of those distinctions are likely to make headway among voters when the "data-driven reality-based community" is quite happy to excrete the intellectual rigor to which it nominally claims to aspire and just makes statements equivalent to the apt "misogyny, racism and homophobia" summary.  When it's that easy to say and people want to believe it, it's hard for even a scandal-free candidate to overcome it.


----------



## RDBZ (12 Nov 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Mark Steyn lays out the issue in his usual brilliant way. Frankly, if we have reached the point where there are more voters who are willing to vote for "Free Stuff" than the ones who vote against, then the tipping point has been reached and the only end is calamity. Does anyone really believe the US will continue on with yearly trillion dollar deficits until 2016?
> 
> History tells us that the most common result after that will be the apperance of "The Man on the White Horse". Styen does offer one small ray of hope, telling his readers to tend to their gardens of local governance. America, alone of the nations of the world, was built on the idea of small governmetn and local control, not big government dictating the size of soft drink you can order. This is a reprise of an idea first articulated in "Democracy in America"; that America is a nation of associations, so when the calamity happens, the people who can pull through by creating pockets of order might well be the members of the Rotary Club or congregation of local churches (and gangs of criminals are also examples of local associations that are well equipped to function in the absence of order).
> 
> http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333116/edge-abyss-mark-steyn



I found this line a little unsettling...

"In other words, if America had compulsory voting as Australia does, the Republicans would lose every time. In Oz, there’s no turnout model, because everyone turns out. The turnout-model obsession is an implicit acknowledgment of an awkward truth — that, outside the voting booth, the default setting of American society is ever more liberal and statist."

With compulsory voting, we here in Aus still elect governments that aren't that dissimilar to the GOP (John Howard vs George Bush jnr), and look like electing to government an opposition party who's members could easily slip into a tea party campaign meeting totally unnoticed....


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Nov 2012)

I think the salient difference lies in the likelihood that one or the other camp will turn up to vote. In Aus everyone votes, so there's no voter imbalance for one party vis-a-vis the other from the turning up at the polls perspective. The Dems had an enormously effective get out the vote machine targeting key demographics in key seats. If everybody were mandated to vote then this advantage would disappear.


----------



## cupper (12 Nov 2012)

Here is some food for thought. Can the younger part of the GOP save it from itself, and break it out of the bubble / echo chamber / cocoon?

*The GOP's media cocoon*

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83704.html?hp=f1



> A long-simmering generational battle in the conservative movement is boiling over after last week’s shellacking, with younger operatives and ideologues going public with calls that Republicans break free from a political-media cocoon that has become intellectually suffocating and self-defeating.
> 
> GOP officials have chalked up their electoral thumping to everything from the country’s changing demographics to an ill-timed hurricane and failed voter turn-out system, but a cadre of Republicans under 50 believes the party’s problem is even more fundamental.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Nov 2012)

Compared to the average university campus, I doubt anyone else could be thought of as "cocooned".


----------



## CougarKing (23 Jun 2013)

Perhaps it was inevitable she would play the gender card as opposed to just coming out and saying "I WANT to be president"... :blotto: 

link



> *Hillary Clinton would like to see a woman U.S. president*
> 
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - *Hillary Clinton has fed speculation that she might run for the White House in 2016 by telling an audience in Canada that she would like to see a woman president in the United States in her lifetime.*
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (23 Jun 2013)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Perhaps it was inevitable she would play the gender card as opposed to just coming out and saying "I WANT to be president"... :blotto:
> 
> link



Or is she attempting to position herself as a Queen-maker?  Fewer prying eyes than if you are the candidate, and the potential to exercise power behind the scenes.


----------



## CougarKing (28 Aug 2013)

Defense News link



> *March to War in Syria Reveals Fissures Within GOP*
> 
> WASHINGTON — The Obama administration’s march to war in Syria is exposing anew fissures in the Republican Party, with its members splitting over whether the United States should intervene militarily.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Sep 2013)

War talk is probably more aimed at the mid terms than 2016:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/1/curl-obamas-2014-calculation-lets-have-war/print/



> *CURL: Obama’s 2014 calculation: Let’s have a war*
> 
> By Joseph Curl Sunday, September 1, 2013
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Sep 2013)

A look at some of the internal stresses that are working in the Democrat Party. The comment is quite interesting as well; with the party silently struggling between the Obama and Clinton wings, who is being groomed to move into the top ranks for 2016 and beyond?

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/09/21/hillary-losing-stings-for-bill/



> *How Much Does Hillary Losing to Obama in ’08 Still Sting for Bill?*
> 
> September 21st, 2013 - 1:44 pm
> 
> ...


and the comment: 


> Jon1979
> While the left side of the Democratic Party would love to spurn Hillary again in 2016, the Democratic Party's presidential playbook has been set in that the hierarchy plans to dig up a candidate from every one of the party's special interest groups then can find and (in their mind) run them in eight-year intervals through the middle of the century, while working with the media to endow each new face with the God-like powers they promoted for Obama in 2008.
> 
> The problem is while they would love to run a Latino, an Asian, an LGBTmember, or whatever other special interest group they can find or create, they haven't prepped anyone yet the way they did with Obama in the 2004 DNC convention (San Antonio Mayor Joaquin Castro was showcased at last year's DNC convention as a quick response to Ted Cruz's Texas Senate primary win, but both Castro and his twin brother -- who won election to one of the state's new House seats in 2012 -- are checkmated from advancing higher at the state level at least until 2018).
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Sep 2013)

If nothing else, this is a very creative way to sell an essential economic truth to the voters. Of course, once elected on a platform like this, you also have to "walk the walk", something neither party seems very good at:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2013/09/22/republicans-will-win-the-government-shutdown-pr-battle-if-they-promise-voters-private-jets/



> *Republicans Will Win The Government Shutdown PR Battle If They Promise Voters Private Jets*
> 
> Assuming a federal government shutdown come October, there’s a surefire way for the Republicans to win the ensuing war of words. Without a hint of hyperbole, they should promise voters a future of widespread private jet ownership.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (17 Oct 2013)

Here we go...seems Hillary Clinton just began campaigning again...

Yahoo News



> *Did Hillary Clinton tip her hand on 2016 presidential run?*
> By Jay Hart | Yahoo News – Tue, 15 Oct, 2013.
> 
> Hillary Clinton may have tipped her hand on Tuesday about her plans for a 2016 presidential run.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (18 Oct 2013)

Why polls are becoming even less reliable than usual: polling firms are radically manipulating the data. This isn't just the usual skewed questioning or oversampling/undersampling, which are generally subtle and sometimes difficult to detect. Polling firm PPP, in developing a poll for a "progressive" group, adjusted the racial composition of Georgia from 71% White voters in an August poll to 62% in the September poll.

Now if the group that comissioned the poll was looking to get a snapshot of what the electorate was thinking, they should sue for fraud. If, on the other hand, the desired result was to release poll numbers showing radical changes in voter intentions and support to embolden firends and demoralize enemies, then that is what they got. Since most news organizations, bloggers etc. do not look at or release the methodology (amd the vast majority of voters never ask), I would suspect the second reason was the real reason for these polls.

http://georgiatipsheet.com/2013/10/18/ppp-criticized-for-gaming-ga-poll-results/

(formatting issue: go to the link to read the article)


----------



## cupper (19 Oct 2013)

A poll just out by NBC / Esquire Magazine shows that Americans are moderate / centerist in their views.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/10/14/20960588-the-new-american-center-why-our-nation-isnt-as-divided-as-we-think

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/new-american-center-1113

55% of Americans fall in the center or moderate part of the spectrum, with 20% falling on the left, 25% falling on the right.

Therefore, the Tea Party policies don't represent the views of most Americans beyond their base, which is not sufficient to win control of the legislative branch or the White House. Same with progressives on the left end of the spectrum. In order to win, either party needs to win the center.

It seems that the Dems know this well, but the GOP still hasn't figured it out.

And if you don't believe that, look at the rhetoric that is starting to come out after the shutdown ended this week. The push to move on Immigration reform is flailing for traction within the GOP conservative caucus.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/raul-labrador-budget-immigration-reform-98404.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/marco-rubio-obamacare-2014-98457.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/laura-ingraham-debt-ceiling-amnesty-push-98392.html


----------



## Haletown (19 Oct 2013)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Here we go...seems Hillary Clinton just began campaigning again...
> 
> Yahoo News



Watch how she reacts to the ObamaCare rollout/impending GCF.  If it continues to tank and she throws it under t he bus, them more indication she is in.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (20 Oct 2013)

I was going to post this in the funnies thread, but thought may be posting here was better:


----------



## cupper (5 Nov 2013)

We have winners declared.

Chris Christy had a cake walk in his race which came as no surprise to anyone. Took 60% of the vote over his Democratic opponent.

But more to the point, FOX News and NBC are calling the Virginia race for Terry McAuliffe over Ken Cuccinelli in a very tight race. 47% to 46% with about 4% of the vote left to be reported.

And this is a definitive defeat of the extreme right social conservative policy. The GOP candicate for Lt. Governor is a hard right evangelical pastor with some extreme views on social issues. He lost in counties that went overwhelmingly for Cuccinelli. He even lost in Lynchburg City, home of Jerry Falwell's Liberty University.

The race for Attorney General is also close, and no call has been made as of yet. The GOP candidate is leading 51 to 49.

About the only real takeaway from this is:

A) Virginia is solidly a purple state, and depending on the ticket in 2016, it could go either way.

and

B) This was the GOP's election to lose, and they did because of the slate of candidates they put up.

My early prediction is Christy will be the GOP nominee in 2016, and Virginia will go for him over the Dem ticket.


----------



## cupper (5 Nov 2013)

More early analysis of the results from The Washington Post:

*6 takeaways from Election Night 2013*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/11/05/6-takeaways-from-election-night-2013/?hpid=z3



> ** Virginia isn’t for social conservatives. *Ken Cuccinelli beat McAuliffe among voters who said the economy was the most important issue and among those who named healthcare as the biggest priority.  But, among those who said abortion was their most important voting issue — roughly one in five voters — McAulliffe crushed Cuccinelli by something close to a two-to-one margin. (Worth noting: Virginia voters were given four options to choose as their most important issue, only one of which — abortion — involved a social issue.) Half of Virginia voters said that Cuccinelli’s position on issues was “too conservative”  while just more than one in three said he was “about right” on the issues. What those numbers tell us is that McAuliffe’s efforts — primarily through a blitz of campaign ads in northern Virginia — to paint Cuccinelli as a warrior for the social conservative movement worked . Even though “economy”  and “healthcare” voters sided with Cuccinelli, it wasn’t by anywhere close to a large enough margin to offset his losses among voters who prized social issues.
> 
> ** The Republicans’ un-married people problem:* Cuccinelli carried married men and married women by single digits. But, he lost among unmarried people by massive margins.  Unmarried men favored McAuliffe over Cuccinelli by almost two dozen points and unmarried women by more than forty.  The only solace Republicans can take — and it’s not much of one — is that Cuccinelli’s dreadful performance among unmarried voters was significantly worse than that of Mitt Romney in Virginia in the 2012 presidential election; Romney lost single men by 16 points and single women by 29. The lesson for Republicans is that while they don’t need to win unmarried voters, who are still heavily outnumbered by married ones, they can’t lose anywhere close to as badly as Cuccinelli did and hope to win a statewide election in Virginia.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (5 Nov 2013)

But the best thing about tonight's results:

*NO MORE POLITICAL ADS!!!!!!!!!*

at least for the next 6 months.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Nov 2013)

Since it is all about the money (and remember that in Organizational Theory, Politics is defined as a means of allocating scarce resources), this might further weaken the Administration as the House and Senate seek to preserve their own powers. (The Foundeers were geneii, after all). This has implications into the future, as the Legislative branch seeks to limit or undo the drift of power to the Executive branch. While it may not be a direct election issue, look for lots of undercurrents. Republicans, especially from the TEA Party movement may indeed latch onto Executive power as an issue:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2013/11/14/weakened-obamas-trade-initiatives-in-trouble/



> *Weakened Obama’s Trade Initiatives In Trouble*
> 
> President Obama is facing some stiff opposition from members of his own party over the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement currently being negotiated. Reuters:
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (15 Nov 2013)

;D



> *Former President George W. Bush to appear on 'Tonight Show'*
> 
> Former President George W. Bush will appear on "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" on Nov. 19, his first visit to the show since his 2010 book tour, NBC announced Tuesday.
> 
> ...



An even bigger picture for those who didn't see Baden Guy's graphic above:


----------



## a_majoor (16 Nov 2013)

One thing I have found very impressive about the President George W Bush is that he has never publicly spoken against the current administration on his many speaking engagements, even when offered the opportunity by eager (and supportive) hosts on various TV shows. Dr Rice has also shown equal restraint on the few appearances that I have seen as well.

Considering the verbal abuse he has been given by the legacy media and even the current President (blaming every bad thing that happens on the previous administration may be good politics for your base, but is essentially running away from your own responsibilities), this shows remarkable character and integrity.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Dec 2013)

This is going to be a huge issue in the mid terms, and possibly the killer issue in 2016 as well. The many other scandals of the Obama Administration (Bengazi, Fast and Furious, The IRS's harrassment of political groups, crony capitalism, inept foreign policy, massive overspending and debt increase, the GM bailout etc. ) have been ignored by the media, but getting your health insurance cancelled, being forced to leavce your existing healthcare network, seeing premiums double or more and (starting in Jan) getting their work healthcare cancelled isn't something that people will overlook, and certainly something that is impossible to hide:

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/12/12/potus-wins-lie-of-the-year/?singlepage=true

*POTUS Wins ‘Lie of the Year*’
December 12th, 2013 - 4:52 pm     

As spotted by Bryan Preston at the PJ Tatler, Politifact, the leftwing “fact” “checking” organization, awards Mr. Obama their “Lie of the Year” today for his repeated claims that “If you like your healthcare plan, you can keep your healthcare plan”:

“If you like your health care plan, you can keep it,” President Barack Obama said — many times — of his landmark new law.

But the promise was impossible to keep.

So this fall, as cancellation letters were going out to approximately 4 million Americans, the public realized Obama’s breezy assurances were wrong.

Boiling down the complicated health care law to a soundbite proved treacherous, even for its promoter-in-chief. Obama and his team made matters worse, suggesting they had been misunderstood all along. The stunning political uproar led to this: a rare presidential apology.

And a rare admission from Politifact that the president has been lying, since they’ve been working very hard at dissembling on his behalf since 2008, by smearing his critics on the right:

In 2009, [Politifact's Lie of the Year] was “death panels.” In 2010, the Affordable Care Act was a “government takeover of health care.” In 2011, the GOP supported a budget which would “end Medicare.” Finally, in 2012, the Politifact “Lie of the Year” was a claim by Mitt Romney that Chrysler had moved Jeep production to China.

Last month, Time-Warner-CNN-HBO’s Mark Halperin came clean on the death panels; “Chrysler moves closer to restarting Jeep production in China,” the Detroit Free Press reported in April of this past year.

As Alllahpundit writes today at Hot Air:

The fact that it took until 2013 for them to identify “if you like your plan” as a mammoth lie is proof that the media’s collectively either out of its depth in analyzing policy — even when scores of conservative policy experts were willing and able to help them identify problems with the law — or uninterested for political reasons in recognizing the law’s flaws until they’re so glaring that they can’t plausibly be ignored. This really is the Lie of the Year, and outfits like PolitiFact are entirely complicit in it.

And so is CNN, ABC, CBS, and the Washington Post. “Exit quotation via Guy Benson: “‘Keep your doctor. Period’ has to be the early favorite for 2014 ‘lie of the year,’ right?”,  Allahpundit adds.

The speed at which the coordination between the leftwing White House and its complicit palace guard in the MSM steamrollered the country played a huge role in the creation of this moment, which was made immediately clear to the nation once the cancellation notices started arriving in the mail (not to mention the occasional audit as well). Coupled with the right’s repeated warnings that Obamacare would be a disaster upon implementation, and the left plugging their ears as they moved forward constructing the Krell Machine.

In January of 2009, the left looked at the first Democrat presidential candidate to win over 50 percent of the vote since 1976, and internalized into groupthink the notion that as Newsweek (then-owned by the Washington Post) exclaimed, “We Are All Socialists Now,” and the country would remain that way for the next 40 years, as James Carville also boasted at the time.

But in the mid-1960s, at what the left viewed as a similar moment, after JFK’s assassination helped Lyndon Johnson to clock Barry Goldwater in 1964 by a 22 percent majority, LBJ was no amateur, as Bill Clinton reportedly dubbed Mr. Obama. In the past, broad sweeping bills that dramatically changed the warp and woof of the land didn’t make it to the floor of Congress unless they had bipartisan support, if only to provide cover if things went pear-shaped. As PJM’s Rick Moran wrote back in August at the American Thinker, even at the zenith of the Great Society, “There was a national consensus for Medicare in 1965, but LBJ still made a supreme effort to make the program a bi-partisan undertaking”: 

But at least one veteran of the launch of Medicare — Joseph Califano, one of LBJ’s top domestic aides at the time — isn’t too surprised with the fallout of the decision to move ahead on Obamacare without GOP support.

Even though LBJ had huge Democratic majorities in 1965, he insisted that “we have to shoot for half the Republican votes, because if we don’t, they’ll drive us crazy — they’ll kill us on appropriations, they’ll kill us with the Republican governors,” recalls Califano, now the founder and chairman emeritus of the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse at Columbia University. It was a different GOP back then, but LBJ still managed to win half of the House Republicans and nearly half of the Senate Republicans.

“I don’t know if Obama’s problem was the incalcitrance of the Republicans or his inexperience — probably both,” said Califano. But whatever the reason for the failure to get Republican buy-in, he said, “they’ve got a hell of a difficult couple of years ahead.”

“I won,” said Obama. The implication of that statement was that he didn’t need Republicans to govern. He has proven that time and time again over the years, refusing to compromise with those few Republicans who were willing to go along with some of his agenda.

Now he’s in trouble and he needs the GOP to have a successful roll out of Obamacare. Why on earth should they accommodate him? He insulted them, belittled them, called them crazy and extreme. What kind of arrogant person would expect the opposition to help after all that?

“Obama and the Democrats have sown the wind. Now let them reap the hurricane,” Rick presciently concluded back in late August, foreshadowing the horrors to come just a couple of months later.  And it really has been a storm of that magnitude, the speed of which has astonished the far left, both in DC and in the MSM.  “It used to be it took a decade or more for the results of bad social policy to manifest — which gave big government elites & their media allies plenty of time to put out plausible sounding excuses to paper over the failure and deflect any fallout onto others,” Brian Cates writes at his Draw and Strike blog. Not this time around:

The difference with ObamaCare is that Obama & his administration have gone about passing & implementing this disastrous new policy so quickly with such a high level of deception and such abject incompetence that there isn’t any gap in time of a few years in which to spin the increasingly evident bad results.

Never before have the progressives driving for social change gone for it with the speed – and the outright deceptions — that the Obama administration has. Which means the bad results are cropping up immediately and in a way that it’s impossible to paper them over or shift the blame onto others.

Those who tried to warn the country what ObamaCare would actually do had to endure almost 5 years of ridicule, mocking and name calling for trying to sound the alarm. They were called racists and far worse. And now it’s evident they were right all along.

Progressives have done more to destroy their carefully crafted illusion of competency with this ObamaCare trainwreck than the GOP establishment ever did.

Tech writer Bruce Webster adds that “I believe what we are witnessing will turn out to be the single largest and most catastrophic government policy failure in US history, as well as the most public IT failure in world history”:

I believe that over the next several weeks, the ‘cold equations’ of Obamacare as it actually exists and is currently implemented – as opposed to the magic thinking version on the Left — are going to lead to more and more unavoidable disasters — train wrecks, in the metaphor that Jim Geraghty has been using since before Healthcare.gov went live. Vastly more Americans will have both their bank accounts and their personal health damaged than those that will benefit under Obamacare.

This did not need to happen. There have been multiple points all the way back to 2009 when a different course could have been pursued, one founded in reality-based reasoning about math, software, and social change. Instead, we are witnessing the mother of all train wrecks. To paraphrase a famous passage from the Reagan Administration’s famous scathing report on the US educational system issued 30 years ago (A Nation at Risk, 1983):

If an unfriendly foreign power attempted to impose on America the disastrous health care system that is unfolding today, we might well view it as an act of war.

I fear the worse is yet to come.
[/quote]


----------



## Jed (13 Dec 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This is going to be a huge issue in the mid terms, and possibly the killer issue in 2016 as well. The many other scandals of the Obama Administration (Bengazi, Fast and Furious, The IRS's harrassment of political groups, crony capitalism, inept foreign policy, massive overspending and debt increase, the GM bailout etc. ) have been ignored by the media, but getting your health insurance cancelled, being forced to leavce your existing healthcare network, seeing premiums double or more and (starting in Jan) getting their work healthcare cancelled isn't something that people will overlook, and certainly something that is impossible to hide:
> 
> http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2013/12/12/potus-wins-lie-of-the-year/?singlepage=true
> 
> ...



You can take that to the bank.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jan 2014)

Even people notionally supportive of the Democrat party are getting fed up with the political class (and since the Dems took over the House and Senate in 2006, and the White House in 2008, it is increasingly clear that the economic, mdiplomatic and policy failures are no longer the legacy of the previous Administration....). While Blue Dog Democrats share similar interests to the TEA Party movement, I'm inclined to think the so called "Centerist Democrats" do not. While some sort of an alliance would probably be beneficial, the most probable end result will be a further fracturing of the American political landscape, with the old political class (Dem and Republican) fighting to maintain the status quo and their hold on the perques and power it gives them, while the new political movements build thier strength and try to make inroads. Look for much more movement at the municipal and State levels than the Federal level:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/01/could-2014-be-the-year-of-the-tea-party-democrat/



> *Could 2014 be the “Year of the Tea Party Democrat”?*
> 
> Posted by Leslie Eastman	    Saturday, January 4, 2014 at 3:56pm
> Democratic Party heads would explode if the rank and file went Tea Party in protest
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jan 2014)

Well, more proof (as if any is needed) that in America it's "Vote Early, Vote Often":

http://www.nationalreview.com/node/368234/print



> *Voter Fraud: We’ve Got Proof It’s Easy*
> Undercover agents were able to vote as dead people, but election officials are attacking the agents.
> By John Fund
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (23 Jan 2014)

It may be easy, but the instances of it actually happening are still rare, as in 40 voters out of 197 million votes cast between 2002 and 2005.

*Voter Fraud Is 'Rare,' Presidential Election Commission Finds*

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/voter-fraud-is-rare-presidential-election-commission



> Voter fraud is "rare" and mostly occurs by absentee ballot, concluded a report Wednesday by the Presidential Commission on Election Administration.
> 
> "Fraud is rare, but when it does occur, absentee ballots are often the method of choice," the report said, proposing expanded access to early voting as a measure to ease the sorts of long lines seen at the polls in the 2012 election.
> 
> ...



Link to the Commission's report:   http://www.scribd.com/doc/201461207/PCEA-Report


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jan 2014)

No cupper, what is rare is investigation, prosecution and conviction. Reread the article upthread and see how easy it is to commit voter fraud in a small sample of jurisdictions. Now multiply by the literally tens of thousands of jurisdictions and you see the true scale of the problem.

Voter fraud in the United States is a common occurance, and the fight against proper voter ID, "cleaning" electoral rolls and other measures to limit the ability to commit fraud can only be seen as machinization by the political class to enable manipulating elections for their benefit.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jan 2014)

While many people wish the TEA Party movement would vanish, it seems they are firmly entrenched and will be a huge factor in the mid terms and the 2016 Federal election. Perhaps more worrying for the Dems is how the TEA Party movement is growing in influence in their districts...

http://washingtonexaminer.com/report-tea-party-expands-influence-even-in-democratic-leaning-districts/article/2542648



> *Report: Tea Party expands influence even in Democratic-leaning districts*
> BY PAUL BEDARD | JANUARY 22, 2014 AT 11:12 AM
> TOPICS: WASHINGTON SECRETS TEA PARTY JOHN BOEHNER 2012 ELECTIONS 2014 ELECTIONS MITT ROMNEY HOUSE REPUBLICANS
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (9 Feb 2014)

How will the post Obama democrat party look? Some speculation here:

http://triblive.com/opinion/salena/5547613-74/democrats-race-seat#ixzz2sn5icujs&w



> *Pa. House race previews Dems' 2016*
> 
> About Salena ZitoPicture Salena Zito 412-320-7879
> Political Reporter
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2014)

And the fratricide within the Democrat party as the Clintons take their revenge will be entertaining to watch as well:

http://nypost.com/2014/02/09/clintons-keeping-revenge-list-of-enemy-dems-who-supported-obama/



> *Clintons still hate Obama-backing Democrats*
> By Michael GartlandFebruary 9, 2014 | 1:19am
> 
> Forgive and forget? Not Bill and Hillary.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (15 Feb 2014)

Discovery of an archive of "Hillary" documents, and the perhaps predictable reaction of the Legacy media. I suspect that there will far more "Samizdat" of this kind as the Legacy media surrenders its independence and objectivity in search of special favour from the ruling "elites":

http://freebeacon.com/the-golden-egg/



> *The Golden Egg*
> Column: The Hillary Papers and the Death of the Mainstream Media
> 
> Credit: The University of Arkansas LibraryCredit: The University of Arkansas Library
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Feb 2014)

The sort of vote rigging tactics that will be out in force for the 2016 elections. Video on link:

http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2014/02/19/new-okeefe-video-battleground-texas-violates-election-law-to-help-wendy-davis/



> New O’Keefe Video: Battleground Texas Violates Election Law to Help Wendy Davis
> Posted By J. Christian Adams On February 19, 2014 @ 6:22 am In Uncategorized | 30 Comments
> 
> James O’Keefe strikes again. He captures the community organizing group Battleground Texas breaking Texas election law.  The group registers voters as deputy registrars, illegally copies information from voter registration forms, and then cranks the illegal information into the Wendy Davis campaign for Texas governor.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Feb 2014)

Follow up on American election fraud. Look for more of this leaking out in the future. It should make you wonder if some version of this is going on here as well? Given the stakes of winning an election could include access to billions of dollars worth of resources (the City of London ON has an annual budget of close to a billion dollars a year, and it is an unremarkable, medium sized city. Potential fraudsters getting a fraction of that would have access to more than the bank robbers in the movie "Heat"), this should be of concern to everyone:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/02/21/battleground-texas-the-texas-media-and-wendys-choice/?print=1



> *Battleground Texas, the Texas Media, and Wendy’s Choice*
> Posted By Bryan Preston On February 21, 2014 @ 2:29 pm In Politics | 21 Comments
> 
> James O’Keefe and his Project Veritas captured Battleground Texas organizer Jennifer Langoria admitting that the group uses its voter registration drives as data-mining operations for their political operations. Whatever one thinks of Project Veritas, it did not put words into Battleground Texas’ mouth.
> ...


----------



## cupper (24 Feb 2014)

To say that this is a case of election fraud is a gross distortion of the facts at hand.

Yes it is a violation of Texas Election laws, much in the same way that handing out campaign literature within a specified exclusion zone around a polling place violates election law.

But neither case is an example of fraudulent activity on the part of either the voter or the campaign worker.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Feb 2014)

I think it's something in the middle.

It's not really fraud because they are clear in who they support. It is dishonest in that they link voter turnout to the number of times they call folks. Clearly they would make no secret of who they are on the subsequent contacts, thereby increasing the votes for their side. An activity that violates the spirit of the law. On the other hand it is illegal by the letter of Texas law.

In any event, I would be interested in the outcome of any judicial finding...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Feb 2014)

This could go several ways. The documents could be leaked or released by "interested" parties determined to destroy the Clinton's. This could even include supporters of Obama (remember the Chretien/Martin split?) or other factions in the Democrat party determined to stop Hillary, as well as various factions in the Republican party. Stonewalling the documents might also be counterproductive. Even if the Legacy media fails to investigate or follow up, a gradually rising chorus of "what are they hiding?" could eventually swallow any messaging the Clinton's or the Democrats try to present.

http://freebeacon.com/politicos-mike-allen-thousands-of-docs-being-withheld-at-clinton-library/



> *Politico’s Mike Allen: Thousands of Docs Being Withheld at Clinton Library*
> 
> BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
> February 26, 2014 8:13 am
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Feb 2014)

In addition to electoral fraud, expect to see more activity by politicized government organs like the IRS. Here is the chronology of how the IRS was unleashed on conservative (only) political groups, possibly tipping the 2012 election since political activists for one side were supressed:

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303426304579401513939340666?mg=reno64-wsj



> *Bradley A. Smith: Connecting the Dots in the IRS Scandal*
> 
> The 'smoking gun' in the targeting of conservative groups has been hiding in plain sight.
> By
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (15 Mar 2014)

More Vote Early. Vote Often news:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/03/florida_tv_station_documents_ineligible_voters_as_doj_sues_to_prevent_state_from_purging_rolls_.html#.UyHEj024YHI.facebook



> *Florida TV station documents ineligible voters as DoJ sues to prevent state from purging rolls*
> 
> Thomas Lifson
> 
> ...



The key for people like Cupper who are in denial about US voter fraud is in the headline; since the rewards for voter fraud (access to billions of taxpayer dollars) are so great, the perverse incentive is to institutionalize this and prevent the cleanup of voter rolls. Better administration will also help

And a bonus:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/mummified-mich-woman-voted-death-records-article-1.1718254



> *Mummified Michigan woman seemingly voted in the afterlife, records show *
> 
> Voting records show that Pia Farrenkopf, believed to have died in 2008, voted in Michigan's November 2010 gubernatorial election. The vote may have been an administrative error — or something far more troubling.
> By Michael Walsh  / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Mar 2014)

Anyone _still_ want to say voter fraud isn't an ongoing problem? Consider how this admitted fraudster is being treated, and you see where the problem really lies:

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/03/22/No-Justice-Department-Charges-Against-Ohio-Woman-Who-Voted-Six-Times-for-Obama



> *NO JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CHARGES AGAINST OHIO WOMAN WHO VOTED SIX TIMES FOR OBAMA*
> 
> by J. CHRISTIAN ADAMS  23 Mar 2014 202 POST A COMMENT
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Apr 2014)

Anyone _still_ wanting to claim vote fraud is rare needs to explain this away (saying "but George W Bush" does not count as an argument for or against). Of course as a moral issue, this is wrong even if only one instance was uncovered, much less 155,000...:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/04/02/massive-voter-fraud-discovered-in-north-carolinas-2012-election/?print=1



> *Massive Voter Fraud Discovered in North Carolina’s 2012 Election*
> Posted By Bryan Preston On April 2, 2014 @ 12:14 pm In Politics | 74 Comments
> 
> The North Carolina State Board of Elections has found thousands of instances of voter fraud in the state, thanks to a 28-state crosscheck of voter rolls. Initial findings suggest widespread election fraud.
> ...



Aside from the fact that a fraudulent vote cancels out someone's legal vote, we should also consider that government officials have access to or control literally billions of dollars of resources, and can affect the activities of people on a daily basis. I think that as s procedural matter, if nothing else, you should know that the person you are dealing with is _actually_ represents the voters and constituents of their district, rather than being the creation of fraud and most likely a puppet for someone or something else, with an agenda unknown to you. 

Doubly so for us, since as Canadians who may possibly be doing business deals or work in the United States, we need transparency to do our own due diligence before putting down our hard earned money.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Apr 2014)

Further evidence that the US is in serious trouble, as _government departments_ and _bureaucrats_ work to suppress the vote and political speech. The 2014 and 2016 election contests will be very interesting as these fights go on in the shadows, raising the question are the people running and sitting in office representing the "people" or something else?

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2014/04/16/the-terrifying-implications-of-the-irs-abuse-doj-connection/?singlepage=true



> *The Terrifying Implications of the IRS Abuse-DOJ Connection*
> 
> by
> BRYAN PRESTON
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jun 2014)

Hilarious if true. The dysfunctionality of US politics may have seeped into the Democrat party as well:

http://nypost.com/2014/06/21/inside-the-jealous-feud-between-the-obamas-and-hildebeest-clintons/



> *Inside the jealous feud between the Obamas and ‘Hildebeest’ Clintons*
> 
> By Edward Klein
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (29 Jul 2014)

Perhaps she should have a comedy segment and hire Tina Fey just to preempt the inevitable mockery that will ensue from the MSM??  ;D

 ;D

CNN



> *Sarah Palin to launch her own online news channel*
> 
> (CNN) -- Sarah Palin is again going rogue -- this time to the digital world, with the creation of her own online news channel.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (30 Jul 2014)

I wonder if Rupert Murdoch & Fox News will sue for the cost of building a TV studio next door to her home with the scenic view of Russia?


----------



## cupper (27 Aug 2014)

It's like deja vu all over again.

*Mitt Romney: 'Circumstances can change'*

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/mitt-romney-circumstances-can-change-110368.html?hp=r2



> Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has repeatedly said he is not planning to run for president in 2016 but acknowledged Tuesday that “circumstances can change.”
> 
> “Circumstances can change, but I’m just not going to let my head go there,” Romney said during an interview on the nationally syndicated radio program “The Hugh Hewitt Show.”
> 
> ...




*Poll: Romney breaks away in Iowa*

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/08/mitt-romney-2016-election-iowa-poll-110392.html?hp=r1



> The day after Mitt Romney opened the door to another possible presidential run, a new poll shows he has a huge lead among likely 2016 Iowa Republican caucus voters.
> 
> According to a USA Today/Suffolk University poll released Wednesday, 35 percent of likely GOP caucus voters would vote for the 2012 GOP nominee in 2016. When Romney’s name was added to the pool, no other candidate received double-digit votes.
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Aug 2014)

Cupper your bias shows.I have no idea who will gain traction with the public - if anyone.Romney was a poor candidate last time and would be again.Obama cant run so who on the dem side can beat Hillary ? Would Biden run ? Personally I would like to see a true conservative,but we are too far out.Maybe in a year the chrystal ball will clear up.


----------



## cupper (28 Aug 2014)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Cupper your bias shows.I have no idea who will gain traction with the public - if anyone.Romney was a poor candidate last time and would be again.Obama cant run so who on the dem side can beat Hillary ? Would Biden run ? Personally I would like to see a true conservative,but we are too far out.Maybe in a year the chrystal ball will clear up.



I agree with you on pretty much all of your points.

Romney was a poor candidate with an even worse campaign team. It was his to lose and he didn't disappoint.

I'd like to see a centrist candidate or even a slightly right of center candidate from either party. (Although this would be the equivalent of the bat-poop crazy right fringe of Canadian politics  >) Clinton has a sherpa's load of baggage to carry, some real, some imagined. But she appears to be the anointed one.

Smartest thing the GOP could do is avoid the clown show that they put everyone through last time, not run against the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and come up with a sound, coherent platform with meaningful policy proposals.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Aug 2014)

cupper said:
			
		

> Smartest thing the GOP could do is avoid the clown show that they put everyone through last time, not run against the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and come up with a sound, coherent platform with meaningful policy proposals.



They did; look up the "Romney was psychic" meme on the Internet. Of course the PCPO also had a well thought out and coherent platform as well (and we may actually get it implemented as the current Liberal government wakes up to the reality of a credit downgrade), but voters bought the fear mongering instead, and look what that got them in the US and Ontario.


----------



## CougarKing (26 Sep 2014)

For those unaware, ex-Senator James Webb is a former US Secretary of the Navy, and a Vietnam veteran. His acclaimed novel "Fields of Fire" is considered by many as required reading in US Marine OCS/TBS because of its vivid descriptions of life and combat within a USMC infantry platoon during the Vietnam War.



> *Webb 'seriously looking' at 2016 bid*
> 
> Kelly Cohen
> September 23, 2014
> ...



Washington Examiner


----------



## cupper (26 Sep 2014)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> For those unaware, ex-Senator James Webb is a former US Secretary of the Navy, and a Vietnam veteran. His acclaimed novel "Fields of Fire" is considered by many as required reading in US Marine OCS/TBS because of its vivid descriptions of life and combat within a USMC infantry platoon during the Vietnam War.
> 
> Washington Examiner



I would love to see Webb run and take the Democratic nomination. But Webb is way too conservative for the progressives in the party and not likely to dethrone the Queen designate.


----------



## GnyHwy (3 Oct 2014)

Study suggests we aren't smart enough for democracy, and I tend to believe it!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/why-our-brains-aren-t-built-for-democracy-1.2784220


----------



## CougarKing (7 Oct 2014)

For those unaware, he's a state governor of Indian/South Asian descent and reportedly another GOP favourite who is mulling a presidential run...

Reuters



> *Possible Republican 2016 contender Jindal stakes out hawkish tone*
> BY JEFF MASON
> WASHINGTON Mon Oct 6, 2014 5:08pm EDT
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (1 Nov 2014)

Not sure what to think of this...

Business Insider



> *Conservatives Are Already Freaking Out About Jeb Bush's Possible Run For President*
> Business Insider
> By Brett LoGiurato | Business Insider – 6 hours ago
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Nov 2014)

So apparently he has a decent shot at the top job.  Which would mean that he has backers that like him and his family and, apparently, a solid cadre of people that are likely to vote for him - probably due to a consideration of Jeb and the Bushes versus the alternatives.

If he didn't have a shot why would anybody be bothered?

Any village idiot can run for office.  Most are not considered threats.  Although some actually do defy the odds and get elected.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Nov 2014)

More internal stresses in the Democrat party, from Instapundit:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/198882



> SO WHY ALL THE FERGUSON HOOPLA? Last time the Dems and Sharpton made a big deal of a shooting, it was the Trayvon Martin case, hyped to keep up black turnout for 2012. But now there’s not an election. So why Ferguson, and why now? Polling indicates that most people aren’t all that sympathetic, and protests that tie up Interstates, etc. aren’t going to attract swing voters.
> 
> But it’s not about swing voters. It’s about the base. And it’s not about the Democratic Party’s base, but about certain leaders’ base within the Democratic Party. This may be best understood as an intra-party struggle. Obama is the champion of the urban-black wing of the party, and because of him that wing has been on top. But his star is fading, black voters are beginning to realize that they haven’t benefited economically, and the next Dem nominee — whether it’s Hillary Clinton, Jim Webb, or Elizabeth Warren — will be from the white gentry-liberal wing of the Democratic Party. The riots, the marches, the traffic-blocking are a way of telling them that the Sharpton wing is still a force to be reckoned with, and to improve its bargaining power between now and 2016. At least, that’s the only way this — not at all spontaneous — street theater makes sense.


----------



## CougarKing (26 Nov 2014)

Romney again? But then again Nixon did run more than once and lost at least once before becoming president later.

Reuters



> *Romney tops Republican poll for '16; ahead of Clinton in election*
> 
> (Reuters) - Mitt Romney, the Republican Party's unsuccessful presidential nominee in 2012, leads the field for the 2016 election among Republican voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released on Wednesday.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (26 Nov 2014)

There are just too many rumblings down here about the possibility of Romney making another run at the White House to discount an announcement within the next few months.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2014)

One of the issues that won't be on the table is the large and growing underclass. Here is a review of a book about how some of the 47% really live:

http://reason.com/archives/2014/11/30/the-ghetto-archipelago



> *The Ghetto Archipelago*
> Life in an inner-city police state
> J.D. Tuccille from the December 2014 issue
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (5 Jan 2015)

Meanwhile in the US Congress...dissent among the GOP ranks calling for House Speaker Boehner's ousting. A party that seems to be as divided as ever with 2016 just around the corner.

CNN



> *Conservative call for Boehner coup grows louder*
> 
> Washington (CNN)Conservative momentum to oust John Boehner from House leadership during Tuesday's election for speaker continued to build through the weekend, with two alternatives emerging and a national conservative group joining the effort.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (9 Jan 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> There are just too many rumblings down here about the possibility of Romney making another run at the White House to discount an announcement within the next few months.



The rumblings just got considerably louder:

*Romney tells donors he is considering 2016 campaign*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2015/01/09/romney-tells-donors-he-is-considering-2016-campaign/?hpid=z3



> Mitt Romney, the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, told Republican donors in New York on Friday that he is seriously considering a third presidential campaign in 2016, according to a source present at the meeting.
> 
> Spencer Zwick, Romney’s former national finance co-chairman who was at the New York meeting, confirmed that Romney is weighing a 2016 run.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (13 Jan 2015)

He ain't just thinking about it. Let's hope he picks some new pollsters though. His last group were crap with numbers.

*Romney moves to reassemble campaign team for ‘almost certain’ 2016 bid*

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/romney-moves-to-reassemble-campaign-apparatus-for-2016/2015/01/12/d968592e-9a88-11e4-96cc-e858eba91ced_story.html



> Mitt Romney is moving quickly to reassemble his national political network, calling former aides, donors and other supporters over the weekend and on Monday in a concerted push to signal his seriousness about possibly launching a 2016 presidential campaign.
> 
> Romney’s message, as he told one senior Republican, was that he “almost certainly will” make what would be his third bid for the White House. His aggressive outreach came as Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) — Romney’s 2012 vice presidential running mate and the newly installed chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee — announced Monday that he would not seek the presidency in 2016.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jan 2015)

I'm rather sad Paul Ryan has essentially said no to a 2016 run. Young, articulate and certainly representing a new generation of politicians, rather than a retread (the idea of a Jeb vs Hillary "Family Feud" episode is horrifying to contemplate).


----------



## cupper (15 Jan 2015)

I see this ending in one of two ways:

1) Mitt quietly fades back into the smokey back rooms after a long discussion with GOP politicheskoe byuro about why he won't win a general election this time around

2) Mitt goes into the GOP clown show and runs maybe a moderately distant second to a "Fresh" "New" nominee.


*Mitt Romney backlash intensifies*
Conservatives argue he has too much baggage and the GOP needs a fresh face.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/mitt-romney-backlash-2016-elections-114275.html?hp=t1_r



> A Republican backlash against Mitt Romney that had been simmering for days boiled over on Wednesday as conservatives across the GOP spectrum panned the prospect of another presidential bid by the former Massachusetts governor and two-time loser on the national stage.
> 
> Leading the anti-Romney charge was the voice of the GOP establishment wing, the Wall Street Journal editorial page. “The question the former Massachusetts Governor will have to answer,” the newspaper wrote, “is why he would be a better candidate than he was in 2012. … The answer is not obvious.”
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (25 Jan 2015)

A retread and Dubya's younger brother...

Anyone wanna guess whether it'll be a Romney-Jeb Bush ticket or a Jeb Bush-Romney ticket?

NY Times



> Wednesday, January 21, 2015 11:15 PM EST
> 
> *Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush to Meet, Raising Speculation on Presidential Race *
> 
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (25 Jan 2015)

Oddly enough, this story has't seen much mainstream media traction.  Perhaps the Democrats are saving it...

GOP Fundraiser Michael Centanni Pleads Guilty to Child Pornography


----------



## cupper (26 Jan 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> A retread and Dubya's younger brother...
> 
> Anyone wanna guess whether it'll be a Romney-Jeb Bush ticket or a Jeb Bush-Romney ticket?
> 
> NY Times



I wanna see a Palin - Cruz ticket. Can you say all your right wing dreams come true. No more IRS, No more Taxes, No more newspapers or Magazines, Canada will be annexed, Everyone without a job will now be put to work building more pipelines, No more worries.  ;D


----------



## CougarKing (1 Feb 2015)

Guess he doesn't want to be known as a retread...

Washington Post



> *Mitt Romney bows out of GOP presidential race over potential for political injury*
> 
> Mitt Romney’s exploration of a third presidential campaign ended Friday after three tumultuous weeks of deliberations that led him to conclude that, while he might emerge with the Republican nomination again in 2016, he might be so badly wounded in the process that he would have trouble defeating Hillary Rodham Clinton in a general election.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (1 Feb 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> I see this ending in one of two ways:
> 
> 1) Mitt quietly fades back into the smokey back rooms after a long discussion with GOP politicheskoe byuro about why he won't win a general election this time around
> 
> 2) Mitt goes into the GOP clown show and runs maybe a moderately distant second to a "Fresh" "New" nominee.



Seems that Mitt took the first option, and perhaps may have been the best for both him and the party.

Not necessarily the best outcome for Jeb Bush however, as he will now be fully in the crosshairs of the far right, rather than having Romney drawing away some of the fire.

And it's somewhat telling how bad the split in the GOP is, when a hard conservative like Bush is being criticized by the right as being too soft because of his stance on immigration and Common Core.

But if he does make it through the clown show, he will have a big issue to address in the general election.

*Jeb ‘Put Me Through Hell’*

Michael Schiavo knows as well as anyone what Jeb Bush can do with executive power. He thinks you ought to know too.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/01/jeb-bush-terri-schiavo-114730.html#.VM7yC0uRtM8



> —Sitting recently on his brick back patio here, Michael Schiavo called Jeb Bush a vindictive, untrustworthy coward.
> For years, the self-described “average Joe” felt harassed, targeted and tormented by the most important person in the state.
> “It was a living hell,” he said, “and I blame him.”
> 
> ...



More at link.

Essentially Bush overstepped his authority under Florida's Constitution, and attempted to overrule court decisions at all levels which allowed the removal of Terry Schiavo's feeding tubes.

Would Bush do something similar as president? It's possible, but Gubernatorial prerogatives are different from those of President, and it would be difficult for him to ignore advice from his staff and councils. Especially when it could effect chances of reelection.


----------



## CougarKing (3 Feb 2015)

A new favourite emerges from key GOP circles:

Glenn Beck blog



> *Scott Walker is the runaway frontrunner in Drudge Report poll for GOP nominee*
> 
> The campaign for 2016 has started to heat up, with many politicians starting to make moves signifying their interest or disinterest in taking the GOP nomination. Lots of focus over the past few weeks has been on Jeb Bush, but is that who conservatives really want to see in office? According to a new poll by The Drudge Report, the answer would be a resounding “NO”.
> 
> ...



Though at least one source disagrees:

Forbes



> *Rand Paul Leads the GOP Pack for 2016 -- And Not By a Little*
> 
> A new Zogby Analytics poll of likely Republican primary voters in 2016 shows Rand Paul starting to build a lead over better known – and more establishment – GOP figures. The poll of 282 likely and eligible voters in GOP presidential primaries was conducted June 27-29 and has a margin-of-sampling error of +/-6 percentage points.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (3 Feb 2015)

Apparently the GOP talking point du jour is Vaccinations - We Love 'em!

*GOP 2016ers: We love vaccines!*
As Rand Paul causes a stir, his potential presidential rivals praise vaccinations.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/republicans-2016-vaccines-114890.html?hp=t1_r



> A slew of Republicans eyeing the White House rushed to praise the virtues of vaccination on Tuesday — distancing themselves from Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who had appeared to question their safety as health officials across the country move to contain an outbreak of measles.
> 
> It was yet another case where Paul, an ophthalmologist by training who insisted Tuesday that he’d been misunderstood, has found himself isolated on a subject within the likely GOP presidential field. But it also showed that vaccines, like a number of other scientific issues, could prove a delicate topic for Republicans who must cater to a conservative base that is suspicious of anything that smacks of a government demand.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2015)

This more or less confirms my suspicions that revalations about Benghazi, the use of "private" email accounts to conduct government business, foreign donations to the Clinton foundation during her tenure as SecState, lack of visible accomplishments as SecState etc. etc. is simply not going to stop or even slow down the Clinton Machine. (Some of Bill's contacts and conduct durig this time period are also rather questionable, and of course looking at things like their speaking fees makes them come across as grasping, venal people)

http://pjmedia.com/eddriscoll/2015/03/04/clinton-political-machine/?print=1



> *Tammany Hall Redux: The Clinton Political Machine*
> Posted By Ed Driscoll On March 4, 2015 @ 2:27 pm In Liberal Fascism,The Making of the President | 3 Comments
> 
> “I would argue, the Clinton operation counts as a machine — not just as a metaphor or allegory, but as a bona fide, contemporary update of the old 19th-century operation,” Jay Cost writes at the Weekly Standard:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (15 Mar 2015)

Americans are looking at the state of the world, and this might make the "narrative" far less attractive for putative candidate HR Clinton. After all, she was the Secretary of State for much of the period in question, and so issues like Russia, China and ISIS can and should be laid at her feet:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/war-gains-popular-support-patents-and-other-matters/



> *War Gains Popular Support; Patents; and other matters.*
> By Jerry Pournelle | Mar 11, 2015 - 10:20 pm | Updated: March 11, 2015 - 10:20 pm | View
> FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
> Chaos Manor View, Wednesday, March 11, 2015
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (17 Mar 2015)

Although maybe not as much in play during a national election, lots of local elections may ride on this issue. It could become national as well if there is a call for the Federal Government to "do something" about the estimated $2-4 _trillion_ in unfunded pension and benefit liabilities for "Blue State" government employees.

The hard alternatives don't even end with the outcomes this articel talks about. Current and future pensioners might be forced to take massive "haircuts" as the pension funds run out of money and city and State governments need to declare bankruptcy (like Detroit or innumerable Califirnia cities, pensioners maybe only getting 40 cents on the dollar, if they are lucky), or worse yet, end up with nothing at all as the funds go bankrupt.

And before *we* start getting puffed up about how well we are doing, Canada has a $500 billion + unfunded liability of its own for Federal pensions owed to civil servants, the RCMP and the CF, and there is no clear understanding of if or how much of a similar situation exists for the various provinces and municipalities:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/03/17/a-nasty-end-to-the-blue-model/



> *A Nasty End to the Blue Model*
> 
> The pension crisis has become a major threat to public safety. The WSJ profiles serious trouble brewing in Memphis, where state efforts to manage the pension problem has prompted police officers and firefighters to skip work—or quit altogether. Memphis has decided to phase out defined benefit plans and move to a 401k system, and employees aren’t happy:
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (22 Mar 2015)

How can he run since he was born in Canada?   ???  Even if he gave up his Canadian citizenship, the US Constitution only allows natural-born citizens to run.

Associated Press



> *AP Source: Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz to launch presidential campaign on Monday*
> The Canadian Press
> 
> By Steve Peoples, The Associated Press
> ...


----------



## Tibbson (22 Mar 2015)

The constitution states: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

Natural born citizen. That's it. Natural born is not defined in the constitution and is legally treated as those entitled to US citizenship at birth. Cruz was born to American parents while they were working in Canada. He was entitled to US citizenship the moment he was born. It doesn't matter that he wasn't physically born in the US.  Its the same way in which John McCain could run for President and could have held that office IF he was successful in the election even though he was born in Panama.


----------



## cupper (22 Mar 2015)

Schindler's Lift said:
			
		

> The constitution states: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."
> 
> Natural born citizen. That's it. Natural born is not defined in the constitution and is legally treated as those entitled to US citizenship at birth. Cruz was born to American parents while they were working in Canada. He was entitled to US citizenship the moment he was born. It doesn't matter that he wasn't physically born in the US.  Its the same way in which John McCain could run for President and could have held that office IF he was successful in the election even though he was born in Panama.



The McCain example is a little fuzzy, in that he was born on a US Military facility in the Canal Zone which was under US control at the time. Although it was never really questioned, McCain was generally given a pass the whole issue because of the circumstances of where the birth took place. The fact that his parents were American citizens made any argument against validity of a birth in a US facility, in US controlled territory moot.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Mar 2015)

Odd that a Kenyan father is reason to be suspicious of one, but a Cuban father isn't reason to be suspicious of another...


----------



## Tibbson (22 Mar 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> The McCain example is a little fuzzy, in that he was born on a US Military facility in the Canal Zone which was under US control at the time. Although it was never really questioned, McCain was generally given a pass the whole issue because of the circumstances of where the birth took place. The fact that his parents were American citizens made any argument against validity of a birth in a US facility, in US controlled territory moot.



Actually in 1936, the year McCain was born, the Panama Canal Zone and its related military facilities were not regarded as United States territory.  It wasn't legally changed to US territory until a year later.  As a result some Courts considered him to be a born a US citizen owing to the change in status of the Canal Zone the next year however other Courts held he was born Panamanian.


----------



## stealthylizard (22 Mar 2015)

Congress passed a non-binding resolution recognizing McCain as a natural-born citizen.  This was already afforded to him, as people born in the zone were retroactively granted the status, but it was to remove any doubt as to what kind of citizen he was so that it wouldn't be an issue in his presidential run.


----------



## cupper (22 Mar 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Odd that a Kenyan father is reason to be suspicious of one, but a Cuban father isn't reason to be suspicious of another...



You're not supposed to point these things out. ;D


----------



## a_majoor (24 Mar 2015)

Transcript of the speech Ted Cruz gave to announce his candidacy. I see he is staking out some pretty clear positions and is positioned to capture much of the support of the TEA Party movement. Of course, Senator Cruz will be facing a fairly strong slate in the primaries (much of the conservative side of the Republican Party is quite enamoured of Governor Walker, for example), so it will be interesting to see how this plays out. (reading some of the comments is quite instructive, especially as you get a preview of the Democrat/MSM/Academia counter narrative).

US politics being what it is, Cruz could be using this to play for a large role in any future administration and raise his profile enormously in the Senate:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/transcript-ted-cruzs-speech-at-liberty-university/2015/03/23/41c4011a-d168-11e4-a62f-ee745911a4ff_story.html


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Mar 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Odd that a Kenyan father is reason to be suspicious of one, but a Cuban father *and not born in the U.S.* isn't reason to be suspicious of another...


FTFY


----------



## dapaterson (24 Mar 2015)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> FTFY



Of course, since he was still Canadian when they were born, his daughters are Canadian as well. And if he rejects the idea of kids getting citizenship from their parents when they are born abroad, he's got a bit of a problem...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Mar 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> (reading some of the comments is quite instructive, especially as you get a preview of the Democrat/MSM/Academia counter narrative).





			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Of course, since he was still Canadian when they were born, his daughters are Canadian as well. And if he rejects the idea of kids getting citizenship from their parents when they are born abroad, he's got a bit of a problem...




Quote from: dapaterson on March 22, 2015, 12:54:08


> Odd that a Kenyan father is reason to be suspicious of one, but a Cuban father and not born in the U.S. isn't reason to be suspicious of another...



FTFY  

Didn't take too long to get off the "X". But the ammount of commentary here pales in comparison to the almost absurd level of attack _already_ underway in the US. My particular favorite was "Ted Cruz just laid out the most anti-woman agenda yet,", which was published so fast I could believe that it was written months ago with some "fill in the blanks" spots for whoever announced first.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Mar 2015)

Meh!  I'll enjoy his impression of a lawn dart when it comes.


----------



## cupper (24 Mar 2015)

Finally, another sign of the coming spring. Nationals home opener was announced yesterday, and they play the NY Mets on April 6th.
(Oh, and the Republican clown show started.) ;D

It was interesting that Cruz made his announcement at Liberty University. Running to the extreme right, and pandering to the Evangelical vote. Who could have predicted that? : Even if he took the all Evangelical vote, they only make up 36% of the Republican base. And year after year the polls show that the center is turned off by those who pander to the Christian Right.

Cruz has a money problem though, starting way behind the undeclared field and needs to raise beaucoup de bucks going into Iowa. He then needs to pull off nothing less than victory in in Iowa to ensure that his campaign will be able to continue on.

There is a strong school of though that Cruz is declaring so he can stay relevant and will try and push the campaign narrative as far as he can before inevitably bowing out. Positioning himself for greater influence, or even a leadership position in the party? Maybe. Last thing that he wants to happen though is to be declared irrelevant, and end up as an also ran. He's pretty much lost the support of the GOP Leadership.


----------



## Jed (24 Mar 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> Finally, another sign of the coming spring. Nationals home opener was announced yesterday, and they play the NY Mets on April 6th.
> (Oh, and the Republican clown show started.) ;D
> 
> It was interesting that Cruz made his announcement at Liberty University. Running to the extreme right, and pandering to the Evangelical vote. Who could have predicted that? : Even if he took the all Evangelical vote, they only make up 36% of the Republican base. And year after year the polls show that the center is turned off by those who pander to the Christian Right.
> ...



It's interesting that you call this the Republican Clown Show.   I ask you what is worse the Republican clown show where one candidate declares his intentions, one who had the cajones to voice his opinion against unmitigated stupidity of both Democratic and Republican parties or the ongoing corruption and obfuscation of the primary candidate of the Democratic party?


----------



## cupper (24 Mar 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> It's interesting that you call this the Republican Clown Show.   I ask you what is worse the Republican clown show where one candidate declares his intentions, one who had the cajones to voice his opinion against unmitigated stupidity of both Democratic and Republican parties or the ongoing corruption and obfuscation of the primary candidate of the Democratic party?



What I am calling the Republican Clown show is the 9 or 10 fringe candidates that will eventually throw their hats into the ring, and force the party to run so far to the right that they are now skirting the left end of the spectrum. All this results in the one or two main stream party candidates to pander to the right in order to get through the primary, only to make a move back to the center for the general. The GOP as it has over the past two presidential cycles will eat it's own. Perhaps this year will be different, but I suspect not.

Yesterday I heard the former Chair of the RNC suggest that the GOP should nominate a candidate from the right and not the mainstream. This will force them to finally come to a reckoning with the current schism within the party, and I have to agree. They got their knickers all in a knot after they had their asses handed to them in 2012 when the election was theirs to loose. They did the autopsy and pledged to make the party more electable across the spectrum, but have done nothing to show that was the case. They drew the wrong message from the results of the 2014 mid-terms. It was less a thumbs up to the GOP than it was a thumbs down on the administration and congress in general in a gerrymandered electoral map that all but assured the status quo. Lets not forget that Dem voter turnout is typically down in the midterms, which is their burden to deal with. You get the government you deserve.

As for the Dems, they have a bigger problem than the GOP clown show. Clinton should not be the presumptive nominee. But there really is no one who can challenge, that should be throwing their hats into that circus ring. Personally I think Clinton if elected will be a more divisive figure than Obama has been, and congress will be less productive than it is now, if that is even possible. Unfortunately there is no real viable challenger to ward off a coronation. Elizabeth Warren won't challenge, and she would be much more effective as part of the Senate Leadership. There is some thought that there is a pseudo or shadow primary by the way Warren is making speeches and commentary forcing Clinton to respond. But that will be the extent of her involvement in the Democratic nomination process.

Not sure if I answered your question Jed, but just to clarify, I don't really have a high opinion of either side at the moment. And unfortunately, living so close to the Beltway, I am going to have to continue listening to the BS for the next 18 months. :facepalm:


----------



## Jed (25 Mar 2015)

From my isolated position up here in Canada I see this much the same as you Cupper. I may be wrong but I think the will of US people will pick a good one at the end of it all because they are heartily sick of of the piss poor performance they have seen over the past dozen or so years.  For the sake of North America I hope I am correct.


----------



## cupper (25 Mar 2015)

Jed said:
			
		

> From my isolated position up here in Canada I see this much the same as you Cupper. I may be wrong but I think the will of US people will pick a good one at the end of it all because they are heartily sick of of the piss poor performance they have seen over the past dozen or so years.  For the sake of North America I hope I am correct.



You and me both. :nod:


----------



## cupper (25 Mar 2015)

It's always the seemingly innocent, innocuous questions that can trip you up.

*After 9/11, True Patriot Ted Cruz Sacrificed His Love of Rock Music for America and the Republican Party*

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/03/ted-cruz-sacrificed-rock-music-after-911.html



> In an interview with CBS This Morning, Ted Cruz divulged that he used to love classic rock, but switched over to country because of 9/11. “My music taste changed on 9/11,” the presidential candidate said. “I actually intellectually find this very curious, but on 9/11, I didn’t like how rock music responded,” he said. “And country music, collectively, the way they responded, it resonated with me.” The inevitably boring interview question of what music a politician listens to has, in this case, yielded a fascinating and revealing answer.
> 
> *Of course, the thing about classic rock is that it mostly didn’t respond to 9/11 at all, since most of it was written in the decades beforehand.* To the extent that it did respond, it was in keeping with the patriotic spirit of the moment. Many of the biggest classic rock stars participated in “America: A Tribute to Heroes” ten days after the attacks. As the name of the event implies, the event was not exactly a Chomsky-esque exercise in attributing the attacks to blowback caused by imperial overstretch. The single biggest classic rock star, Paul McCartney, wrote a song the next day, “Freedom,” the proceeds of which he donated to families of the victims and the NYPD.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Mar 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> What I am calling the Republican Clown show is the 9 or 10 fringe candidates that will eventually throw their hats into the ring, and force the party to run so far to the right that they are now skirting the left end of the spectrum. All this results in the one or two main stream party candidates to pander to the right in order to get through the primary, only to make a move back to the center for the general. The GOP as it has over the past two presidential cycles will eat it's own. Perhaps this year will be different, but I suspect not.



You never know who is actually going to be "the one" for quite some time, and of course this is a form of marketplace where ideas can be shopped around and the ones which resonate the most among the "customer base" will eventually be chosen.

And of course, there is always the hope that the other candidates may self destruct and leave "your" candidate the last one standing. I recall a political party here in Canada which had several outstanding leadership candidates with well reasoned, internally consistent policy platforms who were eventually defeated by a candidate who had (and indeed has) no policy ideas at all....


----------



## CougarKing (2 Apr 2015)

Thoughts, cupper? Isn't she a former US Army helo pilot who was wounded in combat in Iraq?

CBS News



> *Tammy Duckworth is running for Senate*
> 
> Democratic Rep. Tammy Duckworth of Illinois announced Monday that she's challenging Sen. Mark Kirk, one of the most vulnerable Republicans up for re-election in 2016. She is the first Democrat to officially enter the Senate race.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (2 Apr 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Thoughts, cupper? Isn't she a former US Army helo pilot who was wounded in combat in Iraq?
> 
> CBS News



She's the one. From what I have seen of her time in Congress she would make a very good Senator.

In her first term in the House she returned over $100K left over from her annual $1.2M office budget, rather than spend needlessly. (Policy is to use it or lose it, no carry over to the next year). She only hired staff when needed as the workload expanded. She sponsored the No Budget, No Pay bill to ensure that Congress passed a budget every year rather than go through the theatrics of shutdown threats and kicking the can down the road. She even returned $10K of her own salary that covered the period from the sequester that resulted in the furlough of Federal employees.

Here is an interesting interview from Stars and Strips discussing the incident in Iraq that resulted in the downing of her Blackhawk.

http://www.stripes.com/news/the-pedals-were-gone-and-so-were-my-legs-1.34578

Personally I think it's time for fresh younger (relatively speaking) bodies in Congress. A lot of the old guard are not standing for reelection, the public reason being the desire to spend time with the family. I think it has more to do with the BS we've seen for the past 12 or so years (longer if you want to look for it in the Clinton years), and senior members getting fed up with the lack of cooperation, and intransigence of the newer inexperienced members.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Apr 2015)

Deeper in the background, this is the "fundamental change in America" that many people want. The writer is correct, however. There are far more people opposed, and once they are organized, they _will_ play by the new rules the "elites" have created:

http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2015/04/05/liberals-may-regret-their-new-rules-n1980933/page/full



> *Liberals May Regret Their New Rules*
> Kurt Schlichter | Apr 05, 2015
> Kurt Schlichter
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (10 Apr 2015)

T6, Cupper, Rifleman62...perhaps Hillary can stop denying it now that she wanted Bill's former office the whole time...

Reuters



> *Clinton to announce presidential bid on Sunday: Democratic official*
> Reuters – 1 hour 14 minutes ago
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Hillary Clinton is expected on Sunday to announce, via video and social media, her intention to seek the Democratic presidential nomination, a party official told Reuters on Friday.
> ...


----------



## cupper (10 Apr 2015)

:facepalm:

Glad I am home in Canada.

Damn. I have to go back for meetings next week.  :facepalm:


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Apr 2015)

S.M.A. 





> T6, Cupper, Rifleman62...perhaps Hillary can stop denying it now that she wanted Bill's former office the whole time...



As long as I never hear from her: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."


----------



## Retired AF Guy (10 Apr 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> :facepalm:
> 
> Glad I am home in Canada.
> 
> Damn. I have to go back for meetings next week.  :facepalm:



Watch your six!!


----------



## CougarKing (10 Apr 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> S.M.A.
> As long as I never hear from her: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."



You were saying?  ;D


----------



## Rifleman62 (11 Apr 2015)

Very good one S.M.A.

God or whomever help the USA and the World if she gets elected, or Obama, light, north, here.


----------



## cupper (11 Apr 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> S.M.A.
> As long as I never hear from her: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."



Now there is a visual that I will never get out of my head. :boke:


----------



## cupper (15 Apr 2015)

The NRA may have stepped on it's own … umm … future. 

*Wayne LaPierre's "Demographically Symbolic" Dog Whistle*

http://www.pagunblog.com/2015/04/13/wayne-lapierres-demographically-symbolic-dog-whistle/



> It’s really not often you’ll find me agreeing with the Internet trolls at Media Matters, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Media Matters linked to a portion of Wayne’s Speech at the NRA Annual Meeting, which I must have missed when we skipped out to cover the MDA protest. Here’s video for the context:
> 
> http://mediamatters.org/video/2015/04/12/nras-wayne-lapierre-on-clinton-and-obama-eight/203250
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (20 Apr 2015)

Not really sure how to take this. Seriously, is this necessary or even a good idea? 

*Cruz takes Second Amendment fight to military bases*

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/ted-cruz-2016-second-amendment-gun-rights-117133.html?hp=b2_c1



> LITCHFIELD, N.H.—Appealing to New Hampshire’s powerful gun culture, Sen. Ted Cruz said Sunday that he’s “pressing” Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain to hold hearings on whether soldiers should be allowed to carry their own concealed firearms onto military bases.
> 
> “I am very concerned about that policy,” the Texas senator told 120 gun owners at a hunting club here, before taking a trip to a firing range for some target practice. “I think it’s very important to have a public discussion about why we’re denying our soldiers the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”
> 
> ...



And I question the drive for issuing Purple Hearts to members wounded in the Fort Hood Shootings over objections of the Military Brass. Unless I'm mistaken, is not the Purple Heart meant to be issued to members wounded in combat situations. Now I know that the actual qualifications can be stretched to some incredible limits (there is a family story of a distant cousin who served with the US Army in Vietnam who received a Purple Heart when he was cut while shaving when a grenade went off in the forward base he was at, but I take that story with a grain of salt).

Any of our US members want to chime in?


----------



## cupper (27 Apr 2015)

Can't say I disagree on this one.

*A Lame Duck From Day One*
For 124 years, every Democratic president has taken office controlling both houses of Congress. Hillary Clinton isn’t likely to be so lucky.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/hillary-clinton-lame-duck-congress-117314.html?hp=m1#.VT7h4EuRtM8



> If elected, Hillary Clinton would make history as the first woman to occupy the Oval Office. There is, however, another historical precedent she might set. If Clinton wins the presidency, and the Republicans retain the Senate and the House of Representatives, it will be the first time in the history of the Democratic party—going back 188 years—that a Democrat will be elected president with the opposition party controlling both chambers of congress.
> 
> Only three times in the history of the office has a newly-elected president been faced with the opposition party controlling both houses—Zachary Taylor in 1848, Richard Nixon in 1968 and George H. W. Bush in 1988. Of those three, Zachary Taylor, as a Whig, predates the modern two parties. Three vice-presidents found themselves facing unified opposition after becoming president through the line of succession: Millard Fillmore after Taylor's death; Gerald Ford after Nixon's resignation; and Andrew Johnson, as a Democrat on a unity ticket, after Lincoln's assassination. But none were subsequently elected in their own right.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (5 May 2015)

Another "presidentiable" or a future "also-ran" ?

CNN



> *Mike Huckabee running for another White House bid*
> 
> (CNN)Mike Huckabee launched his second presidential bid here Tuesday, casting himself as a guy with small town roots who can relate to the economic and security concerns of average American families.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (5 May 2015)

The fear is coming to fruition unfortunately.

So far the candidates that have announced / will announce within the next few days are going to pull the GOP primaries so far to the right you can see Sarah Palin's neighbors across the water.

What would really make this next 18 months interesting is if true center of the spectrum independent candidate ran right down the middle. With Warren and Sanders pulling Queen Hill to the left, and the GOP clown show doing its typical run to the right, voters pissed off with both parties could well take that option and run with it in the general.


----------



## CougarKing (6 May 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> So far the candidates that have announced / will announce within the next few days are going to pull the GOP primaries so far to the right you can see Sarah Palin's neighbors across the water.



What's your opinions on Lindsey Graham or Ben Carson?

Foreign Policy

*Lindsey Graham al-Most Knows Arabic[/b]




			"Everything that starts with ‘al’ in the Middle East is bad news,” hawkish Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a probable presidential hopeful, told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee at a Boston dinner this week. “Al Qaeda, al-Nusra, al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula.”

The comment made no sense, the Internet was quick to point out, because “al” is an Arabic definite article analogous to the English word “the.” A number of English words with Arabic roots begin with “al”: albatross, alchemy, alcohol, alcove, alfalfa, algebra, algorithm, and others.
		
Click to expand...





			Knowledge of Arabic won’t necessarily score points with core Republican constituents in early primary states, whom Graham will have to win over if he wants to stand out from the growing group of contenders. Six Republicans have announced their candidacies, and at least seven more will probably join them. But as a leading hawk and an ardent supporter of Israel, Graham likely will need to rely on his outspoken foreign-policy positions to differentiate himself from other long-shot contenders, some of whom have relatively little credibility abroad.

Pediatric neurosurgeon Ben Carson, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, all of whom announced their candidacies this week, have varying views on record. They range from Huckabee’s erroneous comments on Pakistan and admission of ignorance on Iran in the run-up to his 2008 presidential campaign, to Carson’s recent endorsement of war crimes. (“If you’re gonna have rules for war, you should just have a rule that says no war,” he said. “Other than that, we have to win.”)

(...EDITED)
		
Click to expand...

*


----------



## Kirkhill (6 May 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> So far the candidates that have announced / will announce within the next few days are going to pull the GOP primaries so far to the right you can see Sarah Palin's neighbors across the water.



Guess they`re not moving too far then.






Satellite photo of the Bering Strait, with the Diomede Islands at center (Wiki)



> The islands are separated by an international border, which is also part of the International Date Line, approximately 2 km (1 mi) from each island, at 168°58'37"W. At their closest points, the two islands are about 3.8 km (2.4 mi) apart. The small habitation on Little Diomede Island is centered on the west side of the island at the village of Diomede.
> 
> The Big Diomede Island is considered the easternmost point of Russia.
> 
> ...



Distance from Washington to Moscow: infinite
Distance from USA to Russia: Sarah is right.


----------



## cupper (6 May 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> What's your opinions on Lindsey Graham or Ben Carson?



Graham was a capable senator before the GOP shifted were dragged to the far right. Like so many other center right GOP members of Congress, he was forced to move further away from the center lest he be primaried. As a presidential candidate, I don't think he has the recognition outside the beltway, except as John McCain's illegitimate son. I don't think he is destined to move into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. But that's not to say he shouldn't stick around inside the Beltway. Like Elizabeth Warren on the Dem side I think his time and effort would be better spent sitting in the Senate. As long as they can move back to the days where bipartisan compromise was not a traitorous act. 

Carson is just another on the list of also rans. His personal beliefs (unless his bat poop comments are just pandering) won't sell outside the religious / social conservatives. He's already had to backtrack on the homosexuality is a choice meme with the comments about straight prisoners choosing to be homosexual in prison. From some of the interviews I've seen, he can tend to be abrasive when pressed or challenged on issues that flow against the mainstream public.


----------



## cupper (6 May 2015)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Guess they`re not moving too far then.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nice,  

What I was going for was that when you move to far in one direction on the political spectrum, you run the risk of coming full Mobius Strip.  ;D


----------



## cupper (7 May 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> Carson is just another on the list of also rans. His personal beliefs (unless his bat poop comments are just pandering) won't sell outside the religious / social conservatives. He's already had to backtrack on the homosexuality is a choice meme with the comments about straight prisoners choosing to be homosexual in prison. From some of the interviews I've seen, he can tend to be abrasive when pressed or challenged on issues that flow against the mainstream public.



And this is another reason why Ben Carson isn't going to go far out of the gate. His basic understanding of the US Constitution leaves a lot to be desired.

*Ben Carson: Federal Government Doesn't Need To Recognize Gay Marriage SCOTUS Ruling*

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/ben-carson-federal-government-doesnt-need-recognize-gay-marriage-scotus-ruling



> Yesterday on Newsmax TV, Ben Carson said that the federal government does not need to recognize a Supreme Court decision on gay marriage because the president is only obligated to recognize laws passed by Congress, not judicial rulings.
> 
> “First of all, we have to understand how the Constitution works, the president is required to carry out the laws of the land, the laws of the land come from the legislative branch,” Carson said. “So if the legislative branch creates a law or changes a law, the executive branch has a responsibly to carry it out. It doesn’t say they have the responsibility to carry out a judicial law.”
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (15 May 2015)

Marco Rubio throws his hat into the ring as well?

Politico



> *Marco Rubio: I’m ready to become commander in chief*
> 
> By MICHAEL CROWLEY and KATIE GLUECK 5/13/15 3:43 PM EDT Updated 5/14/15 11:26 AM EDT
> In a Wednesday foreign policy address, Marco Rubio staked a claim to being the Republican presidential field’s toughest — and most qualified — candidate on national security, capping a four-year effort to cultivate expertise in an area of top concern for GOP voters.
> ...



Foreign Policy



> *Marco Rubio Is No Jack Kennedy – and We Don’t Need One, Either
> Why America is better off without a “pay any price, bear any burden” president.*
> 
> Marco Rubio, the Republican presidential hopeful from Florida, opened his remarks to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) earlier this week by quoting from the last speech President John F. Kennedy gave before his assassination. Kennedy had insisted that by making America stronger he had advanced the cause of world peace. By contrast, Rubio observed, President Barack Obama had entered office believing that “America was too hard on our adversaries,” and that the world would benefit if “America took a step back.”
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (31 May 2015)

If this is what the Democrats truly represent, then the next election is goig to be very ugly indeed:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/31/mattress-girl-and-pajama-boy/



> *MATTRESS GIRL AND PAJAMA BOY*
> by PETER ALBERICE31 May 201518
> 
> In the neighborhood where I lived growing up, many of the fathers were working class veterans who were supporters of Franklin Roosevelt and later Harry Truman.
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Jun 2015)

Now this, from the "Democracy is a device that insures we shall be governed no better than we deserve" file ....


> Think about all the things you look for in a presidential candidate: a solid economic plan. Maybe some foreign policy experience. And how about insatiable bloodlust and multiple rows of serrated teeth?
> 
> As it turns out, the shark from the Jaws movies has better favorability numbers than any politician included in the latest Washington Post-ABC News survey. Ditto for The Terminator. Same for Darth Vader ....


----------



## cavalryman (10 Jun 2015)

I'd vote for Darth Vader   :Jedi:


----------



## cupper (10 Jun 2015)

I feel bad for Marco Rubio. He doesn't have any rating, positive or negative. Marco Who? ;D


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jun 2015)

Given the ever growing unreliability of polls and polling, I would not hold my breath until we see the actual vote count. This includes the primaries.


----------



## cupper (12 Jun 2015)

The Dems are suffering from primary syndrome just like the GOP did in 2012 and 2014, this over support for fast tracking free trade agreements.

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/blog/896-breaking-dfa-warns-dems-vote-fast-track-amp-we-will-search-for-opportunities-to-primary-you



> Ahead of today's votes on the Medicare-cutting Trade Adjustment Assistance Legislation and Fast Track bill, Democracy for America wanted to lay out the stakes for those Democrats still contemplating voting for it.
> 
> Statement from Jim Dean, Chair of Democracy for America to members of Congress about today's votes:
> 
> ...



And Pelosi isn't helping the matter:

*How Pelosi broke with Obama
Her final-hour move against the president’s trade agenda marks a low point in a relationship that produced his biggest achievements.*

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/how-pelosi-broke-with-obama-118961.html?hp=t1_r



> It had come to this: Nancy Pelosi needed John Boehner to help save her party and her president from an ugly public meltdown.
> By Friday morning, it was clear that a crucial piece of Barack Obama’s trade initiative was barreling toward defeat. Democrats were disjointed, dispirited, even angry in some cases. At the same time, they knew that they – not Republicans – would shoulder much of the blame for killing the president’s top legislative priority and for the ensuing spectacle of a party at war.
> 
> So just before noon, with debate already underway on the House floor, Pelosi picked up the phone and called Boehner to inform him that a must-pass component of the White House trade package was going to fail. It was the second such warning from Pelosi to Boehner in two days.
> ...



And Hillary is taking flack for being non committal.

*Progressives lash out at Clinton on trade
Despite racking up a win in the House on Friday, progressives condemn Hillary’s lack of leadership on the issue.
*



> Liberals have a message for Hillary Clinton in the wake of Friday’s House vote on trade: Refusing to take a stand is worse than standing against us.
> 
> Anti-trade Democrats, including influential activists in early primary states, say that Clinton’s vague comments on the campaign trail about fast-track authority for the Trans-Pacific Partnership — a measure put in grave danger on Friday by a revolt among House Democrats — signal her silent support for the ambitious free trade expansion. What’s worse, they say, is that her strategic silence renews suspicions about her authenticity.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (26 Jun 2015)

It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court decisions upholding Obamacare and making same sex marriage legal in all 50 states plays out over the next 16 months (really, 16 months  :facepalm: ).

The conservative base is now up in arms, and if the GOP can keep that fire stoked, it may well be enough to counter the Dem get out the vote.


----------



## Jed (27 Jun 2015)

16 months of painfully watching a slow motion train wreck.


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Jun 2015)

There will be strong incentives to get a Republican President and replace Boehner and McConnell.A Republican President then can begin work on putting his stamp on the Supreme Court.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jun 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court decisions upholding Obamacare and making same sex marriage legal in all 50 states plays out over the next 16 months (really, 16 months  :facepalm: ).
> 
> The conservative base is now up in arms, and if the GOP can keep that fire stoked, it may well be enough to counter the Dem get out the vote.



In a very important sense, these actions by the Supreme court essentially negate the idea of a Republican democracy in America. Evidently the plain language of legislation no longer matters, only what the SCOTUS decides it should mean. (the technical condition of people ruled over by the whims of others is "slaves").

While this has been an ongoing trend for many years (aided and abetted by a lazy Congress which writes sloppy legislation and allows the bureaucracy to do most of the work by creating regulations with the effect of laws), this won't be reversed even with a majority Republican Congress and President. Indeed, there may be an even worse impasse than the current gridlock (which is there by design, BTW, since the Founders were pretty clear they were against things being railroaded through the Congress, but rather wanted all ideas and opinions up for debate and reflection before action was taken), as the SCOTUS fights the Congress tooth and nail via court cases to strike down and redefine legislation in ways the Legislature never intended. If this sounds familiar, we just got there earlier via the "Charter".


----------



## CougarKing (1 Aug 2015)

Trouble brewing for the perceived frontrunners of both sides:

Reuters



> *Exclusive: Donald Trump's companies have sought visas to import at least 1,100 workers*
> Fri Jul 31, 2015 10:06pm EDT
> US Presidential Candidate Donald Trump points as he stands outside his hotel
> 
> ...




Foreign Policy



> *New Emails From Clinton’s Private Server Contain Information on ‘Embassy Security Issues’*
> 
> Hillary Clinton, the frontrunner for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination, maintains that she did not send classified materials using a personal email account and an Internet server kept at her home in Chappaqua, New York. But a new batch of correspondence, released by the State Department Friday afternoon, shows that she and her aides did share sensitive information — including potential vulnerabilities in American diplomatic facilities overseas — over her private network.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (3 Aug 2015)

Something amusing from last month: Hillary Clinton: " I did not have sexual relations with that president!"  ;D

Cleveland Sun



> *Report: Bill Clinton might not be Chelsea Clinton's biological dad*
> 
> WRITTEN BY SCOTT SUTTON POSTED: 07/09/2015, 09:32AM
> Chelsea Clinton has “secretly undergone a DNA test,” and it looks like former President Bill Clinton might not be her biological father.
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (6 Aug 2015)

A poorly timed attempt to unseat Boehner?

Yahoo Finance



> *The GOP civil war has quietly exploded back into the open — and it could get nastier than ever*
> By Brett LoGiurato | Business Insider – Sun, 2 Aug, 2015 3:26 PM EDT
> 
> It marked perhaps the most bombastic challenge to House Speaker John Boehner's (R-Ohio) leadership, and another point at which long-simmering tensions within the Republican caucus have exploded out into the open.
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Aug 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> A poorly timed attempt to unseat Boehner?
> 
> Yahoo Finance



His departure would be a game changer in the House.Couple that with ousting McConnell and maybe the GOP can redeem itself.


----------



## CougarKing (6 Aug 2015)

Trump was reportedly observed as "sharp" in tonight's GOP Primaries debate.

Fox News



> PRESIDENTIAL PRIMARIES
> 
> *Christie, Paul clash over NSA as Trump becomes lightning rod*
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (11 Aug 2015)

;D Ha! The article writer described these two men as two "self-important" people sticking together.

Foreign Policy




> Billionaires Sticking Together: Emirati Tycoon Endorses U.S. Tycoon for President
> 
> (...article at link above)


----------



## CougarKing (11 Aug 2015)

"You're Fired!" (Trump to Obama next year?)  ;D

Canadian Press



> *The sultan of slurs: Donald Trump explains his passion for putdowns*
> 
> By Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (11 Aug 2015)

Trump may think he may be gaining, but his alienating of US veterans starting with McCain will bite him back at the actual election 2016 if he ever gets the GOP nomination. Veterans are one of the largest voter demographics that consistently vote Republican in the US.

CBC



> *Donald Trump's appeal to 'angry' Republicans keeps hopes alive*
> CBC – 14 hours ago
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Aug 2015)

An interesting write up of Governor Scott Walker. He has a relatively solid record in office, and looking at how he handled the massive attacks brought against him by the Left suggests he isn't "boring" in any ususal sense of the word; perhaps quiet and methodical mighyt be a better description:

https://ricochet.com/scott-walker-and-a-return-to-normalcy/



> *Scott Walker and a ‘Return to Normalcy’ *
> Jon Gabriel, Ed.
> August 11, 2015 at 6:21 pm
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (16 Aug 2015)

Trump as commander-in-chief leading US troops back to Iraq?  (and into a protracted Syria land campaign)

Canadian Press



> *Trump says Mideast nations should pay for US support, would send ground troops to fight IS*
> The Canadian Press
> By The Associated Press
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (16 Aug 2015)

Trump is promoting Trump, as usual. What is interesting is that his unfiltered, un-PC ranting is so popular among American voters, but no one seems to have either picked up on that (voters are really interested and responsive to these views), nor have they figured out ways to incorporate some of the views into their own campaigns (in perhaps toned down or reworded formats).

I suspect the first person who can go "Trump" without actually being Trump and backing things up with some facts and figures will run away with the nomination.

Another interesting observation posted by Instapundit:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/212601/



> WHO ARE TRUMP’S SUPPORTERS? Not Who You Think. I think to some degree it depends on what you mean by “supporters.” Lots of people support Trump’s kicking sand in the faces of the media and GOP establishment who don’t actually support him for President.
> 
> UPDATE: It’s paywalled for some people, apparently, but I can get through fine. But here’s an excerpt for the gist, for those who can’t read the whole thing.
> Today’s prototypical conservative base voters are infamously principled. Their views are hardened, their heels dug in. They are armed with all kinds of litmus tests and purity tests to make sure the “fake” conservatives are weeded out from the good ones, often to the chagrin of the party.
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (16 Aug 2015)

I was watching Fox News Sunday, and they played a clip showing Trump claiming he got his military advice watching "Meet the Press." I need confirmation before I embrace the theory that he is uninformed on matters of national security.


----------



## cupper (16 Aug 2015)

Well, on "Meet The Press" he said he gets it from the TV shows. So….

And with respect to Trumps current lead in the GOP polls, and Sanders on the Dems side the prevailing thought is that it is a reflection of how tired both bases are with the current state of national politics, and the lack of progress in anything meaningful with  respect to the real issues that the voters want addressed.

And it is also reflected in the better than expected standing of the so-called Washington outsiders such as Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina.


----------



## cupper (19 Aug 2015)

Looks like it's gonna be a "Hold your nose and Vote" election. At least for the primaries.

*Why No One Likes The 2016 Presidential Field*

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/18/432719996/why-no-one-likes-the-2016-presidential-field



> The 2016 elections certainly aren't going to be a popularity contest.
> 
> In fact, the current crop of White House hopefuls is among the least liked by voters in recent history, with many starting out with very high negative ratings.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (19 Aug 2015)

The GOP meme du jour is birthright citizenship. 

*3 Things You Should Know About Birthright Citizenship*

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/08/18/432707866/3-things-you-should-know-about-birthright-citizenship



> Every few years, the common law concept of jus soli — or birthright citizenship — comes back into the news.
> 
> This time, it was thrust onto the stage by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, who just unveiled an immigration plan. One of his proposals is to stop automatically giving citizenship to most people born on U.S. soil. Rival GOP candidate Scott Walker issued a similar call.
> 
> ...


----------



## Lumber (19 Aug 2015)

*CNN/ORC Poll: Donald Trump now competitive in general election*

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/19/politics/2016-poll-hillary-clinton-joe-biden-bernie-sanders/index.html

'Murica!

 :facepalm:


----------



## a_majoor (19 Aug 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> *CNN/ORC Poll: Donald Trump now competitive in general election*
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/19/politics/2016-poll-hillary-clinton-joe-biden-bernie-sanders/index.html
> 
> ...



Before you facepalm, remember to ask _why_ so many voters are apparently turning to Trump :

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/212601/



> So who is the Trump supporter, if not the conservative base? I’d argue it’s mostly disaffected moderates who no longer strictly identify with either party. They think the political system is rigged. They think politicians are corrupt. They want a total collapse of the ruling political class.



What are the alternatives? The Democtrat front runner has apparently committed felony level security breaches as Secretary of State (and her activities involving interventions on the behalf of doners to the Clinton Foundation while acting as Secretary of State probably don't pass the sniff test as well), while their next most popular candidate is a 73 year old Socialist who's new ideas were already old when the New Deal was enacted.

The Republicans are still sorting through a huge field of declared candidates, most of whom are not really differentiated from the others, nor are (at this point) presenting a compelling message.

All the parties are avoiding issues that galvinized the Occupy movement on the left and the TEA Party movement on the right (and whatever you think of either movement, they still represent a large and vocal constituency), as well as trying to deep six any sort of substantive debate on the Immigration issue, despite the issue being front and center among a large majority of voters.


----------



## Lumber (19 Aug 2015)

> They want a total collapse of the ruling political class.



Or maybe (alternatively or in addition to) they are tired and exhausted with politics and just want to see a good show.

I am rather enjoying the show.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Aug 2015)

Another view of Trump. This may end up being a bit like the interpretation of Oskar Schindler in the movie version of Shindler's list: a project or idea which took a life of its own (in the movie, it seems Schindler was initially schmoozing with Nazi officials for a get rich quick scheme of his own, which eventually gave rise to the events for which he became justly famous. Donald Trump may have started his Presidential Campaign as a means of self promotion, but as more and more people are really listening to what he as to say....)

http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2015/08/scott-adams-predicts-president-trump.html



> Scott Adams predicts President Trump
> 
> And also Vice-President Cuban, which would be nearly as amusing:
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (20 Aug 2015)

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/08/20/deceptions-hillary-clinton.html

*The deceptions of Hillary Clinton*

By Judge Andrew P. Napolitano Published August 20, 2015

While the scandal surrounding the emails sent and received by Hillary Clinton during her time as U.S. secretary of state continues to grow, Clinton has resorted to laughing it off. This past weekend she told an audience of Iowa Democrats that she loves her Snapchat account because the messages automatically disappear. Not everyone is laughing.

Clinton admits deleting 30,000 government emails from her time in office. She claims they were personal, and that because they were also on a personal server, she was free to destroy them. Yet, federal law defines emails used during the course of one’s work for the federal government as the property of the federal government.

She could have designated which of the government’s emails were personal and then asked the government to send them to her and delete them from government servers. Instead she did the reverse. She decided which of her emails were governmental and sent them on to the State Department. Under federal law, that is not a determination she may lawfully make.

Yet, the 55,000 emails she sent to the feds were printed emails. By doing so, she stole from the government the metadata it owns, which accompanies all digital emails but is missing on the paper copies, and she denied the government the opportunity to trace those emails.

When asked why she chose to divert government emails through her own server, Clinton stated she believed it would enable her to carry just one mobile device for both personal and governmental emails. She later admitted she carried four such devices.

Then the scandal got more serious, as Clinton’s lawyers revealed that after she deleted the 30,000 emails, and printed the 55,000 she surrendered to the feds, she had the server that carried and stored them professionally wiped clean.

She had already denied routing classified materials through her server: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. … _ did not send classified material.”

Then, the inspector general of the State Department and the inspector general of the intelligence community, each independent of the other, found four classified emails from among a random sample of 40.

Then the State Department inspector general concluded that one of the four was in fact top secret. Since it discussed satellite imagery of a foreign country and since it revealed intercepts of communications among foreign agents, it received additional legal protections that were intended to assure that it was only discussed in a secure location and never shared with a foreign government, not even an ally.

When Clinton was confronted with these facts, she changed her explanation from “I did not send classified material” to “I never sent or never received any email marked classified.” Not only is she continually changing her story, but she is being deceptive again. Emails are not “marked classified.” They are marked “top secret” or “secret” or “confidential.” Her explanations remind one of her husband’s word-splitting playbook.

Last weekend the State Department located 305 of her undeleted emails that likely are in the top secret or secret or classified categories.

What should be the consequence of her behavior with the nation’s most sensitive secrets?

If Clinton is indicted for failure to secure classified information, she will no doubt argue that if one of the above markings was not on the email, she did not know it was top secret. If she does make that incredible argument -- how could satellite photos of a foreign country together with communications intercepts of foreign agents possibly not be top secret? -- she will be confronted with a judicial instruction to the jury trying her.

The judge will tell the jury that the secretary of state is presumed to know what is top secret and what is not. The only way she could rebut that presumption is to take the witness stand in her own defense and attempt to persuade the jury that she was so busy, she didn’t notice the nature of the secrets with which she was dealing.

Not only would such an argument be incredible coming from a person of her intellect and government experience, but it begs the question. That’s because by using only her own server, she knowingly diverted all classified emails sent to her away from the government’s secure venue. That’s the crime.

Will she be indicted?

Consider this. In the past month, the Department of Justice indicted a young sailor who took a selfie in front of a sonar screen on a nuclear submarine and emailed the selfie to his girlfriend. It also indicted a Marine who sent an urgent warning to his superiors on his Gmail account about a dangerous Afghani spy who eventually killed three fellow Marines inside an American encampment. The emailing Marine was indicted for failure to secure classified materials. Gen. David Petraeus stored top-secret materials in an unlocked desk drawer in the study of his secured and guarded Virginia home and was indicted for the same crimes. And a former CIA agent was just sentenced to three years in prison for destroying one top-secret email.

What will happen if the FBI recommends that Clinton be indicted and the White House stonewalls? Will FBI Director Jim Comey threaten to resign as he threatened to do when President George W. Bush wanted him to deviate from accepted professional standards? Will Clinton get a pass? Will the public accept that?

Andrew P. Napolitano, a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey, is the senior judicial analyst at Fox News Channel. 
_


----------



## Lumber (20 Aug 2015)

Dear god... did I just enjoy reading something published by Fox News???


----------



## cupper (20 Aug 2015)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Dear god... did I just enjoy reading something published by Fox News???



No, it just feels that way. 

It's like eating Chinese food. 

You feel full and satisfied now, but in an hour you will feel empty and looking for something more substantial. >


----------



## cupper (20 Aug 2015)

How Google intends to take over the world, or How I learned to love Donald Trump and support the Communist PArty of the United States.

*How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election*

Google has the ability to drive millions of votes to a candidate with no one the wiser.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/how-google-could-rig-the-2016-election-121548.html?hp=m2#.VdZovEuRtC0



> America’s next president could be eased into office not just by TV ads or speeches, but by Google’s secret decisions, and no one—except for me and perhaps a few other obscure researchers—would know how this was accomplished.
> 
> Research I have been directing in recent years suggests that Google, Inc., has amassed far more power to control elections—indeed, to control a wide variety of opinions and beliefs—than any company in history has ever had. Google’s search algorithm can easily shift the voting preferences of undecided voters by 20 percent or more—up to 80 percent in some demographic groups—with virtually no one knowing they are being manipulated, according to experiments I conducted recently with Ronald E. Robertson.
> 
> ...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (20 Aug 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> No, it just feels that way.
> 
> It's like eating Chinese food.
> 
> You feel full and satisfied now, but in an hour you will feel empty and looking for something more substantial. >



Kind of like the old saying about eating Chinese food in a German restaurant; two hours later you're hungry for power.


----------



## CougarKing (26 Aug 2015)

McDonald's branches in China probably aren't as bad as KFCs in China, which don't serve gravy, but instead have corn and egg tarts/ "Dan-ta" on the side:

CNN




> Donald Trump: No state dinner -- only Big Mac -- for China's president
> 
> By Jeremy Diamond, CNN
> Updated 7:43 AM ET, Tue August 25, 2015
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (30 Aug 2015)

While China is a serious foreign policy topic, all the potential GOP candidates are making weirder and weirder sound bytes on the subject:

Unlike what Trump said last week, there would be no Big Macs for Chinese Pres. Xi Jinping if Scott Walker is the U.S. president. hehehe.

Shanghaiist



> *Presidential hopeful Scott Walker says Chinese leaders should be taken to the woodshed, not White House*
> 
> In a race for the Republican nomination for president that is rapidly turning into a contest of who can say the meanest things about China, presidential hopeful Scott Walker from Wisconsin had the latest quip on Friday saying that Chinese leaders should be "taken to the woodshed" rather than the White House.
> Earlier this week, Walker joined other Republican voices in calling for President Barack Obama to cancel an official state dinner with Chinese President Xi Jinping over concerns about China's militarization of the South China Sea and cyberhacking.
> ...




Meanwhile, it seems there was a precedent for mass deportations (of thousands) from the US after all:

Canadian Press



> *Donald Trump's deportation call, birthright repeal similar to 1930s' mass removal of Mexicans*
> The Canadian Press
> 
> By Russell Contreras
> ...



Meanwhile, Scott Walker calls for a northern wall on the US border with Canada:

Canadian Press



> *Wisconsin governor calls building northern wall along Canadian border a legitimate issue*
> The Canadian Press
> By Kevin Freking
> Republican presidential candidate Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker speaks during a meet and greet with local residents, Wednesday, Aug. 26, 2015, in Harlan, Iowa. Walker wowed Republicans at the Iowa Freedom Summit
> ...


----------



## cupper (30 Aug 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, Scott Walker calls for a northern wall on the US border with Canada:
> 
> Canadian Press



Walker is a lightweight's lightweight

It's not like all of us Canadians are building catapults and sling shots to get across the border.   https://youtu.be/EdD0A9XIk6U

Last I checked, all the disgruntled 'mericans were planning to move north because of the pro gay rights, anti-capitalim creeping socialist attitudes, anti-gun, anti-pro life, anti-freedom, atheistic dope smoking degenerates that are taking over the country.

Welcome to Canada folks! Enjoy your new life.


----------



## dapaterson (30 Aug 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, Scott Walker calls for a northern wall on the US border with Canada:
> 
> Canadian Press



Well, that would have kept Ted Cruz out...


----------



## George Wallace (30 Aug 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> It's not like all of us Canadians are building catapults and sling shots to get across the border.   https://youtu.be/EdD0A9XIk6U
> 
> Last I checked, all the disgruntled 'mericans were planning to move north because of the pro gay rights, anti-capitalim creeping socialist attitudes, anti-gun, anti-pro life, anti-freedom, atheistic dope smoking degenerates that are taking over the country.
> 
> Welcome to Canada folks! Enjoy your new life.



You got it all wrong.  It is like the Communists who built the Wall.  It isn't to keep people out; it is to keep people in.


----------



## cupper (30 Aug 2015)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You got it all wrong.  It is like the Communists who built the Wall.  It isn't to keep people out; it is to keep people in.



OK, if you put it that way, where do I sign up to start laying bricks? ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Aug 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Well, that would have kept Ted Cruz out...


As well as (maybe) a lot of smuggled guns ....  >


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Aug 2015)

Its a dumb idea by a Governor that I like.Unfortunately for him and most of the field Trump has tapped into the feelings of many Americans.If Trump opts for a third party run he will give the election to a democrat.It happened before with Ross Perot.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Aug 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> How Google intends to take over the world, or How I learned to love Donald Trump and support the Communist PArty of the United States.
> 
> *How Google Could Rig the 2016 Election*
> 
> ...



This isn't exactly new, Facebook has also done studies of how they can manipulate their users, and in that case the CEO is a prominent and very open supporter of the Democrats. Wikipedia is also well known for the propensity of their volunteer editors to constantly rewrite articles and ban people from doing updates or changes, particularly in anything which involves culture, politics and so on (to get a feel for how manipulative they really are and how far they are prepared to go, read this: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/wikipedia-climate-fiddler-william-connolley-is-in-the-news-again/).

Social media and the Internet are huge PSYOPS playing fields for the Progressives (most normal people have jobs and lives so cannot obsessively monitor Wikipedia pages and edit out inconvenient facts).


----------



## CougarKing (31 Aug 2015)

And sure enough, Walker's idea is ridiculed in the Twittersphere/Blogosphere:

CBC



> *Canada-U.S. border wall idea ridiculed on social media*
> CBC – 3 hours ago
> 
> Scott Walker, the governor of Wisconsin a Republican contender for the president's job, has been ridiculed online since raising the idea of building a mammoth security wall along the Canada-U.S. border.
> ...


----------



## cupper (31 Aug 2015)

As if this campaign wasn't bad enough, we now have do deal with morons declaring their candidacy for 2020. When will this madness stop?


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Sep 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> As if this campaign wasn't bad enough, we now have do deal with morons declaring their candidacy for 2020. When will this madness stop?



Its called democracy cupper.Sometimes it aint pretty,but it beats the alternative. :camo:


----------



## cavalryman (1 Sep 2015)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Its called democracy cupper.Sometimes it aint pretty,but it beats the alternative. :camo:


You mean the dynastic Clinton/Bush struggles?  ;D


----------



## cupper (1 Sep 2015)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Its called democracy cupper.Sometimes it aint pretty,but it beats the alternative. :camo:


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2015)

I just saw this on the web:


----------



## cupper (1 Sep 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I just saw this on the web:



 :rofl:

You know, this explains a lot about what happened during Bill's time as President.


----------



## CougarKing (2 Sep 2015)

Meanwhile Trump says he will change the name back...

BBC



> *Mount McKinley's Alaska name Denali is restored by Obama*
> 
> 
> After decades of controversy, the name of Mount McKinley, the tallest mountain in North America, has been changed back to its original native Alaskan, Denali.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (9 Sep 2015)

And more of why Trump and Bernie Sanders are so popular:





> NOT YET, BUT OBAMA IS TRYING: Victor Davis Hanson, “Is the West Dead Yet?”
> 
> 
> Immigration is a one-way Western street. Those who, in the abstract, damn the West — as much as elite Westerners themselves do — want very much to live inside it. The loudest anti-Western voices in the Middle East are usually housed in Western universities, not in Gaza. Jorge Ramos is a fierce critic of supposed American cruelty to illegal immigrants — so much so that he fled Mexico for America, became a citizen (how is that possible, given American bias against immigrants?), landed a multimillion-dollar salary working for the non-Latino-owned Spanish-language network Univision, and then put his kids in private school to shield them from hoi polloi of the sort he champions each evening. Now that’s the power of the West. . . .
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (12 Sep 2015)

Some food for thought for the US GOP debates next Wednesday:

Diplomat



> *GOP Debates: China As Foil
> Will China-bashing or cool-headed candidates prevail?*
> 
> By Mercy A. Kuo and Angelica O. Tang
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (12 Sep 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> And more of why Trump and Bernie Sanders are so popular:



This article is a bit of a laugh. Trump and Sanders are so popular because Americans are starting to realize the "system" as it exists is not working for them. The Clintons, Obama, and all of the rest of the current candidates on both sides of the aisle have been bought and paid for, and they won't really change much going forward. Trump would continue the same neo-liberal approach to the economy, but he throws in some good old-fashioned xenophobia and fascism. 

Don't forget it was Bill Clinton's Democrats who completely dismantled the welfare system and removed the divide between investment and personal banking which led to the 2008 crash in the first place. There are no progressives here outside of Bernie Sanders, who is not as far left as Trump is to the right. We're seeing the classic move to the opposite ends of the spectrum that occurs when capitalism finds itself in crisis. Sanders may be able to save it if he follows the Roosevelt example and addresses the gross inequality that a main cause of the current social unrest. If he's not successful, whoever is elected will continue the deregulation and "death by a thousand cuts" approach to public services, exposing more and more Americans to the effects of the market. Then we'll get a real revolution on our hands, and it will probably be far-right in nature if the past is any indicator. Trump is extremely dangerous, and if  it's not him, it will be a future leader who will plunge the US into real fascism. I'm surprised we're here already, but 14 years of war have accelerated things a lot.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Sep 2015)

Kilo-

I don't agree with much of what you post, but in this case, I think you are reasonably close to the mark.

The only point I would differ on is how much "danger" to the "system" that Trump would actually represent, if he won.  While I doubt he could be bought (who could buy a guy worth 5 billion?), how much change (good change or bad) can one man in the White House reasonably effect? Did Obama actually "change" anything of consequence?   :dunno:


----------



## Kilo_302 (12 Sep 2015)

That's the billion dollar question.

I agree that Obama didn't change anything of consequence, and it's hard to tell if he even wanted to. In my opinion, it's corporate power in politics that is the central problem and the main threat to democracy and Obama is just as susceptible to it as Bush was.

Judging by the fierce resistance from Republicans against anything from Obama that resembled regulation of the corporate sector, no Republican candidate is interested in changing the system either, except in the opposite direction. So greater deregulation, and a rapid decrease in government footprint (except for the military and the security/intelligence apparatus of course). Trump has said he would do all of these things too. This of course benefits the corporate sector, and as the Democrats are either lame or bought off too there wouldn't really be any obstacles to this. 

The danger with Trump lies in how he would justify this to Americans, and how he would use fear and xenophobia to draw attention away from the real problems. He's already ran a campaign based on these ideas, and it's getting ugly. Conservative Americans are justifiably angry about how things are going, but it's no secret that they're largely angry at the wrong thing. Where are these "liberals" they're mad at? The "socialists?" Socialists (outside of Sanders, though he is a democratic socialist, a different beast altogether) have exactly zero power in the US. 

If you look at past crises in capitalism (1929 for example), the left was in a much stronger position. Organized labour was prevalent and in many places quite militant. There were radical political movements, both socialist and communist. These were of course balanced out by fascist movements on the far right.  This is why Roosevelt "saved" capitalism by swinging balance from capital back towards labour. That lasted until roughly the 70s, and since then capital has been clawing back the gains the poor and the middle class made. 

So now, the Democrats (and the Liberals in Canada) have been pursuing the same fiscal policies as the right for quite some time with the predictable result that there isn't really a credible left in either country. Sure that's all that social window dressing, but none of that really addresses the structural economic issues that are really the cause of social unrest in the US. In short, with the current political situation and the power that corporate money has in politics, Trump (or ANY of the other Republican candidates) could do quite a bit of damage indeed. If Bernie won, we could see a drastic slow down of the slide into fascism or perhaps even a reversal, but making it stick would require real reforms. I can't imagine any Republican Senators or Congresspeople allowing that. The nonsense over Obama and accusations of treason, and suggestions of impeachment, the incredibly racist comments from some legislators and the appeal to far elements of the Tea Party all suggest to me that Sanders would be impeached or even assassinated before he could achieve anything meaningful.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Sep 2015)

Maybe you should try reading [color=black"The Forgotten Man"[/color] before you assign blame for a "crisis in Capitalism". After all, the first post war depression was swiftly overcome by simply doing nothing and the Roaring 20's commenced, brought to an end by repeated fiddling by the Federal Reserve triggering the 1929 crash, followed by the "New Deal" extending and deepening the Depression to such an extent that the worst year was 1938, almost a decade after the Crash.

It was a "crisis of Regulation" that caused these problems, much like the 2008 meltdown can be traced back to the Community Reinvestment Act and various shenanigans involving "Fannie May" and "Freddy Mac". And of course ham handed government intervention has kept the real unemployment rate (not the manipulated BLS released rates) at 10% since 2008, with much of the burden falling on the young and minorities, despite the massive "stimulus" and QE that has been going for almost 8 years now.

People like Trump don't have the answers, but then again neither do professional politicians. The voting public supports Trump because they are angry at being fed platitudes and obvious untruths. How or even if he is going to do what he says is almost beside the point now, people are hearing what they want to hear from a public figure and responding accordingly.


----------



## Kilo_302 (12 Sep 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Maybe you should try reading [color=black"The Forgotten Man"[/color] before you assign blame for a "crisis in Capitalism". After all, the first post war depression was swiftly overcome by simply doing nothing and the Roaring 20's commenced, brought to an end by repeated fiddling by the Federal Reserve triggering the 1929 crash, followed by the "New Deal" extending and deepening the Depression to such an extent that the worst year was 1938, almost a decade after the Crash.
> 
> It was a "crisis of Regulation" that caused these problems, much like the 2008 meltdown can be traced back to the Community Reinvestment Act and various shenanigans involving "Fannie May" and "Freddy Mac". And of course ham handed government intervention has kept the real unemployment rate (not the manipulated BLS released rates) at 10% since 2008, with much of the burden falling on the young and minorities, despite the massive "stimulus" and QE that has been going for almost 8 years now.
> 
> People like Trump don't have the answers, but then again neither do professional politicians. The voting public supports Trump because they are angry at being fed platitudes and obvious untruths. How or even if he is going to do what he says is almost beside the point now, people are hearing what they want to hear from a public figure and responding accordingly.



None of  your points are borne out by reality unfortunately. A "crisis in regulation?" Is this what you think caused the 1929 crash? Or the 2008 crash? This is not a serious argument. The 2008 crash can directly be attributed to the repeal of Glass-Steagall Act just as the 1929 Crash is attributed to instability and over exposure stemming from over-speculating. The book you're referencing is by a libertarian author who also happens to chair the "Calvin Coolidge Presidential Foundation." It follows that she wouldn't accept the role of the New Deal measures in the recovery, as well as diffusing dissent from the Left. 

You blaming Fannie May and Freddie Mac just underlines the simple truth that government was indeed legislating *on behalf* of Wall Street. Wall Street then used its considerable influence to secure the bail out packages. These represent the largest upward transfer of wealth in history. In effect, instead of "New Deal" type legislation focused on the poor and middle class, the government practiced corporate welfare on a massive scale in hopes of encouraging a return to growth. Well, since then Americans have seen little of the wealth being put back in the economy, and growth is still slow or non-existent as far as they're concerned. Hence the unrest. So we can agree that government intervention since 2008 has not been a good thing, but that's only because the intervention has been to bail out the banks. The CAUSE of the 2008 recession is undeniably a lack of regulation. This has been well-documented.

More broadly, deregulation has been taking place across many sectors in the US for decades now. The role of government is shrinking rapidly, just as conservatives would like to see. To suggest that our current problems are due to the presence of regulations is to reveal a crucial lack of understanding of what has been occurring since the 1970s. Conservative economic policy has won, the NDP and Liberals in Canada now agree that only business can drive growth, just as the Democrats and the Republicans agree. We've been heading toward that libertarian paradise for sometime now.


----------



## cupper (12 Sep 2015)

I have to disagree on several points with what you have said Kilo. First, Thuc is correct in stating that the 2008 economic collapse was due to a crisis of regulation. This has been analyzed 17 ways from Sunday and all of the economic and financial experts agree on that point. As to how it was dealt with during and after the collapse and how that gets prevented in the future is where the differences fall.

In my opinion you have two distinct issues that are currently playing out right now that allow the populist messages from both Trump and Sanders to resonate with the unwashed electorate.

First is the complete contempt for the lack of effort by Congress to do anything other score points for one side or the other. Focusing on defeating the opposition, rather than working together to get the things done that need attention. People are tired of a do nothing congress. Both Dems and GOP share the blame in this, and the people seem to be willing to finally do a wholesale cleansing, rather than just sit and bitch about it.

Second is the extreme amounts of money that are dumped into the election cycle since the floodgates were opened up. When it takes over $2 Billion (and rising each cycle) to run a campaign on each side, it is getting obscene. Sitting Congressional members now spend more than half their time raising money. Your job starting on day 1 after your election is not making legislation, doing committee work or addressing the issues of your constituency. Your job on day 1 is to get reelected. And you can't get reelected without raising money. The people know this, and they are tired of seeing obscene sums going to pols for reelection. And this is why the perception that the system and the people in it are corrupt, and beholden to the big money interests.

As for your comment about parties running to the extremes of the spectrum as being "capitalism in crisis", I have to disagree strongly. As things have gotten more and more polarized with each cycle since Clinton's second term, both sides now have to run primary campaigns towards the opposite ends of the spectrum which appeal to their respective "bases", and then campaign in the general election pivoting back towards the center to appeal to the rest of the electorate. This has become more pronounced each cycle, but has been more visible with the GOP in the last couple of presidential cycles than it has with the Dems. You need to win the primary in order to get to the general, and you aren't going to win a primary by playing to the middle (especially in the GOP). I've watched it from the sidelines before moving south in 2001, and having been in the thick of it since, it's only getting worse.

People want a change. They are tired of the BS. That is why the so called political outsiders are making an impact this time around. And I use the term so called since some of those outsiders aren't as outside as they may be perceived (Saunders and Fiorina are two examples). But they aren't part of the party establishment or DC insiders, so they appeal to the people who are fed up with the status quo.


----------



## CougarKing (13 Sep 2015)

And Trump keeps going and going and going.

Reuters



> *The Trump insurgency lands in Washington: DC rally illustrates anger within GOP*
> The Canadian PressBy Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press – Wed, 9 Sep, 2015
> 
> WASHINGTON - From his spot in a camping chair on the lawn of Capitol Hill, Blair Owens stares at the famous domed building that produces so much of his frustration.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 Sep 2015)

More on the long term changes which are driving the current "insurgencies" by Trump and Sanders. While this may be appropriate for the "Grand Strategy for a Divided America" thread, the uncontrolled increases in spending and the political and social changes which are driven by the "entitlement" culture have reached a point where any net benefits have been totally swamped by fiscal bankruptcy (literal in the case of many US cities), regulatory burdens and political deadlock.

WRM and the American Thinker have also commented extensively about the collapse of the "Blue model" of governance; what this election cycle is really about is casting for a change which reflects the new demographic, economic and social realities, since many of the old political structures and institutions no longer do:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/09/from-madisonian-constitutionalism-to-wilsonian-statism.php



> *FROM MADISONIAN CONSTITUTIONALISM TO WILSONIAN STATISM?*
> 
> That is how Dan Mitchell describes America’s fiscal evolution, as chronicled in a new report by the Joint Economic Committee. I will have to delve into the report before long, but for now let’s stay with Mitchell’s analysis:
> 
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (13 Sep 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> I have to disagree on several points with what you have said Kilo. First, Thuc is correct in stating that the 2008 economic collapse was due to a crisis of regulation. This has been analyzed 17 ways from Sunday and all of the economic and financial experts agree on that point. As to how it was dealt with during and after the collapse and how that gets prevented in the future is where the differences fall.
> 
> In my opinion you have two distinct issues that are currently playing out right now that allow the populist messages from both Trump and Sanders to resonate with the unwashed electorate.
> 
> ...



So you're saying the 2008 crash was due to TOO MUCH regulation?


----------



## cupper (13 Sep 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> So you're saying the 2008 crash was due to TOO MUCH regulation?



No.  :

If you have been paying attention to any of the discussions during and since the 2008 collapse, you would know that it was a failure of the regulatory bodies to address the underlying issues. It was the blurring of the relationship between the regulatory bodies and the financial institutions that allowed the financial instruments that brought down the economy to be created. Financial deregulation  combined with misguided Fed policies created an environment ripe for a lending free for all with little or no oversight. 

As I said, what is in dispute is the way it was handled during and after the crisis, and how effective the measure taken really were.


----------



## Kilo_302 (13 Sep 2015)

cupper said:
			
		

> No.  :
> 
> If you have been paying attention to any of the discussions during and since the 2008 collapse, you would know that it was a failure of the regulatory bodies to address the underlying issues. It was the blurring of the relationship between the regulatory bodies and the financial institutions that allowed the financial instruments that brought down the economy to be created. Financial deregulation  combined with misguided Fed policies created an environment ripe for a lending free for all with little or no oversight.
> 
> As I said, what is in dispute is the way it was handled during and after the crisis, and how effective the measure taken really were.



....that's exactly what I have been saying. I mentioned the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the fact that legislative bodies are acting on behalf of Wall Street.  Read my posts again, we are in agreement. The crisis of capitalism that I am referring to stems from these developments. The system is no longer working for the majority, the balance of power has swung sharply towards capital. 

I think you're getting confused by the language Thucydides used, specifically "crisis of regulation."  He is suggesting that regulation IS the problem and that's what led to the 2008 crash.


----------



## cupper (13 Sep 2015)

Yes, but what you aren't  picking up (and perhaps I'm not expressing it well) is that the bigger problem was not so much deregulation in and of itself, but rather a failure on the part of the regulating bodies to enforce the regulations that remained in place or were brought in to replace those that were repealed.

Regardless, the rise of the populist movements we are currently seeing on both sides of the ballot are more so due to an overall dissatisfaction with the current political environment of obstructionism and internal disruption within the 2 party system.

On the part of the GOP, it is a problem of having too many choices, with the Dems too few. As we mover closer to the start of the primaries and caucuses in 2016, we will see a winnowing of the GOP clown show to more realistic candidates with support coalescing around a more realistic group of candidates. I don't believe Trump will be able to sustain his position as frontrunner once this starts to happen. 

Now on the Dem's side it is a different story. Clinton has baggage that even a full contingent of Sherpas couldn't deal with. Sanders appeals to the further left base elements. The remainder of the field (O'Mally, Chaffee and Webb) just don't have the national name recognition to get past the starting gate (which is too bad for Webb, as I think he would be a candidate that would be more appealing for the middle who get left out of the equation by both sides). If Biden does decide to get into the race, it may be more a result of Clinton's liability and her failure to move beyond that than anything else. And if that does happen, you may well see support of the more centrist elements move away from Sanders to Biden. Will it be enough to knock Clinton off the ballot? That's harder to call.


----------



## cupper (15 Sep 2015)

Seems there could be rumblings going on behind the scenes to entice Romney to come in as a late entry candidate to counter the Trump populism. However I don't think that it would work. The same problems he had last time would still be there, execpt maybe having a better prepared campaign staff.

*Can Romney Save Us From Trump?
Why GOP poohbahs are seriously thinking about asking Mitt back into the race.
*

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/09/mitt-romney-enter-race-save-gop-from-trump-213145



> In a tastefully furnished conference room somewhere in the nation’s capital, leaders of the GOP establishment are popping antacids and shaking their heads. Donald Trump is the face of their party now — and there’s no stopping him.
> 
> In the latest CNN poll, his lead has grown, due to increased support among two groups they assumed would grow to hate him: Republican women and college graduates. Every candidate challenging The Donald has seen his numbers drop. Ben Carson may be next over his rather dubious decision to attack Trump on illegal immigration — the issue that propelled Trump to first place in the first place.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (15 Sep 2015)

This is the one thing that would ensure a huge GOP loss in 2016, regardless of the Dem's pick. And it looks like they are having a tough time avoiding it.

*Government shutdown: How close are we?
A leading budget wonk explains just how bad it looks.* 

http://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2015/09/are-we-on-the-verge-of-another-government-shutdown-000228



> Congress has just 15 days left in September to reach a budget agreement and the stakes are high: Without a deal, the government will shut down for the second time in three years. The flashpoint this time could be Planned Parenthood: Republicans want to use the budget negotiations to defund the group after videos released this summer allegedly showed the organization illegally profiting from the sale of fetal tissue. Democrats have said they will not accept any budget that defunds Planned Parenthood.
> 
> Last week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called the Planned Parenthood funding protest an “exercise in futility” in an interview with POLITICO, a sign he will not let the issue cause a shutdown. Whether House GOP leaders will take the same position as McConnell is unclear. The Senate and House have just 11 and 6 work days respectively before the end of September—little time to reach a budget deal and barely enough time to hash out a continuing resolution that lets the government limp along for another few weeks or months.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (16 Sep 2015)

Not sure a shutdown would be all bad news, many people took this in stride and many more people were angered at the blatant "Washington monument" ploy the Administration resorted to in order to inconveinence the taxpaying public (and directed the blame correctly). As an election level "event", it would certainly provide focus on the out of control spending and provide an outlet for alternative ideas and candidates (Trump and Sanders are essentially one issue candidates right now; although there is no reason to suppose they could not pivot to new themes that would be disrupive to their "core" message and constituency).

And a twofer; a look at the causes of the 2008 crash. Regulatory failure (in the form of the CRA, which essentially provided penalties for bankers who used traditional and well tested metrics to determine eligibility for mortgages, and the use of "Fanny and Freddie" to incentivise bankers into going against traditional mortgage metrics) is the primary cause, markets adjusted to the distorted signals and incventives that were created by malregulation and of course the end was inevitable (there were articles predicting the crash as far back as 2006, so this is no surprise):

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-09-14/turns-out-the-housing-crisis-wasn-t-all-about-subprime



> *Turns Out the Housing Crisis Wasn't All About Subprime*
> Sept 14, 2015 4:53 PM EDT
> By Megan McArdle
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (16 Sep 2015)

I disagree Thuc. I think it would be a bigger deal than you think, especially for the reason that they want to use to trigger the shutdown. Defunding Planned Parenthood is not the hill that they want to die on. Even McConnell knows it would not be a benefit to the party's chances next year. Especially when you take into consideration that the money allocated to Planned Parenthood would still go through regardless of a government shutdown.


----------



## cupper (16 Sep 2015)

Not entirely sure I buy this explanation of the premise that it wasn't all about the subprimes either. Reading through the article, she essentially refutes her own premise, if I am reading it right she is arguing that if the regulations that were in place were adhered to (i.e. use of a downpayment to provide some for amount of positive equity right from the get go), the subprimes would not have been in the market, and thus the collapse would not likely have happened. Which means that it was all about the subprimes.

I do agree with the original premise though, that it wasn't all strictly subprimes that caused the collapse. The fundamental problem was a lax regulatory environment on the institutional side of the house that allowed mortgage industry to become a substitute for the high risk / high reward investment markets for global wealth (The Giant Pool of Money as NPR's Planet Money has aptly named it).

When you have regulatory bodies being walked over by the institutions they were supposed to regulate, it doesn't make for effective oversight. When you have advisors of hedge funds advising on which assets to put into derivatives, who then turn around and advise their own clients to put money into credit default swaps to bet against the derivatives they were advising on, and no one gets hauled  up on conspiracy or fraud charges says a lot about what really happened.


----------



## CougarKing (17 Sep 2015)

Two assessments of last night's GOP debate: Trump still ahead, but relative newcomer Fiorina has gained momentum?

CNN



> *CNN's Republican debate: Winners and losers*
> 
> By Jeremy Diamond, CNN
> Updated 8:18 AM ET, Thu September 17, 2015
> ...



CBC



> *Donald Trump vs. the Republican establishment. Not a fair fight*
> CBCCBC – Tue, 15 Sep, 2015
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> ...



Also, according to the article below, US foreign policy towards China and the rest of Asia were noticeably absent from last night's GOP debate:

Diplomat



> *Republican Debate #2: Game On, Gloves Off
> Behind the symbolism and showmanship, where was Asia?*
> 
> By Mercy A. Kuo and Angelica O. Tang
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Sep 2015)

There will be another debate covering foreign policy.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Sep 2015)

Americans are generally fed up with the political establishment, and especially being told what they know to be untrue becasue it contradicts their own, ground level, observations. Immigration is obviously a key trigger among the American electorate, but Bernie Sanders is also tapping into the economic frustrations of the electorate as well. Republicans looking for an issue to displace Donald Trump might do well to think of this issue:

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/09/17/upshot/why-americans-still-think-the-economy-is-terrible.html?referrer=&_r=1



> *Why Americans Still Think the Economy Is Terrible*
> By NEIL IRWIN
> September 16, 2015
> 
> ...



and

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2015/09/heritage-the-redistributive-state-the-allocation-of-government-benefits-services-and-taxes-in-the-un.html



> *Heritage: The Redistributive State — The Allocation Of Government Benefits, Services, And Taxes In The United States*
> By Paul Caron
> 
> Each year, families and individuals pay taxes to the government and receive back a wide variety of services and benefits. A fiscal deficit occurs when the benefits and services received by one household or a group of households exceed the taxes paid. When such a deficit occurs, other households must pay, through taxes, for the services and benefits of the group in deficit. Thus, government functions as a redistributive mechanism for transferring resources between groups in society.
> ...



Notice top 40%; not top 1%. The 40% is, of course, the middle class; the same group who have seen a 6% drop in income since 2007 (and which Administration and party has been in power since 2008 to "fix" the problem?).

Fertile ground for those who choose to cultivate it.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Sep 2015)

Wow, a big change, but notice another non professional politician has jumped ahead:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/09/17/post-debate-poll-fiorina-surges-to-1st-place-tied-with-trump/



> A post-debate poll conducted by Gravis Marketing for One America News Network (OAN) shows Carly Fiorina jumping to first place at 22%, tied with Donald Trump. In their previous poll, Fiorina ranked 7th with 2.7% of the vote.
> 
> The poll, taken immediately after Wednesday night’s GOP debate at the Ronald Reagan Library, has Marco Rubio rising to third place with 15 percent:
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (21 Sep 2015)

One GOP nominee hopeful is still fixated on Obama possibly being a Muslim, while another drops out.

BBC



> *US Republican hopeful Ben Carson: No Muslims as president*
> 1 hour ago
> From the section US & Canada
> 
> ...



CNN



> *Scott Walker drops out of 2016 presidential race*
> By Eric Bradner, John King, Dana Bash and Jeff Zele
> 
> (...SNIPPED)


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Sep 2015)

So, no wall then?


----------



## Rifleman62 (21 Sep 2015)

S.M.A. 





> One GOP nominee hopeful is still fixated on Obama possibly being a Muslim, while another drops out.



Nothing of the sort. Dr. Carson was stating that says Islam is not consistent with US constitution. 

‘I would not advocate we put a Muslim in charge of this nation’. Obama is not even mentioned. 

Read past the headlines and first paragraph.


----------



## cupper (21 Sep 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> S.M.A.
> Nothing of the sort. Dr. Carson was stating that says Islam is not consistent with US constitution.
> 
> ‘I would not advocate we put a Muslim in charge of this nation’. Obama is not even mentioned.
> ...



He still botched it though, seeing as he has completely ignored the establishment clause.  :facepalm:


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Sep 2015)

Heard several Vets who are upset at the remarks as they knew or commanded Muslim US Army/Marines who were KIA. One remarked at the number buried in Arlington.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Sep 2015)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Nothing of the sort. Dr. Carson was stating that says Islam is not consistent with US constitution.
> 
> ‘I would not advocate we put a Muslim in charge of this nation’. Obama is not even mentioned.


Indeed, he was asked if Islam is consistent with the Constitution when me made the remark, so Obama wasn't mentioned.  

Like Harper's "old-vs-new-stock" Canadian quote, though, it's one of those "lightning rod" quotes whose interpretation is in the ear of the beholder - lovers say, "nothing to see here," while haters say, "hey, it's another back-door Obama bash".


			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Heard several Vets who are upset at the remarks as they knew or commanded Muslim US Army/Marines who were KIA. One remarked at the number buried in Arlington.


Good points, and not surprising he'd have heard from them pretty quickly.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2015)

Is this ...

                   
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





                                                      ... the real state of the Clinton campaign?


----------



## CougarKing (27 Sep 2015)

Speaking of Clinton, she weighs in again on US policy towards Canada:

Canadian Press/Associated Press



> *Clinton announced another Canada policy this week, could affect millions: Pharma*
> By Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press
> Sat, 26 Sep, 2015
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (27 Sep 2015)

So…. She's calling for importation of drugs which quite possibly have been manufactured in the US and imported into Canada, only to be reimported back into the US at a cheaper price.

Nope, can't see how this could be a bad move for either US consumers or Canadians. None at all.  :facepalm:

When are these I D 10 T errors going to realize that the problem is with US manufacturers setting prices in the US to make up for the lower prices in other countries, added to unrealistic attempts to recoup development costs, and the need to meet shareholder demands for a premium return on investment.

All this is going to achieve is a drain on Canadian drug markets, causing shortages for Canadian consumers, without addressing the real problem, as was exhibited this week when some 30 something hedge fund managing douche bag figured he could jack up the price of a drug that has been on the market for 60 plus years and had no patent protection remaining, low volume and a must have for a small group of individuals in a captive market.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Sep 2015)

A few other significant flaws:

- Canadian pharmacies are required to only fill prescriptions from licensed providers, and US MDs do not count as such;
- it is a violation of College law for a Canadian MD to sign off on a prescription where they haven't seen the patient or taken a hand in their care.
- provincial Colleges of Pharmacists are making it much harder for internet pharmacies to operate from Canada.

These three restrictions will make it harder for any American who wants to access Canadian pharmaceuticals. So the US can allow the importation all it wants, it's up to us to allow the exportation.


----------



## CougarKing (9 Oct 2015)

Who will replace McCarthy?

Defense News



> *McCarthy Withdrawal Raises Wall Street Fears of Government Shutdown*
> By Andrew Clevenger 6:23 p.m. EDT October 8, 2015
> 
> WASHINGTON — House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy’s sudden withdrawal Thursday from the race for speaker rekindled Wall Street’s worries about a possible government shutdown.
> ...


----------



## cupper (9 Oct 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Who will replace McCarthy?
> 
> Defense News



John Boehner will replace himself.

Issue is that 218 threshold. There isn't anyone (who ins't insane and is willing to stand for the position) who is going to garner enough votes from the Republican side to get to 218.

Paul Ryan's name is being bounced around and claims are being made that he could be acceptable to enough, but 1) he says he isn't interested, and 2) may not be willing to give the hardcore freedom caucus the assurances they are looking for that their needs will be provided for.

I think that what's really going to happen is that Boehner will keep putting the vote off until the finally come to an acceptable candidate, and that may drag on long enough that he may just decide to stay. The one caveat to that is that there isn't another more serious reason for Boenhe's decision to step down such as personal or family health concerns.

Whoever does take over has some serious fights ahead regarding the debt ceiling, budget, and trying to keep the party from shooting itself in the foot and blowing the upcoming election up.


More on the Ryan situation:

*Freedom Caucus lies in wait for Paul Ryan
The group isn't sold on Ryan yet and is sticking by Rep. Webster's long-shot bid — for now.
*

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/paul-ryan-house-freedom-caucus-214627



> After leaving the House Republican Conference in a state of suspended upheaval, the rebellious group of conservative lawmakers that helped oust one speaker then short-circuited his would-be successor is intentionally laying low and deciding how to respond if Rep. Paul Ryan decides to run for speaker.
> 
> The short answer on Ryan so far from members of the House Freedom Caucus is that they’re not quite sold. So, the roughly 40 caucus members are standing by their endorsement of Rep. Daniel Webster of Florida for speaker — for now.
> Story Continued Below
> ...


----------



## cupper (9 Oct 2015)

Why no one in their right mind wants the job.

*5 reasons nobody wants to be House speaker
Why only a fool, hero, caretaker (or some combination of all) would want the job Boehner dearly hopes to vacate by month’s end, but can’t.*

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/speaker-five-reasons-to-not-run-214587



> Friends don’t let friends run for Speaker of the House of Representatives.
> 
> Rep. Kevin McCarthy’s abrupt and shocking (well, not that shocking) withdrawal from the race to succeed John Boehner has raised an existential question the ochre Ohioan himself always asked rebellious members: Who the hell would want this job?
> 
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Oct 2015)

Jeb Bush poses with a green screen and becomes an instant meme.

Jeb really memes it


----------



## CougarKing (12 Oct 2015)

Anyone want to prepare a tally sheet on how many gaffes Biden might say tomorrow?

CNN



> *CNN releases Democratic debate podium order*
> 
> By Eugene Scott, CNN
> Updated 1:31 PM ET, Mon October 12, 2015
> ...


----------



## cupper (12 Oct 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Anyone want to prepare a tally sheet on how many gaffes Biden might say tomorrow?
> 
> CNN



Actually Biden does well in the prepared questions competition. It's his informal wear competition that needs improvement. And forget the swimsuit competition.

Remember this is the man that went up against some pretty stiff opposition in the 2008 VP debates and held his own against a well prepared and polished Sarah Palin. (yeah, even I couldn't keep a straight face while typing that)

Seriously though, *IF* Biden shows up, he does well in the debate format.

One interesting comment I heard over the weekend, if he were to get in the race, his best option for pulling it all off is to state that he would only come in for one term, to focus on getting the gridlock on Congress and DC resolved and moving the political side of the country back to a functioning entity.


----------



## cupper (14 Oct 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> ....that's exactly what I have been saying. I mentioned the repeal of Glass-Steagall, the fact that legislative bodies are acting on behalf of Wall Street.  Read my posts again, we are in agreement. The crisis of capitalism that I am referring to stems from these developments. The system is no longer working for the majority, the balance of power has swung sharply towards capital.
> 
> I think you're getting confused by the language Thucydides used, specifically "crisis of regulation."  He is suggesting that regulation IS the problem and that's what led to the 2008 crash.



A little more on how there is debate as to whether the repeal of Glass-Steagall was responsible for the collapse, or if it would have prevented the collapse if it was left in place. Again. it reiterates the "crisis of regulation" in that regulating the banks wasn't the problem, it was relation and enforcement when applied to the securities industry.

*Fact Check: Did Glass-Steagall Cause The 2008 Financial Crisis?*

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2015/10/14/448685233/fact-check-did-glass-steagall-cause-the-2008-financial-crisis



> Taking on Wall Street makes for good politics in the Democratic Party. And several of the candidates at Tuesday night's debate had tough words about big banks. That was particularly true of former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
> 
> Although he didn't say so directly, O'Malley suggested several times that consolidation in the banking business was a big factor in the 2008 financial crash and that the U.S. economy remains vulnerable because of it.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (16 Oct 2015)

Sadly, this messaging works just as well in Canada:


----------



## CougarKing (16 Oct 2015)

One assessment on the debate from last Tuesday:

Diplomat



> *First Democratic Presidential Debate: Parsing Policy, Projecting Persona
> Robust exchange on domestic issues, U.S. foreign policy vision absent.*
> By Mercy A. Kuo and Angelica O. Tang
> October 15, 2015
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (19 Oct 2015)

Just the tip of the iceberg when one takes into the account all the foreign contributions to both parties?

Shanghaiist



> *Husband of Hong Kong cosmetics tycoon bankrolls Jeb Bush super PAC to the tune of $500,000*
> 
> Documents disclosed by Jeb Bush supporting super PAC Right to Rise in August have made public the fact that the presidential candidate received a total of $500,000 in contributions from the husband of a prominent Hong Kong cosmetics mogul.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (21 Oct 2015)

Joe Biden has made a decision. He has shown he's smart enough not to get in this race.

I believe that Biden would be the President this country needs, but would never elect. I say that because what needs to be done is break through the partisan divide that has created the legislative gridlock and kept the US from progressing as many form both ends of the spectrum feel it should be doing, but choose to blame each other for that failure.

Here is Biden's words from today:



> As the family and I have worked through the -- the grieving process, I've said all along what I've said time and again to others: that it may very well be that that process, by the time we get through it, closes the window on mounting a realistic campaign for president. That it might close.
> 
> I've concluded it has closed. I know from previous experience that there's no timetable for this process. The process doesn't respect or much care about things like filing deadlines or debates and primaries and caucuses.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2015)

A twofer: Why the Republicans are having a hard time harnessing the awesome powers of Big Data, and a it of cartoon snark for you to enjoy as well:

http://thewilderness.me/how-to-build-a-digital-elephant/



> *How to Build a Digital Elephant: The GOP’s Biggest Obstacle in 2016*
> The Wilderness | Issue 61 | 10 . 21 . 2015 |
> 
> Last week saw the Democrats, the purported party of Youth and Diversity, turn their first primary debate into a joyless slog that quickly devolved into a pitiless deathmarch to see which aging, pasty-faced candidate could stay awake past their bedtime the longest. It took less than five minutes for the Democratic candidates to start yelling at, and about, everyone watching. As VOXDOTCOM noted, the Democratic party is in ashes on a state and national level outside of the presidency, and they have no candidates in the post-Obama era worth offering so hey: Lincoln Chafee will have to do! The best they are offering is a 74-year-old socialist (who, a week after the debate ended, is probably still on stage screaming about communitarian economics in a darkened auditorium) and a 70-year-old oligarch with the lowest likability ratings of any presidential candidate in modern history…who also just happens to be the target of a FBI investigation for gross mishandling of classified information.
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (27 Oct 2015)

Thoughts, cupper? Rifleman?

Time



> *Trump’s Foreign Policy Doesn’t Include Fighting Over Burqas*
> 
> Daniel White @danielatlarge
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (27 Oct 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Thoughts, cupper? Rifleman?
> 
> Time



It will be 'uge.

See, this is why we need more of the Canadian political elite to start getting policy guidance from the cable news channels. Forget the think tanks, forget the wonks. If you need experts, watch the cable news shows. That's what Trump does, that's what all the politicos should do.

Unencumbered by the thought process.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Oct 2015)

More of the real reason for Trump, Carson and the rest (and Bernie Sanders on the Democrat side): the actual political establishment has become so insulated from the electorate they actually have no idea of what the electorate actually wants (or are so insulated from the effects of their actions they have no idea how these policies play out in the real world). Cupper may have been sarcastic, but cable news commentators and call in radio shows are somewhat closer to the electorate, and bloggers and new media closer still. If there are community newspapers and local television and radio stations out in the hinterland, they probably provide a more nuanced and immediate perspective than the large networks  do:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/26/3-sentences-that-explain-just-how-clueless-establishment-republicans-are-about-2016/



> The Fix
> *3 sentences that explain just how clueless establishment Republicans are about 2016*
> By Chris Cillizza October 26
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (27 Oct 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> More of the real reason for Trump, Carson and the rest (and Bernie Sanders on the Democrat side): the actual political establishment has become so insulated from the electorate they actually have no idea of what the electorate actually wants (or are so insulated from the effects of their actions they have no idea how these policies play out in the real world). Cupper may have been sarcastic, but cable news commentators and call in radio shows are somewhat closer to the electorate, and bloggers and new media closer still. If there are community newspapers and local television and radio stations out in the hinterland, they probably provide a more nuanced and immediate perspective than the large networks  do:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/10/26/3-sentences-that-explain-just-how-clueless-establishment-republicans-are-about-2016/



I respect Chris Cillzza's opinions and analysis, particularly his center of the spectrum viewpoint.

However, the GOP race last time was never solid until March or April, and many predicted that Romney wasn't gong to make it since he could never get above the 35% threshold. The front runner changed with each caucus or primary, starting with Bachman in the Iowa Caucuses, the Cain, then Gingritch, and so on until we were left with Santorum and Romney.

The difference this time around is the race started a 18 months early. We've been watching Trump lead for months, and now Carson. The outsiders seem to have gamed it out, and the so-called establishment candidates sucking air. But this time 4 years ago we were  just starting to see who was getting in and who wasn't.

I think you will see an establishment candidate finally take over in the March session of the primaries. As the more center oriented / moderate GOP voters figure they have no real chance going with the extreme end of the spectrum, or someone who only really seems to be in it for an ego boost.

As they say - a week in politics is a lifetime.


----------



## CougarKing (28 Oct 2015)

Carson is now the frontrunner to Trump's dismay. Meanwhile, Fiorina, Bush and the other so-called "presidentiables" have their poll numbers stuck in the single digits:

Reuters


> Politics | Tue Oct 27, 2015 2:21pm EDT
> Related: Politics
> *Ben Carson pulls ahead of Donald Trump in national poll*
> WASHINGTON | By Ginger Gibson
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Oct 2015)

While people are (and should be) genuinely concerned with the state of things in the United States, there is still a big difference between America and the rest of the world. If the GOP were to start stressing the advantages of America (and indeed stressing the differential between Republican States and their European counterparts) they could change the narrative to something much more positive and upifting. (One can dream):

https://mises.org/blog/if-sweden-and-germany-became-us-states-they-would-be-among-poorest-states



> Mises Wire
> *If Sweden and Germany Became US States, They Would be Among the Poorest States *
> October 26, 2015•Ryan McMaken
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (29 Oct 2015)

A good summary on the previous GOP debate:

Diplomat



> *Republican Round #3: Survival of the Fittest
> 
> Candidates focus on US economy and fight for their political future.*
> By Mercy A. Kuo and Angelica O. Tang
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Oct 2015)

Maybe if the Republicans stand together and work a bit harder on these issues, then the election (and American politics) will be changed quite dramatically:

http://pjmedia.com/michaelwalsh/2015/10/30/the-medias-potemkin-village-starts-to-topple/?singlepage=true



> *The Media’s Potemkin Village Starts to Topple*
> But whining about liberal bias means nothing if you don't back it up with some action of your own.
> by Michael Walsh
> October 30, 2015 - 8:40 am
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Oct 2015)

And a look at how the debates winnowed out the Republican contenders. Once again, we see the "Establishment", clueless and cocconed from the effects of their own policies, facing a revolt from the "unwashed masses". Why do you think that people like Trump have som much support?:

http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2015/10/the-republican-final-four.html



> *The Republican Final Four Three*
> 
> According to the Weekly Standard, anyhow:
> Tonight’s debate showed that the GOP field is smaller than it looks. Technically, there are still fourteen people running, but the winnowing is far along. We probably have a final six and possibly a final four.
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (31 Oct 2015)

Rubio and Jeb Bush actually thought that past Chinese/Taiwan Guomindang leader Chiang Kai Shek was a "mystical warrior". WTF?

Washington Post




> (...SNIPPED)
> 
> By 2005, the two men were close enough that when Rubio gave an emotional speech after winning the race to be Florida’s House speaker, Bush made a show of his mentorship. *Bush honored Rubio with a gift: a sword, which he said belonged to a great “conservative warrior” named Chang.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (11 Nov 2015)

Canadian Press



> *A Trudeau-style gender-equal cabinet pledge for the U.S.? No thanks, says Trump*
> The Canadian Press
> By Alexander Panetta
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Nov 2015)

> A Trudeau-style gender-equal cabinet pledge for the U.S.? No thanks, says Trump
> The Canadian Press
> By Alexander Panetta
> 
> ...



I would love to see the first summit meeting between a presumptive President Trump and the Young Dauphin. Of course given the Young Dauphin won't even face Sun Media reporters, you have to ask what could possibly go wrong at the summit.....


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 Nov 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Canadian Press



This seems like an oddly reasonable position for Donald Trump... for the record, I hate the "because it's 2015" response. What is implied is that, because we have reached 2015 we have entered some magic vortex of equity, despite what statistics about male/female wage gaps and systemic racism in the US (and Canada) say. It's also odd that the cabinet is forced equality based on quota's... so I guess Mr. Trudeau's version of 2015 is that equality can be created through quota's and not through ability? (equality of outcomes vs equality of opportunity). I prefer Mr. Trumps approach (I think I'm going to be ill for saying that...) and look forward to the day when we can appoint a cabinet based on Mr. Trudeau's implied "it's 2015" statement and not based on quota's, which are the opposite of progress


----------



## CougarKing (13 Nov 2015)

To Trump: Thank you Mr. Obvious! You're FIRED!    ;D

Shanghaiist



> *On his first day in office, Donald Trump vows to declare China as a currency manipulator*
> 
> Throughout his campaign, Donald Trump has been bombarding the American media and public with angry remarks voicing his displeasure with China, a country that he also happens to love dearly. Yesterday, the presidential hopeful took it up a notch and declared that his first move upon assuming office would be to force Chinese officials to mend their cruel currency manipulating ways.
> 
> ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (13 Nov 2015)

I hope Trump realizes that unlike his business undertakings, he can't get personally rich on the back of the USA, declare the country bankrupt and then start another one again under a different name  ;D.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Nov 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> This seems like an oddly reasonable position for Donald Trump... for the record, I hate the "because it's 2015" response. What is implied is that, because we have reached 2015 we have entered some magic vortex of equity, despite what statistics about male/female wage gaps and systemic racism in the US (and Canada) say. It's also odd that the cabinet is forced equality based on quota's... so I guess Mr. Trudeau's version of 2015 is that equality can be created through quota's and not through ability? (equality of outcomes vs equality of opportunity). I prefer Mr. Trumps approach (I think I'm going to be ill for saying that...) and look forward to the day when we can appoint a cabinet based on Mr. Trudeau's implied "it's 2015" statement and not based on quota's, which are the opposite of progress



What the Young Dauphin's advisors have done with the "equality by quota's" thing is "virtue signalling": i.e. doing something to announce support for an assumed virtuous position. Whether the act actually accomplishes anything (or is even counterproductive) is beside the point, you have signalled that you are "doing something" towards the virtuous goal. In the early 2000's, the Mayor and city council of Toronto banned firearms ranges and took steps to harass legal gun owners to show they were "doing something" about the rising wave of gun violence. The fact that gun violence simply kept increasing despite these "signals" was conveniently overlooked by the media and political class, the only thing which actually ended the wave of violence was an international police operation which took down the Shower Posse in Jamaica, the United States and Canada.

The non answer "because it's 2015" is a deliberate attempt to end questioning and debate about the subject, and prevent the sort of close examination of the real causes and effects of the Virtue signalling action and activities. Anyone who tries to bring this up in the future will essentially be told to shut up "because its 2015"


----------



## CougarKing (18 Nov 2015)

Technically, isn't the current administration already doing this?

Reuters



> *Trump: "I would bomb the hell out of ISIS"*
> 
> 1 hour 10 minutes ago, Reuters Videos
> Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump says if he becomes president, Syrian refugees are going back and that he would "bomb the hell out of ISIS." Rough Cut (no reporter narration).


----------



## cupper (18 Nov 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Technically, isn't the current administration already doing this?
> 
> Reuters



See this is the problem. The Administration and the GOP wannabes just don't know what the solution is.

They should be bombing them TO HELL, not be bombing hell out of them. Seriously? Come on!. Let's get with the program people.
;D


----------



## CougarKing (19 Nov 2015)

The Syrian refugee issue also reaches the US presidential candidates' debates.

Apparently the official figure is 10,000, though there is apparent confusion...

Washington Post



> *Repeat after me: Obama is not admitting 100,000, 200,000 or 250,000 Syrian refugees*
> By Glenn Kessler November 18
> 
> “If we’re going to be bringing 200,000 people over here from that region — if I were one of the leaders of the global jihadist movement and I didn’t infiltrate that group of people with my people, that would be almost malpractice.”
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (21 Nov 2015)

During WW2, were nationals from Axis countries in North America supposed to register before the attack on Pearl Harbor? Just curious. Aside from the detainment camps of Japanese Americans during that war.

Canadian Press



> *Trump's presidential rivals decry his call for registering US Muslims; 'abhorrent,' says Bush*
> The Canadian Press
> By Julie Pace And Jill Colvin, The Associated Press
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Nov 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> The Syrian refugee issue also reaches the US presidential candidates' debates.
> 
> Apparently the official figure is 10,000, though there is apparent confusion...
> 
> Washington Post



Given that Obama hasn't told anyone, including the governors, what the plan is, or how it's going to be carried out, confusion is understandable.


----------



## George Wallace (21 Nov 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> During WW2, were nationals from Axis countries in North America supposed to register before the attack on Pearl Harbor? Just curious. Aside from the detainment camps of Japanese Americans during that war.
> 
> Canadian Press



Now we just have to wait for all the "Talking Heads" from the CAIR, Black Panthers, NAN, NAACP, etc. and the biggest one of all, Al Sharpton to hit the airwaves.  This ridiculous statement by Trump is another of his ploys to get people talking, and not necessarily in a good way.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Dec 2015)

Explaining the how and why of Donald Trump. I suspect that in the beginning, running for President was some sort of self promotion ploy by Donald Trump, but as his words resonated with the voting public and he kept rising in the polls, the race took on a life of its own. Donald is now riding a tiger, and there is no next stop to get off....

This is also an interesting look at how the media echo chamber has evolved, and also goes some way to explaining why the media seems so clueless in covering Trump (as well as people like Dr Carson and Carly Fiorina).

http://pressthink.org/2015/11/i-will-try-to-explain-why-the-trump-candidacy-has-been-so-confounding-to-our-political-press/



> *So I will try to explain why the Trump candidacy has been so confounding to our political press.*
> Nov. 29
> 
> Those “laws of political gravity?” They were never really laws.
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (3 Dec 2015)

Donald Trump again:

Reuters via Yahoo News



> *Trump calls for targeting Islamic State fighters' families*
> Reuters – 20 hours ago
> 
> WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said on Wednesday his plan for combating Islamic State militants involves targeting not just the group's fighters but also their families.
> ...


----------



## cupper (3 Dec 2015)

Yep. That's the solution right there.  :


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Dec 2015)

Wasnt that a British colonial policy as well when dealing with rebels ? Go after the families.Israel destroys the homes of terrorists.Same principle.


----------



## Jed (4 Dec 2015)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Wasnt that a British colonial policy as well when dealing with rebels ? Go after the families.Israel destroys the homes of terrorists.Same principle.



Apparently, Israel has the only policy that appears to be functioning. Now that's a harsh truth.


----------



## CougarKing (8 Dec 2015)

More Trump sound bytes:

CNN



> *Trump: Ban all Muslim travel to U.S.*
> 
> By Jeremy Diamond, CNN
> 
> ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (8 Dec 2015)

How is he going to figure out who is Muslim ???

Oh! Silly me, he is going to have them sow and wear a yellow moon Crescent symbol on their breast pocket, obviously.

The worse thing here is that such speech panders to a small but vocal and growing segment of the American population, some times referred to as Dominionists and Reconstructionists, who are as radical in their interpretation of the bible as the "radical" Islamists. They seek (and see it as their mission in life) to take control in Washington  and install there a Christian theocracy that would live and govern by the Ten Commandments and the rules of the Old testament.

If you don't believe me, just google "American Taliban".

Typical of their position would be statements like the following, from one Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue, an organization that intimidates abortion providers in the US ("intimidate" in this context often means to threaten them with death, and actually attempt to carry out these murders, forcing the personnel from these clinics to live their life with constant body guards or police protection):

"Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism. Our goal must be simple. We must have a Christian nation built on God's law, on the Ten Commandments. No Apologies."

Ref: http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html

I don't believe these people will ever achieve power in the US, and if they ever did, a "Christian nation based on the Ten Commandments" is so contrary to the secular Constitution of the United States that it would degenerate into another civil war. But it is unacceptable in my view for anyone who pretends to the presidency of the United States to pander in any way to such a view of the nation.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Dec 2015)

Pandering to potential voters is ALL these people do. The eliminationist rhetoric of the Left is equally offensive to many people as the sort of stuff Trump puts out, for the same reasons and with the same results.

And of course we have similar examples here in Canada, and the NAtional Socialist parites in Europe are on the rise, using much the same rhetoric against the "migrants" to whip up voter fervor.

So this is neither unusual or unexpected, and there should be no expectation that this will change anytime soon.


----------



## Pencil Tech (8 Dec 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> How is he going to figure out who is Muslim ???
> 
> Oh! Silly me, he is going to have them sow and wear a yellow moon Crescent symbol on their breast pocket, obviously.
> 
> ...



That was a great post OGBD. There were two significant cultural threads in the colonies that would become the USA 1) The Enlightenment, as typified by Franklin and Jefferson, i.e. a rationalist, deist, unorthodox and quite agnostic religious viewpoint; and 2) The ultra rigid Calvinist puritanism of the original New England settlers, exiled from England because of their religious extremism. 
I find it infuriating when extreme rightwing American politicians and commentators invoke the "Founding Fathers" in support of their views. They evoke Franklin, Jefferson et al, when they are actually speaking with the voice of those "Pilgrim Fathers", the original American Taliban.


----------



## Lumber (8 Dec 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The worse thing here is that such speech panders to a small but vocal and growing segment of the American population, some times referred to as Dominionists and Reconstructionists, who are as radical in their interpretation of the bible as the "radical" Islamists.



What helps people like this to gain momentum and support is the ignorance of others:

Enjoy:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/bible-quran-disguise-dutch-pranksters-youtube-1.3354446


----------



## a_majoor (8 Dec 2015)

More on Trump's MO. I'm surprised journalists haven't caught on to this earlier, given Trum's entire working career has been based on negotiating real estate deals, but then again, how doies that fit into the "narrative"?:

http://www.redstate.com/2015/12/07/this-is-a-brilliant-move-by-donald-trump/



> *This is a Brilliant Move by Donald Trump*
> By: Erick Erickson (Diary)  |  December 7th, 2015 at 06:43 PM  |  115
> 
> Donald Trump just trumped all the Republican candidates for President.
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Dec 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> How is he going to figure out who is Muslim ???
> 
> Oh! Silly me, he is going to have them sow and wear a yellow moon Crescent symbol on their breast pocket, obviously.
> 
> ...


Sounds like some firm measures are in order ....  >


----------



## CougarKing (8 Dec 2015)

The backlash in Vancouver over Trump's not so PC comments:

CBC



> *Donald Trump's anti-Muslim stance triggers Vancouver tower backlash*
> Republican presidential candidate called for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims" entering the U.S.
> 
> e growing to remove Donald Trump's name from a Vancouver tower following the Republican presidential candidate's call for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States."
> ...


----------



## cupper (8 Dec 2015)

Interesting premise I heard last night in regards to Trump's latest episode.

Could Trump have launched his latest doozie in deliberate effort to tank his run, since nothing else he has done to this point has resulted in a negative outcome?

Did Trump get into the race as a lark to stir the pot and drum up publicity, with no real thought that this could possibly succeed in gaining the nomination, let alone the White House? Only to find that the electorate (the GOP side of the ledger at least) are in a mood to put anyone other than the mainstream Washington insiders in power? And now that there is a more than fleeting chance that he could well win the nomination is he doing what ever he can to try and tank his campaign?

The cynic in me says that he just isn't that smart.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Dec 2015)

I think there's no way he wouldn't want the job.  He has an insatiable appetite for an ego.  The beast needs lots of feeding and maintenance.


----------



## Old Sweat (8 Dec 2015)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I think there's no way he wouldn't want the job.  He has an insatiable appetite for an ego.  The beast needs lots of feeding and maintenance.



Unlikely, but he could also say, "I walked away from a sure shot at becoming the most powerful man in the world because it didn't have enough challenges for ME!"


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Dec 2015)

President carter during the Iran crisis banned Iranians entry into the US.The President has the power to bar any class of people entry into the country.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182#

(f) Suspension of entry or imposition of restrictions by President
 Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate. Whenever the Attorney General finds that a commercial airline has failed to comply with regulations of the Attorney General relating to requirements of airlines for the detection of fraudulent documents used by passengers traveling to the United States (including the training of personnel in such detection), the Attorney General may suspend the entry of some or all aliens transported to the United States by such airline.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Dec 2015)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> President carter during the Iran crisis banned Iranians entry into the US.The President has the power to bar any class of people entry into the country.
> 
> https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182#
> 
> ...


A good reminder - thanks for sharing this.

That said, WAY easier to confirm what country someone's from than what religion they believe ....  As one generall-left-of-centre commentator/comedian said, if Trump is serious about registering every Muslim in the U.S., he'd have to keep all the illegal Mexicans to do all the work required  >


			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Unlikely, but he could also say, "I walked away from a sure shot at becoming the most powerful man in the world because it didn't have enough challenges for ME!"


That presumes a certain level of self-awareness ....


----------



## CougarKing (9 Dec 2015)

Putting things in historical context:

Washington Post



> *Muslims are to Trump as the Chinese were to President Arthur in 1882*
> 
> The “Chinaman” was a familiar figure to many Americans in the mid-1800s. His likeness was unmistakable: slit eyes, a perpetual grimace, traditional loose-fitting garb and a long, snake-like ponytail tightly tied to an otherwise bald head.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jed (9 Dec 2015)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Putting things in historical context:
> 
> Washington Post



Interesting.  It didn't work very well did it? (Thank God)   [


----------



## a_majoor (9 Dec 2015)

Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) on why Trum has so much appeal. The warning is also very clear for others, _weak, ineffectual and dishonest_ politicians and the political class give rise to someone or something which does not appear to be weak, ineffectual and dishonest. We see this in the steady growth of nativist and national socialist parties in Europe in response to the Eurocrats and the machinations of European politicians , and one can only wonder how much longer our own political class will be spared from a "Trump" or "Le Pen" (one does not have to look too far to find examples of "weak, ineffectual or dishonest" politicians at all levels of Canadian government). Seen this way, the Ford brothers are not quite so remarkable. Who will follow in their footsteps?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/12/09/glenn-reynolds-liberals-have-chosen-donald-their-destructor/76996298/



> *Glenn Reynolds: Liberals have chosen The Donald as their 'Destructor'*
> Glenn Harlan Reynolds 10:23 a.m. EST December 9, 2015
> Weak and ineffectual leadership created the vacuum Trump is filling.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (11 Dec 2015)

Muhammad Ali weighs in on Trump:

Yahoo News




> *Boxing legend Muhammad Ali responds to Donald Trump's call to ban Muslims from entering US*
> The Canadian Press
> By The Associated Press 10 December, 2015 12:02 AM
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (12 Dec 2015)

*4 Reasons Trump's Supporters Aren't Going Anywhere — And Why The GOP's Worried*

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/11/459274277/4-reasons-trumps-supporters-arent-going-anywhere-and-why-the-gops-worried



> Editor's Note: Some readers might find some of the language below offensive.
> 
> This post was updated at 11:30 a.m. ET
> 
> ...



And in other news, a recent study concluded that 1 in every 3 Trump supporters is just as dumb as the other two. [


----------



## georgelunn (12 Dec 2015)

Trump's modus operandi: Make outrageous and slanderous statements that would destroy the reputation of the Republicans. Next move? Cause Bernie Sanders of the Communist Party of USA win the presidential elections. I was not born yesterday especially if US signals intelligence decrypts of Russia are riddled with Trump's code name. :rage:


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Dec 2015)

georgelunn said:
			
		

> Cause Bernie Sanders of the Communist Party of USA win the presidential elections. I was not born yesterday especially if US signals intelligence decrypts of Russia are riddled with Trump's code name. :rage:


Thanks, and banned.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Dec 2015)

And we have a new Land Speed Record.....


----------



## dimsum (13 Dec 2015)

Aww...I wanted to know Trump's code name...   :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## mariomike (13 Dec 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Aww...I wanted to know Trump's code name...   :Tin-Foil-Hat:



Mogul.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/11/10/donald-trumps-secret-service-code-name-is-less-humble-more-mogul/


----------



## Journeyman (13 Dec 2015)

There's a bunch of these Calvin Donald & Hobbes out there.  They're eerily accurate.


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Dec 2015)

In the spirit of the day here is Darth Trump  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU_Jdts5rL0


----------



## cupper (14 Dec 2015)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> In the spirit of the day here is Darth Trump
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU_Jdts5rL0



 :rofl:

Loved the militaristic and war bit.


----------



## CougarKing (15 Dec 2015)

The 5th GOP debate is tonight: 8:30 pm Eastern, 5:30 Pacific.

Vox.com



> *Republican debate 2015: start time, schedule, and what to expect*
> 
> Updated by Andrew Prokop on December 15, 2015, 1:10 p.m. ET @awprokop
> 
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (15 Dec 2015)

Trump is a problem, but he isn't THE problem. It's interesting to watch some of the more conservative members of this site distance themselves from what are clearly dangerous comments he's made. After all, are this positions really that much more radical than the other Republican candidates?  Are Ted Cruz's or Ben Carson's ideas really more sane?

Conservatives need to take responsibility for the precipice the US finds itself on. A movement that is consistently hostile to immigrants, to labour, to social services, to the very idea of government has only itself to blame for the anger of the vast majority of Americans who find themselves at or near the poverty line, or who are part of an increasingly non-existent middle class. That's before we get into the whole "American Taliban" aspect of things.

There is a thread on this site devoted to "Deconstructing Progressive Thought." Well, the opposite of progressive is the current field of Republican candidates. We haven't been "at risk" of a genuine progressive movement in North America since the 1960s, when we saw the the last real wave of democratization. We've been regressing ever since, and this is what we get. This is a failure of capitalism, of a system that is now an oligarchy rather than a democracy. Progressive policies aren't to blame for this. Americans are starting to realize the game is rigged, but unfortunately many are ill-equipped to understand the slow corporate motion coup d'etat that has been occurring for decades. Corporate money dominates politics, and the result is a reactionary anger against "the system." 

But for many conservatives, Trump's bigoted, hateful language is exactly what they want to hear. They can back-pedal all they want on his specific comments, but really he's just taking the dog whistle politics we saw from Harper in our election and saying it openly. If you're a conservative in either country, you have to answer for this. In other words, what the $*@% did you think would happen?!


----------



## a_majoor (15 Dec 2015)

Perhaps, Kilo, if you actually read what was being said you might recognize that you're looking exactly backwards.

Donald Trump's popularity represents (much like Marie Le Pen's popularity in Europe, or the Ford brother's in Toronto) a visceral reaction by the voters, citizens and taxpayers _against_ what they see as a disconnected political elite, a political and economic crony capitalist system rigged against them and the "up your's" attitude of the so called elites who are systematically trying to pull the ladder up behind them to keep the rest of us trapped (taking away the expanded TFSA limits and taking steps which are effectively raising taxes on lower income Canadians are two immediately apparent issues here in Canada, but look up from "The Communist Manifesto" and out the window, you'll see lots of other examples around the world.

And in case you haven't looked at history lately, the "Progressivism" of the 1930's extended the Great Depression by at least 7 years, and all the progressive nostrums that have been implemented since 2008 haven't had much of a track record either. The end of Progressivism will happen for these simple reasons:

Things that can't go on forever, won't. Debt that can't be repaid, won't be. Promises that can't be kept, won't be.


----------



## Kilo_302 (15 Dec 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Perhaps, Kilo, if you actually read what was being said you might recognize that you're looking exactly backwards.
> 
> Donald Trump's popularity represents (much like Marie Le Pen's popularity in Europe, or the Ford brother's in Toronto) a visceral reaction by the voters, citizens and taxpayers _against_ what they see as a disconnected political elite, a political and economic crony capitalist system rigged against them and the "up your's" attitude of the so called elites who are systematically trying to pull the ladder up behind them to keep the rest of us trapped (taking away the expanded TFSA limits and taking steps which are effectively raising taxes on lower income Canadians are two immediately apparent issues here in Canada, but look up from "The Communist Manifesto" and out the window, you'll see lots of other examples around the world.
> 
> ...



So if I'm unpacking this correctly, we agree that this is a reaction against "a disconnected political elite, a political and economic crony capitalist system rigged against them and the "up your's" attitude of the so called elites who are systematically trying to pull the ladder up behind them to keep the rest of us trapped."

To address your point about taxes in Canada, the idea that low income Canadians are the primary demographic that use the TFSA is a joke, you have it precisely backwards. The TFSA is only really an advantage if you have a significant amount of money to save. Low income Canadians who are literally living cheque to cheque, hand to mouth do not have this. 

However overall, it appears we agree on the source of the anger, and Trump's popularity. I would argue this reality is exactly due to the triumph of capital over labour, our system has become unbalanced in favour of the former. Given what we know about economic/political policy in the West since World War 2, I think you would be hard pressed to arrive at any conclusion outside of this. The policies that benefit the poor are the very policies that have been consistently rolled back. 

I'm not sure what "progressive nostrums" you're referring to, but both the Democrats and the Republicans are clearly in the pocket of Wall Street. Similarly, the NDP recently swung to the right of the centre-right Liberals in order to convince Canadians that they were a safe party to vote for. 

 Ironically, it's tough to label the ideology of the elites in both our countries. It's not really capitalism, because as we've seen, the same rules don't apply to everyone, and we're all for government intervention on behalf of the wealthy (see bailouts). But government intervention on behalf of the majority of the population? No we can't do that because it's socialism. 

Which is why I'll reiterate that the ugliness we are seeing in US politics is a failure of capitalism. We've been moving rapidly on deregulation, privatization, the overalll liberalization of the economy since the 1970s. You know, free trade, all that good stuff that was supposed to help the American worker.  This is what conservatives have always called for. They have got what they wanted, and now we have a proto-fascist who might hold the highest office in the world's only "hyperpower."


----------



## dimsum (15 Dec 2015)

Apparently not to be outdone in the ludicrous department, here's Ben Carson:



> Republican U.S. presidential candidate Ben Carson's plan to have the military and National Guard patrol the U.S.-Canada border is being called a ludicrous and unfeasible idea by Canadian border experts.
> 
> Carson's call for troops at the border is the sixth point in his "Seven Steps to a Safer America" plan unveiled Tuesday on his website.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/ben-carson-wants-u-s-troops-patrolling-canadian-border-1.3366179


----------



## a_majoor (15 Dec 2015)

The only real difference between using US military assets on the Canada-US border and using them on the US-Mexican border is logistics: kurt border is much longer. Since there is already some deployment of US military assets on the Mexican border, the only thing "ludicrous" about this story is the (predictable) reaction of the CBC.

I suppose it is futile to suggest that we can be as condescending as we like but it makes no difference in the dynamics of the US election; American voters are primarily motivated by domestic economic considerations and their perceived security. If they don't feel that these issues are being addressed by their political class, then _someone else_ will come along and start addressing the issue. The failure of progressive nostrums like multi trillion dollar "stimulus" packages and QE is readily apparent in the form of stagnant wages and depressed employment opportunities, and the wave of low level attacks by ISIS inspired Jihadis at home and abroad (regardless of the statistical likelihood of you being a victim) continue to prey on the fears of the American people, and watching the political class "pooh pooh" the notion or deny it is terrorism, while making plans to import more refugees from the Arab world is like fighting a fire with gasoline.

What is really surprising is how truly dense the political establishment is there. Trump is a symptom, not a cause, and whoever packages the message that appeals to the security and economic well being of Americans is going to do very well in the election.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Dec 2015)

I like Trump. I'd love to see him win. There are checks and balances to keep him in line, if he got the job. It's refreshing to see someone talk plain with no namby pamby, mealy mouthed speech and lies that almost every politician is want to do. He says what people think.

It would certainly be an interesting four years.


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Dec 2015)

On one border we have Mexicans trying to come north and on the other we have Americans trying to flee to Canada.We certainly dont have Canadians trying to escape to the US. ;D


----------



## Journeyman (16 Dec 2015)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> ......and on the other we have Americans trying to flee to Canada.


Like Randy Quaid, seeking asylum from a cult supposedly called "Star Whackers"....who are 'killing off Hollywood.'  :stars:


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Dec 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I like Trump. I'd love to see him win. There are checks and balances to keep him in line, if he got the job. It's refreshing to see someone talk plain with no namby pamby, mealy mouthed speech and lies that almost every politician is want to do. He says what people think.
> 
> It would certainly be an interesting four years.



You're kidding right?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/11/23/donald-trump-is-constantly-lying/

http://fortune.com/2015/11/26/trump-lies/

http://moneymorning.com/2015/12/09/these-donald-trump-lies-are-stunningly-wrong/

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/11/30/when-comes-trump-time-call-lying-for-what/7QhiIZRJlUxQMTtpSzLodO/story.html


Trump isn't saying what anyone is thinking, he's saying what they are _feeling._ If you want to jettison logic and abandon reality because it _feels_ good (or fits your preconceived view of the world), go right ahead. But don't pretend for a second that Trump is a just a "plain talkin' speakin' truth to power hero". He's the most cynical liar of them all. 

And if you're seriously supporting a candidate who has called for Muslims to wear name tags...yes an interesting four years indeed.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Dec 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It would certainly be an interesting four years.



You're assuming he would not get impeached after the first six months  ;D.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Dec 2015)

Interesting opinion piece by Niall Ferguson
(a Scot who moved to Wales because he wanted to live in a place that had a better chance of beating England at rugby ;D ). He now teaches History at Harvard. 

He ponders Trump's popularity

Donald Trump pounces on the ills of white America



> The nearest thing to an answer I can find is in an astounding new paper by the Nobel laureate Angus Deaton and Anne Case, which exposes what can only be called an existential crisis of white America — to be precise, badly educated white America.
> 
> All over the Western world mortality rates are declining and lifespans are lengthening. But not in white America, and especially not among those white Americans whose education didn’t go beyond secondary school. For this group, the mortality rate from poisonings (mostly drug overdoses) rose more than fourfold between 1999 and 2013, from 14 to 58 per 100,000. Mortality from chronic liver diseases including cirrhosis rose by 50 percent.
> 
> ...



He concludes with:

Either sanity will prevail between now and the Republican National Convention, or Trump will be beaten by Hillary Clinton, much as Wendell Wilkie (another maverick businessman) was beaten by Roosevelt in 1940.

*The lesson of real history is that candidates such as Trump are the Democrats’ best friends.*


----------



## a_majoor (16 Dec 2015)

Another examination of the Trump phenomena. I am going more and more to the idea that Trump, like Le Pen and the Ford Brothers, is accurately gauging and rebroadcasting the mood of the electorate who are fed up with the usual talk and action by the political class. If Trump is elected as president, I will look forward to some spectacular fireworks, but as this article points out, there are very few practical means to enact many of the ideas that Trump has promised to implement. (As for impeachment, the Congress has been lying supine for decades now, allowing "executive privilege" SCOTUS rulings and regulatory rule writing by the bureaucracy to carry out the very tasks which are assigned by the constitution to the Congress of the United States. The only really activist members belong to the TEA Party movement, who if anything would seem more inclined to go along with a Trump Administration than to oppose it).

http://www.knoxnews.com/opinion/columnists/frank-cagle/frank-cagle-trumps-foes-must-appeal-to-supporters-26f33c9e-7cf2-71ed-e053-0100007ffa88-362532971.html?d=mobile



> *Frank Cagle: Trump’s foes must appeal to supporters*
> 
> If Donald Trump was a grocer he would throw chickens off the roof of his store, bury a stuntman in the parking lot and threaten to beat the crap out of panhandlers in front of his business.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (16 Dec 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Another examination of the Trump phenomena. I am going more and more to the idea that Trump, like Le Pen and the Ford Brothers, is accurately gauging and rebroadcasting the mood of the electorate who are fed up with the usual talk and action by the political class. If Trump is elected as president, I will look forward to some spectacular fireworks, but as this article points out, there are very few practical means to enact many of the ideas that Trump has promised to implement. (As for impeachment, the Congress has been lying supine for decades now, allowing "executive privilege" SCOTUS rulings and regulatory rule writing by the bureaucracy to carry out the very tasks which are assigned by the constitution to the Congress of the United States. The only really activist members belong to the TEA Party movement, who if anything would seem more inclined to go along with a Trump Administration than to oppose it).
> 
> http://www.knoxnews.com/opinion/columnists/frank-cagle/frank-cagle-trumps-foes-must-appeal-to-supporters-26f33c9e-7cf2-71ed-e053-0100007ffa88-362532971.html?d=mobile



Donald Trump has zero chance of being president. There is no way that California,  new york/new England,  Oregon,  Washington, or the majority of rust belt states vote him. He's a laughable talking head who spouts semi-literate garbage to appease idiots/racists. Any ink used to describe his presidential policies is a waste of the industrial process and any argument in favor of him is a waste of the intellectual process. I hope for conservatives everywhere he crawls back under his rock and they learn a valuable lesson.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Dec 2015)

The valuable lesson conservatives will learn is they need to understand and reach out to the voters, not ignore their concerns and build islands where they can ride out the effects of the policies the political class are implementing. Like I keep saying, people like Trump, Le Pen and the Ford brothers become prominent for a reason, and the reason is looking at the political class every morning when they wake up and go to the sink in the bathroom.....

On a lighter note (before the big premier on Friday):

https://pjmedia.com/blog/presidential-candidates-as-star-wars-characters/


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Dec 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The valuable lesson conservatives will learn is they need to understand and reach out to the voters, not ignore their concerns and build islands where they can ride out the effects of the policies the political class are implementing. Like I keep saying, people like Trump, Le Pen and the Ford brothers become prominent for a reason, and the reason is looking at the political class every morning when they wake up and go to the sink in the bathroom.....
> 
> On a lighter note (before the big premier on Friday):
> 
> https://pjmedia.com/blog/presidential-candidates-as-star-wars-characters/



I don't think you're going far enough here. What exactly are the policies the "political class" is implementing? And what are the effects?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (16 Dec 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The valuable lesson conservatives will learn is they need to understand and reach out to the voters, not ignore their concerns and build islands where they can ride out the effects of the policies the political class are implementing. Like I keep saying, people like Trump, Le Pen and the Ford brothers become prominent for a reason, and the reason is looking at the political class every morning when they wake up and go to the sink in the bathroom.....
> 
> On a lighter note (before the big premier on Friday):
> 
> https://pjmedia.com/blog/presidential-candidates-as-star-wars-characters/



The problem is that the people they reach out to feel marginalized because progress has put their racist/homophobic/uneducated views in the footlocker of history. For those people I since rely hope their concerns are left on an island.

Conservatives in the US and Canada need to focus on the policies that make sense, such as financial prudence and the emphasis on individual vs collective rights. Trump and his ilk emphasize the worst possible factors conservatives have to offer- xenophobia, racism, and fascination with pushing pointless agendas (gun rights,  abortion, gay marriage bsns, etc). Until they do that the US will remain blue snd Canada will remain red


----------



## cupper (16 Dec 2015)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> On one border we have Mexicans trying to come north and on the other we have Americans trying to flee to Canada.We certainly dont have Canadians trying to escape to the US. ;D



If there are, they are just the crazies that we are trying to get rid of.

Hey. Wait …..  Damn.  :not-again:

Never mind, nothing to see here.


----------



## cupper (16 Dec 2015)

Trump is like a glass eye. Looks good but doesn't work worth a damn.

Trump is using his experience as an entertainer to pander to whomever he feels would be likely to vote for him.

But there is nothing of substance in anything he actually says.

Which is why he won't get anywhere in the general election if he becomes the nominee.

The big worry for the GOP right now is having no clear candidate and ending up with a disputed convention with the expected floor fight.


----------



## Kilo_302 (17 Dec 2015)

If this catches on, it might be the show stopper for Trump. If there's one thing that the American people rally behind, it's the military. Not to mention the fact that in many ways it's one of the more liberal institutions in the US. Religion and ethnicity don't matter in combat, and there are a lot of Muslims serving in the military.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/16/pentagon-troops-it-s-us-or-trump.html


----------



## George Wallace (17 Dec 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> If this catches on, it might be the show stopper for Trump. If there's one thing that the American people rally behind, it's the military. Not to mention the fact that in many ways it's one of the more liberal institutions in the US. Religion and ethnicity don't matter in combat, and there are a lot of Muslims serving in the military.



Yes, there are a lot of Muslims serving in the military.  There are also a lot of loyal American Muslims in other Government Agencies and other levels of government and Public Service.  If you catch the full Trump speeches, he has made exceptions to them.  Of course the MSM snippets tend to leave those exceptions out of their reporting.  Sounds similar to what we just witnessed here in October.  Such is the bias and partisan activities of the MSM these days.


----------



## Loachman (17 Dec 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I like Trump. I'd love to see him win.



Me too.

I want to see him fire Trudeau.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (17 Dec 2015)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Me too.
> 
> I want to see him fire Trudeau.



Yes.... racism, xenophobia,  and general stupidity have never been so fun! 

If you want trudeau fired (ie- unelected) than these are the sort of mouth breathers that conservatives need to keep away from.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Dec 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Yes.... racism, xenophobia,  and general stupidity have never been so fun!
> 
> If you want trudeau fired (ie- unelected) than these are the sort of mouth breathers that conservatives need to keep away from.




Ahhhh, there it is. if you don't agree with me, you are racist and a xenophobe. Kinda like invoking Godwin into a discussion. :


----------



## George Wallace (17 Dec 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Ahhhh, there it is. if you don't agree with me, you are racist and a xenophobe. Kinda like invoking Godwin into a discussion. :



Wait for it!


----------



## CountDC (17 Dec 2015)

It is both scary and funny to think of Trump as president.

At least he is making it interesting rather than just being politically correct.  

Soooo - how do I escape to the states?  OUTCAN didn't work.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Dec 2015)

CountDC said:
			
		

> It is both scary and funny to think of Trump as president.
> 
> At least he is making it interesting rather than just being politically correct.
> 
> Soooo - how do I escape to the states?  OUTCAN didn't work.



Become a professional comedian. All the funny people in the US are Canadian ;D


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (17 Dec 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Ahhhh, there it is. if you don't agree with me, you are racist and a xenophobe. Kinda like invoking Godwin into a discussion. :



No, but have you listened to Trump? The man is an idiot. I vote conservative but am tired of mouth breathers like him saying stupid things about banning Muslim immigration, building a wall between Mexico and the US, and all of the other non sense he spouts.

They make conservatives look uneducated, which we all aren't and amplify all the worst aspects of conservatism without adding any value.

The counter argument you offer is getting old too. If Trump says xenophobic, racist, and generally stupid things than that makes him xenophobic,  racist, and stupid. If ypu have am argument to actually counter that he isn't than we can debate that.

The more people like Trump stay in the limelight the more you guarantee a democratic victory in the US and liberal victory in Canada.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (17 Dec 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Ahhhh, there it is. if you don't agree with me, you are racist and a xenophobe. Kinda like invoking Godwin into a discussion. :



Here's a gallery of racist quotes against blacks only for you to start your defense of him not being a racist. My favourite is that laziness is a trait in blacks. It really speaks to his understanding of racial dynamics and institutional racism.  Time to move to the US just to vote for this guy.... 

http://gawker.com/the-collected-quotes-of-donald-trump-on-the-blacks-1719961925


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Dec 2015)

Only 1 of those quotes is racist. First one is highlighting the obviousness of affirmative action policies. "You're Fired" is racist? Come on.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (17 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Only 1 of those quotes is racist. First one is highlighting the obviousness of affirmative action policies. "You're Fired" is racist? Come on.



Debateable,  but how many blatantly racost things do you need to say yo be a racist? This doesn't even include his comments on Mexicans.  

I don't get the "you're fired" thing either...


----------



## CountDC (17 Dec 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> No, but have you listened to Trump? The man is an idiot. I vote conservative but am tired of mouth breathers like him saying stupid things about banning Muslim immigration,



In the context of events in the world of today saying he would ban muslim immigration on its own is not racist as it has been portrayed.  Call it over reaction to a security concern if you want.  Now if he also includes removal of all muslims already in the country living a normal life like any other american then you have a case for racism.  

I agree with PuckChaser that there is only one of the quotes that is "racist against black" and note that is your term not the articles writers.


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Dec 2015)

He's an older guy without a filter. The appealing part about Donald Trump, and what I suspect is drawing a lot of support to him, is that he's not owned by anyone. No one is financing his campaign, he doesn't follow any special interest groups, he just wants (in his mind), what's best for America. He's finally a true anti-politician, who can finance his own campaign and rage against the political correctness that plagues politicians.

I don't agree with a lot of things he's saying, but its a different culture in the US. You need to read between the lines. His comments ref: Mexicans are just an extension of the frustration from illegal border crossings, and Obama policies allowing those illegal aliens to be forgiven for that crime. Same thing with the Muslims. He's expressing the frustration, and throwing wild ideas out there to try to stem the tide of Islamic extremist attacks. No one else is doing anything other than blaming guns, he's at least "brainstorming out loud" and trying to get the public to talk about it. He's not afraid of being called a racist, because that's how the Left likes to shut down debates. Look no further than CBC removing its comments on First Nations issues: Any dissent to question our policies is racist, therefore all comments were racist and needed to be shut down.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (17 Dec 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> He's an older guy without a filter. The appealing part about Donald Trump, and what I suspect is drawing a lot of support to him, is that he's not owned by anyone. No one is financing his campaign, he doesn't follow any special interest groups, he just wants (in his mind), what's best for America. He's finally a true anti-politician, who can finance his own campaign and rage against the political correctness that plagues politicians.
> 
> I don't agree with a lot of things he's saying, but its a different culture in the US. You need to read between the lines. His comments ref: Mexicans are just an extension of the frustration from illegal border crossings, and Obama policies allowing those illegal aliens to be forgiven for that crime. Same thing with the Muslims. He's expressing the frustration, and throwing wild ideas out there to try to stem the tide of Islamic extremist attacks. No one else is doing anything other than blaming guns, he's at least "brainstorming out loud" and trying to get the public to talk about it. He's not afraid of being called a racist, because that's how the Left likes to shut down debates. Look no further than CBC removing its comments on First Nations issues: Any dissent to question our policies is racist, therefore all comments were racist and needed to be shut down.



I understand what you're saying about things like the CBC and agree. Questioning race politics is not in itself a bad thing.... I just believe that Trump calling Mexicans rapists and saying blacks are lazy is legitimately racist. 

North America needs to continue to debate immigration laws, the war on terrorism, etc but it needs to be done in rational ways. Grouping all Muslims together, for example, when the Muslim world is massive and diversified, shows a lack of education/understanding and detracts from any argument that the person may have had. Shutting down honest debate, a la CBC, is just as bad.

I guess I just wish the right could find a well spoken person to express my beliefs of individual freedom, financial prudence, and a focus on equality of opportunity vice equality of outcome. Instead, "we" get the Trumps of the world. Shouldn't conservatives demand better? THAT'S my issue.


----------



## Jed (17 Dec 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I understand what you're saying about things like the CBC and agree. Questioning race politics is not in itself a bad thing.... I just believe that Trump calling Mexicans rapists and saying blacks are lazy is legitimately racist.
> 
> North America needs to continue to debate immigration laws, the war on terrorism, etc but it needs to be done in rational ways. Grouping all Muslims together, for example, when the Muslim world is massive and diversified, shows a lack of education/understanding and detracts from any argument that the person may have had. Shutting down honest debate, a la CBC, is just as bad.
> 
> I guess I just wish the right could find a well spoken person to express my beliefs of individual freedom, financial prudence, and a focus on equality of opportunity vice equality of outcome. Instead, "we" get the Trumps of the world. Shouldn't conservatives demand better? THAT'S my issue.



That is my issue as well.  Difficult to find these types of individuals when the Mainstream Media is stacked against you.


----------



## Kilo_302 (17 Dec 2015)

CountDC said:
			
		

> In the context of events in the world of today saying he would ban muslim immigration on its own is not racist as it has been portrayed.  Call it over reaction to a security concern if you want.  Now if he also includes removal of all muslims already in the country living a normal life like any other american then you have a case for racism.
> 
> I agree with PuckChaser that there is only one of the quotes that is "racist against black" and note that is your term not the articles writers.



Trump is either racist himself, or cynically using these issues to draw support from the fringe right. And somehow you're defending the man while quoting Hendrix in your signature. Cognitive dissonance and the right go hand in hand like, well racism and the right.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (17 Dec 2015)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Trump is either racist himself, or cynically using these issues to draw support from the fringe right. And somehow you're defending the man while quoting Hendrix in your signature. Cognitive dissonance and the right go hand in hand like, well racism and the right.



Donald Trump is a moron, full stop. Donald Trump represents the entire political right no more than Elizabeth May represents the entire left.

This comment shows all the narrow minded characteristics of Trump. Congratulations


----------



## GAP (17 Dec 2015)

Gee....I don't know.....May comes close......


----------



## CougarKing (18 Dec 2015)

Vancouverites just won't let the "Trump tower" controversy go...

Vancity Buzz



> *60% of Vancouverites want to dump Trump from tower name*
> By
> Jill Slattery
> 9:39 AM PST, Fri December 18, 2015
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (18 Dec 2015)

I guess this will make you feel better then:

https://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2015/12/16/trump-goes-full-fellini



> *The Donald Goes Full Fellini at the Venetian*
> BY ROGER L SIMON DECEMBER 16, 2015
> 
> The familiar basso from a thousand Italian (and American) films boomed out across the painted cloudy sky and ersatz canals at Las Vegas' Venetian Tuesday night as the faithful streamed into yet another Republican debate at the hotel's theatre that looks built for a roadshow version of La Traviata.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (18 Dec 2015)

Lets not forget the Democrats as well. The only thing that will make that race even better is if a Federal prosecutor finally gets around to writing the indictments for Hillary's crimes before the convention:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/263733-team-sanders-we-will-go-to-court-if-dnc-holds-our-data



> *Sanders threatens to sue DNC*
> By Ben Kamisar
> 
> Sen. Bernie Sanders's (I-Vt.) campaign manager said it would take the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to federal court Friday afternoon if it does not lift the suspension to the campaign's voter database.
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Dec 2015)

Tammany Hall is starting to look like an exemplar of probity these days.

Bring back the honest ward heeler.


----------



## Kilo_302 (21 Dec 2015)

Yet more evidence that some Trump supporters are taking the wrong (or is it right?) message from him, and the media is barely covering it. You cannot be on the fence on this issue. If you support Trump, you're supporting the kind of bigotry that leads to threats like this.

http://usuncut.com/news/william-celli-trump-supporter-tried-to-kill-muslims-with-bombs/



> NEWSMedia Silent as Trump Supporter Arrested Stockpiling Arsenal of Bombs to Kill MuslimsCarol Schaeffer | December 21, 2015
> The media loves covering Trump. And they love covering terrorism. Why have they completely ignored this story?
> Facebook
> Twitter
> ...


----------



## cupper (21 Dec 2015)

I think that this mental case would have done it regardless of what Trump says to gain supporters. Social media and the internet has just made it easier for people to find like-minded individuals and information sources that support their points of view.


----------



## CougarKing (22 Dec 2015)

Should we have expected anything less from "the Donald"? 

Agence-France-Presse



> *Trump under fire for sexism after vulgar Clinton jibes*
> AFP
> December 22, 2015
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Dec 2015)

She's been called a lot worse and she's never raised a stink, but this could well be her opponent so the politics are in play. 

Just saying :dunno:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (22 Dec 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> She's been called a lot worse and she's never raised a stink, but this could well be her opponent so the politics are in play.
> 
> Just saying :dunno:



If he's the opponent get used to president Clinton. Trump has no chance at the presidency.... particularly if the poll in the article is true and more than half those polled are EMBARRASSED by him


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Dec 2015)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> If he's the opponent get used to president Clinton. Trump has no chance at the presidency.... particularly if the poll in the article is true and more than half those polled are EMBARRASSED by him



You should know by now that putting your faith in something like polls will often lead to surprise and disappointment. Never say never.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (22 Dec 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You should know by now that putting your faith in something like polls will often lead to surprise and disappointment. Never say never.



I agree and normally I don't put anything into polls this far out, but with Trump I will believe them. I think Trump being the Republican nominee results in a reagan-esque defeat in the autumn. Conservatives everywhere should be hoping/praying that he isn't the nominee. .. as a Canadian conservative I hope he isn't as I think the press he receives will put our CPC behind 4-8 years


----------



## a_majoor (22 Dec 2015)

Rex Murphy lays it out in straightforward terms. I suspect Trump will do very well indeed because of the disgust by the voters of the political class. If he actually wins, then the real fun will start, since "politics is a means of distributing scarce resources" (according to organizational theory), while "governing is the art of the possible". Trump will be on the horns of a very interesting dilemma:

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-dont-blame-trump-blame-america



> *Rex Murphy: Don’t blame Trump … blame America*
> Rex Murphy | July 24, 2015 | Last Updated: Jul 26 12:37 PM ET
> More from Rex Murphy
> 
> ...



And of course, anyone who thinks that Canada is immune is smoking something exceptionally strong indeed....Our own political establishment is pretty far down the same road that is driving American voters into the arms of people like Trump, and when it happens here, I'm sure the same crowd will be "shocked, just shocked" to discover the same reaction by the voters.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (23 Dec 2015)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Rex Murphy lays it out in straightforward terms. I suspect Trump will do very well indeed because of the disgust by the voters of the political class. If he actually wins, then the real fun will start, since "politics is a means of distributing scarce resources" (according to organizational theory), while "governing is the art of the possible". Trump will be on the horns of a very interesting dilemma:
> 
> http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-dont-blame-trump-blame-america
> 
> And of course, anyone who thinks that Canada is immune is smoking something exceptionally strong indeed....Our own political establishment is pretty far down the same road that is driving American voters into the arms of people like Trump, and when it happens here, I'm sure the same crowd will be "shocked, just shocked" to discover the same reaction by the voters.



I understand the appeal, but will again disagree that Trump has any real chance of winning. He's a charicature: he says things solely for the reaction and has absolutely horrible ideas (unless you believe that he can actually make Mexico pay for a wall). Moreover, he's a clearly detestable person who goes out of his way to antagonize people. Like it or not, like ability is a requirement (read: harper).

Outside of that, conservatives ought to demand better than his ilk. Until "we" can find better candidates and stop defending garbage like Trump and trying to convince ourselves he's the best we can do than we will remain on the outside looking in. The problem then isn't the US (or Canada) it's conservatives. We're looking into Nietzches proverbial abyss and yelling irrationally into it.


----------



## Kilo_302 (23 Dec 2015)

Chris Hedges is probably not everyone's flavour of the month, but it's hard to disagree with his take on where we are going unless things change fast. What's particularly interesting is this take on liberals selling out the "white underclass." He understands that liberals in our current iteration of capitalism serve Wall Street just like conservatives, and that we need a movement that is actually progressive, a movement that will address the structural issues embedded in our current system and once again grant the "white underclass" and the poor in general a greater say in how things are run. 

His analysis of ISIS and the nature of the threat of "terrorism" is also refreshing, given the garbage we see in the mainstream media about Muslims merely hating "freedom."

http://www.alternet.org/culture/chris-hedges-creeping-villainy-american-politics



> The threefold rise in hate crimes against Muslims since the Paris and San Bernardino attacks and the acceptance of hate speech as a legitimate form of political discourse signal the morbidity of our civil society. The body politic is coughing up blood. The daily amplification of this hate speech by a commercial media whose sole concern is ratings and advertising dollars rather than serving as a bulwark to protect society presages a descent into the protofascist nightmare of racism, indiscriminate violence against the marginalized, and a blind celebration of American chauvinism, militarism and bigotry.
> 
> Shop ▾
> The mounting attacks on Muslims, which will become a contagion when there is another catastrophic terrorist attack, are only the beginning. There is a long list to be targeted, including undocumented workers, African-Americans, homosexuals, liberals, feminists, intellectuals and artists. We are entering a new dark age, an age of idiocy and blood. These hatreds, encoded in American DNA but understood as politically toxic by the liberal wing of the capitalist class, have been embraced by an enraged and disenfranchised white underclass. Our failure to curb this hate speech will haunt us. Once a civil society tolerates the intolerant, as Karl Popper wrote, “the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.”
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Dec 2015)

More on the war between the "establishment" Republicans and the voters. I agree that the idea that the Republicans should be Democrat-Lite is a non starter (remember how in Canada, the "me-too" PC party was in the political wilderness for decades, until the criminal behaviours and arrogance of the LPC finally reached a tipping point for most Canadians). Remember that Trump is the symptom, not the disease, and until the GOP establishment either cleans house or is replaced via TEA Party movement primary challenges, I suspect there will be little change in the short run. As Bernie Sanders shows, a similar dynamic is playing out in the Democrat party, although since it isn't part of the narrative the media is going to ignore it as long as possible:

https://ricochet.com/david-frum-and-the-great-republican-revolt/



> David Frum and “The Great Republican Revolt”
> Jon Gabriel, Ed.C
> December 22, 2015
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (23 Dec 2015)

I can see Trump being the GOP nominee. For the same reason that most have stated, the backlash from the GOP electorate at the GOP establishment and their perceived lack of concern for their views.

This is an internal revolt that the GOP needs to go through in order to get it's house in order. And if Trump becomes the nominee, (although it will be a very contentious fight right up to the convention if he does win it) it may just be the wake-up call the party needs to actually do something to get back to being a viable right of center party.

Unfortunately if Trump does take the GOP nomination, the Dem alternative is just as poor a candidate, for different reasons. And I cam see the Dems going through the same hard times through the next 4 year cycle, although it will likely be less in the mainstream public view than we've seen over the last 4 years.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Dec 2015)

Makes you wonder just what sort of contortions the GOP establishment will have to undertake if Donald Trump really wins the nomination?

http://nypost.com/2015/12/26/elites-and-media-really-hate-donald-trumps-voters/



> *Elites and media really hate Donald Trump’s voters*
> By Michael Walsh December 26, 2015 | 2:55pm
> 
> To hear the patronizing wise men of the Republican Party tell it, anyone who would vote for Donald Trump for president must be deranged. “Trumpkins,” they call them, mental midgets and xenophobic troglodytes who’ve crawled out from their survivalist caves in order to destroy the Beltway Establishment.
> ...



And Instapundit comments:



> See also: past hatred of establishment GOP and DNC-MSM for libertarians, Tea Party voters, Perot voters, and any group whose goal is the most radical of all: for government to leave you the hell alone. I’m not at all sure that’s Trump’s goal for government, but then, as Glenn has noted, “Trump and Sanders are just symptoms. The real disease is in the ruling class that takes such important subjects out of political play, in its own interest. As Angelo Codevilla wrote in an influential essay in 2010, today’s ruling class is a monoculture that has little in common with the rest of the nation.”


----------



## cupper (28 Dec 2015)

Trump may have poll numbers now, but will he have the voters when it really counts?

*Trump’s fans are excited to rally — but they’re not sure they’ll show up to vote*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-fans-are-excited-to-rally--but-theyre-not-sure-theyll-show-up-to-vote/2015/12/26/3c29bbb6-a5c3-11e5-ad3f-991ce3374e23_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-top-table-main_vatrump-725pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory



> DES MOINES — When Donald Trump held one of his boisterous rallies at the state fairgrounds this month, Bonnie and Randy Reynolds arrived two hours early to make sure they could snag seats. They bought “Make America Great Again” hats, put on campaign T-shirts and passed through a security checkpoint.
> 
> The West Des Moines couple, who have two grown children, had never been to a political event before. Bonnie works in a mailroom; Randy is a press operator. They don’t live paycheck to paycheck, but it would take just one small catastrophe to push them there.
> 
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Dec 2015)

They said that about Obama voters too, and they showed up, twice.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Dec 2015)

Another potential spoiler arises:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429025/jim-webb-independent-run-could-harm-democrats-gop



> *Jim Webb Attacks Hillary for Her Foreign-Policy Failures: First Step of His Third-Party Run?*
> by JOHN FUND December 27, 2015 7:08 PM @JOHNFUND
> 
> When Jim Webb, the former Virginia senator and Navy secretary, left the Democratic primary race in October, he hinted that he might mount an independent run for president. That looks more likely now that Webb has blasted his party’s front-runner for her “inept leadership” as secretary of state.
> ...


----------



## cupper (28 Dec 2015)

And the Party might go Tony Saprano on New Hampshire if they give Trump a win.

*In New Hampshire, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie Add Guilt Trips to Campaign Stops*

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/24/us/politics/jeb-bush-chris-christie-new-hampshire-campaign.html?_r=1



> PETERBOROUGH, N.H. — The two leading Republican candidates not named Donald J. Trump who most need a victory in the New Hampshire primary have wooed voters here by promoting their experience, their tough-mindedness and their seriousness.
> 
> Now, as Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Jeb Bush grasp for some way to dissuade the proud New Hampshire electorate from supporting Mr. Trump, they are turning to a new, blunter instrument: guilt.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jan 2016)

Who are the Trump supporters?

http://althouse.blogspot.ca/2015/12/perhaps-above-all-else-data-shows-that.html



> *"Perhaps above all else, the data shows that Mr. Trump has broad support in the G.O.P., spanning all major demographic groups."*
> 
> Nate Cohn reports in a piece — somewhat misleadingly titled "Donald Trump’s Strongest Supporters: A Certain Kind of Democrat" — based on interviews with 11,000  Republican-leaning respondents (done by Civis Analytics, a Democratic data firm).
> [Trump] leads among Republican women and among people in well-educated and affluent areas. He even holds a nominal lead among Republican respondents that Civis estimated are Hispanic, based on their names and where they live.
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (3 Jan 2016)

A Vietnamese man suspected of supporting Al-Qaeda?

Associated Press



> *Lawyer in terrorism case says finding unbiased jurors will be hard because of Trump's comments*
> 
> Michael Balsamo, The Associated Press
> The Canadian Press
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (4 Jan 2016)

Paul Krugman's latest on the what could have been had Romney won the last election, and what the potential implications of this election are:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/opinion/elections-have-consequences.html



> ..I’m a big geek... I was eagerly awaiting the I.R.S.’s tax tables for 2013... And what these tables show is that elections really do have consequences.
> You might think that this is obvious. But on the left, in particular, there are some people who, disappointed by the limits of what President Obama has accomplished, minimize the differences between the parties. Whoever the next president is, they assert — or at least ... if it’s not Bernie Sanders — things will remain pretty much the same, with the wealthy continuing to dominate the scene. ...
> But the truth is that Mr. Obama’s election ... had some real, quantifiable consequences. ...
> If Mitt Romney had won, we can be sure that Republicans would have found a way to prevent these tax hikes. ...
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (4 Jan 2016)

Trump and Jeb Bush air new political ads/ commercials.

Here's Trump's ad:

http://youtu.be/AEAJrT8PeOo


----------



## Kilo_302 (6 Jan 2016)

An interview with Noam Chomsky about the current state of politics in the US. I understand he's not everyone's cup of tea, but what he says about the political spectrum is particularly interesting, and I think, spot on: 

"The spectrum is broad but in an odd sense. The spectrum is basically centre to extreme right. Extreme right. Way off the spectrum. The Republican Party about 20 years ago basically abandoned any pretense of being a normal political party. In fact, the distinguished, respected conservative commentators, from the American Enterprise Institute, a right-wing think tank, like Norman Ornstein, described the Republican Party as a radical insurgency which has abandoned parliamentary politics. They just don’t want anything to happen. Their only policies are “don’t do anything” or bomb. That’s not a political party."

It's well worth reading the full interview:

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/noam-chomsky-electing-president-empire


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jan 2016)

Reading speeches from Bernie Sanders or even Hillary Clinton certainly does not give me a sense of them being "centrists". The Democrat initiatives across Blue cities and states in everything from regulation to taxation to mandating minimum wages at $15/hr also are not "center", unless you are extremely off axis.

Refer to Pournlle's two axis theory of political alignment to map where everyone really is and you will be surprised:

http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm for an explanation


----------



## Kilo_302 (6 Jan 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Reading speeches from Bernie Sanders or even Hillary Clinton certainly does not give me a sense of them being "centrists". The Democrat initiatives across Blue cities and states in everything from regulation to taxation to mandating minimum wages at $15/hr also are not "center", unless you are extremely off axis.
> 
> Refer to Pournlle's two axis theory of political alignment to map where everyone really is and you will be surprised:
> 
> http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm for an explanation



Right but you have to consider what has happened historically. "Regulation and taxation" compared to what? Chomsky's main point is that the entire spectrum has shifted right, so by comparison to today's standards, a Republican like Eisenhower resembles something closer to Bernie Sanders (in some ways) than this modern equivalents. 

How do you define $15/hour as not being a centrist policy? It's well documented that wages have stagnated in comparison to GDP growth and once inflation is taken into account the buying power of someone on minimum wage is greatly reduced compared to even 20 years ago. 

Again, the Republicans we're seeing now are on the extreme right, so yes by comparison Clinton and the Dems seem to be progressive. But that's the point.

I agree that Sanders is not centrist, he represents the furthest left the Democrats have been since the 70s, but Clinton is right of center.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jan 2016)

Setting wages by fiat rather than allowing the market to dictate is a leftist/socialist/progressive trope, and setting minimum wages far above the market rate is doing this on steroids. You should educate yourself on the effects of this; places which have started instituting the program are already experiencing reduced levels of hiring for entry level (minimum wage) jobs, and replacements like robotic burger flippers and electronic ordering kiosks are making an appearance in places like New York.

Regulatrion and taxation compared to the past. When a person trying to open a small business like a food truck is jumping through hoops of fire today (including getting a GPS tracker for the truck and filling out paperwork for a mutitude of separate bureucracies) or children are fined for opening a lemonade stand, or church groups are enjoined not ot serve food to the homeless (becasue they are lacking the proper permits), then I think you are looking at symptoms of a much larger problem. WRT past examples, Kennedy ignited the "Go Go 60's" with a massive tax cut. Name any Democrat today who is calling for tax cutrs or regulatory streamlining? (True, only the TEA Party movement is calling for this from outside the political establishment, inside the Beltway the GOP is content with the status quo).

If anything, the growth of government and bureuacracy represents centralization and a drift towards the left, following the formulation “Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato”.


----------



## Kilo_302 (6 Jan 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Setting wages by fiat rather than allowing the market to dictate is a leftist/socialist/progressive trope, and setting minimum wages far above the market rate is doing this on steroids. You should educate yourself on the effects of this; places which have started instituting the program are already experiencing reduced levels of hiring for entry level (minimum wage) jobs, and replacements like robotic burger flippers and electronic ordering kiosks are making an appearance in places like New York.
> 
> Regulatrion and taxation compared to the past. When a person trying to open a small business like a food truck is jumping through hoops of fire today (including getting a GPS tracker for the truck and filling out paperwork for a mutitude of separate bureucracies) or children are fined for opening a lemonade stand, or church groups are enjoined not ot serve food to the homeless (becasue they are lacking the proper permits), then I think you are looking at symptoms of a much larger problem. WRT past examples, Kennedy ignited the "Go Go 60's" with a massive tax cut. Name any Democrat today who is calling for tax cutrs or regulatory streamlining? (True, only the TEA Party movement is calling for this from outside the political establishment, inside the Beltway the GOP is content with the status quo).
> 
> If anything, the growth of government and bureuacracy represents centralization and a drift towards the left, following the formulation “Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato”.



I don't need to educate myself. The language you're using (socialist trope) is ideological. It is a fact that workers wages have been stagnant since the 1970s, and further, it is a fact that a capitalist economy cannot survive without consumers to buy things. The more people that are living precariously the less robust our economy is. 

You've listed some great anecdotes, but here's some data on wages versus productivity:

http://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/

If you believe the market would correct for these things, why didn't it? The arguments you're making work in favour of corporate giants and the wealthy, no one else. Ironically though, as I mentioned above, our economy cannot keep growing with current levels of inequality. It's cannibalistic in nature. Without a middle class to consume value added items, we're left to rely on Wall Street, which is a basically a house of cards. So yes, raising the minimum wage to increase the buying power of those at the bottom of the ladder is essential for further growth. This is a capitalist idea believe it or not.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (6 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> So yes, raising the minimum wage to increase the buying power of those at the bottom of the ladder is essential for further growth. This is a capitalist idea believe it or not.



Don't believe it.  What buying power do the unemployed have?  You should get a job working for Rachel Notley and enjoy all the wealth the communist government is creating in Alberta.  Not!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (6 Jan 2016)

Rocky Mountains: Grow up!   You know damn well that Rachel Notley has nothing to do with the current Albertan economy woes (she hasn't been in charge long enough to have any effect one way or the other, for gawd's sake).

The very capitalist, free market for oil - in which the equally greedy Albertan capitalist Oil industry has no real say or power - however is the clear culprit: Hey! The world's consumers doesn't want your $90.00 a barrel oil, so take 37$ and shut up, or just close down. That's the real culprit and you know it.

And by the way, this idea that you need consumer with a reasonable amount of money in their pockets to buy your product is a very "left" idea: It came from a very "socialist" guy called Henry Ford. He is the one that came up with the idea that the assembly line workers of the world should have reasonable salaries so they can afford to buy the "cars for every one" he was mass-producing.

So, cut some slack to K-302.


----------



## cupper (6 Jan 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> The very capitalist, free market for oil - in which the equally greedy Albertan capitalist Oil industry has no real say or power - however is the clear culprit: Hey! The world's consumers doesn't want your $90.00 a barrel oil, so take 37$ and shut up, or just close down. That's the real culprit and you know it.



Canada Western Select was trading for $20 a barrel today BTW.

But it's the also same situation for the destruction of the US Coal Industry, not Obama's so called "War on Coal" but rather the huge drop in Natural Gas prices due to fracking technology improving access to gas and lowering the scost while increasing the supply. It became economic for plants to switch from coal fired equipment to more efficient and cleaner burning gas fired equipment.

And TransCanada has filed suit against the US Government for $15 Billion for damages when they killed the Keystone pipeline.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jan 2016)

The capitalist idea is using the market to match supply of labour to demand for labour, and wages are set according to both demand and to productivity (Burger flippers are in high supply. Machinists get paid more because there are fewer of them and they add more value to a product). You refuse to look at the results of the policies of setting wages above market rates and also fail to see that the people taking the biggest hits are the small employers who with narrow operating margins who simply cannot pay workers that amount of money (there are multiple examples to look up on the net, restaurants are hard hit, but there was a memorable story about a book store owner who is essentially being forced to lay off his staff, despite being for the proposition. Reality has a way of doing that to you...). Since in a market ecosystem (or almost any system, according to power law scaling) there are far more small business than medium business, and far more medium business than large, you should be able to see where most of the damage is being done.

Indeed there is a school of thought that this is crony capitalism in action; large business with lobby power can afford to take a bit of a hit (shedding 10% of your employees is less stressful for a company with 1000 workers than for one with 10) in order to permanently hobble potential competitors. The other school of thought is by creating a permanently dependent underclass of unemployed, certain political factions can maintain a voter base by offering "free stuff" to the affected (since few people seem to be able to connect the dots between regulatory failure and their diminishing standards of living or unemployment, this con job has been wildly successful).

In more socialistic nations, where the process is farther advanced, the GDP/Capita is much lower (most European nations have GDP/Capita than all but the poorest US States) or the economy has totally unravelled (Venezuela is a good current example).


----------



## Kilo_302 (7 Jan 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The capitalist idea is using the market to match supply of labour to demand for labour, and wages are set according to both demand and to productivity (Burger flippers are in high supply. Machinists get paid more because there are fewer of them and they add more value to a product). You refuse to look at the results of the policies of setting wages above market rates and also fail to see that the people taking the biggest hits are the small employers who with narrow operating margins who simply cannot pay workers that amount of money (there are multiple examples to look up on the net, restaurants are hard hit, but there was a memorable story about a book store owner who is essentially being forced to lay off his staff, despite being for the proposition. Reality has a way of doing that to you...). Since in a market ecosystem (or almost any system, according to power law scaling) there are far more small business than medium business, and far more medium business than large, you should be able to see where most of the damage is being done.
> 
> Indeed there is a school of thought that this is crony capitalism in action; large business with lobby power can afford to take a bit of a hit (shedding 10% of your employees is less stressful for a company with 1000 workers than for one with 10) in order to permanently hobble potential competitors. The other school of thought is by creating a permanently dependent underclass of unemployed, certain political factions can maintain a voter base by offering "free stuff" to the affected (since few people seem to be able to connect the dots between regulatory failure and their diminishing standards of living or unemployment, this con job has been wildly successful).
> 
> In more socialistic nations, where the process is farther advanced, the GDP/Capita is much lower (most European nations have GDP/Capita than all but the poorest US States) or the economy has totally unravelled (Venezuela is a good current example).



2 points. I think we differ on what markets can do and what they can't do. I would argue that history has shown us that "free markets" simply aren't and the harmonious self-regulating market is a myth. Intervention is required to maintain balance. The inherent tendency in capitalism is to consolidate and monopolize. I agree that we need to protect small businesses, but their main problem is large corporations beating them on economies of scale. Your average mom and pop general store can't compete with Walmart. This is why we need intervention to even the playing field. Increasing wages will no doubt cause some short term pain for small businesses, but in the long run it's better for all of us if we don't have people requiring aid because they live hand to mouth.

Second, if you're suggesting that liberal politicians purposely create poverty in order to gain votes through social programs designed to address said poverty, this is simply way off base. Nor is "Regulatory failure" is not the cause of poverty. The cause of poverty is a shortage of stable employment and low wages. A certain level of unemployment is desirable to some interests, as it drives wages down. This is by design, and it has nothing to do with regulations failing OR succeeding.


----------



## CougarKing (7 Jan 2016)

:facepalm:

Yahoo News



> *Does Donald Trump Think Paris Is In Germany?*
> [Yahoo News]
> 
> January 7, 2016
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Jan 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> :facepalm:
> 
> Yahoo News



Could that be his "I can see Russia from my house" moment?*

* I know Ms Palin did not say that, but it stuck.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Jan 2016)

The "Big crime - GET SMART!" portion ain't much better.

Whether Germany or France, all the crime statistics are orders of magnitude lower than the USA's.

If that is your view, Mr. Trump, look in the mirror: America: Big crime - GET SMART!"


----------



## dapaterson (7 Jan 2016)

Be nice to The Donald.  He just hasn't caught up on his reading, and didn't hear about what happened on 25 August 1944 yet.


----------



## Kilo_302 (7 Jan 2016)

What is being called a major speech from Bernie Sanders. He's channelling the anger a lot of American are feeling like Trump, but in a far more productive way in that he's actually addressing issues rather than relying on fear mongering and xenophobia.

Definitely worth a watch as the full speech is too long to post here:

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_bernie_sanders_inveighs_against_wall_street_in_major_address_20160106



> The American people are catching on. They understand that something is profoundly wrong when, in our country today, the top one-tenth of 1 percent own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent and when the 20 richest people own more wealth than the bottom 150 million Americans – half of our population. They know that the system is rigged when the average person is working longer hours for lower wages, while 58 percent of all new income goes to the top 1 percent.
> 
> They also know that a handful of people on Wall Street have extraordinary power over the economic and political life of our country. As most people know, in the 1990s and later, the financial interests spent billions of dollars in lobbying and campaign contributions to force through Congress the deregulation of Wall Street, the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and the weakening of consumer protection laws in states.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (7 Jan 2016)

Interesting story on how SuperPAC's are not showing the effectiveness that they have had in the past, and the theory that big money influences the outcome is being thrown on it's head in this cycle, and Trump is the reason.

*SuperPACs Are Not So Super In 2016*

http://www.npr.org/2016/01/07/462211790/superpacs-are-not-so-super-in-2016



> When this presidential campaign got underway last spring, the buzz was that a candidate would be propelled by passing off the heavy costs of TV advertising to a friendly superPAC. But now the opposite is true.
> 
> Donald Trump, leading the Republican field, has no superPAC. Some other superPACs are pouring cash into TV, but their candidates are stuck low in the polls.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (9 Jan 2016)

Yet more evidence that Trump supporters are just as racist and xenophobic as he is. 

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_muslim_woman_abused_by_crowd_ejected_from_donald_trump_rally_20160109


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jan 2016)

Mark Styne on Donald Trump. (Imagine the team those two would make!) Instapundit has a few words as well. go to link and from there you can follow the other links. Donald Trump has a way of looking and seeming natural, and saying what is on people's minds, which is why he is doing so well compared to the scripted and carefully handled "professional" political class. Reagan had that quality as well:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/223533



> *BROADWAY BABIES SAY IT’S MORNING IN AMERICA*: Mark Steyn, who knows a thing or two about theater and stagecraft, reviews Donald Trump’s rally in Steyn’s backyard, the perilously blue (David Brooks dubbed it “latte town” 20 years ago) Burlington, Vermont:
> 
> 
> Trump has no prompters. He walks out, pulls a couple of pieces of folded paper from his pocket, and then starts talking. Somewhere in there is the germ of a stump speech, but it would bore him to do the same poll-tested focus-grouped thing night after night, so he basically riffs on whatever’s on his mind. This can lead to some odd juxtapositions: One minute he’s talking about the Iran deal, the next he detours into how Macy’s stock is in the toilet since they dumped Trump ties. But in a strange way it all hangs together: It’s both a political speech, and a simultaneous running commentary on his own campaign.
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Yet more evidence that Trump supporters are just as racist and xenophobic nationalist and nativist as he is.


FTFY  ;D

Another couple of things running against Trump as president:  he doesn't like to travel stay away from home much, and aaaaaaaaaall those businesses that would have to be taken care of.  The latter's not entirely insurmountable, but the former doesn't look great on the hustings.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jan 2016)

And you know just who this program is pandering to and why it was enacted, despite (or even becasue of) the massive risks it poses to the banking industry and economy as a whole:

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/010716-788747-government-wants-to-lend-more-to-high-risk-immigrants.htm?p=full



> *Fannie Mae Rolls Out Easy Mortgage, Catering To High-Risk Immigrants*
> 01/07/2016 06:52 PM ET
> 
> Signs of the times in 2007 may return along with easier Fannie Mae loans to higher-risk immigrants. View Enlarged Image
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Yet more evidence that Trump supporters are just as racist and xenophobic as he is.
> 
> http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/video_muslim_woman_abused_by_crowd_ejected_from_donald_trump_rally_20160109



You've been told about and been put on warning before for pulling out that huge all encompassing 'racist and xenophobic' paint brush. There's only one step left on the warning ladder, so you might want to be careful with your wording from now on.

---Staff---


----------



## Kilo_302 (9 Jan 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You've been told about and been put on warning before for pulling out that huge all encompassing 'racist and xenophobic' paint brush. There's only one step left on the warning ladder, so you might want to be careful with your wording from now on.
> 
> ---Staff---



He's made banning Muslims from immigrating into the US a central part of his campaign, he's suggested that he would introduce legislation to have them wear name tags, he's called Mexicans "rapists," and said a host of other openly racist things. This video shows supporters of his yelling racist insults to a Muslim woman who is being removed from one of this rallies.

If someone supports a candidate who has made racism such a big part of his campaign, I believe they are supporting racist ideas. I believe that it follows that they are also racist. You promote what you permit and all that. I'm not understanding how this revelatory or controversial. 

What other wording should I use? This is a serious question I am asking. Are we discussing whether or not this policies/ideas are racist in the first place?  Is it possible for someone to support racist policies or ideas and NOT be racist themselves? Should we start with defining racism?  Again, not being facetious here at all. Racism and xenophobia are crucial issues in this election.


----------



## thehare (9 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> He's made banning Muslims from immigrating into the US a central part of his campaign, he's suggested that he would introduce legislation to have them wear name tags, he's called Mexicans "rapists," and said a host of other openly racist things. This video shows supporters of his yelling racist insults to a Muslim woman who is being removed from one of this rallies.
> 
> If someone supports a candidate who has made racism such a big part of his campaign, I believe they are supporting racist ideas. I believe that it follows that they are also racist. You promote what you permit and all that. I'm not understanding how this revelatory or controversial.
> 
> What other wording should I use? This is a serious question I am asking. Are we discussing whether or not this policies/ideas are racist in the first place?  Is it possible for someone to support racist policies or ideas and NOT be racist themselves? Should we start with defining racism?  Again, not being facetious here at all. Racism and xenophobia are crucial issues in this election.



While I think Trump is an ignoramus to the extreme, people can support him for reasons other than the ones you have stated. They can disagree with him on the more extreme positions, while agreeing with some of his others. Painting *all* of his supporters as racist is just lazy thinking.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Jan 2016)

thehare said:
			
		

> While I think Trump is an ignoramus to the extreme, people can support him for reasons other than the ones you have stated. They can disagree with him on the more extreme positions, while agreeing with some of his others. Painting *all* of his supporters as racist is just lazy thinking.



Which is kilo_302's forte and go to phrasing when he starts running out of relevant arguments. People hold their noses and vote for all kinds of candidates. Trump is no different.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> He's made banning Muslims from immigrating into the US a central part of his campaign, he's suggested that he would introduce legislation to have them wear name tags, he's called Mexicans "rapists," and said a host of other openly racist things. This video shows supporters of his yelling racist insults to a Muslim woman who is being removed from one of this rallies.
> 
> If someone supports a candidate who has made racism such a big part of his campaign, I believe they are supporting racist ideas. I believe that it follows that they are also racist. You promote what you permit and all that. I'm not understanding how this revelatory or controversial.
> 
> What other wording should I use? This is a serious question I am asking. Are we discussing whether or not this policies/ideas are racist in the first place?  Is it possible for someone to support racist policies or ideas and NOT be racist themselves? Should we start with defining racism?  Again, not being facetious here at all. Racism and xenophobia are crucial issues in this election.



So then, by that logic (being very clear that, since I am not an American, it is not really up to me who they pick as their next President), if you support the Clinton clan, you are okay with sexual assault? Just curious....


----------



## Kilo_302 (10 Jan 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Which is kilo_302's forte and go to phrasing when he starts running out of relevant arguments. People hold their noses and vote for all kinds of candidates. Trump is no different.



I think it's highly relevant that a front running Republican candidate for President wants Muslims to wear name tags. Godwin's Law doesn't even apply here, because Trump opened up that line of thinking himself. Requiring a specific religious or ethnic group to wear or carry identification confirming themselves as such directly mimics one the infamous Nuremberg Laws in Nazi Germany. If Trump's supporters have the temerity to be sensitive about being labeled a racist, they should think about the candidate they're supporting and his racist ideas. 

Again, his major policies, the ones he's defined his campaign with, are racist. This is his strategy. Are there really that many people supporting him for his well-thought out and nuanced take on infrastructure? On the economy? 

The onus is on his supporters to prove they're not racist, not on others to avoid using the word "racist" because it might offend somebody who just likes this "healthcare policy."  If this is painting with a "broad brush," I would suggest that banning Muslims from entering the US and having those already there wear name tags is the _definition_ of using a broad brush.


----------



## Kilo_302 (10 Jan 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> So then, by that logic (being very clear that, since I am not an American, it is not really up to me who they pick as their next President), if you support the Clinton clan, you are okay with sexual assault? Just curious....



I'm quite confident that "enabling sexual assault" isn't in Clinton's platform. And Hilary isn't Bill. There is a difference between what her husband did in his personal life decades ago, (as disgusting as it may be) and what she is doing politically. You know this, and I don't have the explain that. 

She's an awful candidate for reasons that have to do with her and her policies alone. She doesn't need Bill's help.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I'm quite confident that "enabling sexual assault" isn't in Clinton's platform. And Hilary isn't Bill. There is a difference between what her husband did in his personal life decades ago, (as disgusting as it may be) and what she is doing politically. You know this, and I don't have the explain that.
> 
> She's an awful candidate for reasons that have to do with her and her policies alone. She doesn't need Bill's help.



Actually, she went on national TV and all but called Monica Lewinski "trailer trash". You may not be old enough to remember it, but I do. That says something about her character.

Once again- not my election...


----------



## Kilo_302 (10 Jan 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Actually, she went on national TV and all but called Monica Lewinski "trailer trash". You may not be old enough to remember it, but I do. That says something about her character.
> 
> Once again- not my election...



That's something that probably isn't well known, it should be though. Like I said, I'm no supporter of hers either.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> That's something that probably isn't well known, it should be though. Like I said, I'm no supporter of hers either.



With even a cursory Google search, one could see Hillary's record of standing by and enabling her husband through decades of philandering and sexual misconduct. But you are not willing to call millions of her supporters "sexual assualtists" because she kind of (you think) has political views somewhat similar to your own. How very convenient for you...


----------



## Kilo_302 (10 Jan 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Sure. But you are not willing to call millions of her supports "sexual assualtists" because she kind of (you think) has political views somewhat similar to your own. How very convenient for you...



I wasn't aware Hillary Clinton and I shared much in common with regards to political views, but you're obviously trying to confuse two issues here so kudos for sticking to your ideological guns  

Again (I explained above already), there's a clear difference between something "being central to her political platform" and "something she said," although I agree that one's actions in their personal life reflect on their character. Hillary's supporters aren't drawn to her because she's promoting rape/sexual assault, and I'm not certain she was ever in the business of promoting rape/sexual assault.  She's branded herself as a feminist candidate (laughable in my opinion), a progressive (also laughable) and the only hope of defeating the Republicans in 2018 (plausible). This is why people support her. 

Trump on the other hand, has based his entire campaign on this xenophobic and racist statements/policies. These statements and policies are exactly what's getting him his polling numbers. It's his strategy. This takes to me back to my initial point that given this reality, it's appropriate to say that most if not all of Trump's supporters agree with him on some if not all of these policies on some level. If they do, they are also racist and/or xenophobic. He has their support _precisely because of what he is saying, not in spite of it._


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Jan 2016)

The whole US 2016 election is a monkey show- stipulated.

Your premise seems to be (and I apologize in advance if I have this wrong): Hilary is at least somewhat ok because she, at least,  has the good manners to hide the fact that she and her husband have ridden into the ground all of the women that he has abused over the decades. And some of her politics you might find acceptable.

Trump, on the other hand, is a loud buffoon.

Do I have that about right?


----------



## Kilo_302 (10 Jan 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The whole US 2016 election is a monkey show- stipulated.
> 
> Your premise seems to be (and I apologize in advance if I have this wrong): Hilary is at least somewhat ok because she, at least,  has the good manners to hide the fact that she and her husband have ridden into the ground all of the women that he has abused over the decades. And some of her politics you might find acceptable.
> 
> ...




You do not. I don't think Hillary is "ok" at all. I think she's driven by ambition versus the desire to serve, I think she's an opportunist and I think she has the ability to be morally and ethically flexible when it suits her purposes. In other words, I think she's a pure politician. 

These values are what drove her to support her husband (as well as loyalty no doubt), and in the course of that say some pretty awful things about Monica. I wasn't aware of the specifics, as I know more about her husband's policies and her platform. However, both of those things indicate she's no feminist, so the statements she made about Monica only reinforce a position I already held.

The articles I came across that were critical of Hillary in this regard were mostly from the Republican side of things, and the far left (as defined in the US by being left of the Democrats). I think it's certainly possible that many of her supporters are aware of what she has said and choose to ignore it. I think it's more likely they listen to her more than they listen to her detractors, and she is very skilled at delivering a message. 

But this is exactly my point. I think serious supporters of Trump OR Hillary are reflecting the messages of those candidates. Now the messages might be untrue (Hillary is definitely no feminist nor is she a progressive and Trump might not actually be serious about pursuing a Muslim database), but there's no doubt of what the messages are, and that their supporters actually believe them.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Jan 2016)

Kilo-

A fair and well reasoned assessment of the situation. Whether it is actually true- i dunno. Neither you nor I are Americans. I think it is difficult for Canadians to understand what drives US politics. We think we understand Americans, but I have a feeling that, unless you live there, nuances get lost on us.

Kind of like how Quebec Seperatists mystify Americans.


----------



## thehare (10 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> You do not. I don't think Hillary is "ok" at all. I think she's driven by ambition versus the desire to serve, I think she's an opportunist and I think she has the ability to be morally and ethically flexible when it suits her purposes. In other words, I think she's a pure politician.
> 
> These values are what drove her to support her husband (as well as loyalty no doubt), and in the course of that say some pretty awful things about Monica. I wasn't aware of the specifics, as I know more about her husband's policies and her platform. However, both of those things indicate she's no feminist, so the statements she made about Monica only reinforce a position I already held.
> 
> ...



And there you go with the broad generalizations again. He has more policies than the ones you listed, and while they are abhorrent, it is silly to claim that every single person that thinks he is the better choice (out of a fairly lack luster group) of the GOP candidates agrees with everything he says 100%.


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Jan 2016)

I served in the United States for four years after having grown up ten miles from the border. Their system of government with its separation of powers and very different levels of responsibility between federal, state and local governments is quite dissimilar to ours. Add in a very active judiciary and media and a competitive national character where various individuals, interest groups, branches, organizations and activities tend to compete rather than cooperate and it is quite amazing that anything every gets accomplished. To complicate issues, people tend to mistrust authority, sometimes with good reason. 

Given a population ten times the size of ours, it follows they will have at least ten times the numbers of odd balls and nut cases competing for space in a finite media cycle the same size as ours. Guess who gets the coverage, and it isn't the reasonable and balanced. Perhaps a major difference is a more stratified distribution of wealth, which is really not reflected by the per capita income in the different states. This distribution is affected by quite different costs of living in various regions so some one who would be poor in the urban northeast can live quite comfortably in large parts of Dixie and the desert southwest. Race is also a factor, but this is also regionally driven to a certain extent.

And I still don't understand it very well.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Jan 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And I still don't understand it very well.



The older I get the more I realize how little I know.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Jan 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The older I get the more I realize how little I know.



QFTFT.


----------



## CougarKing (11 Jan 2016)

It seems Trump would give Kim Jong Un an "A" for feeding his enemies, literally, to the dogs and executing them with AA guns:

Toronto Star



> *Donald Trump says Kim Jong Un deserves ‘credit’ for wiping out rivals
> ”He goes in, he takes over, he’s the boss. It’s incredible,” Trump said in Iowa.*
> 
> By: Daniel Dale Washington Bureau, Published on Sat Jan 09 2016
> ...




Meanwhile, a Muslim woman conducts a protest at a Trump rally:

CNN



> *Silently protesting Muslim woman ejected from Trump rally*
> 
> By Jeremy Diamond, CNN
> 
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (11 Jan 2016)

Interesting piece from Chris Hedges, where he underlines the idea that none of the current candidates are really equipped to address the real issues facing the US.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_great_forgetting_20160110



> Presidential candidate Donald Trump may be boorish, narcissistic, stupid, racist and elitist, but he does not have Hillary Clinton’s carefully honed and chilling amoral artifice. It was she, and an ethically bankrupt liberal establishment, that created the fertile ground for Trump by fleecing the citizens on behalf of corporations and imposing the neoliberal project. If she is elected, Trump may disappear, but another Trump-like figure, probably even more frightening, will be vomited up from our cultural and political sewer.
> 
> Trump and Clinton, along with fellow candidate Bernie Sanders, refuse to admit what they know: Our most basic civil and political rights have been taken from us, the corporate oligarchy will remain entrenched in power no matter who wins the presidency, and elections are a carnival act. The downward spiral of lost jobs and declining incomes, of shredded civil liberties, of endless war, is unstoppable as long as we use the traditional mechanisms of reform, including elections, to try to cope with the existential threat we face. A vote for Clinton, in essence, is a vote for Trump or someone as bad as Trump. Right-wing populism, here and in Europe, is not the product of an individual but the disenfranchisement, rage and despair stemming from the damage caused by globalization. And until we wrest back control of our destiny by breaking corporate power, demagogues like Trump, and his repugnant doppelgangers in Europe, will proliferate.


----------



## cupper (11 Jan 2016)

Although Trumps policies sound great, they are really only pandering to what his supporters want to hear, and not what needs to be done (or avoided). In fact they run in opposition to his campaign theme of "Making America Great Again".

*Economists savage Trump's economic agenda*
*Raising tariffs and deporting millions of people will drive up prices and cause recession, experts assert.*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/trump-economy-217496#.gdrtqoz:3mBM



> Many economists say Donald Trump’s proposals — from big import tariffs to mass deportations — would hurt the very demographic that supports him in the greatest numbers: less educated voters struggling in a tepid U.S. economy.
> 
> If Trump policies actually went into effect, these economists say, prices for goods lower-income Americans depend on could soar and a depleted low-end labor force could trigger a major downturn.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (12 Jan 2016)

A piece from Jacobin criticizing an essay from the Guardian that equated the Trump and Sanders campaigns as being two sides of the same coin:

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/01/bernie-sanders-trump-populism-marche-corbyn-politics/



> Regurgitating a familiar bit of anti-socialist agitprop, Marche brands Sanders’ supporters “cornfed hipsters,” observing that “[while] rich white people can afford to think about socialism, the poor can only afford their anger.” (That socialism has, at various points, had a considerable pull on portions of the American working class is something Marche conveniently omits.)
> 
> Dismissing Sanders’s calls for a “political revolution” in a few sentences, Marche casually concludes that the Vermont senator’s crusade to topple the proverbial casino of American capitalism is doomed to fail because he has personally observed several actual casinos while driving through Iowa. The piece then closes with a few paragraphs of forgettable pabulum and intellectual window-dressing.
> 
> What’s striking about Marche’s essay is how little genuine political content it contains. Relying largely on irrelevant anecdotes about the appearance of the two rallies, he almost entirely ignores the political programs they were organized to promote.




And the essay in question:

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jan/10/white-man-pathology-bernie-sanders-donald-trump?CMP=fb_us



> The Bernie Sanders rally in Davenport was the precise opposite of the Donald Trump rally in Burlington and yet precisely the same in every detail. “Make America Great Again” was replaced by “Feel the Bern”. Hawkers sold pins, three for $10. They read “Bernie Sanders is my spirit animal” and “Cats for Bernie” and “I supported Bernie Sanders before it was cool.” Davenport, at least near the Adler Theater, is the same Brooklyn-outside-Brooklyn that has conquered every corner of the world that is not a strip mall. The tattoo artists of Davenport do not go hungry. The cornfed hipsters at the Sanders rally look like they have probably attended a party at which somebody played a bongo. They may even have attended a literary reading.
> 
> 
> There were hype men as with Trump, too, although in this case they were twentyish women in glasses screaming “Feel the Bern!” and “We’re Going to Build a Revolution!” Somebody with a camera from NBC asked a group who has brought their precocious children because they want them to be engaged in the political process “Can I get you guys to look like you’re excited about Bernie?” They carefully placed their drinks on the floor, out of sight, to oblige.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jan 2016)

Interesting take on how the Republican establishment is viewing Trump now. The idea Trump is going to be amiable to the usual crowd of lobbiests and the establishment isn't very surprising, although after the debacle of Paul Ryan and the budget I think the idea that *any* career politician is going to throw the money changers out of the temple is a bit out there. This is similar to the idea that Bernie Sanders will be fundamentally different from Hillary Clinton, his message is popular for the same reason that Trump's is (the idea that the Progressive establishment isn't listening to their constituents), but there is no reason to suspect that if he were in office there would be a great deal of difference.

https://pjmedia.com/rogerkimball/2016/1/11/donald-trump-as-a-mirror-for-the-republican-soul/?singlepage=true



> *Why the Sudden Love Among Establishment Republicans for Trump?*
> 
> It has been quite an experience -- half amusing, half alarming -- to behold the sudden transformation of Donald Trump from pariah to desperate hope of the Republican Party. As it happens, the moment of metanoia can be located with some precision.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (12 Jan 2016)

Some food for thought before tonight's final State of the Union address by Obama:

CNN



> *Obama hopes to pave way for Clinton with farewell State of the Union*
> 
> By Stephen Collinson, CNN
> 
> ...



Business Insider



> *TRUMP: Here's what I'd talk about if I were giving my State of the Union address today*
> By Maxwell Tani | Business Insider – Sun, 10 Jan, 2016 5:41 PM EST
> 
> With President Barack Obama's final State of the Union address coming on Tuesday, Donald Trump knows exactly what he'd say if he was in Obama's shoes this year.
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (13 Jan 2016)

A summary of tonight's speech:

Defense News



> *Obama Highlights Security Successes in Final State of the Union*
> By Joe Gould, Staff writer 10:46 p.m. EST January 12, 2016
> 
> WASHINGTON — US President Barack Obama claimed a number of US national security successes during his State of the Union address Tuesday evening, reiterating a past theme that the US must work with global partners and not go it alone.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jan 2016)

Sanders and Clinton as the poles of the Democrat party; "old left" vs "new left" (although strictly speaking the "new" left was new in 1968, its not quite so shiny anymore....). Since neither one has any realistic or workable solutions to the real issues plaguing America and the world (much like ERC reminds us the Republican establishment, as currently constituted is similarly out of ideas), this is really the debate between Tweedledee and Tweedledum:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/01/12/sen-bernie-sanders-reactionary/



> *Sen. Bernie Sanders, Reactionary?*
> 
> Senator Bernie Sanders has broken with the progressive orthodoxy on campus sexual assault, which holds that such accusations should be handled internally by colleges, under a kind of parallel justice system with different rules from the criminal courts. The Hill reports:
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (14 Jan 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Sanders and Clinton as the poles of the Democrat party; "old left" vs "new left" (although strictly speaking the "new" left was new in 1968, its not quite so shiny anymore....). Since neither one has any realistic or workable solutions to the real issues plaguing America and the world (much like ERC reminds us the Republican establishment, as currently constituted is similarly out of ideas), this is really the debate between Tweedledee and Tweedledum:
> 
> http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/01/12/sen-bernie-sanders-reactionary/



Except the debate will be about whether its tweedledee and tweedledum or tweedledum and tweedledee.


----------



## CougarKing (15 Jan 2016)

More on the latest Cruz vs Trump clash:

Canadian Press/Associated Press



> *Trump, Cruz clash in first Republican debate of the year*
> Julie Pace And Bill Barrow, The Associated Press
> The Canadian Press
> January 14, 2016
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (15 Jan 2016)

Can we just pause for a moment to reflect on this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPRfP_TEQ-g


----------



## Rocky Mountains (15 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Can we just pause for a moment to reflect on this?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vPRfP_TEQ-g



Cute - I love people that love their country


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jan 2016)

More on the Republican debate. While Trump Haters are going to hate, this seems to indicate that he is growing into the role and will be a formidable opponent if nominated for the election:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/224052/



> SHOWING OTHER FACETS: Bloomberg political reporters Michael Bender and Kevin Cirilli pen their post-debate takeaway,”Trump Bolsters Closing Argument With Most Solid Debate Yet.”
> 
> The candidate who faced doubts for months over the true strength of his commanding poll numbers is proving doubters wrong on another count: With about two weeks until the presidential nominating process starts in Iowa, Donald Trump just delivered his most complete performance of the Republican primary season.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (15 Jan 2016)

A lot has to happen before Trump could be considered a formidable opponent. I have yet to see anything of substance regarding policies.

UNtil he can put substance into his campaign, he is simply pandering to the angry masses. He will be like the dog that chases cars. The day he catches on, he just won't know what to do with it.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jan 2016)

Yup, pandering to angry voters is a Republican ploy all right. Good thing Democrat voters are not swayed by or indulge in eliminationist rhetoric.


----------



## cupper (15 Jan 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Yup, pandering to angry voters is a Republican ploy all right. Good thing Democrat voters are not swayed by or indulge in eliminationist rhetoric.



Yep. Politics is the same no matter how you cut it.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Jan 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> A lot has to happen before Trump could be considered a formidable opponent. I have yet to see anything of substance regarding policies.
> 
> .... he is simply pandering to the angry masses.



Déjà vu....circa Canada, 19 October 2015?  

Careful dismissing vacuous policies and angry masses;  they may be angry enough to actually show up at the polling stations.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jan 2016)

Economics comes back to bite them. Considering this is a Democrat initiative from top to bottom, the Republicans *could* try to point out how counterproductive economic intervention by the State always is, but I somehow doubt they will. Of course the lapdog media will continue to try to spin it as some sort of evil plot, rather than looking at the facts. Labour needs to be both scarce and/or add high value (i.e. skilled workers) to be able to command high wages, and finding people for stocking shelves isn't either.

For people who always want to cite Henry Ford, economic historians know the main reason for Ford to raise wages wasn't "purchasing power", but to fight the high levels of absenteeism and employee turnover plaguing the plant. 

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/224162/



> QUESTION ASKED AND ANSWERED: “Can D.C. afford a $15/hour minimum wage?”, the left-leaning Brookings Institute asked in July.
> 
> Yesterday’s Washington Post article headlined “District leaders furious Walmart breaking promise to build stores in poor neighborhoods” is a succinct response:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jan 2016)

More on who supports Donald Trump. The resurrection of the Reagan Democrats is an interesting take on topic, and I'm hardly surprised that former Democrats are feeling their party has moved too far to the left for them, leaving them looking for a new home.





> *Republicans Have Overestimated the Conservatism of the Base*
> by DAVID FRENCH
> January 15, 2016 2:35 PM
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (18 Jan 2016)

So will Trump confront Kim face to face and say "You're FIRED!" ?  ;D

Diplomat



> *US Presidential Candidates Aren't Quite Ready to Handle North Korea
> 
> Candidates for the U.S. presidency are worryingly ill-prepared to deal with North Korea’s provocations.*
> By Denny Roy
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Jan 2016)

While the analysis is correct so far as it goes, the conclusion isn't very comforting:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-01-18/worse-1860



> *Worse Than 1860?*
> Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/18/2016 14:30 -0500
> 
> Submitted by Howard Kunstler via Kunstler.com,
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jan 2016)

Follow the money is always good advice:

http://www.redstate.com/diary/jonhenke/2016/01/19/foundations-behind-left/

[qute]
*The Foundations behind the Left*
By: Jon Henke (Diary)  |  January 19th, 2016 at 06:00 PM  |  7

Over a decade ago, the New York Post’s Ryan Sager published a blockbuster story, showing that “campaign finance reform has been an immense scam perpetrated…by a cadre of left-wing foundations and disguised as a “mass movement.” Based on the astonishing testimony of Sean Treglia, who ran the campaign finance reform effort for Pew Trusts, Sager reported that…

…Treglia came up with a three-pronged strategy: 1) pursue an expansive agenda through incremental reforms, 2) pay for a handful of “experts” all over the country with foundation money and 3) create fake business, minority and religious groups to pound the table for reform.

“The target audience for all this activity was 535 people in Washington,” Treglia says — 100 in the Senate, 435 in the House. “The idea was to create an impression that a mass movement was afoot — that everywhere they looked, in academic institutions, in the business community, in religious groups, in ethnic groups, everywhere, people were talking about reform.” …

From 1994 to 2004, almost $140 million was spent to lobby for changes to our country’s campaign-finance laws. … The vast majority of this money — $123 million, 88 percent of the total — came from just eight liberal foundations.

These foundations were: the Pew Charitable Trusts ($40.1 million), the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy ($17.6 million), the Carnegie Corporation of New York ($14.1 million), the Joyce Foundation ($13.5 million), George Soros’ Open Society Institute ($12.6 million), the Jerome Kohlberg Trust ($11.3 million), the Ford Foundation ($8.8 million) and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation ($5.2 million).

Perhaps most (or least?) surprisingly, Treglia said the good news for the Foundations was that “Journalists didn’t care. They didn’t know. They didn’t care … so no one followed up on the story.” Treglia said, “if any reporter wanted to know, they could have sat down and connected the dots. But they didn’t…”

As a result, we got the McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation, which has only succeeded in, as opponents predicted, making politics less transparent and more expensive. 

Unfortunately, after this story broke, the media continued to not know and not care. News reports overflow with stories about the Koch brothers or corporate donations, but the far more massive and highly political left wing Foundations operate almost entirely without scrutiny. 

Consider this: in 2013, the left wing Center for Public Integrity reported that “Four foundations run by [the Koch brothers] hold a combined $310 million in assets…” By contrast, the Ford Foundation’s endowment is more than $12 billion — about 38x larger than the Koch Foundations. 

On a list of the top 100 US Foundations (by asset size), the Ford Foundation is #2. The various Koch Foundations don’t make the list, nor do they make the list of top 100 Foundations by annual giving. 

Yet, the news media and transparency groups constantly harp on the Koch’s massive organization and its “insidious,” “dark money” influence on American politics, while almost completely ignoring the far larger left-wing political Foundations.

In part, this is due to the perception in the media that money from conservative/libertarian/free market leaning organizations must be tainted, while funding from left-wing Foundations is free of such bias. It may also be due to the fact that the left wing Foundations fund many media organizations — I’m looking at you, NPR, PBS, Washington Post, LA Times and others — sometimes even funding them to cover “[other people’s] money in politics.”  

But that doesn’t explain all of the media apathy. Even right-of-center media is generally uninterested in these behind-the-scenes details about the left-wing Foundation money machine. 

Sager’s 2005 story was a revelation to me at the time and it has continued to inform my understanding of how the left-wing political machine operates, domestically and internationally, up to the highest levels. Indeed, President Obama himself was a part of this, spending 8 years funding gun control and anti-2nd amendment research and advocacy as a Director of the Joyce Foundation.

After the passage of McCain-Feingold, the people and Foundations behind campaign finance reform mostly moved on to other areas, particularly media and technology policy, and they have replicated this Foundation driven campaign strategy over and over again. Some have drifted back towards campaign finance reform in recent years — unsurprising, given the appeal of being able to marginalize opponents and outlaw opposition speech — but most have realized that they can do far more to control the information and political environment by tinkering with the information inputs of policy and media rather than the information outputs of speech. 

Whether it is energy, campaign finance reform, technology policy (especially internet regulation) or half a dozen other areas, the pattern is the same. Massive left wing Foundations — often in collaboration with corporate, investment and government organizations — are putting tens, even hundreds of millions of dollars into research, advocacy, organizing, media and lobbying operations. 

They are succeeding, in large part, because nobody has been watching.

[This is the first in a series]
[/quote]


----------



## Blackadder1916 (20 Jan 2016)

Just when you thought that the TV reality show political circus that is the Trump campaign could not get anymore bizarre - Sarah Palin joins him in Iowa to give his campaign her endorsement.  When I watched the video of both of them on stage at the event in Ames, Iowa, as she, in her very "Sarah Palin way", made her speech, I was struck by the image of Mr Trump quietly standing to one side, with a sheepish grin on his face.  I wondered if he was thinking that "this lady makes me sound sensible".

Granted, I do not have much respect for either of these individuals, however, Governor Palin is still a powerful voice in the right wing of the GOP and the Tea Party movement.

As I combed through numerous news articles that could provide an adequate explanation of this move and its ramifications, I found most took an easy approach with the obvious discussion of her brief and (gaffe laden) memorable stint as a VP candidate and possible consideration as Trump's running mate or at least a significant Cabinet post if the Apocalypse happened and he was elected.  In the end, I found this from The Christian Science Monitor (they are usually measured, well researched and moderate in their approach).

*Why Sarah Palin's endorsement of Donald Trump makes sense*
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/Decoder/2016/0120/Why-Sarah-Palin-s-endorsement-of-Donald-Trump-makes-sense


> Shifts in political thought There are good reasons, in terms of ideology and style, that Sarah Palin has sided with Donald Trump.
> 
> The rumors were true: Sarah Palin endorsed Donald Trump Tuesday in a joint appearance at Iowa State University in Ames. And now that we’ve seen the Maverick Duo onstage, and heard Ms. Palin’s harsh critique of the Republican establishment, their political relationship perhaps makes more sense than it did at first news flash.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (20 Jan 2016)

Anyone left supporting Trump after this $#@#show needs to reappraise their sanity. Let's not forget the son of this paragon of moral virtue was arrested on weapons and assault charges this week. Palin herself has blamed his transgressions on PSTD stemming from his service in Iraq, and of course blames Obama for not supporting veterans. All the while she wants the US to get further involved in wars around the world. 


[urlhttp://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/sarah-palin-endorsed-donald-trump-it-is-bonkers-video][/url]


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Anyone left supporting Trump after this $#@#show needs to reappraise their sanity. Let's not forget the son of this paragon of moral virtue was arrested on weapons and assault charges this week. Palin herself has blamed his transgressions on PSTD stemming from his service in Iraq, and of course blames Obama for not supporting veterans. All the while she wants the US to get further involved in wars around the world.
> 
> 
> [urlhttp://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/01/sarah-palin-endorsed-donald-trump-it-is-bonkers-video][/url]



...and you're in what sort of position to say otherwise? What inside medical knowledge do you have that disproves what she's saying?

...and Obama does not support veterans. She is not lying there either.

I also see no reason to condemn her for wanting to take the fight to the extremists. Someone has too. Of course, we in Canada, with our sunny ways and rainbows will sit idly by while we hope that our non commitment to go it with the rest of the western world will ensure that the terrorists leave us alone.

Finally, Mother Jones? Seriously? Could you not get any more of a socialist left wing reference to cite?


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Jan 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Finally, Mother Jones? Seriously? Could you not get any more of a socialist left wing reference to cite?



Rabble.ca and the Red Star didn't have articles about it.


----------



## CougarKing (21 Jan 2016)

Sarah Palin endorses Donald Trump:

Yahoo News



> *Watch: What On Earth Is Sarah Palin Saying In This Part Of Her Donald Trump Speech?*
> 
> Yahoo News
> January 20, 2016
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (21 Jan 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ...and you're in what sort of position to say otherwise? What inside medical knowledge do you have that disproves what she's saying?
> 
> ...and Obama does not support veterans. She is not lying there either.
> 
> ...



I have zero medical knowledge of her son's condition, that wasn't my point. But you're free to guess again.

"Support" for veterans can only mean funding, which in fact has increased under Obama.

Finally, here's the very same video of the speech, unembedded in a website so you don't have to deal with all of that "socialist left wing" bias and can enjoy the speech directly. And guess what? IT'S STILL INSANE.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yb0qIZD9g7M

You'll notice SMA's non-"socialist" Yahoo link also has little trouble showing Palin for what she is.



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Rabble.ca and the Red Star didn't have articles about it.



If you're inferring I am a communist you either a) don't have a working definition of communism, or b) are just being lazy. 

You'd fit right in in the front row at this Trump rally.


----------



## Journeyman (21 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Let's not forget the son of this paragon of moral virtue was arrested on weapons and assault charges this week.


Interesting 'argument.'   :

Do you have any children? 
Do you actually believe you are legally or morally responsible for each and every thing they do, or just Trump is because it fits your needs?








For the record, I'm not remotely a Trump fan; I just don't like dumb arguments.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Jan 2016)

By Kilo's logic, Chrétien should have been hounded from office when his son was jailed in the 90s...

Yet, that did not happen. Instead, there was muted sympathy for a father who had probably done his best.

I guess only (small l) liberal parents get a break...


----------



## Kilo_302 (21 Jan 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Interesting 'argument.'   :
> 
> Do you have any children?
> Do you actually believe you are legally or morally responsible for each and every thing they do, or just Trump is because it fits your needs?
> ...



It's Palin's son, not Trump's. It's relevant for two reasons: 

First, Palin is a "family values" candidate. She campaigns on traditional Christian values, and implies that people who do not are un-American and immoral. This isn't the first incident with her son. We all remember that punch up a few years back that involved multiple members of her family. So yes, when someone who has made a career harping about morality and family values and has such significant problems in their own family they lose credibility.

Second, she has linked her son's behaviour to PTSD related to his service in Iraq. This is fine, but she's also made a political career of calling for the invasion of Iran, and increased military deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Her policies would create thousands of new veterans, many of whom would suffer from the same symptoms as her son. Can someone really be "pro-military" and yet also so reckless when it comes to getting involved in military entanglements, especially given the experience in Iraq? 



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> By Kilo's logic, Chrétien should have been hounded from office when his son was jailed in the 90s...
> 
> Yet, that did not happen. Instead, there was muted sympathy for a father who had probably done his best.
> 
> I guess only (small l) liberal parents get a break...



For reasons I posted above, it's different when a "family values" candidate has these issues in their own family. Republicans in particular campaign on this sort of nonsense all the time to conceal their fealty to corporate power, so it's especially rich when a hate-spewing homophobic congressman gets caught blowing a guy in an airport, or gets charged with possession of coke etc etc. Small l politicians don't base entire careers on trying to get the government back into people's bedrooms, or blaming all of America's problems on a lack of family values or Christianity. That's the sole territory of Republicans, and they're always lying through their teeth.


----------



## Jed (21 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> It's Palin's son, not Trump's. It's relevant for two reasons:
> 
> First, Palin is a "family values" candidate. She campaigns on traditional Christian values, and implies that people who do not are un-American and immoral. This isn't the first incident with her son. We all remember that punch up a few years back that involved multiple members of her family. So yes, when someone who has made a career harping about morality and family values and has such significant problems in their own family they lose credibility.
> 
> ...



Are you attempting to light your strawman on fire, Kilo ?


----------



## Kilo_302 (21 Jan 2016)

Looks like I'm not the only one making "strawman arguments."

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/21/palin-takes-heats-from-veterans-for-using-sons-arrest-ptsd-to-criticize-obama.html


----------



## Journeyman (21 Jan 2016)

From clutching at straw....



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> .....That's the sole territory of Republicans, and they're always lying through their teeth.


To broad-brush allegations....



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/21/palin-takes-heats-from-veterans-for-using-sons-arrest-ptsd-to-criticize-obama.html


To effectively proclaiming yourself the intellectual equivalent of Fox 'News.'

:not-again:


We're done here.


----------



## CountDC (21 Jan 2016)

Sorry but I really don't understand.  It appears that you are saying because her son turned out a certain way that some how that negates her traditional christian values.  I don't see how his actions negates her values or that she loses credibility.   I have worked since I was 13, taught all my kids that hard work was important and living off the social services when you can work is not right but if they decide to not work it is my fault?

Everyone developes their values from all around them and not just from their parents.  For whatever reason her son picked some other values.  Her values are still valid, it is his that are perhaps wrong.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Jan 2016)

Attacking Governor Palin to "disqualify" was started in the 2008 election because she potentially could have delivered a stinging defeat to "The One" and discredited the leftist narrative. The process continues to this day because she is still popular in enough places that she can potentially draw many more voters into electoral races. Her vetting of TEA Party movement candidates and their subsequent electoral victories is proof enough of that. Frankly, I expect no less from the Legacy Media, many of whom are now openly "Democrat operatives with bylines", to quote Glen Reynolds (Instapundit).

The Democrats, Republican establishment and Legacy Media fear that she still has a great deal of power to sway elections, and (sadly) I predict that even decades from now when she passes, we will see an orgy of vitriol in the press similar to what happened after Margaret Thatcher's passing.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> It's Palin's son, not Trump's. It's relevant for two reasons:
> 
> First, Palin is a "family values" candidate. She campaigns on traditional Christian values, and implies that people who do not are un-American and immoral. This isn't the first incident with her son. We all remember that punch up a few years back that involved multiple members of her family. So yes, when someone who has made a career harping about morality and family values and has such significant problems in their own family they lose credibility.
> 
> ...



 :blah: :rofl: :bullshit: :ignore:


----------



## cupper (21 Jan 2016)

Anyone ever consider that it might not be PTSD but rather upbringing?

He really could just be a "richard". 

After all, the whole family is a paragon of family values.


----------



## Kilo_302 (22 Jan 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> From clutching at straw....
> To broad-brush allegations....
> To effectively proclaiming yourself the intellectual equivalent of Fox 'News.'
> 
> ...



haha so when I use a source that's "left" it's immediately denounced as biased an inaccurate (even though it's youtube video) and NOW because FOX is covering the story and I'm referencing FOX I'm the intellectual equivalent. 

Which media outlet are you comfortable with Journeyman? NBC, CBS and ABC are also reporting this story, and in much the same way. Are any of these acceptable?



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> :blah: :rofl: :bullshit: :ignore:



As always, an excellent contribution and fitting for your role as Directing Staff.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Attacking Governor Palin to "disqualify" was started in the 2008 election because she potentially could have delivered a stinging defeat to "The One" and discredited the leftist narrative. The process continues to this day because she is still popular in enough places that she can potentially draw many more voters into electoral races. Her vetting of TEA Party movement candidates and their subsequent electoral victories is proof enough of that. Frankly, I expect no less from the Legacy Media, many of whom are now openly "Democrat operatives with bylines", to quote Glen Reynolds (Instapundit).
> 
> The Democrats, Republican establishment and Legacy Media fear that she still has a great deal of power to sway elections, and (sadly) I predict that even decades from now when she passes, we will see an orgy of vitriol in the press similar to what happened after Margaret Thatcher's passing.



People CAN be incredibly mean spirited in politics, and it is distasteful. Palin is no stranger to gutter politics, and nor is Trump. I'm not too worried about Trump or Palin discrediting the "leftist" narrative. If Trump wins the election, he'll either tone it down and succumb to "the system" as it were, or he'll continue to double down on his outlandish policies and prove the Left's narrative that a corporate dominated system will produce more and more extreme figures coming from the Right.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> As always, an excellent contribution and fitting for your role as Directing Staff.



I only post as Staff if the post is signed as such. Otherwise I'm simply a member, with an entitlement to any opinion I wish. 

Trust me. If I post to you as Staff, you won't mistake the difference again.


----------



## Kilo_302 (22 Jan 2016)

Interesting that union members are for Bernie, while union _leadership_ is for Clinton. This makes sense, Clinton is definitely as "establishment" as it gets. I would also argue that this underlines that many of problems with (and poor opinions of) unions these days stem from the leadership capitulation to capital and corporate power. If anything, this development just shows that leadership is corrupt, and just as interested in disenfranchising its members as management is. This is a co-opting of labour, not an indictment of the concept of a union itself.

More and more it's looking like we could be in for a Trump/Sanders election in the fall. It would be the most interesting (and the most important) US election in decades.

https://theintercept.com/2016/01/22/bernie-sanders-gets-group-endorsements-when-members-decide-hillary-clinton-when-leaders-decide/



> For example, Clinton got an endorsement from the Human Rights Campaign this week. That decision was made not by a vote of HRC’s membership list but instead by a 32-member executive board that includes Mike Berman, the president of a lobbying firm that works for Pfizer, Comcast, and the health insurance lobby. Northrup Grumman is among its list of major corporate sponsors.
> 
> The Sanders campaign blasted the group as “establishment” and said that Sanders has a much stronger record on LGBT equality than Clinton. Outspoken gay activist Michaelangelo Signorile wrote that HRC had clearly traded its early endorsement for “access to the White House” for its leaders.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jan 2016)

Looking at Bernie Sanders, he seems to be about as attractive a person as Hillary...

http://lansingcitypulse.com/article-12189-The-trouble-with-Bernie.html



> *The trouble with Bernie*
> A moralizing scold, but for the left
> BY  MICKEY HIRTEN
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (23 Jan 2016)

Again rumors are picking up that former NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg is mulling a presidential bid.

*Potential Bloomberg candidacy drops new wild card into already wild race*

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-01232016-htmlstory.html#1134



> The prospect of billionaire Michael Bloomberg launching an independent presidential bid dropped new uncertainty into an already highly unusual 2016 primary season.
> 
> The former New York City mayor has fostered presidential aspirations before. But the 73-year-old appears, like many Americans watching the raucous nominating contests, to be seeking a dose of stability in the current race.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Jan 2016)

Although Trump has been a Democrat supporter in the past, and also a well known "pay to play" political opportunist, his words and actions in the race have solidified him in the minds of the public as a Republican (if not an establishment one).

Bloomberg is so well known for his nanny state Democrat initiatives as Mayor of NYC that he will be seen as a Democrat even if he runs as an independent. Advantage: Republicans.


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Jan 2016)

Excellent piece that underlines some uncomfortable comparisons between the religious right in the US and the hard line clerics in Iran.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/neil-macdonald-sarah-palin-1.3416452



> In her solipsistic return to the campaign trail last week, Sarah Palin blamed President Barack Obama for the fact that her military reservist son punched his girlfriend in the face, then drunkenly threatened to kill himself with an assault rifle before winding up under arrest, facing criminal charges.
> 
> Track Palin had been "fighting for you-all, America," shouted his mother in Oklahoma, suggesting that her son's time in Iraq eight years ago left him with PTSD.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Jan 2016)

And yet more racism out of the people who surround Trump. You can no longer defend Trump and his campaign when his primary spokesperson has used terms like "pure breed" to describe people whose mothers were born in the US. Godwin's law notwithstanding, we're rapidly approaching the point where direct comparisons to the Nazis are no longer outlandish. They're doing the work for us.

http://gawker.com/donald-trump-spokesperson-decried-lack-of-pure-breeds-1754754451



> Back in 2012, Donald Trump spokesperson and sentient ammunition display Katrina Pierson went on Twitter and publicly lamented what she called a lack of “pure breeds” in the U.S. presidential race.
> 
> Ostensibly, Pierson is somehow trying to imply that having a parent born overseas makes someone less American, or to put it in more menacing, eugenical terms, “less pure.” It’s also worth noting that Donald Trump’s mother was actually born in Scotland—though I can’t for the life of me figure out why she might have let that one slide (I can).
> 
> ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Excellent piece that underlines some uncomfortable comparisons between the religious right in the US and the hard line clerics in Iran.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/neil-macdonald-sarah-palin-1.3416452



Wow, you are right! It is like looking in a mirror! I mean, how could I have missed the Republican Party's Revolutionary Guard, which has been terrorizing the American public and stoning heretics for years, while running a corruption racket on breathtaking scale. And then there are the jails just full of gays, liberals and enemies of the US government who are tortured and executed on a daily...oh, wait.

I am pretty sure that you do not have the first clue about Iran. I myself have only the barest hint of the complexity that Iran poses and that comes from 3 operational tours in the region and decades of thinking about the problem.

But hey, enjoy your smug and facile comparisons to US politics... :


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Jan 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Wow, you are right! It is like looking in a mirror! I mean, how could I have missed the Republican Party's Revolutionary Guard, which has been terrorizing the American public and stoning heretics for years, while running a corruption racket on breathtaking scale. And then there are the jails just full of gays, liberals and enemies of the US government who are tortured and executed on a daily...oh, wait.
> 
> I am pretty sure that you do not have the first clue about Iran. I myself have only the barest hint of the complexity that Iran poses and that comes from 3 operational tours in the region and decades of thinking about the problem.
> 
> But hey, enjoy your smug and facile comparisons to US politics... :



Did you read the article? Those aren't the similarities the author is talking about. The author's point (these aren't MY "smug and facile comparisons") is that Trump/Palin are using similar strategies to those used by certain Iranian clerics to whip up a base of largely uninformed voters. Neil Macdonald was the CBC's Middle East correspondent and spent a lot of time in Iran, which is why he specifically mentions Khatami and the reformist movement. That movement failed because conservative clerics were able to bamboozle many Iranians into believing that any dialogue with the West was unacceptable, any compromise on Islamic Iranian values was dangerous. 

The similarities are that a dogmatic group of political figures are hiding behind "traditional values" and abstract ideas like "the strength of the nation" while they themselves are highly corrupt and part of the establishment.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jan 2016)

Kilo you're glaikit.

Your not doing yourself any service by finding the most extreme examples to try and bolster your arguments.  All you are doing is demonstrating the distance between yourself and your audience and making it easier to ignore.

The tactics you are talking about are not unique to Trump, or the Iranians, or even ACORN or the Bolsheviks or the Liberal Party of Canada or even the Conservatives.

The tactics are identical.  It is all about pulling in a dedicated core of believers to do the grunt work.  The less questioning the grunts the better.

Anybody But Harper.......


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Kilo you're glaikit.
> 
> Your not doing yourself any service by finding the most extreme examples to try and bolster your arguments.  All you are doing is demonstrating the distance between yourself and your audience and making it easier to ignore.
> 
> ...



I reject the idea that comparing Iranian clerics to Trump is extreme.One of my posts above outlines how Trump's own spokesperson has used terminology ("pure breed") used by the Nazis. Is that really a rational position when compared to the clerics in Iran? Are these groups really that dissimilar?  When someone is talking racial purity, traditional values, religion and war there are no extreme examples. 

Trump is habitually retweeting an account called "White Genocide" for god's sake. This account recently tweeted a picture of Trump putting Bernie Sanders in gas chamber. And people are still trying rationalize his campaign. These are dangerous times, if people choose to ignore them, well there are quite a few historical examples of willful ignorance leading to far worse.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Jan 2016)

Wait- you just said two posts ago, that this was not your opinion, it was the author's.

Now it does seem to be your opinion.

Which is it? Is the US Republican Party akin to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, or is it not?

Not that your opinion really impacts my daily life, one way or another....


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Jan 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Wait- you just said two posts ago, that this was not your opinion, it was the author's.
> 
> Now it does seem to be your opinion.
> 
> ...



I agree with the author's opinion, and was responding to the specific language you used in your response. Now would you care to address anything in the posts or articles or will we continue going in circles? Given what I have said, do you still believe that comparing Trump to Iranian clerics (in some very specific ways which I have outlined) is extreme?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Jan 2016)

Well for starters, I doubt that Trump, if elected President, will sanction the storming of foreign embassies in Washington and hold diplomats hostage.

I doubt he will jail, torture and execute gays, members of the press and opponents of his regime.

I doubt he will establish a private and parallel military to the US military that reports only to him and is a tool of repression not only in his country, but around the region.

But that is just me....and I suppose I could be proven wrong, if he is actually selected in the Primaries and then actually gets elected President of the US.


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Jan 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Well for starters, I doubt that Trump, if elected President, will sanction the storming of foreign embassies in Washington and hold diplomats hostage.
> 
> I doubt he will jail, torture and execute gays, members of the press and opponents of his regime.
> 
> ...



Right, the author is not saying "Iran and the US ARE THE SAME COUNTRY (I'm not saying that either)." Neil Macdonald is saying (and I agree), "listen to how many of the Republicans sound. Listen to the ideas they are appealing to. Once I was at a speech given by a conservative cleric in Iran who was opposed to the moderate Iranian President Khatami, and what he said sounded very much like what we are hearing in the US."

Do you understand this point? You can definitely disagree, but we've gone back and forth for several posts here, and it's not clear to me you grasp what he's saying. His overall thrust is, "our extremists sound a lot like theirs." Leading to the obvious conclusion that politically, our extremists help reinforce their extremists and vice versa. 

I would suggest re-reading the article and specifically addressing his arguments.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Jan 2016)

The condescending way you've been replying to other posters is growing tiresome.

---Staff---


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Kilo you're glaikit.
> 
> Your not doing yourself any service by finding the most extreme examples to try and bolster your arguments.  All you are doing is demonstrating the distance between yourself and your audience and making it easier to ignore.
> 
> ...





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> The condescending way you've been replying to other posters is growing tiresome.
> 
> ---Staff---



 glaikit
Scottish word meaning: stupid, foolish, not very bright, thoughtless, vacant.

This is somehow more acceptable than me attempting to clarify an argument?  You yourself _on this very thread_ called my arguments "bullshit."  The double standard you consistently enforce is what is growing tiresome.

SeaKingTacco hasn't addressed the arguments I've made today, so I've simply asked if it's a case of not understanding them. If that's condescending maybe you're overly sensitive.


----------



## Franko (24 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> glaikit
> Scottish word meaning: stupid, foolish, not very bright, thoughtless, vacant.
> 
> This is somehow more acceptable than me attempting to clarify an argument?  You yourself _on this very thread_ called my arguments "bullshit."  The double standard you consistently enforce is what is growing tiresome.
> ...



After reading your report to moderator complaint and knowing your posting style, I highly suggest you step away from the keyboard for a spell.

*The Army.ca Staff*


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Jan 2016)

Nerf herder said:
			
		

> After reading your report to moderator complaint and knowing your posting style, I highly suggest you step away from the keyboard for a spell.
> 
> *The Army.ca Staff*



Just as long as it's recognized that there's a clear double standard at play here. Any cursory review of responses to posts that don't align with the conservative consensus on this forum will show that the tone and content are far less civil. I can only imagine the kerfuffle that would ensue if I dared to call someone "glaikit" or any number of other things I've been called (Communist, Nazi etc). 

Stepping away from keyboard... :


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Jan 2016)

Ahh... I finally get it Kilo. You are saying that you and Neil Macdonald have noticed a nativist movement in both Iran and the US. You seem to imply that nativism will lead to the same conclusion in both places, without recognizing there are vast differences in culture and tradition in both countries.

Have I got that about right? I do not wish to put words in your mouth.

If I have, that is what is drawing the scorn towards your argument. So yes, I disagree with Neil Macdonald's conclusion. It is facile and misses a whole range of other factors at play.

That is not to say that anyone living in a western democracy should be sanguine about "a man on a white horse". There is always danger of that.

I am not sure what to make of Trump, Palin, et al. What I am sure of is that they equally dismay and threaten the Republican elite. I am pretty sure Trump is rich enough that he cannot be bought- which I am sure threatens a lot of interests in the US. It makes for an interesting situation.

I am pretty sure that Trump (if elected. A pretty big if) can do no worse towards Canada than Obama has over the past 8 years. Which, since I am Canadian, is about all that matters to me.

You will note, I have disagreed with you, without insulting you personally. Have a great day!


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jan 2016)

Nerf Herder:

Can Kilo return to the keyboard to respond to SKT?  He doesn't need to depart the boards on my account.  I just choose to take him in small doses.


----------



## CougarKing (24 Jan 2016)

Directly relevant to Canada and Keystone:

Toronto Star



> *Donald Trump demands ‘big chunk’ of Keystone XL profits for the U.S.
> 
> The Republican presidential front-runner declared that he is “not in love with the idea of taking Canadian oil.*”
> 
> ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Jan 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Directly relevant to Canada and Keystone:
> 
> Toronto Star



So, the deal for Canada is thus:

If the Democrats elect the next president, no pipeline gets built.

If the Republicans elect the next president, a pipeline gets built, but under terms in which Canada will wish it hadn't.

This, kids, is why we do not build strategic infrastructure through other countries. I will also bet that almost every foundation, group and First Nation objecting to pipelines within Canada is getting large cheques from US interests that serve to cut our own throats.

It is enough to make you weep...


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Jan 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> So, the deal for Canada is thus:
> 
> If the Democrats elect the next president, no pipeline gets built.
> 
> ...



http://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2014/07/vivian-krause-great-green-trade-barrier/


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Jan 2016)

Yep. We have been badly outplayed. And the very people in Canada who generally hate the US the most, got paid to do their bidding.


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Jan 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Yep. We have been badly outplayed. And the very people in Canada who generally hate the US the most, got paid to do their bidding.



Who says Machiavelli is outdated?


----------



## Jed (25 Jan 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Yep. We have been badly outplayed. And the very people in Canada who generally hate the US the most, got paid to do their bidding.



Ain't that the truth?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (25 Jan 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Directly relevant to Canada and Keystone:
> 
> Toronto Star



So, that could be interesting:

I'd like to see how Trump would explain to all the American pipeline operators in the US that he wants to get a 25% cut of the profit made on all they transport.

Because, that's what he has to do to be able to claim the same from Transcanada. 

The NAFTA treaty is quite clear: foreign corporations must be treated the very same way as home corporations. Otherwise, and if he refuses authorization on the basis of Transcanada not giving him a cut he likes, he would expose the government of the US to arbitration under Chapter 11, which would get Transcanada a full financial compensation for the profits lost payable by the US government (how do you think the Soft wood lumber thing worked?)


----------



## cupper (25 Jan 2016)

Not to mention as was pointed out up thread that US refineries would lose a cheaper source of crude than US domestic sources.

Again this goes to Trump spouting ideas intended to garner votes, but without the critical issues either being addressed or completely overlooked. Kicking out 11 million undocumented immigrants would have a HUGE (to borrow a phrase from himself) negative impact on the US economy.

Appealing but no real substance.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Jan 2016)

We shouldn't be worried about whatever Trump promises or wants. As can be seen in our own system, it's say what you need to get elected, then once elected, do whatever you want. Citizens be damned.


----------



## cupper (25 Jan 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> We shouldn't be worried about whatever Trump promises or wants. As can be seen in our own system, it's say what you need to get elected, then once elected, do whatever you want. Citizens be damned.



Yeah, but with most politicians you get a sense of where they are and what they want to do.

Trump, not so much. The only vibe I get from him is that he's willing to say anything, as long as it gets himself elected.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jan 2016)

A very interesting article in City Jounal explaining the rise of Trum as a force in the election. Much like several others have pointed out, Trump is getting support as a reaction against the current political class, although the interesting thing in this article is this prediction came from a Liberal historian, although the last paragraph sums up wher they went wrong: "Schlesinger was too much a part of the elite to imagine that the class he always thought of as representing the best of the future would come to be despised by a broad swath of Americans for its incompetence and ineffectuality"

Indeed

http://www.city-journal.org/2016/eon0122fs.html



> *The House Divided*
> On the 25th anniversary of Arthur Schlesinger’s The Disuniting of America, the liberal historian’s worst fears are coming to pass.
> January 22, 2016
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Jan 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Yeah, but with most politicians you get a sense of where they are and what they want to do.
> 
> Trump, not so much. The only vibe I get from him is that he's willing to say anything, as long as it gets himself elected.



...and that makes him different than other politicians how?


----------



## cupper (25 Jan 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ...and that makes him different than other politicians how?



He's honest about it ??   ;D


----------



## MARS (25 Jan 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> He's honest about it ??   ;D



Good one!

 ;D


----------



## Kat Stevens (25 Jan 2016)

One benefit of a Trump presidency would be a late night SEAL team visit to Bill Maher with a 9mm gag order.   >


----------



## Franko (26 Jan 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Just as long as it's recognized that there's a clear double standard at play here. Any cursory review of responses to posts that don't align with the conservative consensus on this forum will show that the tone and content are far less civil. I can only imagine the kerfuffle that would ensue if I dared to call someone "glaikit" or any number of other things I've been called (Communist, Nazi etc).
> 
> Stepping away from keyboard... :



Welcome to the warning system. 

The Army.ca Staff


----------



## Lumber (26 Jan 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> ...and that makes him different than other politicians how?



I think the point cupper was making is that, even though politicians will make promises that they either want to but can't keep, or don't intend at all to keep, they at least are making promises to do things that are doable, more ore less reasonable, and within the scope of their political ideals. So, even if they don't keep their promises, what they're saying gives you an idea (a guess, if you will) of just what kind of leadership you can expect. Trump, on the other hand, is saying he'll do things that don't seem reasonable, and they're so grandiose that it's almost blinding. There doesn't seem to be a clear scope to what he is and isn't willing to do, so you don't really know what to expect if he were elected. It could be anything!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 Jan 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I think the point cupper was making is that, even though politicians will make promises that they either want to but can't keep, or don't intend at all to keep, they at least are making promises to do things that are doable, more ore less reasonable, and within the scope of their political ideals. So, even if they don't keep their promises, what they're saying gives you an idea (a guess, if you will) of just what kind of leadership you can expect. Trump, on the other hand, is saying he'll do things that don't seem reasonable, and they're so grandiose that it's almost blinding. There doesn't seem to be a clear scope to what he is and isn't willing to do, so you don't really know what to expect if he were elected. It could be anything!



That's what they said when he went broke and talked about a comeback. And here he is.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jan 2016)

Someone explain how Hillary Clinton can be considered a viable candidate for electoral office again?

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/225228



> *JOHN SCHINDLER EXPLAINS JUST HOW MUCH DAMAGE Hillary Clinton’s email problem did to our national security:*
> 
> To take just the Russians: their plus-sized embassy in Washington, D.C. is conveniently located on a hill overlooking the city, with an impressive antenna field on its roof aimed downtown. That is where Ms. Clinton’s “unclassified” emails went. The Russians care so much about State Department information they’ve been caught planting bugs inside a conference room just down the hall from the Secretary of State’s office. “Of course the SVR got it all,” explained a high-ranking former KGB officer to me about EmailGate (the SVR is the post-Soviet successor to the KGB’s foreign intelligence arm). “I don’t know if we’re as good as we were in my time,” he added, “but even half-drunk the SVR could get those emails, they probably couldn’t believe how easy Hillary made it for them.”
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (28 Jan 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Someone explain how Hillary Clinton can be considered a viable candidate for electoral office again?
> 
> http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/225228



:dunno: I got nothing. :not-again:


----------



## Lumber (28 Jan 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> :dunno: I got nothing. :not-again:



She learned from her mistake and will have a better team keeping her on the straight and narrow?


----------



## cupper (28 Jan 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> She learned from her mistake and will have a better team keeping her on the straight and narrow?



 :rofl:


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 Jan 2016)

Great article about how Trump (while not an and out fascist) is definitely aware of the appeal of fascist aesthetics. Also good analysis of the "Freedom Kids" beyond the instant nausea that many people felt.

[urlhttp://inthesetimes.com/article/18807/donald-trump-and-the-aesthetics-of-fascism][/url]



> Donald Trump does not make it easy to refrain calling him a fascist.
> 
> To be sure, people have been willing to call him that well before Democratic non-entity Martin O’Malley called him that. Since then, the debate has not so much boiled over as been reduced to a simmer, percolating and waiting for the billionaire-candidate to say or do something that would once again push it back up over the top.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jan 2016)

Wow. Reminds me of the Greek pillars in 2008, or the schoolkids singing songs in praise of Obama.

http://thetruthwins.com/archives/6-videos-of-school-children-singing-songs-that-praise-barack-obama

Using tactics, techniques and practices that worked in the past is usually a good practice.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Jan 2016)

> *Our side, conversely*, must regain the confidence to smash and reshape reality, and push back against the Right's weaponized fatalism.



Should have read that last line first. It would have saved reading the rest of the article.

A propaganda piece by the opposition, that even invokes Godwin's Law.

I'm glad there counter protests at his rallies. It shows the opposition is starting to be genuinely scared that they are going to have trouble with him and that they are starting to take him seriously.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jan 2016)

How the first 100 days of a Trump Administration might play out.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/01/29/donald-trump-first-100-days-president-actions-elections-2016-column/79425180/



> *Ack! Here come Trump's first 100 days: Column*
> Paul Mero 1:22 p.m. EST January 29, 2016
> 
> If you listen carefully, the Donald will tell you exactly what he'd do on stepping into the Oval Office.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jan 2016)

And more on Clinton's (self inflicted) email woes:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/issa-fbi-director-would-like-to-indict-clinton-and-abedin/article/2581811



> *Former House Oversight chairman: 'FBI director would like to indict Clinton and Abedin'*
> By Gabby Morrongiello(@gabriellahope_)•1/29/16 2:50 AM
> FBI director dodges questions about Clinton's email
> Washington Examiner
> ...



Instapundit asks the obvious question:


> So what happens if and when Hillary isn’t indicted? As Roger Simon noted last week, “The most obvious part is that the rule of law will have, for all intents and purposes, ended in the United States. Equal justice flew out the window.  How does the public react to that?”



and:


> Her disregard wasn’t casual. It was a conscious and involved scheme to avoid the Freedom of Information Act, and possibly also Obama Administration scrutiny of her actions. She put the nation as a whole at risk, along with individual lives of intelligence sources, for political reasons: to avoid accountability.



This is an individual who belongs in a Federal prison, not the campaign trail.


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 Jan 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Should have read that last line first. It would have saved reading the rest of the article.
> 
> A propaganda piece by the opposition, that even invokes Godwin's Law.
> 
> I'm glad there counter protests at his rallies. It shows the opposition is starting to be genuinely scared that they are going to have trouble with him and that they are starting to take him seriously.



Well again, Trump himself is retweeting a Twitter account called "White Genocide,"  a user that had a picture of Trump putting Bernie Sanders into a gas chamber. He's based his campaign largely on fear, racism and xenophobia. He's called Mexicans "rapists" and wants to build a wall to keep them out. His own spokeswoman has used language like "pure breed" and recently defended the use of that language. Godwin's Law doesn't apply; he's made the comparison more direct than anyone else could have.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jan 2016)

Sometimes reading the Onion seems to be more like reading real news than a satire....

http://www.theonion.com/article/retreating-clinton-campaign-torches-iowa-town-slow-52261



> *Retreating Clinton Campaign Torches Iowa Town To Slow Advance Of Sanders Volunteers*
> 
> NEWS IN BRIEF
> January 29, 2016
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (30 Jan 2016)

Donald Trump hints about reactivating the retired _Iowa_ class battleships.

Seriously? Let the old warriors rest! It's a different world now from the last time these ships were active in the early 1990s. 

From his speech in Los Angeles on the USS _Iowa _museum 4 months ago:

Youtube link

*Time segment 9:30-9:45



> *FULL SPEECH: Donald Trump Talks National Security Aboard Battleship USS Iowa San Pedro LA Rally *


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jan 2016)

Heh:


----------



## dapaterson (31 Jan 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Heh:



It's much better in the original Klingon.


----------



## cavalryman (31 Jan 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It's much better in the original Klingon.


Everything is better in the original Klingon.  Milpoints inbound [


----------



## a_majoor (1 Feb 2016)

So will Representative Love be ready to run for POTUS in 2020?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/01/mia-love-single-subject-rule-constitutional-amendment--reynolds-column/79605158/



> *Want to know why voters are so mad? Mia Love has the answer: Glenn Reynolds*
> Glenn Harlan Reynolds 1:05 p.m. EST February 1, 2016
> 
> To thrive, voters in a democracy need to understand what is going on better than lobbyists.
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Feb 2016)

Only one straw poll from Iowa, but it's Cruz vs. Clinton so far.


----------



## cupper (2 Feb 2016)

I'm wondering if the pundits are giving Cruz and the evangelical vote more credit than they deserve in the Trump decline. Rubio has made some unexpected progress, and I suspect a lot of his gain was at the expense of Trump.

As it is, Trump will more than likely take New Hampshire, as the electorate is vastly different and less likely to go for Cruz. The big question going into New Hampshire will be can Rubio maintain the momentum he has and parlay it into potential wins in South Carolina and the south.

In order to do that he will need to beat back Cruz in South Carolina, and Trump could help with that.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Feb 2016)

Trump and Sanders are manifestations of long standing discontent by the electorate against the political class. How long-standing became clear when I heard about this advisor to Pat Buchanan: Samuel Francis and his essay "From Household To Nation" which seems to have predicted much of what has come to pass with an eerie prescience:

http://www.fgfbooks.com/guest/160129Buchanan.html



> Guest Commentary
> January 29, 2016
> 
> Over the past week, Rush Limbaugh dissected the advice that Samuel Francis gave to Pat Buchanan in 1996 and Sam's perceptive forecasting that a populist candidate — such as we see in Donald Trump — would emerge on the political scene. Below is an article by Pat Buchanan discussing this issue.
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (7 Feb 2016)

Thoughts, cupper?

Yahoo Finance/Business Insider



> *Donald Trump dismisses audience after getting booed at the debate*
> By Brett LoGiurato and Colin Campbell | Business Insider – Sat, 6 Feb, 2016 9:22 PM EST
> 
> Real-estate mogul Donald Trump confronted a Republican debate audience that repeatedly booed him during an exchange with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (R).
> ...


----------



## cupper (8 Feb 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Thoughts, cupper?
> 
> Yahoo Finance/Business Insider



I haven't watched any of the debates so far (life's too short), but I'm not really surprised that the crowd responded the way that they did. It continues to show Trump is just bluster and no substance. His go to response when challenged on record or lack of knowledge / experience is to throw back the insults and go on the attack.

Unfortunately though, it still doesn't hurt his chances of taking NH. Down the road, maybe.

I'm still waiting to see who he's going to gun down in the middle of 5th Avenue.  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (8 Feb 2016)

The Democrat/Liberal Progressive world view in a nutshell. Too bad more people haven't realized that the "freestff" they get in exchange for voting to become serfs is a very poor bargain indeed:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/226096/



> *KEVIN WILLIAMSON: Mrs. Clinton’s Ode To Serfdom.*
> Hillary Rodham Clinton is not qualified to be president of the United States of America, because she doesn’t know what the United States of America are.
> 
> Terry Shumaker, former U.S. ambassador to Trinidad (I wonder what that gig cost him) and current abject minion in the service of Mrs. Clinton, quotes Herself telling an audience in New Hampshire: “Service is the rent we pay for living in this great country.”
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (9 Feb 2016)

Trump would win a general election against Sanders, IMHO. Sanders just has too many impractical ideas

Canadian Press



> *Two political revolutionaries are on the cusp of capturing today's N.H. primary*
> [The Canadian Press]
> Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2016)

Right now I am rooting for Bernie because the epic meltdown when Hillary is rejected y the party (again) will be _soooooooooo_ entertaining.

op:


----------



## CougarKing (10 Feb 2016)

Does anyone outside NH really care if Kasich is 2nd after Sanders and Trump?  ;D

CBC



> *Sanders defeats Clinton, Trump wins in New Hampshire*
> The Associated Press
> The Canadian Press
> February 9, 2016
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (10 Feb 2016)

Another one leaves the race...

Associated Press



> *Carly Fiorina ends 2016 Republican bid for President*
> [The Canadian Press]
> Catherine Lucey, The Associated Press
> February 10, 2016
> ...


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (10 Feb 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Trump would win a general election against Sanders, IMHO. Sanders just has too many impractical ideas
> 
> Canadian Press



I dont know that he would. Trump would need the traditional swing states such as Florida and Ohio, so one would have to wait to see what his polling is there. There is no chance he can convince traditionally blue states to vote Republican (New York, California, etc).

Sanders is no less off the wall than Trump. If that election occurs they may god have mercy on our souls.


----------



## cupper (10 Feb 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Does anyone outside NH really care if Kasich is 2nd after Sanders and Trump?  ;D
> 
> CBC



I think the GOP establishment cares.  :nod:

But other than that I really can't say if there would be anyone else that gave two flying flips about anyone other than the big 4 of Trump, Cruz, Clinton and Sanders.


----------



## CougarKing (10 Feb 2016)

After Fiorina, Christie seems to be also thinking of calling it quits:

Associated Press



> *AP Source: Christie expected to end 2016 White House bid*
> [Associated Press]
> JILL COLVIN
> Associated Press
> ...


----------



## cupper (10 Feb 2016)

One thing to keep in mind is that the Dem's have the odd quirk of the Superdelegate, which at the moment give Clinton a big advantage in this race.

Essentially they are 712 Federal and State representatives, VIP's, Members of the DNC and other unelected delegates that go to the national convention and are free to choose whomever they want to support. Going into the primary season, Clinton had the endorsement of 355 superdelegates to Sanders 14, with the remainder undecided (2 were committed to O'Malley before he dropped out of the race)

Now since these superdelegates are free to support whomever they want, they are also free to switch their support later if they so choose.

As a result of this, even though Sanders won by what would be a landslide in any US election, he only gained 15 of the possible 32 delegates. Clinton won 9 based on proportional distribution. The remaining 8 delegates are super delegates. 6 of them have declared for Clinton, and two remain undeclared.

So even though Sanders won the primary by a huge margin, it ended in a tie for the delegate count.

 :facepalm:   

*What's a Super Delegate, and Why Did Clinton Win Them?*

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/why-sanders-new-hampshire-victory-wasn-t-so-huge-n516066



> Supporters of Bernie Sanders have much to be elated about after the Vermont senator thundered to a 22-point victory over Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire Tuesday night.
> 
> But they may be bewildered when they look at the scoreboard.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (10 Feb 2016)

Oh, and there is speculation that Jim Webb may announce an independent run for President tomorrow.

'Muricans know how to keep things interesting.


----------



## cupper (10 Feb 2016)

GOP Candidates want to revive waterboarding (or are at least willing to reconsider making it illegal).

*GOP Presidential Candidates Bring Torture Back Into The Spotlight*

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/09/466186345/gop-presidential-candidates-bring-torture-back-into-the-spotlight



> The GOP presidential hopefuls are trading attacks on the use of water boarding and other such harsh interrogation techniques. Donald Trump vows he would revive those techniques as president and has attacked Sen. Ted Cruz for opposing that idea. Many critics and studies, however, conclude that harsh techniques do not work.
> 
> ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:
> 
> ...


----------



## Kat Stevens (10 Feb 2016)

US politics is all 31 flavours of fucked up.  If by some twist of the comedy god's wrist Trump becomes prez, I'm off to Cabella's to stock up, for the end of days is surely nigh.


----------



## CougarKing (11 Feb 2016)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> If by some twist of the comedy god's wrist Trump becomes prez,



"The Gods must be crazy", part IV?  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (11 Feb 2016)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> US politics is all 31 flavours of fucked up.  If by some twist of the comedy god's wrist Trump becomes prez, I'm off to Cabella's to stock up, for the end of days is surely nigh.



See how much American Elections are becoming more like Canadian ones.......Trump sure has nice hair.    [


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Feb 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> See how much American Elections are becoming more like Canadian ones.......Trump sure has nice hair.    [



Difference is, our nice haircut is just dumb, not dangerous.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Feb 2016)

Dumb _is_ dangerous.

How many dumb people are you going to hire for or assign complex tasks to?

If so, how many do you expect to be competently or successfully completed?

Are you willing to live with that outcome?


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Feb 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Dumb _is_ dangerous.
> 
> How many dumb people are you going to hire for or assign complex tasks to?
> 
> ...


Umm, you do know about the PER system, right?
Yes, his kind of dumb is dangerous, but not in the "hand me the football, this toaster doesn't work and China needs to be sent a message" kind of way.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Feb 2016)

As usual, everything we need to know is in the history books, in this case "Oswald Spengler; The Decline of the West".

Here is an excerpt from a longer web post which encapsulates Spengler's views, and can be used as a checksum to see why the electorate is so enraged. Sadly, Spengler also predicts the return of the "man on the white horse" as well.....

http://www.returnofkings.com/77942/how-a-german-historian-predicted-western-decline-100-years-ago



> Political Epochs in Autumn and Winter
> 
> 1. Domination of Money (“Democracy”). Economic powers permeating the political forms and authorities. 1800-2000 AD.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (12 Feb 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> GOP Candidates want to revive waterboarding (or are at least willing to reconsider making it illegal).
> 
> *GOP Presidential Candidates Bring Torture Back Into The Spotlight*
> 
> http://www.npr.org/2016/02/09/466186345/gop-presidential-candidates-bring-torture-back-into-the-spotlight



The FBI has come out to counter the current GOP narrative on bringing back torture methods enhanced interrogation techniques scraping fingernails against chalkboards.

*Detainee Interrogation Chief: Waterboarding Doesn't Work*

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/12/466411509/detainee-interrogation-chief-waterboarding-doesnt-work?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160212



> The director of the federal government team that interrogates key terrorism suspects has a message for people who want to see a return to waterboarding and other abusive strategies: They don't work.
> 
> Frazier Thompson, who leads the High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group, said research demonstrates that "rapport-based techniques elicit the most credible information."
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Feb 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> The FBI has come out to counter the current GOP narrative on bringing back torture methods enhanced interrogation techniques scraping fingernails against chalkboards.
> 
> *Detainee Interrogation Chief: Waterboarding Doesn't Work*
> 
> http://www.npr.org/2016/02/12/466411509/detainee-interrogation-chief-waterboarding-doesnt-work?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160212



Sounds like someone trying to sell his company attributes


----------



## cupper (13 Feb 2016)

Who'da thunk that there'd be an upside to a Trump insurgency, the antidote to Citizens United.

*GOP mega-donors frozen in frustration
Big money stops flowing as donors question its effectiveness, worry about Trump.*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/gop-megadonors-fundraising-freeze-219228



> Some of the biggest Republican donors, who collectively have contributed tens of millions of dollars to shape the presidential race, are tightening their purse strings out of frustration with their inability to boost their favored candidates, or to slow Donald Trump.
> 
> Rather than continuing to write huge checks to support the cluster of establishment candidates jockeying to emerge as the leading alternative to Trump, a billionaire real estate showman roundly despised by the GOP elite, these donors have mostly retreated to the sidelines. They’re watching anxiously, hoping that the field sorts itself out, according to interviews with a half dozen major donors or their representatives.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (13 Feb 2016)

Just breaking in the news, Justice Antonin Scalia passed away over night while on vacation in Texas.

This will have some interesting impacts on the presidential race on the GOP side. 

Biggest question is will the GOP lead senate drag out the nomination process until after the election to see if a conservative ends up in the White House.

Added cross post from Divided America thread:



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> *Replacing Antonin Scalia Will Be No Simple Task*
> 
> http://www.npr.org/2016/02/13/466686993/replacing-antonin-scalia-will-be-no-simple-task?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160213


----------



## Rocky Mountains (14 Feb 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Biggest question is will the GOP lead senate drag out the nomination process until after the election to see if a conservative ends up in the White House.



You mean will they do the same thing a Democrat Senate did to President Bush in 2008?  Probably.

http://www.politico.com/story/2008/03/nominations-staredown-in-the-senate-008839


----------



## cupper (14 Feb 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> You mean will they do the same thing a Democrat Senate did to President Bush in 2008?  Probably.
> 
> http://www.politico.com/story/2008/03/nominations-staredown-in-the-senate-008839



Not quite the same, as they were judicial appointment to lower courts, but I suppose it will be in the same spirit of civil discourse and cross aisle cooperation.  ;D

Vacant seats on the lower courts don't have the impact that having a vacancy seat on the Supreme Court has. 

*What happens to this Term’s close cases? (Updated)*

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/what-happens-to-this-terms-close-cases/



> The passing of Justice Scalia of course affects the cases now before the Court.  Votes that the Justice cast in cases that have not been publicly decided are void.  Of course, if Justice Scalia’s vote was not necessary to the outcome – for example, if he was in the dissent or if the majority included more than five Justices – then the case will still be decided, only by an eight-member Court.
> 
> If Justice Scalia was part of a five-Justice majority in a case – for example, the Friedrichs case, in which the Court was expected to limit mandatory union contributions – the Court is now divided four to four.  In those cases, there is no majority for a decision and the lower court’s ruling stands, as if the Supreme Court had never heard the case.  Because it is very unlikely that a replacement will be appointed this Term, we should expect to see a number of such cases in which the lower court’s decision is “affirmed by an equally divided Court.”
> 
> ...



*Tie votes will lead to reargument, not affirmance*

http://www.scotusblog.com/2016/02/tie-votes-will-lead-to-reargument-not-affirmance/#more-238323



> I previously wrote that cases in which the Supreme Court is divided four to four after Justice Scalia’s death would be “affirmed by an equally divided Court.”  I now believe that is wrong.  There is historical precedent for this circumstance that points to the Court ordering the cases reargued once a new Justice is confirmed.
> 
> Whether that precedent will be followed is not perfectly clear, because it is uncertain when a new Justice will replace Justice Scalia.  It could be as long as a year from now – well into the Court’s next Term.  But it is also possible there will be a new Justice when the Court returns from its upcoming summer recess.  Because the Court follows tradition when possible, I think the most likely outcome by far is that the Court will order the affected cases reargued next Term.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (14 Feb 2016)

While the death of a Supreme Court justice is indeed a wild card, this article looks more at the way election "memes" are created. This is going to be an ongoing issue regardless of the outcome of the death of Justice Scalia (and from what I've seen from various blog postings, there is no legal opportunity for Obama to fill the position, and even if an appointment was made without the Senate, the new Justice would only be temporarily in office until Jan 2018. Instapundit has many articles on the subject):

http://thewilderness.me/culture-club/



> *Culture Club: How Media Makes a Meme *
> 
> On January 20th, 2017, President-Elect Bernie Sanders will step up to podium, place his hand on the Communist Manifesto and then deliver his Inaugural address into a banana. The swathes of Hollywood celebrities behind him will cheer and the rest of us will be trading our bank accounts for hidden lockboxes under our floorboards, all the time wondering how a batshit crazy 75-year-old socialist dinosaur became our Republic’s 45th President. How did it come to this?
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (15 Feb 2016)

Why Hillary's campaign is getting no traction. Maybe the old expression "do as I say, not as I do" has some real life implication after all:

https://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/hillary-dead-end-campaign/?singlepage=true



> *Hillary Clinton's Dead-End Campaign*
> BY VICTOR DAVIS HANSON FEBRUARY 14, 2016 CHAT 488 COMMENTS
> 
> Hillary Clinton may yet win the Democratic nomination—if she is not indicted. After all, it is hard for a New England spread-the-wealth socialist like rival Bernie Sanders to appeal to working-class southern whites, minorities, or the wealthy Democratic establishment. It is still likely that the Democratic Party will find a way to aid an ailing and scandal-plagued Mrs. Clinton, rather than turn over its future to a 74-year-old scold, who for most of his voting life was not a Democrat and whose redistributionist agendas and Woodstock fables about the 1960s make Obama seem centrist in comparison.
> ...


----------



## cupper (15 Feb 2016)

Scalia's passing could very well have opened up a a can of worms for the Republicans in how they deal with the process to fill the seat.

If they refuse to allow the process to go ahead, which is the current rhetoric in play, it could well mobilize the Democratic base on election day like nothing else has ever mattered.

If the socially significant cases on the current docket end up deadlocked, and the court allows the decisions to go forth as a split decision rather than put it on the shelf to be reargued, the lower court decisions stand. Although they do not become cases of precedent, they do have the potential to be used as a means to galvanize the socially liberal voters. The Dems can use it as a point to show Roe v. Wade is in serious danger of being overturned, and a woman's right to make decisions on her own health care could be taken unless they elect a Democratic President *AND* return a Democratic majority in the Senate.

Scalia's passing has not only put the Presidential race into a new light, it has possibly put control of the Senate back into play. THere are several GOP Senators up for re-election in states where Obama took the majority vote in 2012. 

The best thing that the GOP could do is to let sleeping dogs lay, and allow the process to move forward. They have had an interesting 7 year run of obstructionism without providing reasonable alternatives. But this might well be their bridge too far.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Feb 2016)

Constitutionally speaking the process is for the Senate to "advise and consent", while Obama clearly wishes to ram an appointment of his own choosing down the throats of the Senate. It is also rather ironic that the very same people who are now cheering this had a very different opinion in the past:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/226797/



> EIGHT THOUGHTS ON SCALIA FROM JONAH GOLDBERG:
> 
> 3. The double-standard for Republicans is not shocking but it remains galling. As Jim Geraghty notes in today’s Jolt, Chuck Schumer took exactly the same position on any further Bush appointments in 2007. I don’t seem to recall the shock and outrage we’re seeing today.
> 
> ...



And as many American historians and constitutional experts have pointed out, the last precedent for appointing a Supreme Court Justice in the final year of an Administration is something like 80 years old. The Senate has no duty at all to consider an appointment now, but you are quite correct that the demagogues will use this to try and fan fires under various voter groups.


----------



## FJAG (16 Feb 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> . . . And as many American historians and constitutional experts have pointed out, the last precedent for appointing a Supreme Court Justice in the final year of an Administration is something like 80 years old. . . .



Anthony Kennedy was close too. He was nominated by Reagan on 11 November of 1987 as a replacement after Bork was rejected and Douglas Ginsberg withdrew. Kennedy was sworn in on 11 February 1988.

 :cheers:


----------



## CougarKing (16 Feb 2016)

Isn't this an empty threat considering that Cruz gave up his Canadian citizenship?

Associated Press



> *Trump threatens to sue Cruz unless his GOP rival apologizes*
> [The Canadian Press]
> Jill Colvin, The Associated Press
> February 16, 2016
> ...


----------



## Rocky Mountains (16 Feb 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> The best thing that the GOP could do is to let sleeping dogs lay, and allow the process to move forward. They have had an interesting 7 year run of obstructionism without providing reasonable alternatives.



Every president other than Obama who has faced a hostile Congress offers compromise to govern successfully.  Obama is more belligerent than the Republican Congress.  Unless there are mutually advantageous trade-offs, nothing gets done.  The senators and representatives need something to take home to their constituents too.  The guilt isn't all on Congress.


----------



## cupper (16 Feb 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Isn't this an empty threat considering that Cruz gave up his Canadian citizenship?
> 
> Associated Press



Not really an empty threat, as it would stir up problems for Cruz, regardless of what the outcome was.

The problem is that the question of what is a natural born citizen was never truly defined, so it was left up to interpretation, and with the debate over birthright citizenship (something Cruz has previously come out against) it doesn't get any clearer.

Ironically, I think if this went to the Supremes, Scalia and his originalist view point would more likely than not go against Cruz.

And I believe Trump is just sly enough to pull the trigger on it, and based on what has happened thus far would likely boost his standing.


----------



## CougarKing (18 Feb 2016)

The shadow of the San Bernardino shooting tragedy is again in the public eye and Trump takes advantage of it:

CBC 



> *Donald Trump slams Apple for refusing to help FBI hack San Bernardino shooter's iPhone*
> [CBC]
> CBC
> February 17, 2016
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (18 Feb 2016)

If the Dems think that opposing an Obama nomination for the Supreme court will hurt the Republicans, they should consider how the worm turns:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/431474/new-york-times-1987-party-won-senate-has-every-right-resist



> *New York Times, 1987: Party That Won the Senate Has ‘Every Right to Resist’*
> by JIM GERAGHTY	February 17, 2016 8:09 AM
> 
> The New York Times editorial board, October 5, 1987, urging the Senate to reject the Supreme Court nomination of Robert Bork:
> ...


----------



## Rocky Mountains (18 Feb 2016)

Or this



> President Obama “regrets” filibustering the nomination of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito in 2006, his top spokesman said Wednesday



http://hallsofmacadamia.blogspot.ca/2016/02/straight-out-of-lefty-playbook.html


----------



## cupper (18 Feb 2016)

Let's not forget though the US Constitution says that it is the President's duty to nominate Judges to the Supreme Court, whereas it is the Senate's duty to advise on and consent to the nomination.

It's one thing to reject the nomination, and the Senate is well within their right to do that. It's even their right to drag out the process to the point that either the President is forced to withdraw the nominee or the Congressional session ends (or goes into recess which would defeat the purpose for delaying).

But to state that the rules say that the President shouldn't make a nomination in an election year, or during the lame duck session, or to refuse to allow the process is not only hypocrisy but violates the Constitution in that the Senate fails to carry out it's role of advice and consent.

The outspoken members of the GOP who say the President should not be allowed to make a nomination need to back off the hypocrisy and go back and read the Constitution they are quite ready to accuse Obama of ignoring.



> Constitution of The United States
> Article. II
> Section. 2.
> 
> *He shall have Power,* by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate,to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and *by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate*, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls,* Judges of the supreme Court,* and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Feb 2016)

Yep. And all this to replace a "strict constructionist". Can you say I-R-O-N-Y ?


----------



## cupper (18 Feb 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Yep. And all this to replace a "strict constructionist". Can you say I-R-O-N-Y ?



I can see Scalia up there having a huge laugh at everyone's expense. :nod:


----------



## cupper (18 Feb 2016)

Former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor weighs in, and it's not good for the GOP.

*Sandra Day O'Connor Says Obama Should Get To Replace Justice Scalia
"Let's get on with it," the retired Reagan appointee said.*

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sandra-day-oconnor-scalia_us_56c5313be4b0c3c55053c6d9



> Sandra Day O'Connor, the retired Supreme Court justice appointed by President Ronald Reagan, said on Wednesday that President Barack Obama should get to name the replacement for the late Justice Antonin Scalia.
> 
> O'Connor, in an interview with a Fox affiliate in Phoenix, disagreed with Republican arguments that the next president, and not Obama, should get to fill the high court vacancy.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Feb 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Let's not forget though the US Constitution says that it is the President's duty to nominate Judges to the Supreme Court, whereas it is the Senate's duty to advise on and consent to the nomination.
> 
> It's one thing to reject the nomination, and the Senate is well within their right to do that. It's even their right to drag out the process to the point that either the President is forced to withdraw the nominee or the Congressional session ends (or goes into recess which would defeat the purpose for delaying).
> 
> ...




Sounds like pretty good advice to me.

Just sayin'


----------



## cupper (19 Feb 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Sounds like pretty good advice to me.
> 
> Just sayin'



Am I gonna have to start referring to you as the Jenny McCarthy of US Constitutional politics?  ;D


----------



## Retired AF Guy (19 Feb 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Trump threatens to sue Cruz unless his GOP rival apologizes
> [The Canadian Press]
> Jill Colvin, The Associated Press
> February 16, 2016
> ...



And my understanding from listening to NPR this morning is that Cruz told Trump to go put his money where his mouth is.


----------



## cavalryman (19 Feb 2016)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> And my understanding from listening to NPR this morning is that Cruz told Trump to go put his money where his mouth is.


I don't think you're allowed to do that with legal tender :tsktsk:


----------



## a_majoor (20 Feb 2016)

Why Trump appeals to voters, part 42....

http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-elephant-in-the-room/article/2001170



> *The Elephant in the Room*
> Trump is right about political correctness.
> FEB 29, 2016 | By DAVID GELERNTER
> 
> ...


----------



## FJAG (20 Feb 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Why Trump appeals to voters, part 42....
> 
> http://www.weeklystandard.com/the-elephant-in-the-room/article/2001170



Not exactly the guy I'd listen to for an analysis of what's wrong with America. He's got a long history of blaming liberal intellectuals in academia for bringing down modern society. Political correctness is in his mind a large part of that. For a refutation of his premise as set out in his book_ America-Lite: How Imperial Academia Dismantled Our Culture (and Ushered in the Obamacrats)._ see Russell Jacoby's review here: http://chronicle.com/article/Dreaming-of-a-World-Without/132813/

IMHO, Gelerner's views, as expressed in this article, are superficial and overstate the issue. Political correctness is a necessity to offset long standing societal prejudices. Like all good things, however, it can be and has been taken too far in some fields. That said, political correctness is not the overriding factor as Gelerner suggests.

The real issue in this election is that the middle class is seeing that its traditional two party model of government has failed it massively over the last four presidential terms. Add to that the fact that there is an enormous re-shift of wealth going back from the middle class to the so called "one percent" and you can see why people are angry. Neither the conservatives nor the liberals want business as usual. Unfortunately they have entirely different objectives. Republican extremists have an underlying agenda pointing towards a white Christian fundamentalist society while Bernie's supporters are aiming towards a more socialist society (which isn't far from what we Canadians exist under and find quite acceptable but which many Americans consider the next thing to Communism).

I'm currently down in the States and the funny thing is that things in the streets are going on as normal. Amazon and WalMart and Target are still open and selling bags of stuff; fast food is being shovelled out in huge quantities; gas is selling for $1.60 a gallon where I am; and people are still friendly with most of them horrified that both Bernie and Donald are doing so well. The frenzy in the media is just that; an overblown circus of hype fed by a coterie of hacks that need to generate conflict to justify their salaries. If one isn't careful, it may actually lead to the electorate getting swept into an event horizon of stupidity.  :2c:

 :cheers:


----------



## Old Sweat (20 Feb 2016)

I'll echo FJAG's comment in his last paragraph. We are in Casa Grande, AZ, a small city/town about halfway between Phoenix and Tucson. The state primary elections are scheduled for 22 March, but you would be hard pressed to find any sign of it. I have not been driving up and down streets looking, but in casual driving about I have only seen two signs, both for "Bernie" and both homemade.


----------



## cupper (20 Feb 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I'll echo FJAG's comment in his last paragraph. We are in Casa Grande, AZ, a small city/town about halfway between Phoenix and Tucson. The state primary elections are scheduled for 22 March, but you would be hard pressed to find any sign of it. I have not been driving up and down streets looking, but in casual driving about I have only seen two signs, both for "Bernie" and both homemade.



The lawn signs typically do not come out in the primaries. Here in Northern Virginia you would be hard pressed to find anything indicating there is a primary election on March 1st. Only 2 commercials running for congressional seats, one for a Dem in Virginia and one for a Dem in Maryland.


----------



## cupper (20 Feb 2016)

The Bush Dynasty won't materialize. One thing that you can take from this is that perhaps there is a slight vindication of the Citizen's United commentary that ultimately endless amounts of corporate money will have little effect on the outcomes. Bush outspent everyone, and ultimately nothing to show, and never really got past the staring gate.

*Jeb Bush Ends Presidential Campaign*

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/20/467505778/jeb-bush-ends-presidential-campaign



> Jeb Bush is ending his campaign for president after a disappointing showing in the South Carolina primary.
> 
> "The people of Iowa and New Hampshire and South Carolina have spoken, and I really respect their decision," the former Florida governor told his supporters gathered in Columbia on Saturday night. "So tonight, I am suspending my campaign."
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (20 Feb 2016)

Clinton wins in Nevada, but Sanders still makes it a close contest. This may not be Hillary's to take yet, but Sanders still has a long uphill battle going into the souther states. Next Saturday's South Carolina Democratic Primary will be a must win for him.

*Hillary Clinton Wins Nevada Caucuses*

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/20/467503655/hillary-clinton-projected-to-win-nevada-caucuses



> Hillary Clinton will win the Nevada Democratic caucuses, the Associated Press is reporting.
> 
> *With 84 percent of the precincts reporting, Clinton has 52.5 percent of the vote, compared to Sen. Bernie Sanders' 47.5 percent.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (20 Feb 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> The lawn signs typically do not come out in the primaries. Here in Northern Virginia you would be hard pressed to find anything indicating there is a primary election on March 1st. Only 2 commercials running for congressional seats, one for a Dem in Virginia and one for a Dem in Maryland.



In the Rio Grande valley in 2012 there were not a lot of signs, but those that we saw were overwhelmingly for Hillary. However I do agree with your observation on a lack of visual indications re the primaries.


----------



## cupper (20 Feb 2016)

And the GOP Reality TV experiment just keeps on rolling.

*Trump Wins South Carolina; Cruz And Rubio Battle For Second*

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/20/467507410/trump-cruz-and-rubio-battle-for-south-carolina-prize



> Donald Trump has won the South Carolina primary, while Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio are locked in a tight battle for second place.
> 
> "Politics: It's tough, it's nasty, it's mean, it's vicious. It's beautiful," Trump declared to his supporters at his victory rally in Spartanburg, S.C.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (20 Feb 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> In the Rio Grande valley in 2012 there were not a lot of signs, but those that we saw were overwhelmingly for Hillary. However I do agree with your observation on a lack of visual indications re the primaries.



I think it depends on where you live. The bid must win states such as Iowa and New Hampshire do get campaign money dumped there, but as things tend to start to filter out, you see less campaign money and the accompanying accessories being spent unless the races are really close.


----------



## CougarKing (21 Feb 2016)

Will it be Rubio as Trump's main challenger?

Canadian Press



> *The Republican party's Trump-hating stars start aligning behind Marco Rubio*
> [The Canadian Press]
> Alexander Panetta,
> February 21, 2016
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Feb 2016)

Well Democrats are clear and united behind the issue of nominating a Supreme Court Justice:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/227356



> GAME OVER: JOE BIDEN SAYS IN 1992 THAT THE PRESIDENT SHOULDN’T NAME A SCOTUS NOMINEE “ONCE THE POLITICAL SEASON IS UNDERWAY.” “If you’re keeping score, this means that the current president, current vice president, current Senate minority leader, and incoming Senate minority leader have _all_ gone on record in the past in favor of obstructing a Supreme Court nominee.”


----------



## CougarKing (22 Feb 2016)

I remember when John Kerry was running for president in 2004, he made the mistake of saying "unless you're Red Sox fan" during a presidential debate to describe someone in denial. Then when it seemed to the Red Sox might indeed win, he made a party rally the night of the big game saying "Dems for the sox." Regardless Kerry lost, even if the Boston Red Sox won that year, if I can recall correctly.  

I wonder if Trump will attempt to deflect a similar jinx?  :facepalm:

Yahoo Sports



> *Donald Trump vs. the Cubs has become baseball's newest rivalry*
> By Chris Cwik
> 3 hours ago
> Big League Stew
> ...


----------



## cupper (22 Feb 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Well Democrats are clear and united behind the issue of nominating a Supreme Court Justice:
> 
> http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/227356



So what surprises you about this, that the Dems can be just as hypocritical as the GOP, or that the Dems came up with the idea first? ;D


----------



## a_majoor (23 Feb 2016)

An interesting take on how the insular world of political insiders were totally blindsided by the Trump (and to a lesser extent, Sanders) phenomena. Of course since they _are_ insular and not receptive to input from the ordinary voters, the fact that "outsiders" gained so much traction by saying the things voters want to hear and addressing issues voters want addressed shouldn't be a surprise for the rest of us:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/02/23/my-very-peculiar-and-speculative-theory-of-why-the-gop-has-not-stopped-donald-trump/



> *My very peculiar and speculative theory of why the GOP has not stopped Donald Trump*
> What if political scientists are to blame for his rise?
> By Daniel W. Drezner February 23 at 9:21 AM
> Daniel W. Drezner is a professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and a regular contributor to PostEverything.
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Feb 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> So what surprises you about this, that the Dems can be just as hypocritical as the GOP, or that the Dems came up with the idea first? ;D



No, neither.  What is surprising is that there are still people that believe that rational debate will change minds.   >


----------



## Rocky Mountains (23 Feb 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Let's not forget though the US Constitution says that it is the President's duty to nominate Judges to the Supreme Court, whereas it is the Senate's duty to advise on and consent to the nomination.
> 
> It's one thing to reject the nomination, and the Senate is well within their right to do that. It's even their right to drag out the process to the point that either the President is forced to withdraw the nominee or the Congressional session ends (or goes into recess which would defeat the purpose for delaying).
> 
> ...



But withholding consent is entirely within the Constitution.  I don't think anyone can dispute a nomination but if Obama doesn't nominate someone acceptable to the Senate, they will be rejected, just like the Constitution intended.  Obama could easily have a nominee approved.  He just has to nominate someone known to not be a social engineer.  Too simple.


----------



## cupper (23 Feb 2016)

So, McConnell and the Judiciary Committee have drawn the line in the sand. But to refuse to even consider any nomination violates the advise and consent rule. They don't get to say "Talk to the hand."  This isn't withholding consent, this is refusing to consider. As I said upthread, take the nomination and slow walk it until January 2017 if you want. I don't have a problem with that. Or hold one day of hearings, and have the committee vote to not pass on the nomination to the full senate. Keep doing it. Your still being obstructionist, but you are following the rules as laid out in the Constitution.

And the whole argument of not making a nomination during an election year, or during the election season, or even during the presidential lame duck period is crap to begin with. At what point do you say it's OK. As the election period extends further and further out from the actual election you would need to extend the exclusionary period out as well. And it's not hard to argue that the 2016 election started the day after the 2012 election (on some respects it started before that).

As for the political gamesmanship who the hell are they playing to? Their base? The base is going to vote for them regardless. THe Dems? Dems weren't going to vote for them so that's not it. And the middle is too big a group to think that these games will work and gain you votes. In fact it is more likely to cost you votes. And this is why they are now trying to figure out how they let the whole Trump insurgency get out of control.

*McConnell: No hearings or meetings with Supreme Court nominee
Senior Republicans said they are committed to cutting off any White House effort to fill out the bench.*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/senate-gop-supreme-court-219661



> Senate Republicans will deny hearings to a Supreme Court nominee from President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said he's not inclined to even meet with whomever the president picks for the job.
> 
> The party quickly dug in behind McConnell's strategy in a series of decisive gatherings. The Senate Judiciary Committee membership met with McConnell privately on Tuesday, then penned a letter signed by all 11 committee Republicans vowing not to hold hearings for a nominee. Then the entire GOP Conference met and emerged in near unity behind McConnell who said his party will not budge on the matter.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Feb 2016)

As noted upthread, however, the Democrats and even Obama have literally no legs to stand on in this case, as they have individually and collectively come out on record against such a nomination. For them to argue now that it is OK is the hight of hypocrisy, and really they are trying to either cloud the waters or try to force through the most "progressive" nominee possible now to attempt to block or derail any future presidential Administration's program (most likely both).


----------



## cupper (24 Feb 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> As noted upthread, however, the Democrats and even Obama have literally no legs to stand on in this case, as they have individually and collectively come out on record against such a nomination. For them to argue now that it is OK is the hight of hypocrisy, and really they are trying to either cloud the waters or try to force through the most "progressive" nominee possible now to attempt to block or derail any future presidential Administration's program (most likely both).



See, I think that nominating a superprogressive anti Scalia would be the wrong move here.

Since McConnell et al have said they will refuse to acknowledge any nominee put forth by Obama, he needs to nominate the love child of Scalia and Thomas. Someone so far to the conservative spectrum that Alito would look like a socialist. Then see how quick they stumble over themselves to move to pass it, only to have the nomination pulled at  the last second.

You just know that Obama is thinking it. It's number 2 on the F@#$ it list.  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (24 Feb 2016)

Trump's appeal to the voters. His crushing of the political class on the GOP side is pretty amazing. He is doing far better than Sanders on the left (even accounting for incidents like 90 precincts not reporting and the most statistically improbable coin tosses ever in Iowa), Sanders would only have just tied or barely beaten Hillary.

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/227513/



> *UNPACKING TRUMP’S APPEAL:*
> 
> His theme is pride — self esteem. I think the message is: Even if you’re poorly educated — especially if you are poorly educated — you are smart, and you are American, and you should feel great. All those other politicians look down on you, and they look down on the country. They insult it. They use the worst insults, like “racist.” They’d have you believe that it’s racist to say “Make America great again” and to want to preserve the benefits of America for Americans and to increase those selfishly guarded benefits. But it’s not something to be ashamed of, it’s being smart. And he’s very smart, and we — you, with me leading the way — “are going to be the smart people.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (24 Feb 2016)

Excellent piece on how a Clinton/Trump election will end disastrously for the Democrats. It should be pretty obvious, but Clinton is not a real progressive, and she will destroy her party's chances. Gawd how I despise the Clintons.

http://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-sanders-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency



> Trump will capitalize on his reputation as a truth-teller, and be vicious about both Clinton’s sudden changes of position (e.g. the switch on gay marriage, plus the affected economic populism of her run against Sanders) and her perceived dishonesty. One can already imagine the monologue:
> 
> “She lies so much. Everything she says is a lie. I’ve never seen someone who lies so much in my life. Let me tell you three lies she’s told. She made up a story about how she was ducking sniper fire! There was no sniper fire. She made it up! How do you forget a thing like that? She said she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, the guy who climbed Mount Everest. He hadn’t even climbed it when she was born! Total lie! She lied about the emails, of course, as we all know, and is probably going to be indicted. You know she said there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq! It was a lie! Thousands of American soldiers are dead because of her. Not only does she lie, her lies kill people. That’s four lies, I said I’d give you three. You can’t even count them. You want to go on PolitiFact, see how many lies she has? It takes you an hour to read them all! In fact, they ask her, she doesn’t even say she hasn’t lied. They asked her straight up, she says she usually tries to tell the truth! Ooooh, she tries! Come on! This is a person, every single word out of her mouth is a lie. Nobody trusts her. Check the polls, nobody trusts her. Yuge liar.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (24 Feb 2016)

Tough choices for the Dems: a avowed Socialist who honeymooned (second marriage) in Russia or a soon to be indicted felon.

Almost as bad as having a choice between a avowed Socialist and a millionaire, former part time drama teacher, snow boarder air head (although not blond).


----------



## CougarKing (24 Feb 2016)

Canadian Press



> *Donald Trump wins again in Nevada, builds momentum*
> [The Canadian Press]
> Steven R. Hurst, The Associated Press
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (24 Feb 2016)

More on the Chicago Cubs vs Donald Trump:

Yahoo Sports/Big League Stew



> *Cubs owner to Donald Trump: ‘We stand up for what we believe in’*
> Mark Townsend By Mark Townsend
> 1 hour ago
> Big League Stew
> ...


----------



## cupper (25 Feb 2016)

We may have the backdoor in to crack the Trump insurgency. If it were anyone else I'd say it was just speculation, but Romney had been through the process, and probably has a good idea of how and where the skeletons are hidden.  :nod:

*Mitt Romney believes ‘there’s a bombshell in Donald Trump’s taxes’*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/02/24/mitt-romney-believes-theres-a-bombshell-in-donald-trumps-taxes/?hpid=hp_regional-hp-cards_no-name%3Ahomepage%2Fcard



> Former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney  assailed billionaire real estate mogul Donald Trump on  Wednesday afternoon for failing to disclose back taxes, repeatedly suggesting that the billionaire’s financial records may contain “a bombshell” that could damage his White House bid.
> 
> “I think we have good reason to believe that there’s a bombshell in Donald Trump’s taxes. I think there is something there,” Romney said on Fox News’ “Your World” with Neil Cavuto. “The reason I think there is a bombshell in there is because every time he is asked about his taxes, he dodges and delays.”
> 
> ...


----------



## opcougar (25 Feb 2016)

I wouldn't lose sleep over it unless of course you an American / the US election really is going to impact your life in some way, shape or form??????



			
				Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Excellent piece on how a Clinton/Trump election will end disastrously for the Democrats. It should be pretty obvious, but Clinton is not a real progressive, and she will destroy her party's chances. *Gawd how I despise the Clintons.*
> 
> http://static.currentaffairs.org/2016/02/unless-the-democrats-nominate-sanders-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency


----------



## cupper (25 Feb 2016)

The establishment thinks that they can control Trump with access to party resources should he become the nominee.

Hey Reince, Let me know how that works out for you.  :facepalm:

*RNC sees leverage over Trump
The GOP has resources to dangle in exchange for some message discipline from its presumptive nominee.*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/rnc-sees-leverage-over-trump-219759



> Donald Trump has steamrolled toward the Republican nomination by lambasting all things political establishment, and now that establishment thinks it can convince their insult-wielding front-runner he needs them.
> 
> Republican National Committee chairman Reince Priebus has begun stating in private meetings that the party has sway over its at times unwelcome front-runner because it has tools Trump will need to use to win a general election — voter data and field, digital and media operations that a nominee typically inherits from the party infrastructure.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (25 Feb 2016)

And with endorsements like this, how could he possibly lose the nomination? :dunno:

*David Duke: Voting against Trump is 'treason to your heritage'
The white nationalist and former KKK grand wizard encouraged his listeners to volunteer for Trump.*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/david-duke-trump-219777



> David Duke, a white nationalist and former Klu Klux Klan grand wizard, told his audience Wednesday that voting for anyone besides Donald Trump “is really treason to your heritage.”
> 
> “Voting for these people, voting against Donald Trump at this point, is really treason to your heritage,” Duke said on the David Duke Radio Program. BuzzFeed News first reported the comments.
> 
> ...



So… I guess that European American is what we are calling white people these days? I can never keep that straight.


----------



## opcougar (25 Feb 2016)

Makes sense...I n keeping with the whole African American reference. Anyone with half a brain knows that all of Europe is not equal, with Western Europeans way well off than Europeans, both have different cultures, languages, etc

Same goes with African and those from the Caribbean



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> And with endorsements like this, how could he possibly lose the nomination? :dunno:
> 
> *David Duke: Voting against Trump is 'treason to your heritage'
> The white nationalist and former KKK grand wizard encouraged his listeners to volunteer for Trump.*
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (27 Feb 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> So, no wall then?



Apparently Trump's position differs from Scott Walker's from last year:

CBC via Yahoo News



> *Donald Trump has no interest in wall between Canada, U.S.*
> 
> February 25, 2016
> 
> ...


----------



## Rocky Mountains (27 Feb 2016)

The Canadian population doesn't want to move en masse to the US unlike the Mexican population.  I have visited the US a bit and despite the fact that under NAFTA I am free to move there, have never considered it.  To say that Canada has a bigger terrorism problem than Mexico ignores the tens of thousands of casualties of the drug war in Mexico.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Feb 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Almost as bad as having a choice between a avowed Socialist and a millionaire, former part time drama teacher, snow boarder air head (although not blond).


I don't know - is that better or worse than a professional politician, whose only jobs outside politics were as a mailroom clerk in an oil company and a professional activist/lobbyist?


----------



## Journeyman (27 Feb 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> .... despite the fact that under NAFTA I am free to move there .....


 Are you sure?  NAFTA aims to allow free (well, less restrictive) movement of goods and services, but says virtually nothing about movement of labour.  That was all part of Ross Perot's campaign -- jobs being sucked down to Mexico and Mexicans flooding into the States.


----------



## cupper (28 Feb 2016)

Under NAFTA certain professionals can work in the US for up to a year at a time under a TN visa, and it is indefinately renewable. Dependants are allowed to accompany you, but are not permitted to work unless they can qualify under the TN program.

I worked at my current job for the first 5 years living in the US, and renewed the visa every year. The company I work for applied for a green card for another employee who left in the middle of the process because it was taking too long. They switched the application over to me and 5 years later I got my green card.


----------



## CougarKing (28 Feb 2016)

This US election continues to get weirder and weirder:

Yahoo News



> *Donald Trump Claimed He ‘Could Have’ Slept With Princess Diana In 1997 Interview
> *
> Yahoo News
> February 26, 2016
> ...


----------



## cupper (28 Feb 2016)

And there seems to be plenty of blame to go around…

*How the US Went Fascist: Mass Media Make Excuses for Trump Voters
Trump's racism and xenophobia violates America's core beliefs — yet the media and many Americans are okay with it.*

http://billmoyers.com/story/how-the-us-went-fascist-mass-media-makes-excuses-for-trump-voters/#.VtA6pAN_OAs.facebook



> The rise of Donald Trump to the presumptive Republican standard bearer for president in 2016 is an indictment of, and a profound danger to, the American republic.
> 
> The Founding Fathers were afraid of the excitability of the voters and their vulnerability to the appeal of demagogues. That is the reason for a Senate (which was originally appointed), intended to check those notorious hotheads in Congress, who are elected from districts every two years.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (28 Feb 2016)

Heard a very interesting comment by the former Director of the NSA and CIA, General Mike Hayden. He was the first guest on Real Time with Bill Maher last night.

In response to a question about Trump's desire to bring back waterboarding "and worse", and bombing terrorists families and other nonsense, Hayden pointed out that it would most likely never happen, as these would be illegal acts under many international laws, and it is the responsibility of the military member to refuse to carry out an unlawful order, if it ever got that far. More likely Trump would be politely advised that this course of action cannot be carried out and other more legal options would be presented.

Here is the full interview.   https://youtu.be/RFA6lsX9S8Q


----------



## cupper (28 Feb 2016)

Looks like the GOP political money class may be looking at using the gift of Citizens United to advance a third party push to correct the error of letting Trump run unfettered for so long. But the path will be difficult and the door is closing.

*Donors ask GOP consulting firm to research independent presidential bid
A group of Republicans is moving quickly to research ballot-access requirements for independent candidates in case Trump wraps up the GOP nomination next month.*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/doors-gop-consulting-independent-219859



> Conservative donors have engaged a major GOP consulting firm in Florida to research the feasibility of mounting a late, independent run for president amid growing fears that Donald Trump could win the Republican nomination.
> 
> A memo prepared for the group zeroes in on ballot access as a looming obstacle for any independent candidate, along with actually identifying a viable, widely known contender and coalescing financial support for that person. The two states with the earliest deadlines for independent candidates, Texas and North Carolina, also have some of the highest hurdles for independents to get on the ballot, according to the research.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (28 Feb 2016)

This may also explain the Trump Phenomenon. Could the Zombie Apocalypse be far behind?

*Scientists: Earth endangered by new strain of fact resistant humans*

http://www.archaeologyhub.info/scientists-earth-endangered-by-new-strain-of-fact-resistant-humans/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork



> Scientists have discovered a powerful new strain of fact-resistant humans who are threatening the ability of Earth to sustain life, a sobering new study reports.
> 
> The research, conducted by the University of Minnesota, identifies a virulent strain of humans who are virtually immune to any form of verifiable knowledge, leaving scientists at a loss as to how to combat them.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (28 Feb 2016)

Personally, I think that he's the reincarnation of Joseph McCarthy. Same temperament, same political tactics.

*#MemeOfTheWeek: Ted Cruz And The Zodiac Killer*

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/26/468153952/-memeoftheweek-ted-cruz-and-the-zodiac-killer



> If you start typing "Is Ted Cruz..." into Google, before you can even get to the C, Google attempts to auto-complete the sentence. And usually, at least these days, one of the first auto-complete options is a very strange question: "Is Ted Cruz the Zodiac killer?"
> 
> Ted Cruz is, of course, not the Zodiac killer. Really, he's not. (And we will make that point several times during this story.) In fact, there's no chance he could have been the Zodiac killer. No chance at all.
> 
> ...



Seriously though, Cruz does have an odd air about him. His speaking mannerisms remind of the Televangelist, which is not surprising considering that his father is an evangelical pastor.


----------



## FJAG (28 Feb 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Heard a very interesting comment by the former Director of the NSA and CIA, General Mike Hayden. He was the first guest on Real Time with Bill Maher last night.
> 
> In response to a question about Trump's desire to bring back waterboarding "and worse", and bombing terrorists families and other nonsense, Hayden pointed out that it would most likely never happen, as these would be illegal acts under many international laws, and it is the responsibility of the military member to refuse to carry out an unlawful order, if it ever got that far. More likely Trump would be politely advised that this course of action cannot be carried out and other more legal options would be presented.
> 
> Here is the full interview.   https://youtu.be/RFA6lsX9S8Q



Yeah. That really worked well the last time didn't it.

Honestly. Do you think in a country that has a sufficient number of voters to actually elect someone like Trump that there wouldn't be enough people in the legal and military chain of command to support and find the justification for such actions and carry them into effect.

 :brickwall:
 :cheers:


----------



## CougarKing (29 Feb 2016)

Gov. Christie endorses Trump:

New York Times



> *Christie Splits With His Past in Backing Trump*
> 
> 
> (...SNIPPED)
> ...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (29 Feb 2016)

So a Canadian, a Cuban and a White Supremacist walk into a bar.

The bartender says















What can I get you Senator Cruz?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (29 Feb 2016)

Nasty!  [


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 Feb 2016)

Interesting piece that exposes the pro-corporate sham that is the Democratic Party. This whole campaign has been a joke.


http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_graveyard_of_the_elites_20160228



> “If the main purpose of elections is to serve up pliant legislators for lobbyists to shape, such a system deserves to be called ‘misrepresentative or clientry government,’ ” Sheldon Wolin wrote in “Democracy Incorporated: Managed Democracy and the Specter of Inverted Totalitarianism.” “It is, at one and the same time, a powerful contributing factor to the depoliticization of the citizenry, as well as reason for characterizing the system as one of antidemocracy.”
> 
> “Managed Democracy,” Wolin continued, “is the application of managerial skills to the basic democratic political institution of popular elections. An election, as distinguished from the simple act of voting, has been reshaped into a complex production. Like all productive operations, it is ongoing and requires continuous supervision rather than continuing popular participation. Unmanaged elections would epitomize contingency: the managerial nightmare of control freaks. One method of assuring control is to make electioneering continuous, year-round, saturated with party propaganda, punctuated with the wisdom of kept pundits, bringing a result boring rather than energizing, the kind of civic lassitude on which a managed democracy thrives.”
> 
> Bernie Sanders, who at least acknowledges our economic reality and refuses to accept corporate money for his presidential campaign, plays the role of the Democratic Party’s court jester. No doubt to remain a member of the court, he will not condemn the perfidy and collaboration with corporate power that define Obama, Hillary and Bill Clinton and the Democratic Party. He accepts that criticism of empire is taboo. He continues, even as the party elites rig the primaries against him, to make a mockery of democratic participation, to hold up the Democrats as a tool for change. He will soon be urging his supporters to vote for Hillary Clinton, actively working as an impediment to political mobilization and an advocate for political lethargy. Sanders, whose promise of a political revolution is as hollow as competing campaign slogans, will be rewarded for his duplicity. He will be allowed to keep his seniority in the Democratic caucus. The party will not mount a campaign in Vermont to unseat him from the U.S. Senate. He will not, as he has feared, end up a pariah like Ralph Nader. But he, like everyone else in the establishment, will have sold us out.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Feb 2016)

I wonder, to what extent, that piece also applies to Canada?


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 Feb 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I wonder, to what extent, that piece also applies to Canada?



I think it definitely applies, to a slightly lesser extent because we have more stringent campaign funding rules here. But I think the Liberals and Conservatives are equally driven by neo-liberal corporate interests at the expense of Canadian jobs, our sovereignty and the environment. If the NDP had been successful in the last election, they would also be owned by corporate interests, if their campaign was any indicator. 

One only has to look at the revolving door between C level corporate jobs and government postings to see the corruption at play.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Feb 2016)

I don't want to derail further by asking more questions.

Back to the US election.


----------



## CougarKing (29 Feb 2016)

How is it that Trump already has a "Secret Service" detail when he's still just a candidate and not even a serving politician unlike the Republican Senators like Cruz who are his rivals?

I assume the Times photographer couldn't tell the difference between hired security and actual Secret Service agents.

CNN



> *Photographer: Secret Service agent choked me at a Trump rally*
> 
> By Jim Acosta, Kristen Holmes, Julia Manchester and Jeremy Diamond, CNN
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (1 Mar 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> How is it that Trump already has a "Secret Service" detail when he's still just a candidate and not even a serving politician unlike the Republican Senators like Cruz who are his rivals?
> 
> I assume the Times photographer couldn't tell the difference between hired security and actual Secret Service agents.
> 
> CNN



I had my suspicions too, however the Secret Service has already said that it is aware that one of it's agents was involved in an incident. If it was a hired security person they would have been all over it pointing out that it was not one of their agents.

http://time.com/4241899/donald-trump-rally-time-photographer-chris-morris/



> The Secret Service also put out a statement: “The Secret Service is aware of an incident involving an employee of the Secret Service that occurred earlier today in Radford, VA. At this time, our local field office is working with their law enforcement partners to determine the exact circumstances that led up to this incident. The Secret Service will provide further details as warranted once additional facts surrounding the situation are known.”


----------



## CougarKing (1 Mar 2016)

The possibility of Super Tuesday becoming a Trump rampage has his opponents praying it won't come to pass:

Canadian Press



> *The Trump Schism: Why some Republicans literally praying for party's future*
> 
> Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press
> 
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Mar 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> I had my suspicions too, however the Secret Service has already said that it is aware that one of it's agents was involved in an incident. If it was a hired security person they would have been all over it pointing out that it was not one of their agents.
> 
> http://time.com/4241899/donald-trump-rally-time-photographer-chris-morris/


Cops moonlight as security all the time, could this be a similar situation? Guy is off duty trying to make some lucrative bucks?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Mar 2016)

The Secret Service coverage, for nominees like Trump kicks in after threats have been received. They meet, define the threats and then ask Congress to OK it. Congress typically does.

Obama, then Senator, received SS protection early in 2007, well before he gained the nomination, because of threats.

Carson, Trump & Sanders have had SS details since, at least, the beginning of the year. Clinton has had a SS detail since the time she's been the First Lady.


----------



## Kilo_302 (1 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The Secret Service coverage, for nominees like Trump kicks in after threats have been received. They meet, define the threats and then ask Congress to OK it. Congress typically does.
> 
> Obama, then Senator, received SS protection early in 2007, well before he gained the nomination, because of threats.
> 
> Carson, Trump & Sanders have had SS details since, at least, the beginning of the year. Clinton has had a SS detail since the time she's been the First Lady.



I think Trump might be using an _SA_ detail. He'll graduate to a different SS once elected.


----------



## CougarKing (1 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I think Trump might be using an _SA_ detail. He'll graduate to a different SS once elected.



Doesn't Godwin's law apply to this post above?  :blotto:


----------



## Kilo_302 (1 Mar 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Doesn't Godwin's law apply to this post above?  :blotto:



I'm mainly having fun with the SS acronym here, BUT

Seeing as Trump regulary retweets a white supremacist, quoted Mussolini a couple days ago, appeals to the worst kind of racism, xenophobia and fear (and has largely based his campaign on these ideas), encourages violence at his rallies, and will say absolutely anything at all to get elected, no I don't think it applies any more.

On another note, did any one noticed how he refused to condemn Planned Parenthood in the last debate? In fact he supported it. Hitler's main political achievement was a balancing act between what are usually quite divergent interests, throwing the word "socialism" into his party name, helping him to appeal to everyone. Similarly, Trump actually sounds like Sanders on some issues. Very interesting.

 Now, he's obviously not a Nazi, but I think comparing fascist tactics and strategies is reasonable. I can easily imagine a scenario where Trump orders the round up of all Muslims and puts them in camps but if he's compared to Hitler someone will immediately invoke Godwin's Law because they aren't Jews and no one is wearing an SS uniform. Will a direct and serious comparison ever make sense? Of course not.


----------



## Flavus101 (1 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I think Trump might be using an _SA_ detail. He'll graduate to a different SS once elected.



I see you've been taken off your warning, good to have you back contributing.  :facepalm:


----------



## a_majoor (1 Mar 2016)

I'm wondering how the Democrats will handle the millions of dissapointed Sanders supporters if/when Clinton buys enough superdelegates to secure the nomination? That is a lot of money and potential volunteers/campaign workers to leave on the table:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/03/bernie-sanders-fundraising/471648/



> *Bernie Sanders's Big Money*
> The Democratic presidential candidate’s populist rallying cry has helped him rake in cash, and infused massive amounts of money into the political process.
> Jim Young / Reuters
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (1 Mar 2016)

I have to wonder about some of the comments made by Trump supporters about why they voted for him in various primaries and caucuses. Today is the Virginia primary and I saw the same thing on the evening news.

The most common answer is that Trump can't be bought. But they don't seem to realize that yes he can't be bought, but in fact is is buying the election for himself.

It isn't hard to imagine that Trump may have his own agenda to getting elected, to put forth policies and getting legislation through that favours him personally both from a business standpoint and a personal standpoint. Instituting changes to laws to benefit His own specific businesses and being able to move on things that otherwise would be hamstrung due to regulations. Broadening or opening up liable laws allowing him to sue persons whom he feels slighted by. Creating better tax breaks for business like his.

It's not like the Koch's would be unfavorable to those types of measures. But even they see the downside of a rogue Trump in the White House and are holding off their money until things get clearer, and maybe set up an independent candidate to take on Trump in the General to ensure a Dem victory for 2016, force the GOP to resolve it's internal structural issues and come back strong in 2020.


----------



## CougarKing (2 Mar 2016)

Super Tuesday results so far:

Associated Press



> *Clinton, Trump each win 6 states on Super Tuesday*
> 
> The Associated Press
> The Canadian Press
> ...


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Mar 2016)

I had an interesting conversation recently with a couple of folks from the US about Trump ( of course I brought it up).

They were pretty clear that, like Obama, who came into office with fairly radical views on how he would change things, Trump would encounter the realities of the US bi-cameral system and find himself mired in the realities of a process designed to prevent the emergence of another 'absolute ruler'.

Gawd Bless those enlightenment philosophers!


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Mar 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> I have to wonder about some of the comments made by Trump supporters about why they voted for him in various primaries and caucuses. Today is the Virginia primary and I saw the same thing on the evening news.
> 
> The most common answer is that Trump can't be bought. But they don't seem to realize that yes he can't be bought, but in fact is is buying the election for himself.



At least he's buying it out in the open. I have to wonder what billionaires are buying the Democrat half of the contest... behind the scenes.


----------



## Kilo_302 (2 Mar 2016)

I'm of the mind that polls should be taken with a grain of salt, but this latest from CNN/ORC shows Sanders is the most favoured among all the candidates in both parties. If Clinton becomes the nominee I would think her current advantage over Trump would be dissolve as she becomes the focus of his attacks. All of her weaknesses play to his strengths. Sanders, on the other hand would be far harder to attack, in fact Trump would do well no matter who he faces to pick up some of his policies.

I also saw some interesting analysis last night that hypothesized the Republican establishment might actually prefer a Clinton presidency over a  Trump presidency. If they can keep the Senate and Congress she wouldn't be able to achieve anything anyway, and in the intervening 4 years they would be able ensure a victory the next time around. Clinton will only continue the current way of doing things, and the current way of doing things has seen middle America virtually disappear. If Trump is elected he will be unpredictable (at least he is now, though he seemed to moderate his tone last night), and no one likes unpredictability when you're legislating on behalf of big business like the establishment of both parties do.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/01/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-poll/



> Sanders -- who enjoys the most positive favorable rating of any presidential candidate in the field, according to the poll -- tops all three Republicans by wide margins: 57% to 40% against Cruz, 55% to 43% against Trump, and 53% to 45% against Rubio. Sanders fares better than Clinton in each match-up among men, younger voters and independents.
> 
> Clinton looks to close Sanders out in March
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (2 Mar 2016)

Don't faint, oh rotund one...   ;D

Associated Press



> *U.S. Governor Chris Christie's 'What Have I Done' Face After Backing Trump Has Gone Viral*
> 
> Yahoo News
> March 2, 2016
> ...




  :facepalm:

Vancity Buzz



> *'How to move to Canada' trending after Trump's Super Tuesday win*
> By
> Vancity Buzz Staff
> 8:03 AM PST, Wed March 02, 2016
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (2 Mar 2016)

Things are getting uglier at Trump events. The footage of adult men shoving and screaming at a teenage girl is extremely disturbing. But hey, this is what we get when conservative politicians use "dog whistle" politics and associate with hate group in the hopes of securing their votes for decades. This is the logical extrapolation of conservative politics in America. And the Conservatives here in Canada tried this stuff with the focus on Muslims in the last election. We are heading to a very dangerous place if this stuff isn't addressed head on. 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-not-long-killed-trump-rally-article-1.2549868



> On Monday, 30 black students attending a Donald Trump rally at Valdosta State University in rural Georgia were forcefully ejected — simply for being black.
> 
> On Tuesday, in Louisville, Ky., what happened to young black protesters at another Trump rally wasn’t just racist — it appears to be outright criminal.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Mar 2016)

The 'opinion' of someone daydreaming 'what if?' and the unprovable accusations of professional activists are typical fare. There is no basis to the Christie tweets except for a bunch of people guessing. Christie has said no such thing ("OMG!, what have I done?"). Activists will spill out their heart rending version of what they think was said and done, knowing there's no real way to disprove their accusations.

Once the battle lines are set, I'm sure we'll see more of these types showing up on both sides. As well, there may be other 'unsavoury' endorsements coming for both sides.

But if someone comes out endorsing you, there is no way of stopping them. It's not the candidates fault.

If ISIS said "We endorse Hillary Clinton" there's really not a lot she can do about it. She can say she doesn't accept the endorsement, but there is nothing stopping ISIS from running commercials and printing posters backing their choice. Nobody listens to that last soundbite "I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this message."


----------



## cupper (2 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> If ISIS said "We endorse Hillary Clinton" there's really not a lot she can do about it. She can say she doesn't accept the endorsement, but there is nothing stopping ISIS from running commercials and printing posters backing their choice. Nobody listens to that last soundbite "I'm Hillary Clinton and I approve this message."



But at least she hasn't started retweeting their messages.

YET.

 [


----------



## cupper (2 Mar 2016)

You know it says a lot about the state of the GOP when EVERYONE seems to be preparing to trash the frontrunner should he take the nomination.

*Neocons declare war on Trump
Prominent Republican hawks are debating whether to hold their noses and vote for Clinton instead.*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/trump-clinton-neoconservatives-220151?lo=ap_a1

*Wall Street readies big Trump assault
Anti-Trump super PAC source says billionaire Paul Singer will make sure it has all the money it needs.*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/donald-trump-wall-street-220141


*Massachusetts Gov. Baker: I'm not voting for Trump in November, either*

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/charlie-baker-donald-trump-220130?lo=ap_c2


*Sununu joins anti-Trump effort*

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/john-sununu-anti-trump-220148


*DeLay: Trump would tear GOP 'to shreds'*

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/tom-delay-donald-trump-gop-220143


----------



## cupper (2 Mar 2016)

As if things weren't weird enough. :facepalm:

*An Erotica Writer Imagined Donald Trump and Ted Cruz Hate-@&$#ing*

http://www.vice.com/read/canadas-foremost-political-gay-erotica-writer-does-the-donald



> Regardless of whether or not you're actually American, you're probably paying close attention to the s**t show that is the US presidential race right now.
> 
> Entertainment-wise, there's little to want for—racism, sexism, blatant lies, shockingly incoherent endorsements—this thing has it all. Up until now, though, there's been one thing notably missing in American politics: homoerotic fan fiction.
> 
> ...


----------



## Privateer (2 Mar 2016)

Funny - worth the read.

Chris Christie’s wordless screaming



> I  believe that Donald Trump was talking, tonight, and that he, in fact, held an entire press conference. But it was impossible to hear him over Chris Christie’s eyes.
> 
> Chris Christie spent the entire speech screaming wordlessly. I have never seen someone scream so loudly without using his mouth before. It would have been remarkable if it had not been so terrifying.



Full article:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/compost/wp/2016/03/02/chris-christies-wordless-screaming/?postshare=3851456967944312&tid=ss_fb


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Mar 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> As if things weren't weird enough. :facepalm:





			
				cupper said:
			
		

> You know it says a lot about the state of the GOP when EVERYONE seems to be preparing to trash the frontrunner should he take the



Yet he keeps increasing his lead. Is it really that the elites don't want him or is it more a matter that the real people of America are tired of the elites?

After years of platitudes, promises, prospects and pablum from the politicians and finding out they are being lied to, robbed and raped by those self same politicians, people are getting visceral. They are starving, losing hope, jobs, health and money and see no light at the end of the tunnel.

They are simply reacting to their base instinct and following someone that talks plain, so they can understand, and speaks to their specific problems at home. They don't give a rat's ass if the world is burning down, if ISIS is on the march, if Europe is going to hell in a handbasket. They don't care.

Trump (rightly or wrongly) is giving them hope, in words they can understand and digest in small sound bites and giving voice to Cooter and his kin.

They see Clinton, Cruz and Rubio as nothing more than establishment talking heads that want to tax, and talk, them out of their money, rights, property, religion and way of life.

The voter roll is full of disenchanted, spurned, injured and dejected servicemen that are now home and wonder why they lost friends, families, spouses, homes, careers and enemies to Bush, Obama and the rest. They did as asked and their lives haven't improved. NOT ONE FUCKING BIT. In fact, it has gotten much worse.

They resent the elites telling them how to vote. How to live. What to drive and wear, and who to be friends with. They are tired of being told, that they are not allowed to defend themselves, should the threat be imminent, by these self, same serving, body guarded and secured politicians.

Quit bashing Trump (and Saunders) for talking with and not down to the US electorate. Both these guys come off as mavericks. Mavericks that you can sit down, have a beer with, and then bitch them out for their performance without worrying about Homeland Security putting you on a no fly list.

The last few post links show just how worried the other contenders are worried about these two.

If politicians can't get off the stage and get out and wrestle pigs in the mud with the real 'Heartbeat of America' the election is theirs to lose.

Don't blame Trump or Sanders. This mess is the fault of all politicians that morphed from everyday jobs and speaking for their neighbourhood to full time, pig trough, elitist, dishonest, blackmailing, backstabbing, slime in suits.

Do I want to see the US on thier ass? In disarray? Rudderless, ineffectual and out of touch? Absolutely not. 

However, to stand them on thier ear, I'd love to see Trump (or Clinton) win.

Then I want to see ' We the People' wake up, really, really quick, sort shit out and set the example for the rest of the world to get rid of these dregs that we elect.

And yes, a spillover into Canada wouldn't hurt.


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Mar 2016)

It's funny to see the mainstream media constantly attacking Trump, saying how evil he is, etc etc. Almost like the deliberate campaign the Liberal media in Canada used to try and paint Harper as a monster, to sway the election.


----------



## Altair (3 Mar 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> It's funny to see the mainstream media constantly attacking Trump, saying how evil he is, etc etc. Almost like the deliberate campaign the Liberal media in Canada used to try and paint Harper as a monster, to sway the election.


If you ignore the fact that the more airtime they give him ( negative or not) the stronger he gets.





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Yet he keeps increasing his lead. Is it really that the elites don't want him or is it more a matter that the real people of America are tired of the elites?
> 
> After years of platitudes, promises, prospects and pablum from the politicians and finding out they are being lied to, robbed and raped by those self same politicians, people are getting visceral. They are starving, losing hope, jobs, health and money and see no light at the end of the tunnel.
> 
> ...


This.

Trump and Sanders are a result of all the establishment  of both parties running the country in a way that doesn't represent the people who vote them there.

Which is why it's hilarious to see in the GOP race, the establishment trying to rally around a anyone but trump strategy. They have not woken up to see that it is them that is the fuel that is fueling the trump fire. When they discount trump they are discounting every person who is sick of their bullshit and voting for the guy who as you put it, gets down in the mid with them.

It's this arrogant self entitled behavior that only makes trump stronger.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> If you ignore the fact that the more airtime they give him ( negative or not) the stronger he gets.This.
> 
> Trump and Sanders are a result of all the establishment  of both parties running the country in a way that doesn't represent the people who vote them there.
> 
> ...



Thanks for condensing what I just said and removing the passion. My message is still the same though.

To try and give you two things, to think about at once, try connect the above with the below.

Why are the Republicans trying to defeat Trump, instead of Hillary? Shouldn't she be the real target? Time for them to start thinking in the future, not the here and now. It shows the short sighted, partisan, mental defect that afflicts all parties.

They are self absorbed politicians that are looking at belly button lint instead of cleaning the dryer filter. They don't care about anyone but themselves.

Clinton has already counted Sanders out and is starting her 2016 Presidential run. She's trashing Trump and the Republicans at every turn. She doesn't even remember Sanders or that he was running against her. Her biggest problem now is all the ass kissers that are going to try become her running mate. She's not thinking party nomination. she's thinking White House........right now.

All the GOP knows is that they can't go after her until they have a champion. That's bullshit! They can start slinging all kinds of stuff at her right now without a prime time runner.

The Republicans shit the bed. They didn't see any of this coming, for some unfathomable reason. Now Clinton has put her eyes firmly on the prize for the Democrats to win, and the GOP still hasn't even figured who to run.

This election, no matter who it goes to, will be a bellwether of where civilization is going to go.

Put on your leather glove and wrap your rope. When this bull chute opens, we're in for a hell of a ride, but 8 seconds might not be enough.


----------



## Steve_D (3 Mar 2016)

Saw this yesterday and couldn't help but laugh.


----------



## Kilo_302 (3 Mar 2016)

While both Sanders and Trump are the result of an angry electorate rejecting their respective party's establishment, to view them as being similar or two sides of the same coin is a mistake. Trump is a neo-fascist, of this there is no doubt. Whereas Sanders is providing constructive policies to mitigate current issues of income inequality and a growing sense that average voices are not being heard, Trump is appealing to authoritarian tendencies, racism and xenophobia. He is a real threat to democracy.

This is the logical conclusion of exclusionary capitalism. People no longer have voices so they lash out in the form of support for fascist ideas. Fiscal conservatism combined with regressive social views have won the day, and created this situation. The Republican establishment thought it could pay lip service to "family values" and working people while fleecing them on behalf of corporations and they could, to a point. The Democrats thought they could pay lip service to progressive ideas of equality and equal opportunity while legislating on behalf of the same corporations as the Republicans.

The only thing that could have prevented this situation was to address the structural issues of the US political/economic system, a return to New Deal capitalism that Sanders represents. Sadly, it might be too late. Trump really represents the first of what will probably be several fascist leaders in the United States who will all promise a return to greatness and progress for the middle class. This is literally what the end of an empire looks like, and it's quite terrifying, not just for Americans who aren't excited by the prospect of racial violence, but for the rest of the world. When a hegemon collapses it seldom does without lashing out against rivals. And this time we have nuclear weapons at the disposal of whichever unqualified autocrat is in power.



http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_revenge_of_the_lower_classes_and_the_rise_of_american_fascism_20160302



> College-educated elites, on behalf of corporations, carried out the savage neoliberal assault on the working poor. Now they are being made to pay. Their duplicity—embodied in politicians such as Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama—succeeded for decades. These elites, many from East Coast Ivy League schools, spoke the language of values—civility, inclusivity, a condemnation of overt racism and bigotry, a concern for the middle class—while thrusting a knife into the back of the underclass for their corporate masters. This game has ended.
> 
> There are tens of millions of Americans, especially lower-class whites, rightfully enraged at what has been done to them, their families and their communities. They have risen up to reject the neoliberal policies and political correctness imposed on them by college-educated elites from both political parties: Lower-class whites are embracing an American fascism.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (3 Mar 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> As if things weren't weird enough. :facepalm:



I was wrong. It just got weirder.  :facepalm: :facepalm:

*Caitlyn Jenner Likes Ted Cruz, Wants to Be His 'Trans Ambassador'
Jenner says she met Cruz before her transition "and he was very nice."*

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/Caitlyn-Jenner-Ted-Cruz-Trans-Ambassador-370982061.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DCBrand



> Caitlyn Jenner is weighing in on the heated presidential race, and could be throwing her support behind one of the remaining four Republican candidates.
> 
> In an interview with The Advocate, the "I Am Cait" star and conservative Republican opened up about which presidential hopeful she's been watching.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (3 Mar 2016)

We need to keep this type of publicity up. Or build a wall. Either one.

*Your President Trump move-to-Canada bluster? No one’s buying it.*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/your-president-trump-move-to-canada-bluster-no-ones-buying-it/2016/03/03/29676f04-e14c-11e5-8d98-4b3d9215ade1_story.html?hpid=hp_local-news_dvorak616pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory



> So Canada, eh?
> 
> That’s Plan B, apparently, as Super Tuesday primary results came in this week and Americans were forced to consider the real possibility of President Trump.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Mar 2016)

https://youtu.be/sCyzdD0vYOw

Seen this one yet?   Friend posted in on Facebook.


----------



## Kilo_302 (4 Mar 2016)

Here's a handy sub-3 minute video that explains how Trump is part of a broader phenomenon taking shape across Western democracies. It makes the point that the appeal of these demagogues can be attributed to the facelessness of neo-liberal economics, the demise of New Deal type policies and a failure of governments to adequately redistribute wealth.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/video/2016/jan/06/dont-let-trump-fool-you-rightwing-populism-is-the-new-normal-video


In other words: the obsession with low taxes, de-regulation, privatization with the resulting increase of corporate power in politics has led us here. All of these are policies embraced by both the Democrats and the Republicans, and in Canada, the Conservatives and Liberals (and unfortunately even the NDP in the last election). We were never in danger of a socialist revolution. We've been in the midst of what Chris Hedges (I forget who he was quoting) calls a "slow motion corporate coup d'etat" since the 70s.

To distract us from this reality the Left has been given gay marriage, the ridiculous idea of identity politics and political correctness. Basically social progress has been permitted as long as it doesn't affect economic structure (we can celebrate gay CEOs, but not gay socialists).

 The Right was fed lies about family values, religion and told to fear "the other." It's a bit rich to see the establishment Republicans scrambling to prevent Trump from winning. They've spent decades pushing policies that are against the interests of blue-collar workers. Same goes for the Democrats (and the Liberals/Tories in Canada).  It's always been easy to blame the above social progress, government overspending etc for economic inequality, but in reality it's simply the fact that government has shifted priorities to legislating on behalf of capital instead of labour (corporations versus the citizenry).

http://www.newyorker.com/news/john-cassidy/the-problem-with-the-never-trump-movement



> For decades now, the Republican Party has been appealing to low-income and middle-income whites while promoting an economic agenda that runs contrary to their interests: tax cuts for the rich, deregulation, free trade, deep cuts to entitlement programs, and so on. Trump, who is hawking a tax plan that he appears to have ordered up at short notice from Art Laffer or Larry Kudlow, can be accused of adopting the same bait-and-switch tactics, but taxes aren’t central to his campaign. In promising to end illegal immigration and impose hefty tariffs on good from countries like China and Mexico, he can, at least, claim to be pursuing an agenda that would boost American wages and save American jobs.
> 
> Would his strategy work? Probably not. But in talking about safeguarding Social Security, forcing pharmaceutical companies to lower their prices, preventing people who don’t have health insurance from dying in the streets, and eliminating tax breaks that favor hedge-fund and private-equity managers (such as Romney), Trump is using the language of economic populism in a manner that none of his Republican rivals can match. Beholden to their campaigns backers, they are forced to confine themselves to the standard guff about cutting taxes, loosening regulations, and encouraging enterprise. At this late stage, many none-too-affluent G.O.P. voters appear to be smelling a rat.
> 
> ...





Finally, EVERYONE has been encouraged to identify as consumers instead of as citizens. This has led to mass antipathy (most students these days are more concerned about brands of phones than radical politics, or even politics at all). If there's a lesson here, it may be that the Right and Left who are not included in mainstream corporate politics can agree on some basic things and maybe we can even prevent what looks to be a descent in fascism.


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Here's a handy sub-3 minute video that explains how Trump is part of a broader phenomenon taking shape across Western democracies. It makes the point that the appeal of these demagogues can be attributed to the facelessness of neo-liberal economics, the demise of New Deal type policies and a failure of governments to adequately redistribute wealth.



And here I thought it was because people were just tired of long term previous incumbents, like Obama and Harper? Oh, wait a minute, Canada just made a big shift to the left, didn't it...


----------



## Kilo_302 (4 Mar 2016)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> And here I thought it was because people were just tired of long term previous incumbents, like Obama and Harper? Oh, wait a minute, Canada just made a big shift to the left, didn't it...



Well that's the thing, the Liberal Party isn't actually that left-wing when economics is concerned, nor are the Democrats. Both parties cut social spending significantly in the 90s, both parties champion privatization and de-regulation (broadly, except when it bites them in the *** like 2008). And both parties have cut corporate tax and income tax on the wealthy, thereby necessitating cuts to the very programs that help blue-collar workers the most.

People wouldn't be tired of incumbents if those incumbents were actually legislating on their behalf.

But, to your point, if you want to see an example of how these people AREN'T governing with the interests of the average citizen in mind just look at the candidates in the US election. You have the wife of a former president running, and the brother of a former president who was himself the son of a former president. The idea that this is a healthy democracy is ludicrous. The same goes for Trudeau up here. These are clear oligarchies, and the central feature of an oligarchy is that government functions as a tool of elites. In our case, the corporate elite.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Mar 2016)

New tack.

The merits of a madman in the Whitehouse.

In the not so distant bad old days the peace of the world was based on the MAD concept of mutually assured destruction.  The basic principle was that if the guy in the Kremlin were mad enough to push the button the guy in the White House would be mad enough to push his.

This only works if both sides perceive the other guy as nuts. Nuts as in shoe pounding on the desk nuts.  Or as in "We begin bombing in five minutes nuts."

Krushchev had Kennedy worried.  Reagan has Brezhnev worried.

Today nobody worries.  Or at least they didn't.  

The Bushes and Clinton and even Obama (who is a different type of crazy)  were not seen as likely to be obliterating the planet.

And so in slips Vlad.  Who may be crazy.  Or who may be cunning.  Who knows?  Just like Reagan (at least as far as the Russians were concerned).  Consequently everybody treats him like the homeless guy muttering to himself and gives him a wide berth and lets him go exactly where he wants.

Is Donald Trump the antidote to Vlad?

Does Vlad think he might be sufficiently mad as to have to take notice of him - just on the off-chance that he may "begin bombing in five minutes"?


----------



## cupper (4 Mar 2016)

I'm more worried about Cruz than I am Trump. 

Trump is running a campaign built on saying whatever it takes to get elected, and then we'll figure out what the game plan is after we win. He's already shown signs that what he says and what he will do will be up for discussion. He's already backing away form the stance on torture. 

Cruz is an ideologue who seems to overlook what the realities of his decisions will present. He was the one how lead the drive to shut down the government against the better judgement of the party. He only has party support because they want to kill the Trump insurgency and some see him as the only alternative, Rubio being too much of a lightweight.

Trump could be able to work both sides of the aisle, even though the party may not like it. Cruz wouldn't give any room for discussions with the Dems, even if it meant not getting any policy through Congress. He could well have issues dealing with his own party in Congress.

It's also hard to say which of the two would be a better ticket to run against for the Dems. They both would cause the Dem vote to mobilize at higher rates than normal, but Trump would have some effect down ballot on the Congressional races depending on how they want to play it. As long as the GOP plays the anti-Trump card in the general, then the Dems can capitalize and potentially use it against the GOP candidates.


----------



## cupper (4 Mar 2016)

It surprises me a bit that Evangelicals aren't going for Cruz in the numbers that one would expect, and seem to be splitting between Trump and Cruz. One explanation is that they want to back a winner who will be beholden to them down the road. But after being burned twice by Bush 43 you would think that they would prefer to back one of their own in Cruz in hopes that he pull off a win and bring in their policies to suit. Cruz is by all respects their man, right down to his mannerisms and the way he speaks, regardless of subject matter. Even his call for his fellow candidates to "prayerfully" consider ending their campaigns to allow him to defeat Trump.

Some points to consider about just whether there is an Evangelical base to begin with.

*The True Number Of Evangelical Voters Depends On Who You Ask*

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/21/467582494/the-true-number-of-evangelical-voters-depends-on-who-you-ask



> MICHEL MARTIN, HOST:
> 
> And if you've been following the coverage of the presidential race, you've heard analysts say over and over again just how important evangelical voters are and what role they played, for example, in Donald Trump's win in yesterday's GOP primary in South Carolina. They're also being courted in the Democratic primary race there this coming Saturday. But you might have asked yourself - just who are we talking about, and what motivates these voters? NPR's Danielle Kurtzleben has been looking for answers.
> 
> ...



*As Evangelicals Lose Faith In Cruz, His Campaign Could Be Beyond Resurrection*

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/29/468553304/as-evangelicals-lose-faith-in-cruz-his-campaign-could-be-beyond-resurrection



> The crux of Ted Cruz's campaign has long been mobilizing the Christian right to his side, working to galvanize enough evangelical voters to topple Donald Trump.
> 
> The Texas senator even launched his campaign at Liberty University, which claims to be the world's largest Christian college, declaring that "God isn't done with America yet."
> 
> ...



*Evangelical Leaders Question Movement's Support Of Trump*

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/03/469005685/evangelical-leaders-question-why-their-movement-supports-trump



> The apparent depth of support for Donald Trump among evangelical voters has produced an identity crisis within that conservative world. Some are disassociating themselves from the broader community.
> 
> DAVID GREENE, HOST:
> 
> ...


----------



## Jed (4 Mar 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> I'm more worried about Cruz than I am Trump.
> 
> Trump is running a campaign built on saying whatever it takes to get elected, and then we'll figure out what the game plan is after we win. He's already shown signs that what he says and what he will do will be up for discussion. He's already backing away form the stance on torture.
> 
> ...



Finally something that says out loud what may be wrong with Cruz or Rubio.  Mostly the verifiable bad stuff on Cruz that comes out is:
He is good at philibustering
He is a Canadian
He has religious morals and is not agnostic
He sticks to his guns

Now I hear that he is inflexible and will not work with the Democrats.  At least that is a point I can logically understand.

Please enlighten me on why Cruz is unacceptable as a leader and / or Rubio for that matter. I would like to know why logical people consider Cruz or Rubio are worse than the Buffoon Reality TV host Trump or the questionably corrupt and or dishonest Hillary Clinton or the old white socialist Sanders.


----------



## cupper (4 Mar 2016)

The Dems have their work cut out for them. And I don't think they have anyone in the wings right now that could turn this around anytime soon.

*The Democratic Party Got Crushed During The Obama Presidency. Here's Why*

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/04/469052020/the-democratic-party-got-crushed-during-the-obama-presidency-heres-why?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160304



> The GOP may be in the midst of an identity crisis, but the Democratic Party is also facing a political crisis that could be made a lot worse if it doesn't win the White House in November.
> 
> *Here's why:*
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (5 Mar 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> Please enlighten me on why Cruz is unacceptable as a leader and / or Rubio for that matter. I would like to know why logical people consider Cruz or Rubio are worse than the Buffoon Reality TV host Trump or the questionably corrupt and or dishonest Hillary Clinton or the old white socialist Sanders.



I never said that Cruz or Rubio were worse than Trump, Clinton or Sanders. Each is problematic in their own way.

To be honest, I think that Rubio would stand a decent chance of being elected, and is really the candidate that the GOP needs, but he's just not experienced enough to win this time around. Tt shows in the little gaffes and missteps. He is more apt to reach out across the aisle to to Dems and get bipartisan support. But that isn't what will sell this time around in the GOP. He's seen as an "establishment candidate" (whatever that really means  : ) Another 4 to 8 years of grooming would do him well. But this is not his time.

Cruz as I said is too much of an ideologue to be an effective president. He is uncompromising, and from what I've read about his early years too full of himself (it takes balls to cite yourself in a brief to the US Supreme Court). He believes what he believes and will not be persuaded otherwise, to his own detriment. Although he cannot be considered an "establishment" Republican, he is part of the problem with the political gridlock that exists inside the beltway. Whether they realize it or not, the people supporting Cruz because he is an outsider and they want to send a message to the establishment, are supporting the other side of the problem. He is partly to blame for the need of total collapse that now faces the GOP in order for it to get back to where wants to be. If you could point to one thing that is a failure in leadership for Cruz, it would be his unwillingness to compromise. 

Trump is Trump. I seriously expect to open up the DSM-V and see his picture under Narcissistic Personality Disorder. He has no defined policy other than he's going to solve every problem facing the country. And it's gonna be great. It will be Yuge!. To borrow from another internet source, a typical Trump speech: 


> "Every Trump sentence has words. Sometimes three words. Or two. And they're great sentences. Terrific sentences. That I can tell you. Believe me. They're great. With the best words. Terrific repeated words. Not very big words. Every Trump sentence has words."



Trump has no desirable quality that would be considered presidential. But he is the thing that needs to happen to wake up the GOP to the reality of why they can't win the White House in it's current state of discord. Like the addict, they need to hit bottom before they can look at starting to recover.

Clinton? meh. Presidential material? Not really. Sure she has a broad range of experience on the points that matter for one elected president. But I just cannot see why she should be elected based on that experience. It's one of those things that you cant really say why, but you just know that it's wrong. (And could someone PLEASE explain to her that you have a microphone, so you don't need to yell though the entire speech  :facepalm: ) 

Sanders, while some of his ideas are admirable in sentiment, there is just no way that they would first get past a congress of any sort of makeup, and second not put the country in an economically unsustainable situation without huge increases in tax revenue, which goes back to the first point. And you can't fault the young voters for coming out to support him. Old guy with white hair handing out gifts. He's freaking Santa Clause.

So this election cycle, the GOP finds itself in the same position where they are about to select a nominee who will be fail to get to the winners circle in the general.

What they need to do is tell their so called base to STFU, and start campaigning in the center again. Bring forth policies that are neither conservative or liberal. Accept that compromise is necessary, and not the evil it's being made out to be. Maybe even govern. Wow, what a concept that would be. Eight years of No for the sake of No, instead of offering reasonable alternatives in place of the ideas being rejected is 7 years too much.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Mar 2016)

Maybe the Democrats got crushed because their legislative agenda sucked, the things they promised turned out to be lies ("you can keep your doctor", "recovery summer"), the people who were benefiting from Democrat initiatives were insiders and crony capitalists, the security picture deteriorated rapidly and visibly under their watch ("Red lines", Lybia, the Arab Spring) and the Dems were openly contemptuous of large segments of the voting public (white working class men, the same segment, ironically, that they claim to champion).

With that sort of record and love for voters, it isn't difficult to understand why large swaths of people who would normally consider voting Democrat went to Bernie Sanders or even Donald Trump (that's right, former Democrat voters are also turning to Trump) because they feel the political establishment has abandoned them or has no interest in their issues.

In one regard Cupper is very correct: there is no one in the wings, and I'm not sure there will be anyone in 2020 either (even 2024 may be problematic).


----------



## CougarKing (5 Mar 2016)

How did Trump ever think he could make such a campaign promise?  :facepalm:

Associated Press



> *Mexico government says it won't pay for Trump wall*
> [The Canadian Press]
> The Associated Press
> March 3, 2016
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Mar 2016)

Good post cupper.

After the CNN debate, Rubio was interviewed and he looked like a deer in the headlights, repeating that Trump was a con artist at least 25 times in a few minutes, which goes back to the New Hampshire debate of his being robotic.

_Some_ of Trump's misspeaks are because he is being attacked from all sides and now by the old guard of the GOP including Mitt the loser. Rubio's attacks are child like and Trump does not help himself when he replies in a like manner.

Cruz has from the start reminded me of the proverbial small lot, outside the gate, used car salesman. He is a divider and uncompromising a you said. I don't like bible thumphers in politics.

Kasich is boring no matter how qualified he may be. Not a hope of getting the nomination.

You live in the US. Here in AZ I am surprised at the number of people who said they will vote for Trump. Never heard anyone who said they will not. Saw a fair number of Dr. Carson bumper stickers, often with Vet plates!

I think it is a revolt and the old guard is driving voters to Trump who is bring in new voters because he is not politically correct, speaks bluntly. I also think if he debates Hillary he will go where no one else dares and rip her a new one.

If/when Hillary indicted on felony charges, and it clearly looks that this will happen in May, the Dems will get a new candidate via their Superdelegate system. 

IMHO, the Obama's very much dislike the Clinton's. Pres Obama will be "forced" by the FBI's investigation to allow charges to be referred to a Grand Jury. Even if a trial is pending, and Hillary is still presumed innocent, she could not possibly run. Pres Obama will just say justice must be done, while smiling to himself, and Michelle will be happy. He will say, Joe we want the WH for 8 years, you are a faithful guy, but your time has passed due to your age. Let John Kerry carry our banner and you endorse him.

I would like to see Kerry without his expensive wig though.


----------



## CougarKing (5 Mar 2016)

Romney in the crosshairs of Trump's movement:

Canadian Press



> *A Trumpian wing is born in the GOP, it's motivated, it's angry at Mitt Romney*
> [The Canadian Press]
> Alexander Panetta
> March 4, 2016
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Mar 2016)

Meanwhile on the Democrat side of the fence:

https://pivotamerica.com/2016/03/03/theres-a-movement-within-the-sanders-movement-to-go-green-after-primaries/



> TENS OF THOUSANDS TO LEAVE DEMOCRATIC PARTY THE DAY AFTER THEIR PRIMARIES IN PROTEST





> As a protest thousands and thousands of Bernie Sanders supporters are making plans and preparations to say goodbye to the Democratic National Committee. Many have realized that as those who control the party move more and more right away from those who actually vote that it may be time for a revolt within the party itself.
> 
> Bernie Sanders calls for a political revolution, and many are now feeling that the establishment is conspiring against them at every turn. Whether it’s Bill Clinton’s election fraud in Massachusetts, or coin flips in Iowa, or rigged debate schedules – the fact is there are many people who just can’t let this race run fair and square and may the best candidate on merit and public opinion win.



To mangle Foch:

The Left is in revolt.  The Right is rebelling.  The Center cannot hold.  

Washington looks evermore out of touch.


----------



## FJAG (5 Mar 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Romney in the crosshairs of Trump's movement:
> 
> Canadian Press]https://ca.news.yahoo.com/trumpian-wing-born-gop-motivated-angry-mitt-romney-090021402.html]Canadian Press



Whole thing is very reminiscent of the birth of the Reform Party.  ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## cupper (6 Mar 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Whole thing is very reminiscent of the birth of the Reform Party.  ;D
> 
> :cheers:



Trump tried that down here before.

He ran into a little problem named David Duke.

Irony can be a bitch.  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (6 Mar 2016)

I had an interesting conversation about this topic with some friends this weekend.

Two interesting, if rather opposed conclusions:

Canada's political culture is docile and conformist. The Reform Party, which is the biggest and most successful "insurrection" to date was explicitly about joining with the power centres (or at least co-opting them). Their message and rallying cry was "The West wants in!".

The rise of Trump, Sanders, Le Pen and others of that ilk around the world, however, represent something far different: the rebellion of the "Plebes" against the ruling elites after having to endure decades of the failure of the policies endorsed by the elites. The closest historical analogy turns out to be the "Social Wars" near the end of the _Res Publica Roma_, and we know what eventually emerged out of that....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Mar 2016)

............or the French Revolution.


----------



## CougarKing (6 Mar 2016)

Momentum for Cruz this time?

Canadian Press



> *Cruz, Trump each grab 2 wins; Dems divide states too*
> [The Canadian Press]
> Nancy Benac And Roxana Hegeman, The Associated Press
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (6 Mar 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Momentum for Cruz this time?
> 
> Canadian Press



He still has a long upward battle. Was watching Meet The Press this morning and the analysis shows that the best that Cruz can hope for is to force a contested convention in July. Right now Trump is at a point where if he continues to pull off 50% of the available delegates (not counting Florida or Ohio) he will have a substantial lead going into the convention. If he takes both Florida and Ohio he wraps it up. If Florida and Ohio go for their hometown boys, then Trump needs to take up to 60% of the remaining delegates to win outright. If Cruz takes either Florida or Ohio Trump needs 70% of the remaining delegates to win outright, otherwise they go to the Convention without a nominee.

Interesting insight from an interview during the same show. Kevin Spacey was on talking about the new season of House of Cards and this year's primaries. Seems that the story line in this seasons episodes mirror some events and themes that are coming forward in the primaries. But the series 4th season was developed, written and shot well before the start of all the shenannigans.

A case of life imitating art?


----------



## a_majoor (7 Mar 2016)

Interesting what voter ID does to races. Most particularly when the race is for a Dem primary....

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/dem_turnout_and_voter_id_the_dirty_little_secret.html



> *Dem turnout and voter ID: The dirty little secret*
> By Thomas Lifson
> 
> The numbers tell a story, and you can draw the obvious conclusions. Because the mainstream media certainly won’t.  Keep this statistic in mind the next time some progressive tries to claim voter fraud is not a serious problem.
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Mar 2016)

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary

Trump 43%
Rubio  19%
Cruz    17%
Kasich   8%

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-democratic-primary

Clinton 53%
Sanders 38%

Sanders has about as much of the Democrats as Trump has of the Republicans.

Establishment Election 

Clinton vs Rubio

Anti-Establishment Election

Sanders vs Trump

The Democrat Establishment is creating exactly the same feelings amongst Sanders's supporters that the Republican Establishment is creating amongst Trump's supporters.  And using exactly the same tools, the perceived disenfranchisement of the electorate by taking the decision to convention and the electoral college.

op:  This is fun.


----------



## cupper (7 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Interesting what voter ID does to races. Most particularly when the race is for a Dem primary....
> 
> http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/03/dem_turnout_and_voter_id_the_dirty_little_secret.html



Not exactly sure that new Voter ID laws is really the drive behind the drop / increases in turnout noted.

The GOP is in the middle of a civil war and there are significant issues that the candidates bring to the mix, where as the Dems really only have a two candidate race, and in actuality the outcome has all but been decided anyway. So the GOP turnout is up because of they have motivation, the Dems don't. And it also doesn't take into account the number of independent and crossover voters in the open primary states. And caucus states are shouldn't factor into turnout as there are different mechanisms at play, and only the most ardent party voter tends to attend the caucuses due to the time involved in caucusing.

Always remember: Correlation does not imply causation.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Mar 2016)

You are exactly missing the point. Democrat voter turnout fell by 38% in states which have voter ID in effect, but only 17% where there was no voter ID requirment.

While we can agree that in every state there is less urgency to go out for the Democrat primaries, since Hillary has already purchased enough superdelegates, it is difficult to believe that _twice_ as many people decided not to come out in states where the only difference was a voter ID system in place. 

And of course since Republican voter turnout rose regardless of voter ID requirments, there is a very good case demonstrated here that voter ID primarily affects _Democrat_ voters.


----------



## Kilo_302 (8 Mar 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Not exactly sure that new Voter ID laws is really the drive behind the drop / increases in turnout noted.
> 
> The GOP is in the middle of a civil war and there are significant issues that the candidates bring to the mix, where as the Dems really only have a two candidate race, and in actuality the outcome has all but been decided anyway. So the GOP turnout is up because of they have motivation, the Dems don't. And it also doesn't take into account the number of independent and crossover voters in the open primary states. And caucus states are shouldn't factor into turnout as there are different mechanisms at play, and only the most ardent party voter tends to attend the caucuses due to the time involved in caucusing.
> 
> Always remember: Correlation does not imply causation.



And yet the outcome HASN'T been decided. The media in the US that identifies with the Democratic Party establishment would like you to think so, but one just has to look at the 2008 Demorcratic Primaries to understand that the super delegates can and will change their nominations if popular support for Sanders necessitates it. Sanders actually isn't very far behind Clinton when you remove the super delegates who shouldn't be counted at this early stage.

The Washington Post for example published 16 anti-Sanders stories in 16 hours alone this week. There was a virtual media blackout on Sanders until quite recently as well. If you compare air time given to Trump to air time given to Sanders the difference is quite stark:

[urlhttp://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/12/11/abc-world-news-tonight-has-devoted-less-than-on/207428][/url]


----------



## Altair (8 Mar 2016)

Trump wins Mississippi and Michigan. 

Everyone start taking note of where you where when his presidency became a real thing.


----------



## cupper (8 Mar 2016)

You know, sitting here listening to Trump give his speech after the polls closed and he was declared by the news outlets as winner, it dawned on me just how painful it is to listen to this man give a speech.

Total train of thought performance. Switches tracks in the middle of a sentence. 50% of the time he's an advertisement for some Trump business. 30% is insult comedy. 20% is something close to information.

 :facepalm:


----------



## FJAG (8 Mar 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> You know, sitting here listening to Trump give his speech after the polls closed and he was declared by the news outlets as winner, it dawned on me just how painful it is to listen to this man give a speech.
> 
> Total train of thought performance. Switches tracks in the middle of a sentence. 50% of the time he's an advertisement for some Trump business. 30% is insult comedy. 20% is something close to information.
> 
> :facepalm:



Just try staring at his short stubby fingers and the whole thing is easier to take.

Saw a news article about how all the Trump brand ties are made in China. Trump says he doesn`t do his clothing line (or Ivanka`s for that matter) in the US because  "It's very hard to have apparel made in this country". This is the man who is going to fix the economy--a guy incapable of producing ties in the US.  :facepalm:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/03/08/news/economy/donald-trump-trade/

 :cheers:


----------



## GAP (8 Mar 2016)

Hmmm......

He is not politically correct.....

He blusters at the antics of the other politician's and their accusations.....

He points out the follies of past and present governments.....

People enjoy listening to him rag on about the standard mush they are normally fed...

People are voting for him....

Maybe that's what they want.


----------



## Journeyman (8 Mar 2016)

op:




Only because this is "Radio Chatter."


----------



## cupper (9 Mar 2016)

Oh, to be a fly on those walls….

*Some Republicans are choosing the arsenic (Cruz) over the firing squad (Trump)*
*To beat Trump, Cruz might need to start making friends*
The senator is hinting that he might seek support from the Senate colleagues he's been infuriating for the past three years.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ted-cruz-might-have-to-make-nice-with-the-washington-cartel-to-take-down-donald-trump/2016/03/08/05de3f1c-e486-11e5-b0fd-073d5930a7b7_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_pkcapitol-407pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory



> Sen. Lindsey O. Graham couldn’t remember the last time he spoke to Ted Cruz. “It’s been a while,” Graham (R-S.C.) said last week.
> 
> Same for Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), a first-term senator facing a difficult reelection in the fall. And Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah), whose last talk with the fiery GOP presidential candidate from Texas came a “few months ago.”
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (9 Mar 2016)

The Trump steamroller continues its march....


Yahoo News



> *Trump romps in Michigan and Mississippi, tightening his grip on the nomination*
> Holly Bailey and Jon Ward
> March 8, 2016
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Mar 2016)

And Hawaii. Leading in the Florida and Iowa polls for 15 Mar.


----------



## Kilo_302 (9 Mar 2016)

Great discussion with Cornel West, you won't see his views represented on the mainstream media very often. There IS a show on CNN who has him on, though I can't recall which one. Anyway, good watch. His analysis of Clinton is spot on. "She's a neo-liberal posing as a progressive."

They also point out how both MSNBC and CNN ran the ENTIRE Trump "news conference", ignoring Clinton. Ratings ratings ratings.

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/3/9/bernie_or_hillary_cornel_west_dolores


----------



## a_majoor (9 Mar 2016)

For anyone who still wonders at why people are supporting Trump (or Sanders, on the other side of the fence), here are a few vignettes from Instapundit:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/228692



> *BECAUSE WORKING-CLASS AMERICANS HAVE BEEN SCREWED*:
> Ron Fournier: Why Michigan Is Hungry For Change.
> 
> Drive farther north on I-75, past Flint and Saginaw and into the scenic woods of northern Michigan, and you’ll find people who remember when the area was thriving. For generations, blue-collar workers poured out of city factories on Friday afternoons and headed to their cottages, which, along with defined pensions and new cars they helped build, were emblems of the 20th-century American middle class.
> ...



and

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/228624/



> *ALLUM BOKHARI: Mark Zuckerberg And The New Progressive Plutocrats*.
> 
> Silicon Valley inspires utopian thinking. After revolutionising everything from the media to communications to taxi services, progressive elites in the Bay Area are now eyeing up government and politics, wondering how they can “disrupt” both. Will American politics survive their delusions of grandeur?
> 
> ...



After a few years of sneering Liberals in Ottawa, I think it is safe to say that we might be joining the parade here in Canada as well.


----------



## Kilo_302 (9 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> For anyone who still wonders at why people are supporting Trump (or Sanders, on the other side of the fence), here are a few vignettes from Instapundit:
> 
> http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/228692
> 
> ...



So do you agree that working people have been screwed. Which policies, to your understanding have led to all of the job losses, greater income inequality and rising poverty in the US? Which specific policies?  Do you believe this is a problem that is exclusive to Democrats?

There's a lot of rhetoric here, but not a lot of content. Where do the Koch brothers and those like them fall into this equation? Are they immune to this criticism because they're Republican and they pay lip service to conservative ideas? What about Trump himself? He's an elite if there was ever one.

Pieces like this are specifically designed to conceal the fact that Republicans and the Right have been pushing for deregulation, less social spending and a loosening of labour laws for decades. It's pretty rich to turn around paint the issue as one that belongs to progressives. I wouldn't even characterize Clinton or Obama as progressive in fact. They are neo-liberals. So are the Republicans and so is Trump. They worship at the alter of capital.


----------



## Altair (9 Mar 2016)

A lot of people support trump and sanders because they are self financed, don't have huge donors and don't have any superpacs.

Seeing as canada has strict financing laws for political parties and the parties have good rules in place, I don't think canada has that concern about money in politics.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Mar 2016)

We're not without fault, look at the millions dumped into campaigns by unions and special interest groups. If we were to remove that, then we could thumb our noses at the US system of financing.


----------



## Altair (9 Mar 2016)

There are faults for sure, but even 3rd parties has spending limits. 

Nothing close to american superpacs. 

So while there might be concern, I don't see the same anger over it happening in Canada.


----------



## Journeyman (9 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> ....I don't see the same anger over it happening in Canada.


Perhaps for the same reason as Trudeau's often-cited (well, here anyway) poll numbers are high -- Canadians just don't care about politics.   :dunno:


----------



## a_majoor (9 Mar 2016)

Wow. This is what the SJW's call "intersectional conflict" where you discover you really can't hold two opposed ideas in your head at the same time:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/228699



> *CAITLYN’S COURAGE: “Backlash over Caitlyn Jenner’s Cruz Support Proves Leftists are the Real Bigots.”*
> 
> Caitlyn Jenner’s support of GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz is sending the LGBT activist community into conniptions. True to form, radical liberals prove they’re the truly bigoted ones by calling the transgender reality star a “lunatic” for praising the most conservative candidate in the race.
> 
> ...


----------



## Altair (9 Mar 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Perhaps for the same reason as Trudeau's often-cited (well, here anyway) poll numbers are high -- Canadians just don't care about politics.   :dunno:


Those poll number are simply to provide some balance.

And to remind people that despite the consistent bashing he gets on here, the greater Canadian electorate seems satisfied with what trudeau is doing.


----------



## Journeyman (9 Mar 2016)

> ....the greater Canadian electorate seems satisfied *disinterested* with what trudeau Trudeau is doing.


----------



## Altair (9 Mar 2016)

If they were disinterested I would imagine they would just say I don't know/don't care.


----------



## Journeyman (9 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> .... I would imagine ....


It's been ages since I was sufficiently naïve to put that much stock in polling data.....

Regardless, I'm going to return this to it's usual...   :deadhorse:

Enjoy.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> And to remind people that despite the consistent bashing he gets on here, the greater Canadian electorate seems satisfied with what trudeau is doing.



 [

You obviously frequent different FaceBook pages than I do.


----------



## Altair (9 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> [
> 
> You obviously frequent different FaceBook pages than I do.


I don't. 

Very vocal CPC members being very angry that Trudeau continues to draw breath. Again, very out of touch with what the pollsters seem to be getting.

Vocal minority deluding themselves into thinking they are the majority.


----------



## Kilo_302 (9 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I don't.
> 
> Very vocal CPC members being very angry that Trudeau continues to draw breath. Again, very out of touch with what the pollsters seem to be getting.
> 
> Vocal minority deluding themselves into thinking they are the majority.



Agreed. He's more in line with most Canadians than Harper ever was. However, I disagree with his neo-liberal approach and would have preferred to see the NDP mount a campaign more in the style of Bernie Sanders. 

The simple fact is, most Canadians agree that with science that climate change is an issue, they believe in equality (whatever that means under a neo-liberal government like Trudeau's), they like universal healthcare, and they're quite embarrassed over the Harper years. Just over 60% of Canadian voted for a "progressive party" in 2015.

Bringing it back to the US, Trudeau is I believe, more progressive than Hillary Clinton, but not by much. I agree with Thuc that if Canada continues down a similar path as the US (and this is where we disagree), that is, more privatization, less social spending, more corporate cronyism, the backlash could be severe. 

Unfortunately, the backlash will just as misdirected as it is in the US on the right end of the spectrum. Progressivism isn't the problem, neo-liberalism is. That is, an emphasis on "free" market solutions.  What we need is TRUE progressivism, ala Bernie Sanders. A real critique of structural problems.


----------



## Altair (9 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Agreed. He's more in line with most Canadians than Harper ever was. However, I disagree with his neo-liberal approach and would have preferred to see the NDP mount a campaign more in the style of Bernie Sanders.
> 
> The simple fact is, most Canadians agree that with science that climate change is an issue, they believe in equality (whatever that means under a neo-liberal government like Trudeau's), they like universal healthcare, and they're quite embarrassed over the Harper years. Just over 60% of Canadian voted for a "progressive party" in 2015.
> 
> ...


Is this ignoring that fact that income disparity in Canada is far less than in the usa, money in politics is mostly under control and that, at least from my point of view, there hasn't been a increase in privatization?


----------



## a_majoor (9 Mar 2016)

People are not reacting yet because there hasn't been much to react to. Until the budget comes down and the full extent of carbon taxing and other costly virtue signalling becomes apparent to the Canadian taxpayer, then people's tunes will change.

Of course the economic uncertainty that the failure of the Victoria meeting to set some sort of standard tax regime is one of Frédéric Bastiat's "things unseen", it is difficult to quantify investments that never happen as business reacts to an economically uncertain environment. The negative effects of removing wealth generation and savings tools like the $10,000 limit for TFSA's also will take time to become apparent, since people will not be getting as much money to save and invest, their compound interest returns will be lower since the effects of compound interest become most apparent at the end of the period of compounding, rather than the beginning.

Costly and generally useless "infrastructure" spending will keep voters in Liberal ridings happy as they do busy make work projects and people get hockey arenas, performing arts centres and bike paths at the expense of Canadian taxpayers and "real" infrastructure like pipelines, sewers, roads and power lines, so the localized short term gain will mask the long term overall decline.

Really all we are seeing is the 2008-present economic regime in the United States transferred here in slower motion. You can ask many Americans how they feel about that, or if you don't know any, look at the numbers of fed up voters supporting Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.


----------



## Kilo_302 (10 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Is this ignoring that fact that income disparity in Canada is far less than in the usa, money in politics is mostly under control and that, at least from my point of view, there hasn't been a increase in privatization?



It isn't, my point is that we have avoided a problem like Trump thus far precisely for the reasons you've listed, though I would say that privatization has been on the rise for some time. We've had several major waves of de-nationalization.

On another front, more evidence that Hillary represents the status quo on the foreign policy side of things as well. Last night's Democratic Debate in Miami would have been a good opportunity for Sanders to attack her on her role in the Honduras coup. 

Ironically, many Americans who are against immigration from Latin America are some of the most interventionist. Why do they think so many people from Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras etc etc want to flee their countries and enter the US? Might it have something to do with the intentional destabilization of their governments by US backed right-wing groups?

https://theintercept.com/2015/07/06/clinton-honduras-coup/

Excellent doc on the subject, "Harvest of Empire."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6AQ2mOaG7Q


----------



## CougarKing (10 Mar 2016)

Trump as a possible threat to the TPP agreement Canada recently became a signatory of?

Canadian Press



> *Trump's positions on trade, alliances could roil Asia ties*
> 
> Matthew Pennington, The Associated Press
> The Canadian Press
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 Mar 2016)

This should get out the vote..... >

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/228763/



> YEAH, “IT’S MY TURN, DAMMIT!” AND “LOOK, I HAVE A VAGINA!” AREN’T GREAT ONES: Clinton’s shaky campaign has the math, but lacks the message.
> 
> Related: Four reasons Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic debate.“During their two-hour debate in Miami last night, Hillary Clinton attacked Bernie Sanders for siding with both the Castro brothers and the Koch brothers.”



You really can believe in six impossible things before breakfast!


----------



## Kilo_302 (10 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This should get out the vote..... >
> 
> http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/228763/
> 
> You really can believe in six impossible things before breakfast!



The attack on Sanders for his "support" for Castro was despicable. Sanders was part of a wider liberal movement in the 80s and 90s that was against further US intervention in Latin America, because you know, death squads.

[urlhttps://theintercept.com/2016/03/10/hillary-clinton-stalwart-friend-of-worlds-worst-despots-attacks-sanders-latin-american-activism/][/url]

I am excited to see her lose the nomination.


----------



## CougarKing (11 Mar 2016)

Trump's latest "fans" in the Middle East...

Canadian Press



> *Dubai official warns of 'clash of civilizations' over Trump
> *
> Jon Gambrell, The Associated Press
> The Canadian Press
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Trump's latest "fans" in the Middle East...
> 
> Canadian Press



There already is a clash of civilizations going on. Especially over there. Slow news day.

Perhaps they are worried that if President Trump draws a line in the sand, it won't move all over the map like Obama's.

And I think it's hilarious that a bunch of Arabs are trying to tell the US how to run their country. Something about tending your own backyard before complaining the neighbours are planting the wrong flowers.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (11 Mar 2016)

I was going to use the "people living in glass houses ..." analogy, but it doesn't apply here: It's a dictatorship (Dubai) trying to tell a democracy who to vote in".


----------



## CougarKing (11 Mar 2016)

It seems Chris Christie has competition to becoming Trump's VP:

CNN



> *Ben Carson endorses Donald Trump*
> 
> By MJ Lee and Eugene Scott, CNN
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (11 Mar 2016)

Trump was forced to postpone a rally event in Chicago tonight because of a large number of protesters and supporters congregated at the venue, tensions were running high, and there was some conflict between the two groups.

*Trump cancels Chicago rally over security concerns*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/03/11/trump-cancels-chicago-rally-over-security-concerns/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_pp-trumprally-842pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory



> CHICAGO -- Donald Trump postponed his Friday night rally in Chicago because of "growing safety concerns" created by thousands of protesters inside and outside of the University of Illinois arena hosting the event.
> 
> The Republican front-runner's rallies have become increasingly violent in the past two weeks, and Trump's remarks are often interrupted by protesters denouncing his controversial stances, especially those on immigration and the treatment of Muslims. But Trump has never had to cancel a rally because of the threat of protesters.
> 
> ...



Reports are coming out that both university police and Chicago PD are denying that they advised postponing the event.


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Mar 2016)

Another nail driven into democracy's coffin.


----------



## cupper (11 Mar 2016)

*WANT TO KNOW WHO WILL WIN THE PRESIDENCY? ASK THE POPE*

http://www.ozy.com/2016/want-to-know-who-will-win-the-presidency-ask-the-pope/67313?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=US



> WHY YOU SHOULD CARE? Because this demographic has predicted the presidency for four straight decades.
> 
> The beef between the Don and the pontiff — Pope Francis suggesting that it’s not very Christian to build a wall, Donald J. Trump responding that ISIS will attack the Vatican if he’s not in the Oval Office — has quelled, for now. But if Trump is serious about becoming President Trump, it may behoove him to show a bit more reverence to the man in white. After all …
> 
> ...


----------



## muskrat89 (11 Mar 2016)

So as someone who has lived in the US for almost 25 years, is right of center, but doesn't vote (still a Canadian citizen) - here are some observations in no particular order:

* I think Trump's popularity is the flip side of the exact same coin that got President Obama elected twice
*I'm not a Trump supporter but seeing the Republican establishment trying to subvert the process in place simply reinforces the notion that "The left wing and the right wing are on the same bird"
*I wish the GOP had fought against Obama as heartily as they are fighting against Trump
*Depending on the mood I am in, the vehement reaction of some Canadians to Trump (speaking mostly of friends and relatives on Facebook) is either amusing or irritating. At the end of the day, what difference does it make to them? Other than killing a pipeline, how much did President Obama's actions (or inactions) affect Canadians? 
*Again, speaking of Canadian friends and relatives on Social Media, when did Canadians become so smug and condescending? Growing up, all I heard is that's the way Americans act
*There are days I honestly don't think we will see another Republican President for decades...

Some food for thought:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/12/12/the-four-basic-reasons-that-explain-why-donald-trump-actually-is-so-popular/

http://triblive.com/opinion/salena/8759861-74/americans-government-president#axzz3j6t3VNBO

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/presidential-campaign/251463-why-is-trump-so-popular

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/08/donald-trump-voters/401408/


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Mar 2016)

:goodpost:

Particularly the social media points.


----------



## cupper (12 Mar 2016)

There are no words for this. :boke:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Mar 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> There are no words for this. :boke:



anic:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Mar 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> There are no words for this. :boke:



Amazing just how bad cloning experiments can turn out.  >


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Mar 2016)

Thanks, M89, for sharing "Canadian in U.S." insights.  One point, though ...


			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> *Depending on the mood I am in, the vehement reaction of some Canadians to Trump (speaking mostly of friends and relatives on Facebook) is either amusing or irritating. At the end of the day, what difference does it make to them? Other than killing a pipeline, how much did President Obama's actions (or inactions) affect Canadians?


Here's one from parts of the country where people earn a living from cutting down trees to be sawed into 2x4s for houses:  Canada–United States softwood lumber dispute.  On this one, it's been several presidents, not just Obama, that have caused jobs (up to 10,000 jobs) to disappear here - but not in Toronto, Montreal or Vancoiuver, admittedly, so I guess those jobs don't _really_ count.


----------



## Kilo_302 (13 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> There already is a clash of civilizations going on. Especially over there. Slow news day.
> 
> Perhaps they are worried that if President Trump draws a line in the sand, it won't move all over the map like Obama's.
> 
> And I think it's hilarious that a bunch of Arabs are trying to tell the US how to run their country. Something about tending your own backyard before complaining the neighbours are planting the wrong flowers.



If the West was to tend its own flowers we wouldn't have ISIS to deal with. Nor an Iran run by clerics, nor would Libya be in tatters, and Syria might not be the nightmare it is either.


----------



## Kilo_302 (13 Mar 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Another nail driven into democracy's coffin.



THIS is the nail in democracy's coffin? I would think Trump himself represents a "nail" more than widespread protests against the racist garbage he's encouraging. The sympathy for Trump on this forum is quite disturbing. Have you not seen the picture of a Trump supporter doing the Nazi salute (yeah yeah she says she was doing it ironically which is a load of horseshit), or the video of a young black woman being assaulted by numerous people while being called racist names? These are just two incidents in a growing list of out and out racial violence that are often incited by Trump himself. Or are you more comfortable with this than what the people who shut down the rally are calling for?

Here's an account of the protest. These people are heroes for standing up to neo-fascism and risking their physical well-being. 

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-chicago-protest-213728


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Mar 2016)

Crowing about shutting down your opponent's rally is the nail.

Yes, Trump's views, and those of many of his supporters leave much to be desired, but that's part of the process. Their voices should be heard so they can be countered with sound argument, or do you think that they should just be silenced though any means?

Sunlight is the best disinfectant.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> THIS is the nail in democracy's coffin? I would think Trump himself represents a "nail" more than widespread protests against the racist garbage he's encouraging. The sympathy for Trump on this forum is quite disturbing. Have you not seen the picture of a Trump supporter doing the Nazi salute (yeah yeah she says she was doing it ironically which is a load of horseshit), or the video of a young black woman being assaulted by numerous people while being called racist names? These are just two incidents in a growing list of out and out racial violence that are often incited by Trump himself. Or are you more comfortable with this than what the people who shut down the rally are calling for?
> 
> Here's an account of the protest. These people are heroes for standing up to neo-fascism and risking their physical well-being.
> 
> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/donald-trump-chicago-protest-213728



"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people _*peaceably*_ to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."



So you don't believe in the First Amendment.


----------



## cupper (13 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The sympathy for Trump on this forum is quite disturbing.



I'm not sure that you have been reading things here correctly. I don't believe that there has been much sympathy expressed for Trump here.

There has been a fair amount of discussion as to why he has defied all expectations, and what the ramifications of a Trump nomination or Trump presidency would bring, both for the country as a whole and the GOP in particular. But to take that as sympathy for Trump and his rhetoric would be a bad misread of what has been said.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Mar 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> I'm not sure that you have been reading things here correctly. I don't believe that there has been much sympathy expressed for Trump here.
> 
> There has been a fair amount of discussion as to why he has defied all expectations, and what the ramifications of a Trump nomination or Trump presidency would bring, both for the country as a whole and the GOP in particular. But to take that as sympathy for Trump and his rhetoric would be a bad misread of what has been said.



Stop subverting the discussion with facts!!! [


----------



## a_majoor (13 Mar 2016)

An intersting argument for not selecting a judge to replace Justice Antonin Scalia. The comment that the US is approaching a Jacksonian moment (both Trump and Saunders are essentially running Jacksonian campaigns with remarkable success) is also quite valid. 

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-10/look-beyond-judges-to-find-the-next-supreme-court-justice



> *The Supreme Court Needs an Outsider*
> 68 MAR 10, 2016 1:47 PM EST
> By Stephen L. Carter
> As President Barack Obama prepares to square off with Senate Republicans over his Supreme Court nominee, I offer a soft word of advice: Don’t pick a judge.
> ...


----------



## cupper (13 Mar 2016)

Interesting that you should bring up Jackson. It can prove to be a cautionary tale for the GOP in how they deal with a contested convention in July should it come to that.

*The First Time Party Bigwigs Tried to Stop a Front-Runner From Becoming President It Backfired—Big-time
What the GOP can learn from the story of Andrew Jackson in 1824.*

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/gop-2016-andrew-jackson-1824-213726



> America has never seen a presidential candidate like this before. Detractors point to his lack of political experience, his poor grasp of policy, his alleged autocratic leanings and his shady past. They believe this man without much of a political platform (but with interesting hair) has neither the qualifications nor the temperament to be president. Yet in defiance of conventional wisdom, he is leading his three main rivals in the race for the White House, and party bigwigs are at a loss how to respond. No, it’s not Donald Trump. His name is Andrew Jackson, and the year is 1824.
> 
> Andrew Jackson was one of America’s first political outsiders. Born to impoverished immigrants in the backwoods of the South, he was tough, thin-skinned and fiercely confrontational—a brawling Jackson once took a musket ball in the chest before killing a rival in a duel. Resolute and strategically brilliant, Jackson rose through the ranks to become the greatest war hero of his generation. Known by his supporters as Old Hickory, Jackson stirred passions in the American people that his presidential rivals John Quincy Adams, William Crawford and Henry Clay could only dream of. Tens of thousands flocked to the charismatic outsider who positioned himself as a steadfast defender of the Republic. Jackson’s rallies dwarfed those of his rivals. Yet he had little political experience and plenty of baggage. Jackson was, his rivals believed, more of a celebrity than a serious candidate.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 Mar 2016)

Indeed.

While one Billionaire contests the Republican establishment, Instapundit remarks on how some other billionaires are also trying to affect the election:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/229038/



> *ROGER SIMON: Election 2016: Billionaires Battle For America’s Soul.*
> 
> Donald Trump isn’t the only billionaire in the eye of a seemingly treacherous Florida hurricane that threatens to destroy us all or at least change our world as we know it. Three others – one or more of them far richer than Trump – are singing “Bye, bye, Miss American Pie.” Only it’s not a Chevy they are taking to the levee. It’s a Tesla.
> 
> ...



One guess which is the candidate of their choice...


----------



## Kilo_302 (14 Mar 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Crowing about shutting down your opponent's rally is the nail.
> 
> Yes, Trump's views, and those of many of his supporters leave much to be desired, but that's part of the process. Their voices should be heard so they can be countered with sound argument, or do you think that they should just be silenced though any means?
> 
> Sunlight is the best disinfectant.




I disagree in the sense that historically, extremist right wing movements are able to take power because the establishment liberals don't know how to deal with them. Viewing Trump and his supporters as just another political group that can be defeated through traditional means is naive. I think protests like the one we saw in Chicago are a legitimate attempt to disrupt his campaign. 

As for freedom of speech, Trump is very intelligent. The US doesn't have hate speech laws like Canada or many other Western democracies, but even if it did, Trump has been very careful not to specifically encourage violence against one group. He HAS however incited violence against peaceful protesters at this rally, and the results often take a very racist and xenophobic form.

The rise of fascism in Germany was directly due to the mistaken belief that rationality and moderation would win the day. It didn't. Liberal democracy is a system that is inherently vulnerable to fascism, because  if the establishment has been co-opted by market forces (as it has in the US) it by definition cannot address the grievances of the masses, nor can it see a fascist threat for what it is. A clear example of this would be Krugman's latest hack job on Sanders, somehow equating his supporters with those of Trump. Similarly, this CBC piece http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trump-sanders-hitler-1.3485338seems to equate Sanders and Trump, even though it only mentions  "interfactional violence" as it's sole Sanders reference. But the main photo used in the article is clearly suggesting Sanders and Trump are the same thing. This knee-jerk defense of the system, even from an organization that doesn't have a horse in the US race exposes the media for what it is. It is incapable of intellectually making a distinction between Sanders supporters trying to stop a Trump rally, and the Trump supporters who are openly promoting racist violence. This failure of liberals to engage with the left is what has led to collapse of democracy in the past. 

We've seen two Trump supporters displaying the fascist salute openly in Chicago. He has the KKK behind him. Can we just hope this goes away? I think not. Protests have legitimate place in a democracy, and the protest in Chicago was just that. Again, leaving it to the traditional political process to to stop Trump is naive and ensures his eventual victory.


----------



## Altair (14 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I disagree in the sense that historically, extremist right wing movements are able to take power because the establishment liberals don't know how to deal with them. Viewing Trump and his supporters as just another political group that can be defeated through traditional means is naive. I think protests like the one we saw in Chicago are a legitimate attempt to disrupt his campaign.
> 
> As for freedom of speech, Trump is very intelligent. The US doesn't have hate speech laws like Canada or many other Western democracies, but even if it did, Trump has been very careful not to specifically encourage violence against one group. He HAS however incited violence against peaceful protesters at this rally, and the results often take a very racist and xenophobic form.
> 
> ...


As much as trump is a loudmouth buffoon,  he has a right to say what he's saying and his supporters have a right to hear what he has to offer.

Legitimate protest is also a right, but do it outside his rallies, and do it peacefully. Rushing the stage and disrupting his rallies is not the way to go about this. If anything, it only makes his followers all the more dedicated, now that they feel that they are under siege.


----------



## Journeyman (14 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I disagree in the sense that historically.....


Please do not use that word; you show no indication you're aware of its meaning.



> I think protests like the one we saw in Chicago are a legitimate attempt to disrupt his campaign.


If there was a left-wing candidate you supported, would the effort be equally legitimate?



> The rise of fascism in Germany was directly due to the mistaken belief that rationality and moderation would win the day.


A clear majority of Germans (about 15% voted _against_ Hitler in the 1934 referendum) turned to fascism.  They did so because: 

-  tenets of the Treaty of Versailles' 448 Articles that they deemed unduly punishing, coupled with the rise of a new generation believing that they should not bear the punishment of previous governments; 

-  a global economic depression that the National Socialists presented the best case for easing; 

-  the death of Hindenburg left a political gap, which no left or centre factions were able to fill to the satisfaction of the majority of German voters -- for you folks loving popularity polls, between 1928 and 1932, the centre-left Social Democrat Party's fortunes declined from 30% to 21%; during the same period the NSDAP went from 2.6% to almost 38% (Hitler took party leadership in Jan 1933).  

Simply, what you call "rationality and moderation" (because the left is _never_  irrational or immoderate) was not what the German people wanted.  Believing it was "directly due" to the left being sheep-like and not protesting enough is 'naïve' at best -- possibly 'disingenuous' -- but most likely 'ignoring historical facts because of dogmatic political beliefs'.



> Liberal democracy is a system that is inherently vulnerable to fascism....


Wow.  Google "campus political correctness" and get back to me on where fascist behaviour resides.  
Rhetorical; do not get back to me.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I think protests like the one we saw in Chicago are a legitimate attempt to disrupt his campaign.



Violent protests aimed at shutting down the rally are legitimate? I guess it's OK so long as they don't actually wear snazzy brown uniforms.


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Mar 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Violent protests aimed at shutting down the rally are legitimate? I guess it's OK so long as they don't actually wear snazzy brown uniforms.



And they're going after the right, eh Kilo?


----------



## cavalryman (14 Mar 2016)

Just more examples of the left projecting their own hypocrisy and eliminationist rhetoric/actions on their opponents.  Nothing new here.  It's a matter of free speech and free association only for me, not for thee.  When it comes to Trump/anti-Trump, the spiritual descendants of the Sturm Abteilung are the ones launching vitriol, disruption and violence at Trump, and they're much too stupid to realize that they're helping his ratings.   :facepalm:


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Mar 2016)

Who is Kilo_302? A political mastermind? A serving military member or Vet? A wise, experienced, mature citizen? Or just a dumb fuck?


----------



## Altair (14 Mar 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Who is Kilo_302? A political mastermind? A serving military member or Vet? A wise, experienced, mature citizen? Or just a dumb frig?


From what he/she has said, a civilian with deep appreciation and respect for the military and issues that effect it.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Mar 2016)

A big chunk of the problem, in my opinion, is related to the maxim identified by Ralph Klein as "getting in front of the parade and leading it."

It is also related to the instruction to commanders: "never give an order you don't expect to be obeyed".

Too many of the folks who have the ability to influence our lives have come to see themselves as commanders, and not leaders.  And too many of them have never learned of the risks of the grenade between the bed springs.  They believe that giving a command, (ie writing a law, implementing a regulation) will result in change.  They don't understand the bit that Ralph intuited. People.

People have their own mass, their own momentum.  They tend to continue to move in the direction they were moving.  It is possible to nudge them to a new course over time.  But if you become impatient, and try to reduce the time factor to zero, as when you write a law and expect an instantaneous response, you are likely to be disappointed, at very least.  You will create friction.  And if you become frustrated and try to impose yourself on that rolling mass you run the real risk of being steam-rollered.

That, I think, is where our bureaucratic elite finds itself just now.  

It has never learned leadership.  It has learned all about command authority.  It goes to school to learn how to work with other commanders, to write commands, to become commanders.  But it never actually puts itself in situations where it has to work with people that don't want to be commanded.  They are separated from those people by people who do want to be commanded and want to be commanders themselves.

Meanwhile the vast mass of people go rolling along with their lives, making their decisions in their own interests.  They ignore the wannabe commanders to the greatest extent possible.  Very few of them keep up to date with the endless stream of commands that end up in the law books and the regulations.  They accommodate the wannabes when they have to.  But they rarely, willingly want to change.

They can be convinced to change. They can be encouraged to change. But they will resent imposed change.  Eventually they will react.

And I think that is where we find ourselves today.  For a number of years, probably decades, people have been confronted by commanders imposing change.  Originally small changes would have been willingly accommodated.  Then, as the changes pile up and friction and resentment increase some portion of the population, arguably an increasing portion, just drops out and tries to ignore the changes and the commanders.  I believe this is reflected in reduced voter turnouts.  These people that are ignoring the situation are not the violently inclined.  They are the solid/mushy middle.

Meanwhile the floor is left to the partisan wannabe commanders.  And their squabbles become less intelligible, less meaningful, to the mushy middle.  But they can't ignore them.  Because as we swap one set of wannabes for another they end up giving orders that are immediately contradicted by the next guy.  Planning becomes impossible.  Ignoring the fights of the wannabes becomes impossible.

And at that point, all it takes is for somebody to stand up and say: "A pox on both your houses!" or, in the words of another reformer "You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately ... Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"


----------



## Kilo_302 (14 Mar 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Just more examples of the left projecting their own hypocrisy and eliminationist rhetoric/actions on their opponents.  Nothing new here.  It's a matter of free speech and free association only for me, not for thee.  When it comes to Trump/anti-Trump, the spiritual descendants of the Sturm Abteilung are the ones launching vitriol, disruption and violence at Trump, and they're much too stupid to realize that they're helping his ratings.   :facepalm:



This is exactly the reverse of the situation. I'm finding it hard to believe your're comparing a broad-based coalition of people who are speaking up against racism and xenophobia to a Nazi paramilitary organization. The ones who are vitriolic disruptive and violent are the people at Trump rallies, or did you not see all the Nazi salutes of recent days? This is utterly ridiculous. Trump is a neo-fascist who has called Mexicans "rapists" and whose supporters routinely shout "person" at protesters at his rallies. Yes, I 100% support protests that aim to shut his rallies down. He is a threat to American democracy, and at some point soon, people are going to be killed because everyone is too afraid to call his supporters out for what they are.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Who is Kilo_302? A political mastermind? A serving military member or Vet? A wise, experienced, mature citizen? Or just a dumb frig?



Moderators? I've been officially warned for much less than this idiotic post. This is the definition of "ad hominem."


----------



## a_majoor (14 Mar 2016)

An interesting twofer today. First off, a summary by Instapundit on where the Trump/Sanders phenomina comes from. Chris Pook has also made largely the same point; people have no desire to be led, nudged, manipulated , foldes, spindled or mutilated, and this election is a big "F_U" to the powers that be. The US isn't the only place, and indeed this has been unfolding in Europe for much longer (the growth of Nativist parties like the National Front or AfD as prime examples). The second part is five potential game changers which could totally overturn whatever narratives are in play today. This is the infamous formulation of Harold Macmillan to "what was the most difficult thing about his job." "Events, dear boy, events." Watch for these "events" to suddenly emerge:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/229044



> *FAILURE OF LEADERSHIP: The US elite abandoned the American dream – Trump is the terrifying result.*
> 
> There was a time when Americans were taught with considerable rigour about how their government worked, and the sacred principles of their Constitution. It started with a primary school mantra: the government has three branches – the legislature makes the law, the executive enforces the law and the judiciary interprets the law. By the end of high school, it was proper civics, which involved full-blown participation in a political project of your choice – registering voters, lobbying for a Bill, working on a candidate’s campaign.
> 
> ...



and

http://observer.com/2016/03/the-problematic-five-events-with-the-power-to-reshape-the-2016-election/



> *The Problematic Five: Events With the Power to Reshape the 2016 Election*
> Hard evidence verifying the potency of these events takes a search engine and ten minutes to find
> By Austin Bay • 03/11/16 9:00am
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> This is exactly the reverse of the situation. I'm finding it hard to believe your're comparing a broad-based coalition of people who are speaking up against racism and xenophobia to a Nazi paramilitary organization. The ones who are vitriolic disruptive and violent are the people at Trump rallies, or did you not see all the Nazi salutes of recent days? This is utterly ridiculous. Trump is a neo-fascist who has called Mexicans "rapists" and whose supporters routinely shout "person" at protesters at his rallies. Yes, I 100% support protests that aim to shut his rallies down. He is a threat to American democracy, and at some point soon, people are going to be killed because everyone is too afraid to call his supporters out for what they are.
> 
> Moderators? I've been officially warned for much less than this idiotic post. This is the definition of "ad hominem."




Thanks for finally wrapping your stance up into a neat tiny package. You, obviously from your own posts, disagree with the First Amendment. You appear to believe anarchist solutions are the de rigueur. Mass ad hominem and physical attacks on a group of people, based on the acts of a few individuals are ok, but you, yourself, believe you should be immune to the same (good for the goose). You endlessly pull out the race card, even after being warned about it. Xenophobic, ditto. Finally, and only because I'm getting tired of this, you yank out the ultimate, Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies. Desperation, fluid (non)facts, broad generalizations, etc. in support of your ideological opinion. Refusing to answer a factual challenge, when backed into a corner (G2G's nurse question), hoping the discussion will shift so you need not admit you might be wrong. Yeah, we get where you're coming from.

I suspect, given that you placed all your warning triggers into a single paragraph, that you expect I (we) will ban you. You can then emerge as the martyr, "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" style and tell all your buds how you were banned by racist, xenophobic, jack booted military guys for simply stating your Utopian view of the world.

Not going to happen this time. 

Your last complaint? Go look into a mirror.


----------



## cavalryman (14 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> This is exactly the reverse of the situation. I'm finding it hard to believe your're comparing a broad-based coalition of people who are speaking up against racism and xenophobia to a Nazi paramilitary organization. The ones who are vitriolic disruptive and violent are the people at Trump rallies, or did you not see all the Nazi salutes of recent days? This is utterly ridiculous. Trump is a neo-fascist who has called Mexicans "rapists" and whose supporters routinely shout "person" at protesters at his rallies. Yes, I 100% support protests that aim to shut his rallies down. He is a threat to American democracy, and at some point soon, people are going to be killed because everyone is too afraid to call his supporters out for what they are.



Thanks for proving my point about projection.  You just outed yourself as totalitarian, no different from any other flavour of totalitarian.  Folks who think like you _are_ the real threat to democracy, which cannot survive if differing opinions are shut down by whoever yells the loudest or punches the hardest.


----------



## Altair (14 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> This is exactly the reverse of the situation. I'm finding it hard to believe your're comparing a broad-based coalition of people who are speaking up against racism and xenophobia to a Nazi paramilitary organization. The ones who are vitriolic disruptive and violent are the people at Trump rallies, or did you not see all the Nazi salutes of recent days? This is utterly ridiculous. Trump is a neo-fascist who has called Mexicans "rapists" and whose supporters routinely shout "person" at protesters at his rallies. Yes, I 100% support protests that aim to shut his rallies down. He is a threat to American democracy, and at some point soon, people are going to be killed because everyone is too afraid to call his supporters out for what they are.
> 
> Moderators? I've been officially warned for much less than this idiotic post. This is the definition of "ad hominem."


Nobody is denying them a right to speak up. But at the same time, these protesters are going out of their way to disrupt trump rallies.  Why not go down the street? Why not do it downtown? Why go into a place with 25000 trump supports and disrupt things for people who want to hear what the man has to say? 

I have not seen any trump supporters (yet) go to another rally and start stupid shit.  I have seen people go to trump rallies. The first amendment exists for a reason, of course, until these protesters hear something they don't like, then it doesn't matter anymore.


----------



## Kilo_302 (14 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Thanks for finally wrapping your stance up into a neat tiny package. You, obviously from your own posts, disagree with the First Amendment. You appear to believe anarchist solutions are the de rigueur. Mass ad hominem and physical attacks on a group of people, based on the acts of a few individuals are ok, but you, yourself, believe you should be immune to the same (good for the goose). You endlessly pull out the race card, even after being warned about it. Xenophobic, ditto. Finally, and only because I'm getting tired of this, you yank out the ultimate, Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies. Desperation, fluid (non)facts, broad generalizations, etc. in support of your ideological opinion. Refusing to answer a factual challenge, when backed into a corner (G2G's nurse question), hoping the discussion will shift so you need not admit you might be wrong. Yeah, we get where you're coming from.
> 
> I suspect, given that you placed all your warning triggers into a single paragraph, that you expect I (we) will ban you. You can then emerge as the martyr, "Hands Up, Don't Shoot" style and tell all your buds how you were banned by racist, xenophobic, jack booted military guys for simply stating your Utopian view of the world.
> 
> ...



How can it be called "pulling the race card" when Trump has built an entire campaign on racism? 

http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/10/6-times-people-got-attacked-at-trump-rallies/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/get-him-out-racial-tensions-explode-at-donald-trumps-rallies/2016/03/11/b9764884-e6ee-11e5-bc08-3e03a5b41910_story.html

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-not-long-killed-trump-rally-article-1.2549868

http://www.politico.eu/article/15-most-offensive-things-trump-campaign-feminism-migration-racism/

 And again with Godwin's Law. Trump's own supporters are doing the Nazi salute at rallies, on Sunday someone was recorded telling protesters, "Go to Auschwitz!"  The fact that you are somehow offended that I dare to mention the racist and xenophobic side of Trump and his supporters suggests that you're either unaware of these incidents, or you tacitly support them.


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Mar 2016)

Quote from: Rifleman62 on Today at 11:05:38
Who is Kilo_302? A political mastermind? A serving military member or Vet? A wise, experienced, mature citizen? Or just a dumb frig?

K2: 





> Moderators? I've been officially warned for much less than this idiotic post. This is the definition of "ad hominem."



K2, I was not attacking you. I just want to know where you are coming from. You do not have to fill out your profile, you can "stretch" your profile, but you should have the courage of your convictions to fill some of it out. Anonymous posts in any blog to me are hiding behind apron strings. My opinion. 

Anyway, K2 is a good abbreviation of your username.

K2 and Altair are entitled to their opinions, but God it is continuous, repetitious and boring. 

P.S. While writing this I received a phone call advising that I had won an all inclusive five day trip to Disneyland in Florida. Altair and K2 can have this wonderful trip and you two can hook up and share your thoughts. Let me know.


----------



## Altair (14 Mar 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Quote from: Rifleman62 on Today at 11:05:38
> Who is Kilo_302? A political mastermind? A serving military member or Vet? A wise, experienced, mature citizen? Or just a dumb frig?
> 
> K2:
> ...


Don't like the commie, thanks though. You and kilo go and let me know who makes it back in a box.


----------



## Kilo_302 (14 Mar 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Don't like the commie, thanks though. You and kilo go and let me know who makes it back in a box.



Commie alert! I'm coming for everyone and their young! :

I wouldn't be caught dead in the altar to consumerism that is Disneyland, and I only wait in lines if there is refrigerator at other end.


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Mar 2016)

Full of free food that the rich paid for.


----------



## Kilo_302 (14 Mar 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Full of free food that the rich paid for.



No, provided by glorious State.


----------



## FJAG (14 Mar 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> P.S. While writing this I received a phone call advising that I had won an all inclusive five day trip to Disneyland in Florida. Altair and K2 can have this wonderful trip and you two can hook up and share your thoughts. Let me know.



Disneyland's in California. Down here it's Disney World. Better check your tickets before you get on the plane.  If it's actually Disney World let me know when so that I can avoid the place for those days ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Mar 2016)

Spam phone call/award. Probably was Disney World. As it was spam, the offer to the other two for their use was appropriate.


----------



## cupper (14 Mar 2016)

Interesting take by Joe Scarborough on how Trump may be playing the media by creating a false crisis every time he needs to shift focus away from his opponents, and keep himself front and center in the news cycle.

*Donald Trump’s Chicago scam*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/13/donald-trumps-chicago-scam/



> We keep talking to ourselves. Constantly. Trying to make order out of chaos and sense out of the surreal. And this year, most doing the talking have gotten it wrong. Wrong about Trump. Wrong about Rubio. Wrong about Sanders. And now wrong about the road ahead.
> 
> What are we talking to ourselves about now on the Sunday shows, on cable news, in newspaper columns, in the blogosphere, on Twitter, Snapchat and Facebook? We are grimly warning the world that following Friday night’s fracas in Chicago, America faces a deepening divide that is tearing away at the fabric of this great land.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (14 Mar 2016)

Just looking back through the 20th century and early 2000's, the GOP has had a history of issues between various wings of the party that have ultimately played itself out through the primaries.

*A Century Of GOP Intra-Party Wars Sets Stage For Cleveland Convention*

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/13/469862119/a-century-of-gop-intra-party-wars-sets-stage-for-cleveland-convention?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160313



> This year's campaign is headed toward an epic clash of Republicanism at the Cleveland convention this summer. But it's not the first time the party has been rocked by turbulence ahead of its convention. Again and again since 1912, splits between establishment GOP figures and the party's most ardent conservatives have hobbled the party's performance in November.
> 
> Here's a look at the drama that has come before:
> 
> ...


----------



## cavalryman (14 Mar 2016)

http://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2016/03/14/random-thoughts-on-the-current-chaos-n2132949/page/full

Here's the money shot

"Trump: A lot of my pals are #NeverTrump. Their arguments are sound, and don’t look to me to argue that they should vote for a Dem-donating, vulgar liar with Consistency Deficit Disorder other than to say I will if he’s the nominee because he’s better than the evil Democrats. But this Nazi-slur crap has to stop. If you really think a substantial portion of the conservative-leaning segment of the American people are active fascists, then you may as well give up now. And I refuse to get the sads when a dude in a John Deere cap who probably got shot at in Fallujah smacks some commie creep who crashes a Trump rally to set fire to Old Glory.

 Let’s be clear, conservatives: During this race, Trump fans are our opponents. But always and forever, the leftist scumbags of Occupy, BLM, MoveOn and their leaders like Bill Ayers, are our enemies, and if it’s a choice between the two I’ll side with the team that at least doesn’t hate America every single time. No equivocation. No hesitation. No regrets.

This nonsense in Chicago was a preview; to the extent Rubio and Cruz hinted that somehow Trump himself was even partially responsible for an organized mass of leftist thugs shutting down his speech they were at a minimum wrong and possibly strategically confused in thinking they can ride the progressive tiger for a bit until it eats Trump. If the left wants to make it a rumble, then we need to say “Let’s go,” not “Use your words.” Never take sides against the Family with the anti-American left, Fredo. Never."


----------



## a_majoor (14 Mar 2016)

Bernie Sanders supporters have openly taken "credit" for disrupting the Trump rally, yet the narrative carefully avoids this fact. (Incidentally, under US law, disrupting free speech rights like that is a civil rights violation).

https://www.veooz.com/news/7KZAuwp.html



> How Bernie Sanders Supporters Shut Down Donald Trump's Rally in Chicago
> NBC News  · 2 days ago
> 
> "Everyone, get your tickets to this. We're all going in!!!! #SHUTITDOWN," he posted on Facebook last week. By the night of the Trump rally, more than 11,600 people had RSVP'd on the page saying they would attend the event. The plan was to wait until Trump took the stage, then wait for the applause to die down and have all the protesters erupt at once.



Maybe we should start calling Sanders supporter's "Bernshirts". It has a certain ring to it.


----------



## cupper (15 Mar 2016)

It appears that we finally have proof to back up the old adage "How can you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving." Trump appears to do it once every 5 minutes.

*Trump’s Week of Errors, Exaggerations and Flat-out Falsehoods
POLITICO Magazine subjected the GOP front-runner to our fact-checking process. This is the result.*

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/03/trump-fact-check-errors-exaggerations-falsehoods-213730



> Donald Trump says he is a truthful man. “Maybe truthful to a fault,” he boasted last week at a North Carolina rally where one of his supporters sucker punched a protester.
> 
> But truthful he is not.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Mar 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> It appears that we finally have proof to back up the old adage "How can you tell when a politician is lying? His lips are moving." Trump appears to do it once every 5 minutes.
> 
> *Trump’s Week of Errors, Exaggerations and Flat-out Falsehoods
> POLITICO Magazine subjected the GOP front-runner to our fact-checking process. This is the result.*
> ...



It's too bad someone doesn't fact check Clinton the same way.


----------



## Kilo_302 (15 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It's too bad someone doesn't fact check Clinton the same way.



We agree for once. But there are SOME media outlets who  who do a good job of it. TruthDig, Salon, Slate (sometimes) and a few others go after her more effectively than FOX or their equivalents on the Right, mainly because they don't focus on Benghazi and instead go after her for the money she receives from big banks, the overall mess she created in Libya, and her support for welfare cuts and the repeal of Glass-Steagall.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> We agree for once.  But there are SOME media outlets who  who do a good job of it. TruthDig, Salon, Slate (sometimes) and a few others go after her more effectively than FOX or their equivalents on the Right, mainly because they don't focus on Benghazi and instead go after her for the money she receives from big banks, the overall mess she created in Libya, and her support for welfare cuts and the repeal of Glass-Steagall.



OMG!!! anic: Should I delete my post?  [


----------



## cupper (15 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> OMG!!! anic: Should I delete my post?  [



Only of you need to maintain a security clearance.  ;D


----------



## Rocky Mountains (15 Mar 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Altair and K2 can have this wonderful trip and you two can hook up and share your thoughts. Let me know.



You mean they are not the same person??  Really?


----------



## Altair (15 Mar 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> You mean they are not the same person??  Really?


 :facepalm:


----------



## a_majoor (15 Mar 2016)

An interesting poll on how the US service members are looking to vote. The link leads to a series of graphs which break things down further by service:

http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/election/2016/03/14/military-times-election-survey-donald-trump-bernie-sanders/81767560/



> *Military Times survey: Troops back Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders for president*
> Leo Shane III and George R. Altman, Military Times 7:33 p.m. EDT March 14, 2016
> 
> In an exclusive survey of American military personnel, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders emerged as active-duty service members' top choices to become the next commander in chief.
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (15 Mar 2016)

Interesting piece by Glenn Greenwald on the role "faux objectivity" in media has played in the rise of Trump:


[urlhttps://theintercept.com/2016/03/14/the-rise-of-trump-shows-the-danger-and-sham-of-compelled-journalistic-neutrality/?comments=1#comments][/url]



> As Donald Trump’s campaign predictably moves from toxic rhetoric targeting the most marginalized minorities to threats and use of violence, there is a growing sense that American institutions have been too lax about resisting it. Political scientist Brendan Nyhan on Sunday posted a widely cited Twitter essay voicing this concern, arguing that “Trump’s rise represents a failure in American parties, media, and civic institutions — and they’re continuing to fail right now.” He added, “Someone could capture a major party [nomination] who endorses violence [and] few seem alarmed.”
> 
> Actually, many people are alarmed, but it is difficult to know that by observing media coverage, where little journalistic alarm over Trump is expressed. That’s because the rules of large media outlets — venerating faux objectivity over truth along with every other civic value — prohibit the sounding of any alarms. Under this framework of corporate journalism, to denounce Trump, or even to sound alarms about the dark forces he’s exploiting and unleashing, would not constitute journalism. To the contrary, such behavior is regarded as a violation of journalism. Such denunciations are scorned as opinion, activism, and bias: all the values that large media-owning corporations have posited as the antithesis of journalism in order to defang and neuter it as an adversarial force.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (15 Mar 2016)

Rubio has finally seen the writing on the wall, and defies the pundits wisdom and suspends his campaign after getting his butt handed to him yet again, and in his home state no less.

*Marco Rubio Ends His Presidential Campaign*

http://www.npr.org/2016/03/15/470438649/marco-rubio-ends-his-presidential-campaign?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160315



> Florida Sen. Marco Rubio announced Tuesday night that he was suspending his campaign for president after losing his home state in a landslide to Donald Trump.
> 
> "After tonight it is clear that while we are on the right side, we will not be on the winning side," Rubio told supporters in Miami.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (15 Mar 2016)

Returns so far show Trump with a landslide in Florida, Kasich takes Ohio, and Trump leads everywhere else. 

Clinton leads or takes all of the Dem states, so Saunders has some decisions to make.

This about sums it up:  (warning NSFW)

https://youtu.be/QKuKeeKMi_I


----------



## cupper (15 Mar 2016)

I know that his campaign was crappy, but this is a little much.

*Hazmat Crew Dispatched to Marco Rubio's DC Office*

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Hazmat-Crew-Dispatched-to-Marco-Rubios-DC-Office-372159122.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DCBrand



> A hazardous materials crew was investigating at the presidential campaign headquarters of Sen. Marco Rubio Tuesday evening after a staffer opened an envelope with white powder inside, officials and a Rubio spokesman said.
> 
> The D.C. fire department was called Tuesday afternoon to Rubio's campaign office on the 200 block of E Street SW, near the Federal Center SW Metro station.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (15 Mar 2016)

More on cupper's update above...Rubio is out; Trump seems unstoppable.

Associated Press



> *Trump wins Florida, loses Ohio; Rubio drops out*
> 
> The Associated Press
> The Canadian Press
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (16 Mar 2016)

And people wonder _why_ candidates who are running against the establishment are doing so well:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/229277



> BRENDAN O’NEILL ON FACEBOOK: “Unless you think Trump is an insanely powerful political maestro who in the space of six months has utterly altered the character of America, then you have to conclude that the current ugliness and division everyone is complaining about has been brewing over the past eight years of Obamaism and ‘politics of hope’. For liberals now to throw their hands in the air over the state of America, when they’ve been running America for nearly a decade, strikes me as a bit rich. How the so-called politics of hope nurtured what we have today — that’s the question we should be asking.”



Indeed


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> And people wonder _why_ candidates who are running against the establishment are doing so well:
> 
> http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/229277
> 
> Indeed



This is selective BS. Yes, Obama's Hope and Change was also BS, but it was in that it continued the neo-liberal market priorities of Bush, and Clinton and then Bush before him. Sanders is more a reaction to the failure of Obama to pursue truly progressive change than Trump is. 

Trump on the other hand, is the natural progression of a party whose candidates have been in a competition to see who can be the most conservative for the last 20 years. Facts and reality? They don't matter. Just be obstructionist, stick to free-market gospel and give them a line about Jesus and you're fine with the Republican establishment. You can pass policies that hurt blue collar whites the most and no one will even notice as long you feed them the above platitudes and focus on the evil liberals as the source of everyone's problems. That is, until now.

Trump just took the overall tone that Republicans have had towards Obama and turned it up a notch, and then included the Republican establishment in his sights. The Republicans have been so bitterly partisan they have given themselves zero room to manoeuvre. They've been spent years ginning up racism, fear of immigration and a hatred of the Washington establishment (which they're a central part of) and now the chickens are coming home to roost. By necessity the Republican narrative about Trump's rise ignores their own role in it.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> By necessity the Republican narrative about Trump's rise ignores their own role in it.


Much like the narrative routinely trotted out (often without understanding or contemplation) by the adherents of Marx, Foucault, Rocker, Chomsky, _et al_  blithely ignoring the reality that someone has to pick up the check at the end of the meal?

It sure is easy to understand complex interactions if one sees only black & white (or 'oppressive system' vs 'woe is me' if you prefer).    :boring:


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Mar 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Much like the narrative routinely trotted out (often without understanding or contemplation) by the adherents of Marx, Foucault, Rocker, Chomsky, _et al_  blithely ignoring the reality that someone has to pick up the check at the end of the meal?
> 
> It sure is easy to understand complex interactions if one sees only black & white (or 'oppressive system' vs 'woe is me' if you prefer).    :boring:



First off, the intellectuals you have listed have very divergent views on a wide range of issues. Second, I don't understand how this is relevant to the rise of Trump.

 Are you blaming it on Marxist policies? Or policies that Chomsky as advocated? I assure you nothing that resembles their ideas is in practice in Washington.

What factors do YOU attribute to the Trump's success?


----------



## MARS (16 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> What factors do YOU attribute to the Trump's success?



Simply put, he is a much, much better salesman than the other mental midgets who are running - on both sides of the political spectrum.  He has a slicker sales pitch, he is far better at manipulating the media, and he is a better public speaker.  In an election campaign, THOSE are the things that matter, and in my opinion, the ONLY things that matter, not....hahahahahah... policy....hahahahahahaha.  Policy is a bore.  It is complicated and someone, somewhere will be negatively affected by it. Definitely not something to be discussed during an election campaign.  No, a campaign is the time to SELL YOU A NEW CAR!!  "YOU get a car, and YOU get a car, and YOU get a car" (to paraphrase Oprah Winfrey).  THAT is what successful campaigning is all about.  And the sheeple, both here and back in Canada, eat that shit up!  We are lazy.  Intellectually and productively so.  We want more things provided to us without the hardship of making tough choices about paying for it.  A campaign is like buying a new car without having to speak to finance guy before driving off the lot. Plenty of time for that later once you are locked into the payment plan for the next 4 years. He or she who best promises that wins.  And Mr. Trump is winning at that game right now.

I don't see it being any more complicated as that.  Why does anyone?


----------



## a_majoor (16 Mar 2016)

How true.

And how incredibly frustrating for the few of us who keep asking "How much? What are the terms? What will be owing at the end of the term?" (Remember "fully costed" from our own past election? How long did that last?)

No wonder Frédéric Bastiat is rapidly displacing F.A.Hayek as my favorite economist....(although I'm sure the next credit bubble will balance things out again).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Mar 2016)

I get a kick out of how everyone is concerned about Trump and his rhetoric. I know it, you know it and they know that if he wins there are enough checks and balances within the government machinations that he can't be the tyrant that his detractors fear.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Mar 2016)

Especially with the Republican party elite not fully supporting him. They'll work to block any craziness. I believe with a super majority in the Senate they can skip his veto power?


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I get a kick out of how everyone is concerned about Trump and his rhetoric. I know it, you know it and they know that if he wins there are enough checks and balances within the government machinations that he can't be the tyrant that his detractors fear.



Well if I were a Muslim, or of Latin American descent or even black for that matter (given the fact that the KKK backs him) I would be concerned. As a white male who understands not everyone else has it as easy as me, I AM concerned.

The Republicans have already been gerrymandering and passing voter fraud legislation in an overt attempt to prevent blacks from exercising their franchise for years. We don't have to go back to the 60s to see the racism that this party courts. 

Trump doesn't need to have all branches of the government on his side to make life harder for the minorities he has targeted with his rhetoric. It wasn't that long ago that lynchings were a regular occurrence in some states. If you're a black American, you have relatives who are still living that remember segregation, unabated police brutality, and the Jim Crowe Laws. So yes, seeing white supremacists and the KKK at Trump rallies is a concern for many people, not just minorities.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Well if I were a Muslim, or of Latin American descent or even black for that matter (given the fact that the KKK backs him) I would be concerned. As a white male who understands not everyone else has it as easy as me, I AM concerned.
> 
> The Republicans have already been gerrymandering and passing voter fraud legislation in an overt attempt to prevent blacks from exercising their franchise for years. We don't have to go back to the 60s to see the racism that this party courts.
> 
> Trump doesn't need to have all branches of the government on his side to make life harder for the minorities he has targeted with his rhetoric. It wasn't that long ago that lynchings were a regular occurrence in some states. If you're a black American, you have relatives who are still living that remember segregation, unabated police brutality, and the Jim Crowe Laws. So yes, seeing white supremacists and the KKK at Trump rallies is a concern for many people, not just minorities.




The KKK supports him. The *FACT* is that he does not control who endorses him. We've already been down this road, so don't start the 'He didn't denounce them fast enough' bullshit.

Voter fraud is huge in the States. Asking for ID to vote should never be a problem.

He also has much support from the blacks and latinos.


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The KKK supports him. The *FACT* is that he does not control who endorses him. We've already been down this road, so don't start the 'He didn't denounce them fast enough' bullshit.
> 
> Voter fraud is huge in the States. Asking for ID to vote should never be a problem.
> 
> He also has much support from the blacks and latinos.



Right but the fact that the KKK is comfortable supporting him, that many of his supporters have hurled racists insults at protesters of colour, AND that he refused a few times to disavow David Duke when he clearly knew who he was understandably makes people concerned.

Voter fraud is not a "huge" issue at all. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/08/06/a-comprehensive-investigation-of-voter-impersonation-finds-31-credible-incidents-out-of-one-billion-ballots-cast/



> To put this in perspective, the 31 incidents below come in the context of general, primary, special, and municipal elections from 2000 through 2014. In general and primary elections alone, more than 1 billion ballots were cast in that period.



As for support from Latinos and blacks:

This would seem to suggest that his supporters are 91% white.

http://www.arbiternews.com/2016/01/06/demographics-of-donald-trump-supporters/
\


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> So yes, seeing white supremacists and the KKK at Trump rallies is a concern for many people, not just minorities.



Maybe there are certain parties paying those numbskulls to be Trump fans with the intention of causing him grief.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Mar 2016)

I have to leave. I can't hold conversations with potatoes.


----------



## Kilo_302 (16 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I have to leave. I can't hold conversations with potatoes.




 :rocket: :whiteflag:


----------



## cavalryman (16 Mar 2016)

http://scontent-iad3-1.cdninstagram.com/t50.2886-16/12598332_463283900548817_197731434_n.mp4
Jesus wept  :facepalm:


----------



## George Wallace (16 Mar 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> http://scontent-iad3-1.cdninstagram.com/t50.2886-16/12598332_463283900548817_197731434_n.mp4
> Jesus wept  :facepalm:



LOL!


----------



## cupper (16 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> *Trump doesn't need to have all branches of the government on his side* to make life harder for the minorities he has targeted with his rhetoric.



You've been asleep for the past 12 years if you believe this statement is true. The last few years of Bush 43 and almost the entirety of Obama's presidency are examples of how limited a President's power really is when Congressional control lays in the hands of the opposite party.


----------



## cupper (16 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> What factors do YOU attribute to the Trump's success?



Trump is a beast of the GOP's making. There were plenty of times over the years to remove him from the party. Especially in the previous presidential cycle, with his birther BS. But it served them well as a tool in the campaign to make Obama a one term president.

Then in the aftermath of the fiasco of the long drawn out primary clown show, they decided to change the rules for how the primaries were run, creating winner take all states with large delegate numbers. Other changes helped as well. And Trump played the voters like a violin. and gained every advantage from the changes to the system.

The media has allowed him to manipulate their reporting to work in his favour, regardless of positive or negative coverage. As indicated in the post I made upthread, Trump was able to kept himself in the media spotlight after each debate right up to the next primary or caucus day, gaining lots of free publicity. And knowing that an attack only strengthened his support, bad publicity paid off better than good. Trump is a crap business man, as Mitt Romney expounded upon. But he knows how to sell, and he knows how to use media to his favour.

The more important question that you should be asking is why the GOP didn't learn from the last two presidential elections, and why couldn't the so-called establishment candidates gain any traction.

As I've said before, the GOP needs to have a Trump nomination in order to effect the changes that they truly need to move forward. Like the addict, they need to hit bottom before they can begin recovery.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Mar 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> http://scontent-iad3-1.cdninstagram.com/t50.2886-16/12598332_463283900548817_197731434_n.mp4
> Jesus wept  :facepalm:



That's friggin' hilarious!! :rofl: :cheers:


----------



## a_majoor (18 Mar 2016)

An ever growing "Vast right wing conspiracy?"

http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/



> *Hillary Has an NSA Problem*
> The FBI has been investigating Clinton for months—but an even more secretive Federal agency has its own important beef with her
> By John R. Schindler • 03/18/16 8:45am
> 
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (18 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> An ever growing "Vast right wing conspiracy?"
> 
> http://observer.com/2016/03/hillary-has-an-nsa-problem/



The Clinton email "scandal" is a distraction from real issues. I agree it should disqualify her from being a candidate for President, but we have to ask ourselves why the Republicans are focusing on this issue so much. Could it be that as far as foreign policy is concerned the Republicans and Hillary Clinton share a lot of the same ideas? She's a hawk, and willing to use force recklessly (see Libya) and so is much of the Republican establishment (see Iraq and the drums beating incessantly for Iran). This is an attempt to create daylight between Clinton and her Republican opposition where there really isn't any.

I will reiterate that this isn't a defense of Clinton, it's more a condemnation. The Democrats have a long history of trying to "outhawk" the Republicans in some sort of pissing match and Clinton is part of this.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (18 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Well if I were a Muslim, or of Latin American descent or even black for that matter (given the fact that the KKK backs him) I would be concerned. As a white male who understands not everyone else has it as easy as me, I AM concerned.
> 
> The Republicans have already been gerrymandering and passing voter fraud legislation in an overt attempt to prevent blacks from exercising their franchise for years. We don't have to go back to the 60s to see the racism that this party courts.
> 
> Trump doesn't need to have all branches of the government on his side to make life harder for the minorities he has targeted with his rhetoric. It wasn't that long ago that lynchings were a regular occurrence in some states. If you're a black American, you have relatives who are still living that remember segregation, unabated police brutality, and the Jim Crowe Laws. So yes, seeing white supremacists and the KKK at Trump rallies is a concern for many people, not just minorities.



You do realize that, until the early 1970s, the Democrats (not the Republicans)* in the US were the party of Jim Crow and Segregation, right?

I mean- you are clearly smarter (by orders of magnitude) than everyone else here. You couldn't possibly make that basic an error of fact. Unless- I wonder what else you have posted on that you are also factually incorrect about....  :

*full disclosure- I am Canadian. I could not give a crap who wins the 2016 US election.


----------



## Kilo_302 (18 Mar 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You do realize that, until the early 1970s, the Democrats (not the Republicans)* in the US were the party of Jim Crow and Segregation, right?
> 
> I mean- you are clearly smarter (by orders of magnitude) than everyone else here. You couldn't possibly make that basic an error of fact. Unless- I wonder what else you have posted on that you are also factually incorrect about....  :
> 
> *full disclosure- I am Canadian. I could not give a crap who wins the 2016 US election.



Actually both LBJ and Nixon were very strong on civil rights (LBJ's "civil society" was quite progressive for the times). It's in the last couple of decades (particularly due to the rise of the "moral majority" in the late 70s) that the Republicans have become very reactionary and very regressive when it comes to the progress achieved during the civil rights movement. This isn't isolated to race relations. A woman's right to have an abortion is under threat in nearly all the red states. 

Are you denying the Republican gerrymandering efforts to date and their "voter fraud" legislation is actually designed to disenfranchise voters who may lean towards the Democrats? This is all well documented.


----------



## CougarKing (18 Mar 2016)

Save for Ohio, Trump seems unstoppable.

Canadian Press



> *Conservatives plot Trump demise as he eyes Arizona win*
> 
> Steve Peoples And Nicholas Riccardi, The Associated Press
> The Canadian Press
> ...


----------



## Loachman (18 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> The Clinton email "scandal" is a distraction from real issues. I agree it should disqualify her from being a candidate for President, but we have to ask ourselves why the Republicans are focusing on this issue so much.



If an ordinary US citizen - or I - did what she is alleged to have done, he/she/I would be well into our jail sentences by now - but still nowhere near the end.

She believes herself to be above the law.

That should be a concern.


----------



## Kilo_302 (18 Mar 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> If an ordinary US citizen - or I - did what she is alleged to have done, he/she/I would be well into our jail sentences by now - but still nowhere near the end.
> 
> She believes herself to be above the law.
> 
> That should be a concern.



Again I agree. 

But the Republicans are focusing on this because it's really the only thing that separates them from Clinton when it comes to FP. Likewise, she's handicapped in attacking a party that mismanaged the Iraq War so badly because she herself voted for it. When it comes to FP, Clinton and the Republicans are largely equivalents. 
Now what's really worrying is Ted Cruz's insane theological slant to, well everything.

He's said nothing that would suggest he doesn't believe this too. He references god in just about every policy idea he has. How are Americans even considering this nutbar? Truly disturbing, and I think people like this can accurately be referred to as "American Taliban."

http://www.alternet.org/speakeasy/brucewilson/ted-cruzs-father-suggested-his-son-anointed-bring-about-end-time-transfer



> "The pastor [Huch] referred to Proverbs 13:22, a little while ago, which says that the wealth of the wicked is stored for the righteous. And it is through the kings, anointed to take dominion, that that transfer of wealth is going to occur." - Rafael Cruz, August 26, 2012
> In a sermon last year at an Irving, Texas, megachurch that helped elect Ted Cruz to the United States Senate, Cruz' father Rafael Cruz indicated that his son was among the evangelical Christians who are anointed as "kings" to take control of all sectors of society, an agenda commonly referred to as the "Seven Mountains" mandate, and "bring the spoils of war to the priests", thus helping to bring about a prophesied "great transfer of wealth", from the "wicked" to righteous gentile believers. link to video of Rafael Cruz describing the "great transfer of wealth" and the role of anointed "kings" in various sectors of society, including government, who are to "bring the spoils of war to the priests".
> 
> Rafael Cruz' dominionist sermon given August 26, 2012, at the New Beginnings Church of pastor Larry Huch, in Irving, Texas has already received considerable scrutiny due to an excellent Huffington Post commentary by Methodist Associate Pastor Morgan Guyton, who noted the explicitly dominionist nature of pastor Cruz' sermon, which concerned the divine mandate for believers, with anointing of "kings" in their respective spheres, to take control over all sectors of society.
> ...


----------



## cavalryman (18 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Again I agree.
> 
> But the Republicans are focusing on this because it's really the only thing that separates them from Clinton when it comes to FP. Likewise, she's handicapped in attacking a party that mismanaged the Iraq War so badly because she herself voted for it. When it comes to FP, Clinton and the Republicans are largely equivalents.
> Now what's really worrying is Ted Cruz's insane theological slant to, well everything.
> ...



Makes Donald Trump look good by comparsion, doesn't it?  [


----------



## Kilo_302 (18 Mar 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Makes Donald Trump look good by comparsion, doesn't it?  [



Actually I agree with that as well in some ways. There's definitely a case to made that Cruz is more dangerous. Trump seems to have no ideology, so there's a chance he becomes more moderate once he's the official candidate. But Cruz is driven by extreme ideology, much of which is tied to a very specific interpretation of Christianity.

 That's the thing about this election. If Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, it'll be her (the most cynically establishment politician of them all) against either a neo-fascist or a theocratic lunatic. If I were an American, I would vote for whoever, and then promptly go outside and throw up/put a shot gun in my mouth.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Mar 2016)

Hmmm, who do I know in the US Citizen and Immigration Department


----------



## blacktriangle (19 Mar 2016)

I'm personally excited to start wearing my "Trump 2016" shirt around downtown Ottawa.


----------



## CougarKing (19 Mar 2016)

GOP infighting?

Associated Press



> *Supporters, protesters clash outside Trump rally in Utah*
> [The Canadian Press]
> Michelle L. Price And Lindsay Whitehurst, The Associated Press
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (20 Mar 2016)

How about an honest look at what happened in Tucson recently......A person posting their review of how the events went down:

https://www.facebook.com/Tatumbug34/videos/988608861209475/


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Mar 2016)

I wasn't expecting to hear what the man was saying from the Trump side of the rally.  I have been misunderstanding what has been going on as it seems the MSM seem to have the same anti-Trump bias that they had with the anti-Harper bias during our election.  I thought the shit disturbers were on the Republican side.  

Excellent post George, thanks for the education.


----------



## cupper (20 Mar 2016)

It's actually both sides that can accept blame for what has been going on.

There has been a concerted effort that continues to increase in intensity by the anti-Trump forces, a significant percentage made up on non-Republicans.

At the same time, many of the more vocal and intense supporters on the fringe are openly confrontational to the point of hostility and violence.

And Trump knows that this keeps him in the forefront of the media cycle, and reinforces his support. And if you have any doubts about that, ask yourself why is Trump's campaign manager Corey Lewandowski on the arena floor confronting protestors when his job should be on the stage with Trump, or behind the stage coordinating the campaign message.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Mar 2016)

So far as I can tell, Trump is personally renting these venues. That makes them private venues. Just like a band for a concert. As such, I believe that gives him the right to decide who and who is not allowed to attend. If he has security throw out a rabble rouser or someone involved in a physical melee, that's his right and prerogative.

Just like you can toss a wedding crasher from your reception.


----------



## CougarKing (20 Mar 2016)

If he does become POTUS, will Air Force One have the big TRUMP corporate logo stencilled on the side much like the grey-red jet you see behind him in airport rallies? Trump One?  ;D

Canadian Press



> *Trump's immigration stance resonates at tense rallies*
> 
> Ryan Vanvelzer And Jacques Billeaud, The Associated Press
> The Canadian Press
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (20 Mar 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> It's actually both sides that can accept blame for what has been going on.
> 
> There has been a concerted effort that continues to increase in intensity by the anti-Trump forces, a significant percentage made up on non-Republicans.
> 
> ...



I guess you never viewed the link I provided that gave a non-partisan eye-witness account from a person curious as to what Trump had to say and was not a "die-hard" Trump supporter as you would brand anyone who attends Trump's "privately rented venues".  Seems that the "Hate Harper" crowd have adopted a "Hate Trump" attitude to match that of many fanatics in the US.


----------



## cupper (20 Mar 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I guess you never viewed the link I provided that gave a non-partisan eye-witness account from a person curious as to what Trump had to say and was not a "die-hard" Trump supporter as you would brand anyone who attends Trump's "privately rented venues".  Seems that the "Hate Harper" crowd have adopted a "Hate Trump" attitude to match that of many fanatics in the US.



No, I did view the video. And it's one person's experience at one venue. And I do not dispute the accuracy of what the gentleman was saying. But for every example of this point of view, there is an example of the opposite point of view. Case in point was the assault on the protestor being lead out of a venue by an old guy who throws an elbow at the guy's head.

I stand by my point that both sides carry blame. The anti-Trump protestors are upping their intensity with each new event and have gone from presenting an opposing viewpoint to only focusing on shutting down the message. But Trump stirs up the intensity by making statements such as he has about wanting to take a swing at a protestor. Or offering to pay for legal services in the defense of someone who might be arrested for assaulting a protestor. (Which flies in the face of any disclaimer that they announce prior to the start of the event)


----------



## George Wallace (20 Mar 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> No, I did view the video. And it's one person's experience at one venue. And I do not dispute the accuracy of what the gentleman was saying. But for every example of this point of view, there is an example of the opposite point of view. Case in point was the assault on the protestor being lead out of a venue by an old guy who throws an elbow at the guy's head.



Ah!  So you are following the MSM version of what you saw.  You don't know what caused the old guy to throw those punches.  Did the protester spit on the old man or otherwise physically or verbally assault the old guy?  You just go by the sound bit that the MSM shows you.  EXACTLY what the guy said in that video, you are only seeing what the MSM want you to see.



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> I stand by my point that both sides carry blame. The anti-Trump protestors are upping their intensity with each new event and have gone from presenting an opposing viewpoint to only focusing on shutting down the message. But Trump stirs up the intensity by making statements such as he has about wanting to take a swing at a protestor. Or offering to pay for legal services in the defense of someone who might be arrested for assaulting a protestor. (Which flies in the face of any disclaimer that they announce prior to the start of the event)



As was pointed out by the fellow in the video, a vast majority of those anti-Trump protesters are closed minded, ignorant and just plain hateful trouble makers.


----------



## cupper (20 Mar 2016)

> Ah!  So you are following the MSM version of what you saw.  You don't know what caused the old guy to throw those punches.  Did the protester spit on the old man or otherwise physically or verbally assault the old guy?  You just go by the sound bit that the MSM shows you.  EXACTLY what the guy said in that video, you are only seeing what the MSM want you to see.



You're making assumptions again that I am basing this on the video of the old guy after the attack. It's obvious from the several views of the actual incident in question that the attack was unprovoked. The videos that came out after the fact about what the old guys said just show how much of an ass the guy was. The appalling part of that whole incident was the reaction by the sheriffs deputies escorting the protestor out. They've been given reprimands and will be on administrative probation for failing to perform their duties.  



> As was pointed out by the fellow in the video, a vast majority of those anti-Trump protesters are closed minded, ignorant and just plain hateful trouble makers.



And I don't dispute that. I've never questioned that the protestors have been stirring up trouble, and provoking their fair of what has occurred.


----------



## CougarKing (21 Mar 2016)

Aren't there a lot of Canadians who live in Phoenix part of the year? (Snowbirds etc.)

Canadian Press



> *Mixed reactions to Trump's border wall along Arizona border*
> [The Canadian Press]
> Astrid Galvan And Brian Skoloff, The Associated Press
> 
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (21 Mar 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Aren't there a lot of Canadians who live in Phoenix part of the year? (Snowbirds etc.)
> 
> Canadian Press



Actually my parents are visiting friends in AZ this week, and are trying to get to a Trump rally AND a Sanders rally if possible. You know, for posterity's sake.   It's "End of the Empire" tourism.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (21 Mar 2016)

Good for them on trying to see both camps, first hand.


----------



## Kilo_302 (21 Mar 2016)

Excellent Jacobin piece arguing that the positioning of Trump as  fascist makes it easier for faux-progressives like Clinton to "to pose as high-minded defenders of decency in public life and democratic values. To put it kindly, these terms would not likely be associated with her dynastic candidacy if she could not transplant #ReadyforHillary onto the contest of “status quo versus barbarism.”"

I disagree with the author in that I would argue that labelling Trump fascist by definition accepts that Trump is a reaction to politicians like Hillary. By extension this disqualifies any legitimate support for her. The author however argues that we should be considering such labels with practical politics in mind, and makes quite a good case. Interesting bit about liberalism and the Brits as well.



> https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/03/trump-clinton-sanders-fascism-primaries-gop-establishment/





> To brand someone a fascist is to invite a rarely rewarding debate over definitions. Indeed, if even Benito Mussolini and Adolf Hitler had no common theory for what they were doing, it is puzzling to hear the category “fascism” extended to Ba’athism, ISIS, or, indeed, the rise of Donald Trump’s white nationalist movement.
> 
> Not only are these examples not all united by classically fascist themes of national rebirth, economic corporatism, or armed expansionism, but nor are these themes the sole preserve of fascists. We never seem to discuss it, but even good-old British liberalism had its millions of dead and its concentration camps. But in media-political discourse the use of “fascist” normally means little but a bully who doesn’t respect the rules. And its use often tells us more about the person making the accusation than the intended target.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (21 Mar 2016)

I don't think Kasich has much of a chance to catch up to either Trump or Cruz.

Reuters video



> *Kasich calls for 'active steps' to strengthen US-Israel ties*
> by Reuters Videos 1:17 mins
> 
> Republican presidential candidate John Kasich calls for "active steps" to strengthen ties between the U.S. and Israel, including suspending U.S. participation in Iran deal. Rough Cut (no reporter narration).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> I don't think Kasich has much of a chance to catch up to either Trump or Cruz.
> 
> Reuters video




Yup. Months late and sincerity short.


----------



## Rifleman62 (21 Mar 2016)

And he's boring. Same speech, delivered like a dull politician (which he is), saying how great his "accomplishments" are.


----------



## cavalryman (21 Mar 2016)

Blue on blue fire is getting interesting
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/bill-clinton-slams-barack-obamas-awful-legacy/article/2586419



> Former President Bill Clinton asked Democratic voters to shrug off the "awful legacy" of President Obama's years in office in a speech Monday to support Hillary Clinton's campaign.


----------



## cupper (21 Mar 2016)

But don't forget, if this comes down to a contested convention, Kasich may be the establishment candidate that they rally around. Polls are saying he is the only one who could put up a decent showing against Clinton (not that he has a winning chance, but he has better poll numbers against the anointed one).

But like the rest of the primary wannabe's he's delusional if he thinks he can win.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Mar 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> But don't forget, if this comes down to a contested convention, Kasich may be the establishment candidate that they rally around. Polls are saying he is the only one who could put up a decent showing against Clinton (not that he has a winning chance, but he has better poll numbers against the anointed one).
> 
> But like the rest of the primary wannabe's he's delusional if he thinks he can win.



If the GOP wants trouble and wants their party to die, all they need to do is subvert the democratic process, shut out Trump and deny the will of the people.

He has accomplished what politicians haven't been able to do for decades. No matter which party. He has energized voters, has unheard of amounts of people backing him and is showing the Emperor(s) (GOP & Dems) have no clothes. Exposing them as the elitist parasites that they are.

Shut him out. They'll only confirm what he has been saying. At their peril.


----------



## cupper (21 Mar 2016)

Trump had a very busy day here in DC.

Showing off his Yuge development hotel project at the Old Post Office building.

Meeting with GOP members.

And an interview with the Editorial Board of the Washington Post.

Below is a copy of the transcript released by the Post. What strikes me most about the discussion is how woefully unprepared he was and grossly inarticulate the man is. Setting the rhetoric aside, his speaking style and his interview style fails to reach the level of what one would consider presidential.

*A transcript of Donald Trump’s meeting with The Washington Post editorial board*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/03/21/a-transcript-of-donald-trumps-meeting-with-the-washington-post-editorial-board/?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_trump-foreign-1pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Part 1



> FREDERICK RYAN JR., WASHINGTON POST PUBLISHER: Mr. Trump, welcome to the Washington Post. Thank you for making time to meet with our editorial board.
> 
> DONALD TRUMP: New building. Yes this is very nice. Good luck with it.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (22 Mar 2016)

Part 2



> RYAN: Mr. Trump, you’ve mentioned many times during the campaign, in fact including this morning, instances you feel where the press has been biased or unfair or outright false in their reporting, and you’ve mentioned that you want to “open up” the libel laws. You’ve said that several times.
> 
> TRUMP: I might not have to, based on Gawker. Right?
> [CROSSTALK]
> ...


----------



## cupper (22 Mar 2016)

Part 3



> HIATT: But just – given the Supreme Court rulings on libel — Sullivan v. New York Times — how would you change the law?
> 
> TRUMP: I would just loosen them up.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (22 Mar 2016)

And finally Part 4



> HIATT: I’d like to come back to the campaign. You said a few weeks ago after a family in Chicago gave some money to a PAC opposing you, you said, “They better watch out. They have a lot to hide.” What should they watch out for?
> 
> TRUMP: Look, they are spending vicious … I don’t even know these people. Those Ricketts. I actually said they ought to focus on the Chicago Cubs and, you know, stop playing around. They spent millions of dollars fighting me in Florida. And out of 68 counties, I won 66. I won by 20 points, almost 20 points. Against, everybody thought he was a popular sitting senator. I had $38 million dollars spent on me in Florida over a short period of time. $38 million. And, you know, the Ricketts, I don’t even know these people.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Mar 2016)

Have you got a Cole's notes version? I'm 62 and don't think I have enough time left to read all that.


----------



## cupper (22 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Have you got a Cole's notes version? I'm 62 and don't think I have enough time left to read all that.



Blah Blah Blah I'm great

Blah Blah Blah Everyone loves me

Blah Blah Blah I'm Yuge with [your favorite minority here]

Blah Blah Blah Better negotiator

Blah Blah Blah Build the wall

Blah Blah Blah etc.


----------



## cavalryman (22 Mar 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Blah Blah Blah I'm great
> 
> Blah Blah Blah Everyone loves me
> 
> ...


So pretty much boilerplate politico  rancing:  Thanks for the translation


----------



## a_majoor (22 Mar 2016)

Read the "Blue on Blue" article with Bill Clinton decrying the "disastrous" Obama legacy, and one of the comments in Instapundit  was interesting:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/229702/



> The Clintons must have enough dirt to sink Obama many times over, hence the blatant public insult. This is a "you can't touch us" slap in the face.
> 
> Who knows, maybe they have photos. This just hasn't been a good year for Lightbringers.


----------



## CougarKing (22 Mar 2016)

Enough already with Trump's obsession with the Chicago Cubs!   :facepalm:

Big League Stew/Yahoo Sports



> *Donald Trump threatens to run attack ads against Cubs owners*
> Chris Cwik By Chris Cwik
> 2 hours ago
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (22 Mar 2016)

It's a good thing he hasn't seen this site then.  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (23 Mar 2016)

The observation that JFK would not be welcome in today's Democrat party seems mirrored in the observation that many Trump supporters could be considered "traditional" Democrat supporters (i.e. espouse values which would have been traditionally supported by the Democrat party). It would be rather ironic that the traditional Democrat voters are the ones to push Trump over the top:
(part 1)
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-donald-trump/



> *Why Donald Trump? *
> A quest to figure out what’s happening in America.
> By Clare Malone
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Mar 2016)

(Part 2)



> This is in no small part because of Trump’s virtuoso dog-whistling — it’s a thing to behold, almost as if he’d grabbed the slender wrists of the crowd with those big hands of his, felt for the pulse of their darkest hearts and then whispered the words they so long to hear. While containing no overt racial slurs, Trump’s stump speech is cleverly coded.
> 
> Trump has offered people something more potent than party allegiance: empowerment.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (23 Mar 2016)

The Republican façade is coming down. Years of austerity and tax cuts in Louisiana have left that state bankrupt, and even some Republicans are starting to realize their own policies make little sense. The mantra "no compromise at all costs" has led to deeply irrational policies and has also contributed to Donald Trump's success. Republican voters have, alongside the Party, been conditioned to reject anyone who will talk to Democrats. This is clearly a problem.

http://www.truthdig.com/avbooth/item/gop_sheriff_shreds_gov_jindal_and_his_20160323



> n late February, conservative Louisiana sheriff Newell Normand publicly criticized “that idiot,” former Gov. Bobby Jindal, for leading his state off a fiscal cliff, and admonished his fellow Republicans for following obstructionist leaders and resisting proposed tax increases aimed at covering the budget problems Jindal left behind.
> 
> According to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Louisiana suffers a $943 million budget shortfall between now and the end of the fiscal year on June 30. “The state is also estimated to face a $2 billion shortfall in the 2016-17 budget year,” the paper states.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (23 Mar 2016)

Aside from this update below, there's some bad press rising about Cruz making attack ads against Trump's current wife Melania and why she isn't 1st lady material. (I won't be posting any news articles on that bit of news since a lot of these articles on it show suggestive photos of her, and that violates site guidelines here.      )

More delegates for Cruz:

Canadian Press



> *The Latest: Ted Cruz takes all of Utah's 40 GOP delegates*
> [The Canadian Press]
> The Associated Press
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Mar 2016)

Cruz taking that state hardly slows Trump down at all. Here is a blog post which sums up the math pretty concisely:

http://voxday.blogspot.ca/2016/03/trump-math-updated.html



> *Trump: the math updated*
> 
> So, Arizona, which matters, went for Trump, and did so by a 23-percent margin that exceeded the +13 polls by 10 points. Utah, which doesn't matter much (I had Trump getting 17 delegates there, but he won't get any), went unanimously to Cruz. So, let's update the previous delegate math.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Mar 2016)

Another non-issue which should be front and centre:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/229847



> *SIXTH-ANNIVERSARY THOUGHTS: Obamacare Was Going to Lower Health Care Costs. What Actually Happened*.
> 
> Hawking the Affordable Care Act (ACA) six years ago, President Barack Obama said, “Every single good idea to bend the cost curve and start actually reducing health care costs [is] in this bill.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (25 Mar 2016)

This is hilarious 

http://gawker.com/open-carry-at-the-republican-convention-yes-please-1766879873


----------



## ueo (25 Mar 2016)

Hmmm altho hilarious, might it not be an indicator of what's to come...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Mar 2016)

Even if Sen Sanders had won every primary, the way the Dem convention rules are written makes that irrelevant, the unelected Superdelegates ultimately control who is nominated (Democracy, here? No thank you, we're Democrats). Even so, the continuing strength of Sen Sanders and the wide margins suggest that the rank and file of the party have far different views than the Party establishment and Superdelegates, something I'm sure candidate Trump is going to ruthlessly exploit (millions of dollars of potential donations, potential voters, campaign workers and volunteers being left on the table by the Dem establishment is far too tempting to pass up, and Trump's book _is_ titled "The Art of the Deal"....):

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/democratic-primaries-2016-221256



> *Sanders romps in Washington, Alaska, Hawaii*
> The sweep offers the senator a chance to gain ground against Hillary Clinton.
> By GABRIEL DEBENEDETTI 03/26/16 04:49 PM EDT Updated 03/27/16 04:24 AM EDT
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Mar 2016)

And the NYT is starting to acknowledge that something is happening outside the narrative. Instapundit has a comment:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/230073/



> THIS MAKES ME SUSPICIOUS: The NYT begins to treat Donald Trump with some respect.
> 
> Here’s one of the most up-voted comments over there: “We can quibble about details, but this approach is long overdue. Why even have a country if its citizens are not the primary concern of those in power?” And: “Have to agree that it’s time to play hardball with Saudi Arabia.”
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Mar 2016)

The only wild card is whether DOJ will indict Hillary over her illegal private email server or let it drop.Now its been revealed that the SECDEF did the same thing to a degree.Makes you wonder what these people are hiding.


----------



## cavalryman (28 Mar 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Makes you wonder what these people are hiding.


The fact that the US of A is in thrall to the most morally bankrupt political class in its history?


----------



## FJAG (28 Mar 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> The fact that the US of A is in thrall to the most morally bankrupt political class in its history?



You need to read a lot more history before you can use a superlative like that. 

I don't disagree that there are major problems but "the most morally bankrupt political class in history". Not even close.

op:

 :cheers:


----------



## cupper (28 Mar 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> You need to read a lot more history before you can use a superlative like that.
> 
> I don't disagree that there are major problems but "the most morally bankrupt political class in history". Not even close.
> 
> ...



Agreed. The rampant corruption of the of the late 1800's that lead to Theodore Roosevelt's rise as a progressive and reformer was far worse than anything we see now.


----------



## tomahawk6 (29 Mar 2016)

Teapot Dome comes to mind.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/teapotdome.htm


----------



## a_majoor (29 Mar 2016)

An interesting twofer today. First, a look at Bernie Sanders, who may not win the nomination but could end up destroying the Dems if too many of his supporters walk out in frustration after the convention. Second, a look at who is _really_ responsible for the rise of Donald Trump.

https://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2016/03/28/republicans-better-pay-attention-to-bernie/?singlepage=true



> *Republicans Better Pay Attention to Bernie*
> By Roger L SimonMarch 28, 2016
> 
> Most Republicans and their presidential candidates (when they're not bashing each other like four-year-olds) are focused on Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee, living in fear that the Department of Justice will give a pass to the former secretary of state on her email and foundation malfeasances, even if the FBI recommends indictments.
> ...



https://theintercept.com/2016/03/28/the-culture-that-created-donald-trump-was-liberal-not-conservative/?utm_content=buffer29085&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer



> *The Culture That Created Donald Trump Was Liberal, Not Conservative*
> Jim Lewis
> Mar. 28 2016, 12:42 p.m.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kilo_302 (29 Mar 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> An interesting twofer today. First, a look at Bernie Sanders, who may not win the nomination but could end up destroying the Dems if too many of his supporters walk out in frustration after the convention. Second, a look at who is _really_ responsible for the rise of Donald Trump.
> 
> https://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2016/03/28/republicans-better-pay-attention-to-bernie/?singlepage=true
> 
> https://theintercept.com/2016/03/28/the-culture-that-created-donald-trump-was-liberal-not-conservative/?utm_content=buffer29085&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer




While I commend you for posting anything from The Intercept, you do understand that it is significantly to the Left of the Democratic Party? I'm not suggesting there isn't a convergence of some ideas that Sanders and Trump share, and many of us have pointed this out. 

But The Intercept is as close to being socialist as you can get in US media. Chris Hedges would agree that Trump is a result of the failure of the "liberal class" but this does not make the very narrow point you think it does. Rather it widens the spectrum of debate to include genuine progressive voices, not the sham progressives we see in the Democratic establishment.


----------



## CougarKing (29 Mar 2016)

He could probably be easily replaced in Trump's campaign:

Sky News



> *Trump Campaign Manager Charged With Assault
> *
> Sky News
> March 29, 2016
> ...


----------



## cupper (29 Mar 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> He could probably be easily replaced in Trump's campaign:
> 
> Sky News



Trump will continue to stand by him.

(until he doesn't)


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Mar 2016)

A week ago Fields tried peddling her story to no avail,the video didnt support her claims.This week she files a police report.I suspect a court will throw this complaint out and she may well face charges herself for filing a false police report.


----------



## CougarKing (30 Mar 2016)

Perhaps he'll form the Donald Trump party?  [

Reuters



> *Trump drops pledge to back Republican presidential nominee other than himself*
> 
> By Steve Holland
> Reuters
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Mar 2016)

Cruz and Trump will insure Hillary wins the Presidency.


----------



## Kilo_302 (30 Mar 2016)

Trump supporters. Great human beings. 

http://www.salon.com/2016/03/30/trump_supporters_first_pepper_spray_then_yell_nr_lover_to_15_year_old_protester_in_paul_ryans_hometown/


----------



## TheHead (30 Mar 2016)

What Salon is missing though is where the screaming little banshee sucker punches a man she was arguing with right before getting pepper sprayed.  The "groping" was just the man putting a hand on her arm.


----------



## Kilo_302 (30 Mar 2016)

TheHead said:
			
		

> What Salon is missing though is where the screaming little banshee sucker punches a man she was arguing with right before getting pepper sprayed.  The "groping" was just the man putting a hand on her arm.




I see her reach out, maybe to grab the pepper spray. She's complaining to the man who she says groped her, not the man trying to calm her down. Again, she's 15.

The fact that people are yelling such disgusting things is also indicative of the kind of crowd Trump appeals to.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Mar 2016)

If people are going to participate in this thread, they have to ensure their points are factual. Everyone knows the game people play with videos, only sharing what is needed to cement their point.

And for the last time, politicians do not control the crowds that come out. It's already well known that outside sources are funding much of the violent protesters. 

So we're going to stop condemning candidates for whatever happens on the street. They are not Trump supporters or Sander's supporters. They are simply protesters and are not part of the discussion anymore.

We spend too much time on exchanges like that above which is nothing more than he said\ she said, nobody wins, waste of bandwidth

We are going in a new direction here, and in the other political threads.

We are going to stick to the issues and the candidates. That's it, that's all. Anything else runs the risk of being deleted without notification or explanation.

Lastly, by way of a small explanation, this is a military site, of mostly military people, who come here to discuss military topics. If you want to spend your day arguing politics, there's plenty of sites out there that cater to that subject.

This is not one of them.

From this point on, Moderators who contribute to this thread will not moderate them and vica versa.

_*---Staff---*_


----------



## TheHead (30 Mar 2016)

Deleted for posting outside of the previous direction.


----------



## CougarKing (31 Mar 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> We are going to stick to the issues and the candidates.



I certainly hope Trump's stance on abortion qualifies as one of these issues acceptable for this thread.

Cupper, so will this mean his campaign is losing steam then due to what happened yesterday?

Reuters



> *Trump struggles to contain abortion fallout as White House rivals pounce*
> 
> By Megan Cassella
> Reuters
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 Mar 2016)

A stupid comment and stance that will cost him.


----------



## MARS (31 Mar 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> I certainly hope Trump's stance on abortion qualifies as one of these issues acceptable for this thread.
> 
> Cupper, so will this mean his campaign is losing steam then due to what happened yesterday?
> 
> Reuters



A politician retracting, revising or otherwise clarifying a ststaement, or even policy, is nothing new or really surprising, particuarly during an election campaign.

I think Mrs. Clinton's reversal of her stance on TPP is a much larger issue, for example.


----------



## Kilo_302 (31 Mar 2016)

MARS said:
			
		

> A politician retracting, revising or otherwise clarifying a ststaement, or even policy, is nothing new or really surprising, particuarly during an election campaign.
> 
> I think Mrs. Clinton's reversal of her stance on TPP is a much larger issue, for example.



I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you're not a woman. 

The TPP is definitely an important issue. There are many important issues. But it's important to recognize that if someone like Cruz or even Trump is elected, women's reproductive rights in the US might be set back 50 years. There are states where instances of self-induced abortions are sky rocketing due to a lack of access. Truly a worrying time to be female and American.


----------



## George Wallace (31 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess you're not a woman.
> 
> The TPP is definitely an important issue. There are many important issues. But it's important to recognize that if someone like Cruz or even Trump is elected, women's reproductive rights in the US might be set back 50 years. There are states where instances of self-induced abortions are sky rocketing due to a lack of access. Truly a worrying time to be female and American.



I think you are really going out on a limb with that prediction.


----------



## Loachman (31 Mar 2016)

Kilo_302 said:
			
		

> Truly a worrying time to be female and American.



And an even more worrying time to be unborn.


----------



## Cloud Cover (31 Mar 2016)

Here is an interesting historical comparative piece that considers: "The last time an outsider like Trump crashed the GOP? 1940" — (https://theconversation.com/the-last-time-an-outsider-like-trump-crashed-the-gop-1940-55742) .  The article is from The Conversation, published by the Ohio State University, and is reproduced under the rules of Attribution in the Creative Commons (license link to republish is found on the article website). Note: unfortunately the embedded images will not replicate on this medium. Edit: apologies for all the material at the end of the article, however the CCL does not permit editing of the material and so I choose to leave it in place. A mod can delete it if they choose.

The Conversation
Academic rigor, journalistic flair

The last time an outsider like Trump crashed the GOP? 1940
March 15, 2016 6.05am EDT

The surprise Republican candidate in 1940: Wendell Willkie. 


Authoravid Stebenne, Professor of History and Law Faculty, The Ohio State University

Disclosure statement


*The last time an outsider like Trump crashed the GOP? 1940*
Donald Trump’s challenge to the GOP establishment now seems on course to succeed.

As Republicans (and many others) consider what turning the party’s presidential nomination over to a real outsider will likely mean, it’s worth looking back at the last time that happened.

Some will say that it was in 1952, when General Dwight D. Eisenhower defeated Ohio Senator Robert Taft for the nomination at a tense GOP convention.

Eisenhower’s campaign, however, was largely the creation of New York Governor Thomas Dewey, who had run three times before. In so doing, Dewey had built a durable election machine that he placed at Eisenhower’s disposal.

The contemporary equivalent would be the highly unlikely move of vociferous critic and GOP establishment stalwart Mitt Romney putting his presidential campaign staff to work on Trump’s behalf.

I would argue that to find the last time a genuinely anti-establishment outsider won the GOP nomination one needs to look back even further, to 1940, when Wendell Willkie surprised politicians and pundits alike by doing just that.

So what insights does the Willkie experience offer to today’s politics?

Masterful use of the media

Like Donald Trump, Wendell Willkie was a former Democrat, who reregistered as a Republican only later in life. Like Trump, he came to politics from the corporate world and an office in Manhattan. And also like Trump, Willkie came to national prominence through his skillful use of the national media.

In Willkie’s case, he did that first by writing articles in national magazines attacking President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal for excessive spending and concentrating too much power in the federal government.

He also made his case in a different way, through testifying in Congress.


Wendell Willkie testifying to Congress in May 1939.  Library of Congress
Willkie was a utility executive, the president of Commonwealth and Southern, one of the largest electricity producers in the country. He became the public face of the big business’s opposition to the Tennessee Valley Authority, one of the New Deal’s single largest projects that would transform a poor agrarian region of the South through the building of hydroelectric dams, flood control and economic development.

As New York Post columnist Cal Tinney wrote, tongue-in-cheek, in 1939:

What are you going to Washington for Mr Willkie? “Oh to see that my contempt for the New Deal remains founded on familiarity.”
Widely covered in the press, Willkie came across as a common-sense critic of the New Deal as something that could and sometimes did go too far.

Next came a triumph in the broadcast entertainment media, in another parallel to Donald Trump’s role on his “Apprentice” TV show.

The broadcast medium in Willkie’s day was, of course, radio, and Willkie turned in a remarkably strong performance on a radio show called “Information, Please," the closest contemporary equivalent to which would probably be “Jeopardy.” Willkie came across there as quick-witted, knowledgeable and graceful under pressure.

Anti-establishment

What prompted such an unlikely candidate to run for the GOP presidential nomination in 1940 was Willkie’s sense that the establishment candidates had staked out the wrong stands on the key issues.

The leading inside contenders that year were the “racket busting” Manhattan District Attorney Thomas E. Dewey and “Mr Republican,” Robert A. Taft, the Ohio senator and son of a previous president.

On foreign policy, both insiders sounded like isolationists. They had expected France to stand fast against German aggression in 1940, as France had in World War I, and they tended to think that the right thing to do was for the U.S. to stay out of Europe’s conflict.

Willkie firmly disagreed.

In terms of domestic policy, both Dewey and Taft struck Willkie as too hostile to the New Deal programs and policies that Willkie did approve of and that were, critically, popular with the public. These most notably included Social Security, the Wagner Act (which protected labor unions), farm price supports and federal aid to the unemployed.

Willkie’s argument was that the basic ideas behind these programs and policies were sound, but could be more honestly and efficiently carried out by Republicans, who would rely on state governments more and Washington less in doing so.


A tense GOP convention

To the amazement and consternation of GOP regulars, the Willkie campaign caught fire in May and June of 1940.

The rapid military collapse of France exposed the shallowness of Dewey’s and Taft’s grasp of national security issues. And their excessively partisan attacks on the New Deal did not – as measured by George Gallup’s polls – have broad appeal.

By the time the GOP convention opened in Philadelphia in late June, about 30 percent of Republicans surveyed said they favored Willkie. That together with the lack of a united front among the establishment candidates opened the door to a thoroughly unexpected Willkie triumph on the sixth ballot.

So angry were establishment Republicans at this turn of events that Willkie was obliged to give only a very short and vague acceptance address, lest he alienate even more the party leaders who had strongly opposed his candidacy.


Seventy-six years on the parallels to today are easy to see.

Whatever one thinks of the stands Donald Trump has taken on the issues, they have resonated strongly with a large enough fraction of the GOP primary and caucus electorate to make him the presumptive nominee. Establishment candidates are not united, and GOP orthodoxy has proved to have too little appeal.

Like Willkie, Trump has run as an insurgent populist, challenging the elitist wing of the GOP that has long dominated the nominating process.
And like Willkie, Trump will find winning enthusiastic support from Republicans who supported establishment candidates very difficult, because they denounced him as an unqualified interloper during the primaries and caucuses.

Neither the Willkie nor the Trump candidacies has destroyed the GOP, but both disrupted it. The consequences were lasting 76 years ago, and I would predict they will be so this time around also.
In Willkie’s case, his nomination helped reorient the GOP away from a strongly anti-New Deal position to one that accommodated the most popular New Deal stands on matters foreign and domestic, such as support for Social Security and aid to Britain during World War II.

Trump appears to be doing something similar, in the sense that his nomination will likely push the GOP to do more to improve life for working- and lower-middle-class Americans, who have seen their quality of life decline in important ways over the past generation.
What is most troubling, however, about the Trump phenomenon thus far is how different he sounds from Willkie on issues of racial discrimination.

Wendell Willkie sharply criticized the segregation of his era. “No man,“ he said, "has the right in America to treat any other man ‘tolerantly’ - for tolerance is the assumption of superiority. Our liberties are the equal rights of every citizen.”
To make that point plain, he became the first major party candidate to campaign in Harlem since it had become a predominantly black neighborhood.

African American Joe Louis, the great boxer, was the warm-up speaker for Willkie’s two appearances there, where he received a friendly welcome.
Even though Willkie ultimately lost Harlem and the election of 1940 to FDR in a landslide (82 electoral votes to 449), Willkie’s campaign helped change the politics of his day, by pushing the GOP toward an accommodation of Roosvelt’s policies.


In Alexandria, Egypt, in 1942 meeting with British Admiral Sir Henry Harwood.  Imperial War Museum
FDR even made Willkie a spokesman for America abroad after the election, a signal of the two parties coming closer together as a result of Willkie’s unorthodox bid for the presidency.
Reconciliation can and does follow confrontation. Not a bad lesson to remember as we watch the fireworks of the 2016 election campaign.


It is a topic that is largely ignored, but the so-called “isolationist” stance of Republicans in the 1930s was really a mask covering up the fact that they saw Hitler and fascism as bulwarks against Communism. Henry Luce of TIME-LIFE, for instance, openly praised Nazi Germany (as well as Franco and Mussolini) on these grounds, both in his magazines and in other venues. So did the British press (except for the GUARDIAN) well until 1939. Ayn Rand (who campaigned for Willkie in 1940) saw the New Deal and Communism as the same thing, and never criticized Nazi Germany until after 1945. In this regard, Wendell Willkie was simply falling in line with the conservative position of his time.

16 days ago
Report
John Wise
Small correction: FDR had 449 electoral votes; Wilkie had 42.




 Did the edit.
Bruce


----------



## cupper (31 Mar 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> I certainly hope Trump's stance on abortion qualifies as one of these issues acceptable for this thread.
> 
> Cupper, so will this mean his campaign is losing steam then due to what happened yesterday?
> 
> Reuters



This is where Trump's style of politics and his strategy fall apart.

So far he has said what HE THINKS his voter base wants to hear, regardless of whether it is accurate, or good policy, or politically savy. But in this case, he stuck his foot deep in it, by making a statement HE THOUGHT would gain him big support from the pro life voters without doing the research beforehand. And instead shot himself in the foot. On of the key points in the abortion debate for both sides is that regardless of your views, pro-life or pro-choice, women how get an abortion should not be criminally charged for making that choice. The pro-life abortion providers are fair game and should be charged and treated as a criminal, but the woman should be treated as victims.

Whether you believe his stance on abortion is a true conversion (video doesn't lie, he was strongly pro-choice at one time) or one of political convenience, this gaffe shows his lack of full consideration on the pro-life point of view and reinforces his inarticulate manner.

This could well be the thing that everyone was waiting for. Will he survive? Probably. Will he get the votes he needs going into the convention? Probably not. Will he get the nomination? It's looking less likely than it did two days ago. If he does, will he win the general. Definitely not. They are no longer talking about a gender gap, it is now a gender canyon.

From the same interview the media is trying to take his statements (or lack of position) on the nuclear option in regards to both ISIS and Europe and make him appear to be a trigger happy reactionary who's push the button for the slightest provocation. I don't think this is so much a problem of poor foreign policy preparation, as it another example of poor ability to articulate his stance on the nuclear option. The media is playing it up, and trying to make something out of nothing. No rational person is going to take any option off the table. But there are ways of saying it or deflecting the question without actually saying it. We all know you aren't going to use the holiest of holies of the weapons spectrum on anything like ISIS. You use it as a deterrent against aggression by another nuclear power. Unless you have a certain religious belief system that believes in the end of days then all bets are off (which is why Ted Cruz is a scary option).


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 Mar 2016)

I think this was his "Tom Mulcair" blunder, moment.


----------



## Jed (31 Mar 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> This is where Trump's style of politics and his strategy fall apart.
> 
> So far he has said what HE THINKS his voter base wants to hear, regardless of whether it is accurate, or good policy, or politically savy. But in this case, he stuck his foot deep in it, by making a statement HE THOUGHT would gain him big support from the pro life voters without doing the research beforehand. And instead shot himself in the foot. On of the key points in the abortion debate for both sides is that regardless of your views, pro-life or pro-choice, women how get an abortion should not be criminally charged for making that choice. The pro-life abortion providers are fair game and should be charged and treated as a criminal, but the woman should be treated as victims.
> 
> ...



I was following along pretty good until your tag line.  An honest question: do you really believe Cruz would push a nuke button because he professes to have faith in a higher power?  This points to a strong bias against anyone who has a belief in a higher power. One would hope that at least 50% of the voters have a belief in a higher power.


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 Mar 2016)

I don't understand why it's necessary or desirable to the majority of voters to believe in a higher power?  Does holding that belief give you a leg up in making intelligent decisions?  I don't think so, many of our greatest minds did not hold such a belief.


----------



## Jed (31 Mar 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I don't understand why it's necessary or desirable to the majority of voters to believe in a higher power?  Does holding that belief give you a leg up in making intelligent decisions?  I don't think so, many of our greatest minds did not hold such a belief.



I don't think it is necessary for anyone to believe in a higher power either to be viable leader or electable candidate. More desirable? who knows?  I am more concerned about a candidates' morals and ethics.  I personally would never want a preacher or pope or a rabbi or a mullah to be a political leader.  Too much baggage to make the necessary hard decisions.


----------



## Lumber (31 Mar 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> One would hope that at least 50% of the voters have a belief in a higher power.



_I_ would personally hope that at least 90% of votes _didn't_ have a belief in a higher power. Alas, I have lofty goals...

That being said, I don't agree with cupper's inference that Cruz would be likely to use nukes, but I appreciate his back-handedness toward any of either of the pair.


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Mar 2016)

If you tune in Hannity tonight he and Newt Gingrich will be discussing Trump's campaign.I caught the discussion on the radio today and found it interesting.It was a bit similar to the discussion here.As for religion I want to point out that religious freedom was one of the foundations of the US.You have a leaf on your money and we have God.


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 Mar 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> I don't think it is necessary for anyone to believe in a higher power either to be viable leader or electable candidate. More desirable? who knows?  I am more concerned about a candidates' morals and ethics.  I personally would never want a preacher or pope or a rabbi or a mullah to be a political leader.  Too much baggage to make the necessary hard decisions.



You did not answer my question as to why you feel over 50% of the voters should believe in a higher power.  As for those in power who are enraptured shall we say, there are plenty of examples of their being unnecessarily hard, just as there are plenty of Atheists too.  I don't know if one side of the coin or the other are any better at decision making, but folks like Cruze make me very uneasy.


----------



## Cloud Cover (31 Mar 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> If you tune in Hannity tonight he and Newt Gingrich will be discussing Trump's campaign.I caught the discussion on the radio today and found it interesting.It was a bit similar to the discussion here.As for religion I want to point out that religious freedom was one of the foundations of the US.You have a leaf on your money and we have God.



Well, we have the Queen on our money, who apparently has the blessing of God and s/he does seem to keep her victorious.


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Mar 2016)

Agree with cupper's post. 

Sen Cruz is scary. I would not be surprised that if he was elected he will do what Pres Obama does now, Presidential Decrees, except they will be what _*he believes*_ are conservative beliefs, must have/do.

He has already proven in the Senate that he will do what Cruz thinks is the conservative way. Only Cruz knows what is best for conservative America. He is an opportunist.

Cruz and Trump are handing America over to the Dems.


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Mar 2016)

I can easily see a Trump-Cruz ticket.


----------



## cupper (31 Mar 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> As for religion I want to point out that religious freedom was one of the foundations of the US.You have a leaf on your money and we have God.



Yet you have a huge debate over separation of church and state, which is enshrined in your Constitution, and we leave it unsaid and have no issues.  [



			
				whiskey601 said:
			
		

> Well, we have the Queen on our money, who apparently has the blessing of God and s/he does seem to keep her victorious.



Good point, and something that would go over well down here. There is an undeniable obsession with the Royal Family here in the US. They fought a war to get rid of the monarchy, but you'd think they would be willing to take them back in a heartbeat form the love they show the Royals.  ;D

Perhaps I took my backhanded insult of Ted Cruz a little far. I knew I should have put in the smilie. My sincere apologies.


----------



## cupper (31 Mar 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I can easily see a Trump-Cruz ticket.



Sure, and the entire general election will be about who has the hotter wife.


----------



## cavalryman (31 Mar 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Sure, and the entire general election will be about who has the hotter wife.


Well, it ain't Bill Clinton >


----------



## Jed (31 Mar 2016)

You guys crack me up.  [


----------



## Jed (31 Mar 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Agree with cupper's post.
> 
> Sen Cruz is scary. I would not be surprised that if he was elected he will do what Pres Obama does now, Presidential Decrees, except they will be what _*he believes*_ are conservative beliefs, must have/do.
> 
> ...



Well, Trump is for sure now as probably only 20 % of the female vote will now go for him.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (1 Apr 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I can easily see a Trump-Cruz ticket.



Why? Just to make sure that no rational/intelligent thoughts can come out of the Republican party? The fact that those two are the best that party can produce (same for Clinton/Sanders) is disconcerting


----------



## Lumber (1 Apr 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I can easily see a Trump-Cruz ticket.



Don't the two have way too much animosity right now?

How about a Trump/Cruz - Kasich ticket?


----------



## QV (1 Apr 2016)

How about Trump/Sanders (independent)


----------



## a_majoor (1 Apr 2016)

Meanwhile, in Dem land, it looks like the minority support for Hillary Clinton is collapsing. The explanation may be as simple as people are finally figuring out she is an unlikable person willing to pander to anyone in a naked grab for power (not to mention the various shenanigans with classified emails on an unsecured server, the Clinton Foundation raking in billions while only @ 15% of the money is disused for charity, the rest going to "salaries and expenses"; Hillary providing preferential treatment as Secretary of State to donors to the Clinton Foundation; serial lying about her "accomplishments" as SoS, Lybia from the commencement of the war to Benghazi, etc. etc.) :

http://www.commondreams.org/views/2016/04/01/hillary-clintons-support-among-nonwhite-voters-has-collapsed



> *Hillary Clinton’s Support Among Nonwhite Voters Has Collapsed*
> bySeth Abramson
> 
> On February 27th, Hillary Clinton led Bernie Sanders among African-American voters by 52 points.
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (2 Apr 2016)

Wait a minute, didn't the GOP lose the 76 election to Carter? (I wasn't born yet then, but some of you would remember)  ;D

Bloomberg



> *Trump Hires Veteran of ’76 GOP Fight to Lead Delegate Effort: New York Times*
> 
> Donald Trump enlists strategist *Paul J. Manafort*, who has experience with convention battles, to oversee the businessman’s procurement and retention of delegates in the fight for the GOP presidential nomination, NYT reports (http://nyti.ms/1Sjbiax).
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Apr 2016)

Trump could hardly hire Karl Rove,as Rove doesnt believe in Trump the candidate.


----------



## cupper (2 Apr 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Wait a minute, didn't the GOP lose the 76 election to Carter? (I wasn't born yet then, but some of you would remember)  ;D
> 
> Bloomberg



They lost because the contested convention was Ford vs Reagan. They pick the incumbent sitting president over the challenging outsider, which kinda makes sense. Until you realize that the guy they passed over goes on to beat Carter in the next election. 

Karma will run over dogma all the time.


----------



## cupper (2 Apr 2016)

Had a lot of time to listen to news and politics radio on the two day drive to Canada yesterday and today.

One interesting comment I heard was a discussion on Trump's foreign policy cred. 

The person commenting said "Trump knows more about hotel bathroom fixtures than foreign policy." "He can probably give you more insight on financial returns on casino games that he can on global politics"


----------



## a_majoor (4 Apr 2016)

Another issue which *should* be highlighted (especially by the GOP), since the CRA worked so well the *last* time it was applied:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/230629/



> EVERYTHING OLD IS NEW AGAIN! Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit.
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-administration-pushes-banks-to-make-home-loans-to-people-with-weaker-credit/2013/04/02/a8b4370c-9aef-11e2-a941-a19bce7af755_story.html
> 
> As we saw in 2008 when Bill Clinton’s efforts in that department reached their full fruition, that will end well. Again:
> ...



Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it....


----------



## a_majoor (5 Apr 2016)

Donald trump and sidewalk chalk teach a valuable lesson for students in hundreds of US universities. The real question is will they take the lesson to heart?

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/230707/



> RICH LOWRY: Do Not Fear The Chalk.
> Rarely before have a few scribblings been so traumatizing — and written not even in ink or paint or some other difficult-to-remove substance, but in the same chalk used to mark out hopscotch courts and write temporary promotional messages about sorority mixers and student theatrical productions. That chalk messages can be considered tantamount to a physical threat captures the crisis of free speech on campus perfectly.
> 
> What has become known on social media as “the chalkening” demonstrates how some college kids can’t be exposed to the simplest expression of support for a major presidential candidate without wanting to scurry to the nearest safe space. By this standard, a “Make America Great Again” hat is a hate crime waiting to happen. It’s not clear how any of these students can turn on cable TV or look at the polls for the Republican nomination these days without being triggered. Pro-Trump chalking took off after the reaction at Emory University, where some students were reduced to tears by the messages and said they felt “fear.” Protesters gathered at an administration building and let loose the antiphonal chant “You are not listening! Come speak to us, we are in pain!” This might have been an appropriate response if the kids had been tear-gassed, rather than seeing a positive phrase about a candidate that is supported by some significant plurality of the American public. . . .
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (7 Apr 2016)

A higher level overview of what drives the Trump (and to a lesser extent Sanders) phenomena. The taxpayer/citizen class has had enough, but no real leader has stepped forward yet, hence Trump and Sanders. This could also go under the Grand Strategy for a divided America thread, since the toxic environment the political establishment has created is driving the situation we are in today:

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/donald-trump-and-the-ghost-of-christopher-lasch/



> *Donald Trump and the Ghost of Christopher Lasch*
> America’s yeoman class revolts.
> By GILBERT T. SEWALL • April 5, 2016
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (8 Apr 2016)

Not an April Fool's joke from last week: if "the Queen" ends wearing an orange jumpsuit by the end of this year, the prospect of Bernie Sanders presidency doesn't seem a remote possibility anymore. Yikes! 

CBC



> *How a criminal indictment could affect Hillary Clinton's run for U.S. presidency*
> 
> CBC
> April 1, 2016
> ...



And the Trump steamroller losing steam as the MSM outlets continue to say?

Associated Press



> *After big loss, Trump presidential bid hinges on fixing a weakness: organization*
> [The Canadian Press]
> Alexander Panetta,
> April 6, 2016
> ...



Video Report: Yahoo News



> *Trump falters in Wisconsin, as Cruz wins big*
> 
> Holly Bailey
> April 5, 2016
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2016)

Yep, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy keeps growing:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/230947



> *CURIOUSER AND CURIOUSER: No ‘coincidence’ Romanian hacker Guccifer extradited amid Clinton probe*.
> 
> 
> One of the notches on Guccifer’s cyber-crime belt was allegedly accessing the email account of Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, one of Clinton’s most prolific advice-givers when she was secretary of state. It was through that hack that Clinton’s use of a personal account — clintonemail.com — first came to light.
> ...



The Kremlin connection:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/230903/



> *JOHN SCHINDLER: Panama Papers Reveal Clinton’s Kremlin Connection: John and Tony Podesta aren’t fooling anyone*.
> 
> Almost lost among the many revelations is the fact that Russia’s biggest bank uses The Podesta Group as its lobbyist in Washington, DC. Though hardly a household name, this firm is well known inside the Beltway, not least because its CEO is John Podesta, one of the best-connected Democratic machers in the country. Formerly chief of staff to President Bill Clinton, then counselor to President Barack Obama, Mr. Podesta is the very definition of a Democratic insider. Outsiders engage him and his well-connected lobbying firm to improve their image and get access to Democratic bigwigs.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (8 Apr 2016)

So, the alternative to Trump is someone who is less palatable to the electorate outside the extreme right of the GOP. And it seems the GOP establishment may be lining up behind him to stop Trump from getting the nomination outright.

Personally I believe they are only doing it to ensure that the convention is contested and they can take the opportunity to install their own more electable nominee. Cruz is their tool to getting that done.

But here is a good primer of why Cruz really isn't a viable alternative to Trump. (Hillary maybe,  > )

*Cruz would be the most conservative nominee in generations
The Texas senator has staked out positions that put him to the right of Barry Goldwater.*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/ted-cruz-most-conservative-republican-nominee-221729



> Ted Cruz casts himself as the guy who can unify the Republican Party and stop the Donald Trump juggernaut.
> 
> But should the Texas senator win the nomination, he would be the most conservative Republican presidential choice in several generations — to the right even of Barry Goldwater, the party’s 1964 nominee, who was clobbered by Lyndon Johnson.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (8 Apr 2016)

It's not like the Trump bar is all that high a challenge...

*Former CIA chief Hayden: Clinton better prepared than ‘incoherent’ Trump
Donald Trump is a national security threat, George W. Bush’s spymaster tells Glenn Thrush in an exclusive interview for POLITICO’s ‘Off Message’ podcast.*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/off-message-michael-hayden-hillary-clinton-2016-221276



> Earlier this month, former CIA Director Michael Hayden found himself on the not-so-hot seat at "Fox & Friends" with noted national security expert Brian Kilmeade, who asked him this: Which one of the remaining GOP candidates would he trust most on national security?
> 
> Easy. Hayden (who describes Donald Trump’s fist-in-face foreign policy pronouncements as “incoherent”) answered, “John Kasich,” whose mainstream Republican views most closely resembled his own and those of his chosen candidate, the bygone Jeb Bush.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2016)

> Donald Trump is a *national security threa*t, George W. Bush’s spymaster tells Glenn Thrush in an exclusive interview for POLITICO’s ‘Off Message’ podcast.



Donald Trump's private unsecured email server has classified emails on it?


----------



## cupper (8 Apr 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Donald Trump's private unsecured email server has classified emails on it?



You don't expect the former Director of the NSA to say that storing classified material on an unsecured server is a bad thing to do, do you? [


----------



## a_majoor (9 Apr 2016)

Weirdly enough, it is Bernie Sanders who challenges the mythological unemployment numbers released by the BLM. Whoever can present the _real_ economic and unemployment numbers in a clear and compelling manner may be able to upend the narrative and really open up the election campaign:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/231006/



> FIRST QUARTER ECONOMIC NUMBERS LOOK SO BLEAK THEY’LL NEED THE ADDITION OF OBAMA’S MINIONS’ NUMBER-MASSAGING HELP: “They’re not going to let it be negative, as that would set up the possibility of an official recession just before the election (two negative quarters in a row). They’ll make sure it comes in at at least 0.1.”
> 
> Flashback: National Bureau of Economic Research redefines recession definition to move recession back from the third quarter of 2008 to December of 2007. Similarly, in the fall of 1992, the media hid the economic recovery occurring under George H.W. Bush’s watch to enable the Clintons’ “Worst recession in 50 years” lie. Or as a Time magazine headline writer described it with maximum self-satisfied snark on December 7th of 1992, “Bush’s Economic Present for Clinton.” The economy would grow 4.2 percent that quarter, but you never would have known it from the DNC-MSM until after November 3rd.
> 
> Flash-forward: “‘The Greater Depression Has Started’ — Comparing 1930s & Today.” Soon, we could be partying like it’s 1929…


----------



## cupper (10 Apr 2016)

Interesting analysis of the Trump personality and how it explains his approach to dealing with situation. I have had similar impressions of developers and construction managers through out my career.

*Building developers are reactive and megalomaniacal. Just like Trump.*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/reactive-inconsistent-megalomaniacal-trump-fits-the-developer-profile/2016/04/08/ec302270-fb54-11e5-886f-a037dba38301_story.html



> By Faroll Hamer April 8 _Faroll Hamer retired in 2014 as director of planning for the city of Alexandria.
> _
> I spent 30 years as a city planner in the D.C. area, and a big part of my job was meeting with developers. Over time, I created what I called the Developer Profile to entertain my staff. If you want to understand Donald Trump, start here. Of course, I would never say all developers are like this. (But they are.)
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (10 Apr 2016)

Why the GOP Establishment want to go to an open convetion.

I think that the party really needs to have this happen. It will be a painful process to say the least, but if they ever want to get back into the White House, and return the country to real growth, real prosperity for the middle class, all of the things the claim  to stand for but seemingly can't deliver They need to blow things up to regain control of a fractured balkanized group of sub parties.

*Can GOP Elites Really Turn Back the Clock in Cleveland?
Sure, they can pick Paul Ryan if they dare. But it isn't 1920; how are they going to convince voters to pull the lever for him?
*

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/gop-2016-paul-ryan-cleveland-213803



> There was a telling exchange on CNBC’s Squawk Box last month that provided the single best bit of insight into the central conflict that will likely embroil the Republicans when they gather in Cleveland in July. Co-anchor Becky Quick suggested to Republican National Committeeman Curly Haugland that there would be deep anger if the leading vote-and-delegate winner—likely to be Donald Trump--were somehow denied the nomination after failing to get the necessary 1,237 delegates on the first ballot.
> 
> Haugland calmly responded: “The media has created the perception that the voters choose the nomination. That's the conflict here." But what about the Democratic process? Quick asked. Replied Haugland: “Political parties choose their nominees, not the voters.”
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (11 Apr 2016)

Trying to pull a dirty stunt to upend Trump rebounds against a newspaper. Since these people are essentially Dems with bylines (after Instapundit). we are seeing a preview of how the legacy media is going to operate in the general election, and the potential blowback this sort of behaviour could generate:

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_politics/2016/04/globes_stunt_could_wind_up_being_a_big_boon_for_donald_trump



> *Globe's stunt could wind up being a big boon for Donald Trump*
> Jack Encarnacao Monday, April 11, 2016
> 
> ‘BEYOND THE PALE’: The Boston Globe included its vision of a Trump presidency in yesterday’s editions.
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (11 Apr 2016)

I listened to former RNC Chairman Michael Steele on the radio today as he outlined the campaign to stop Trump using Cruz.Then the elites would dump Cruz and select their nominee.It would be nuts for them to go this route,but who knows ?


----------



## George Wallace (12 Apr 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I listened to former RNC Chairman Michael Steele on the radio today as he outlined the campaign to stop Trump using Cruz.Then the elites would dump Cruz and select their nominee.It would be nuts for them to go this route,but who knows ?



I am sure that there is a lot of powerful people pulling the strings in the back rooms of the Party that are very worried that Trump does not need their money and powerful connections.   It must be a major concern to those back room powerhouses to have someone that they can not influence as they wish, through financial and political manipulation.


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Apr 2016)

There is more to the issue than being unable to control or influence Mister Trump. I suspect the RNC appreciates that Trump is unelectable and the same could be said about Senator Cruz. The challenge is that they risk alienating voters no matter what they do. It may well be, despite a not very presidential slate of Democratic candidates, that the road to the White House will not run through the Republican nominating convention in Cleveland.

There also is the possibility if Trump is the candidate that voters will elect enough Democrats to the House and Senate to gain control of both. This effectively would block Trump from implementing his agenda and cut the GOP out of the action for at least one term, if not longer.


----------



## tomahawk6 (12 Apr 2016)

Your premise may be faulty.Remember that whoever is the Republican nominee,they will be up against Hillary Clinton a woman with her own fair share of baggage.Unless Obama greenlights the FBI to take her down clearing the way for Bernie Sanders.


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Apr 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Your premise may be faulty.Remember that whoever is the Republican nominee,they will be up against Hillary Clinton a woman with her own fair share of baggage.Unless Obama greenlights the FBI to take her down clearing the way for Bernie Sanders.



My reading of the polls is that most have Clinton beating Trump easily, and also handling Cruz. Bernie also does well against either. Still, it is a long time to November, but the RNC must be concerned. Probably many voters are not all that eager to go to the polls given the possible choices.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Apr 2016)

One demographic which isn't feeling the Bern:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/bernie-sanders-trump-russians/477045/



> *Why Soviet Refugees Aren't Buying Sanders's Socialism*
> The ultra-conservative views of many in the Russian Jewish community are driven by memories of life in the USSR.
> Zak Bickel / The Atlantic
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (18 Apr 2016)

Evidently Bernie Sanders is lacking a sense of humour:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/maryanngeorgantopoulos/sanders-lawyers-do-not-like-these-bernie-is-my-comrade-t-shi#.mfYRr1JxR



> *Sanders Lawyers Do Not Like These “Bernie Is My Comrade” T-Shirts One Bit*
> The Bernie Sanders campaign has asked a company to stop selling merchandise with the tagline “Bernie is my comrade.”
> posted on Apr. 15, 2016, at 5:50 p.m.
> Mary Ann Georgantopoulos
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Apr 2016)

From Instapundit: Imagine if a hyoersensitive man like Donal Trump were the president....(lots of embedded links in a very short piece)

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/231956



> *STOP AND IMAGINE WHAT A HYPERSENSITIVE MAN LIKE TRUMP MIGHT DO WITH THE POWER OF THE PRESIDENCY*.
> 
> Just imagine it: a hypersensitive man in the White House might start off his administration by flipping off the opposition with the words “I won.” He could tell intransigent fellow party members, “Don’t think we’re not keeping score, brother.” He could “joke” about auditing his enemies, and then look away when the IRS does just that. He could singlehandedly abandon a war his predecessor had won, purely out of partisan spite. He could rearrange the Middle East and then set it alight, to better match his socialist Ivy League faculty break room worldview. He could shaft Israel and hand Iran — Iran! — the Bomb. He could let Vladimir Putin overrun much of his neighboring countries and wide swatches of the Middle East. He could ignore a terrorist attack to go play golf. He could gin-up race riots in America.
> 
> Yeah, I know that all sounds like science fiction, but just stop and imagine with a hypersensitive man could do with the power of the presidency.


----------



## cupper (21 Apr 2016)

I see what you did there.


----------



## CougarKing (22 Apr 2016)

Associated Press



> *Trump, Cruz feud shifts to luxury seaside resort*
> Steve Peoples And Thomas Beaumont, The Associated Press
> The Canadian Press
> April 21, 2016
> ...


----------



## cupper (24 Apr 2016)

Interesting turn in the GOP race. This comment by Charles Koch says more about the state of the GOP than it does about Clinton. Particularly if you believe the rhetoric that the GOP is about smaller government.

*[size=14pt]Charles Koch: 'It's possible' Clinton is preferable to a Republican for president[/size]*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/charles-koch-hillary-clinton-republican-white-house-222349



> Billionaire businessman Charles Koch said Sunday that “it’s possible” another Clinton in the White House could be better than having a Republican president.
> 
> Koch, the CEO of Koch Industries, made the comment to ABC News’ Jonathan Karl during an interview that aired on ABC’s "This Week."
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Apr 2016)

The Koch brothers are neither Democrat nor Republican, they are Libertarians. No doubt this mystifies the hordes of people who try to demonize them as Evil Conservatives (maybe they should go to our Libertarian thread and do a bit of reading), but it also gives the Koch brothers room to see both campaigns and parties. One only has to read a Washington Post Op Ed about Bernie Sanders being right about one point from Charles Koch to see why people's heads seem to melt down when they think about the Koch brothers.


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Apr 2016)

Bernie Sanders would be right at home in Bolshevik Russia.


----------



## CougarKing (25 Apr 2016)

A back room deal to be Cruz's VP for Kasich doing this?

Associated Press



> *Cruz, Kasich strategies align with goal of beating Trump*
> Steve Peoples And Ken Thomas, The Associated Press
> The Canadian Press
> April 25, 2016
> ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (25 Apr 2016)

Or vice versa.

The objective is to get to an "open" convention, but once there, remember that the GOP has no more love for Cruz than for Trump.

So Cruz could become the man that is one heartbeat away from the presidency of Kasich (unlike the last GOP veep, who was a heartbeat away from being dead!).


----------



## cupper (25 Apr 2016)

I doubt that you have anything more than a gentlemen's agreement to not campaign in the respective states where they have no real chance of finishing above 3rd place, in order to devote more financial resources in states where they stand a better chance of getting second place, and a not split delegates.

In fact, they really didn't need to come to an agreement, but rather could have just pulled out of the various states and left it to voters to figure for themselves what they want to do with their vote. By announcing it as they did it really only gave them the opportunity to let their voters know that they would prefer them to vote for another candidate other than Trump.

As it is, they remain on the ballots on the various states, and voters are still free to vote for them if they chose.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (25 Apr 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Bernie Sanders would be right at home in Bolshevik Russia.



Sanders 12 Point Plan to success: 

1.  Rebuilding Our Crumbling Infrastructure. We need a major investment to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure: roads, bridges, water systems, waste water plants, airports, railroads and schools. It has been estimated that the cost of the Bush-Cheney Iraq War, a war we should never have waged, will total $3 trillion by the time the last veteran receives needed care. A $1 trillion investment in infrastructure could create 13 million decent paying jobs and make this country more efficient and productive. We need to invest in infrastructure, not more war.

2.  Reversing Climate Change. The United States must lead the world in reversing climate change and make certain that this planet is habitable for our children and grandchildren. We must transform our energy system away from fossil fuels and into energy efficiency and sustainable energies. Millions of homes and buildings need to be weatherized, our transportation system needs to be energy efficient and we need to greatly accelerate the progress we are already seeing in wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and other forms of sustainable energy. Transforming our energy system will not only protect the environment, it will create good paying jobs.

3.  Creating Worker Co-ops. We need to develop new economic models to increase job creation and productivity. Instead of giving huge tax breaks to corporations which ship our jobs to China and other low-wage countries, we need to provide assistance to workers who want to purchase their own businesses by establishing worker-owned cooperatives. Study after study shows that when workers have an ownership stake in the businesses they work for, productivity goes up, absenteeism goes down and employees are much more satisfied with their jobs.

4.  Growing the Trade Union Movement. Union workers who are able to collectively bargain for higher wages and benefits earn substantially more than non-union workers. Today, corporate opposition to union organizing makes it extremely difficult for workers to join a union. We need legislation which makes it clear that when a majority of workers sign cards in support of a union, they can form a union.

5.  Raising the Minimum Wage. he current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage. We need to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. No one in this country who works 40 hours a week should live in poverty.

6.  Pay Equity for Women Workers. Women workers today earn 78 percent of what their male counterparts make. We need pay equity in our country — equal pay for equal work.

7.  Trade Policies that Benefit American Workers. Since 2001 we have lost more than 60,000 factories in this country, and more than 4.9 million decent-paying manufacturing jobs. We must end our disastrous trade policies (NAFTA, CAFTA, PNTR with China, etc.) which enable corporate America to shut down plants in this country and move to China and other low-wage countries. We need to end the race to the bottom and develop trade policies which demand that American corporations create jobs here, and not abroad.

8.  Making College Affordable for All. In today's highly competitive global economy, millions of Americans are unable to afford the higher education they need in order to get good-paying jobs. Further, with both parents now often at work, most working-class families can't locate the high-quality and affordable child care they need for their kids. Quality education in America, from child care to higher education, must be affordable for all. Without a high-quality and affordable educational system, we will be unable to compete globally and our standard of living will continue to decline.

9.  Taking on Wall Street. The function of banking is to facilitate the flow of capital into productive and job-creating activities. Financial institutions cannot be an island unto themselves, standing as huge profit centers outside of the real economy. Today, six huge Wall Street financial institutions have assets equivalent to 61 percent of our gross domestic product - over $9.8 trillion. These institutions underwrite more than half the mortgages in this country and more than two-thirds of the credit cards. The greed, recklessness and illegal behavior of major Wall Street firms plunged this country into the worst financial crisis since the 1930s. They are too powerful to be reformed. They must be broken up.

10. Health Care as a Right for All. The United States must join the rest of the industrialized world and recognize that health care is a right of all, and not a privilege. Despite the fact that more than 40 million Americans have no health insurance, we spend almost twice as much per capita on health care as any other nation. We need to establish a Medicare-for-all, single-payer system.

11. Protecting the Most Vulnerable Americans. Millions of seniors live in poverty and we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country. We must strengthen the social safety net, not weaken it. Instead of cutting Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and nutrition programs, we should be expanding these programs.

12. Real Tax Reform. 
At a time of massive wealth and income inequality, we need a progressive tax system in this country which is based on ability to pay. It is not acceptable that major profitable corporations have paid nothing in federal income taxes, and that corporate CEOs in this country often enjoy an effective tax rate which is lower than their secretaries. It is absurd that we lose over $100 billion a year in revenue because corporations and the wealthy stash their cash in offshore tax havens around the world. The time is long overdue for real tax reform.
Do you agree we need tax reform which asks the wealthy and large corporations and the wealthy stash their cash in offshore tax havens around the world. The time is long overdue for real tax reform.

 Article Link


----------



## Jed (25 Apr 2016)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Sanders 12 Point Plan to success:
> 
> 1.  Rebuilding Our Crumbling Infrastructure. We need a major investment to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure: roads, bridges, water systems, waste water plants, airports, railroads and schools. It has been estimated that the cost of the Bush-Cheney Iraq War, a war we should never have waged, will total $3 trillion by the time the last veteran receives needed care. A $1 trillion investment in infrastructure could create 13 million decent paying jobs and make this country more efficient and productive. We need to invest in infrastructure, not more war.
> 
> ...




Woah! Might as well swap out the current National Anthem with Russia's if enough citizens 'feel the Bern.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Apr 2016)

It's actually a one point plan:

"Freestuffs for everyone! People you don't like will pay for it!"

Of course, no one seems to consider they are always on someone else's list as well.....


----------



## CougarKing (26 Apr 2016)

Some relief from all the crazy coverage of Trump making fun of Kasich's pancake-eating habits:

CBC



> *Ted Cruz-John Kasich deal may hurt more than just Trump*
> CBC
> April 25, 2016
> 
> ...



Canadian Press



> *Delegate math: How Tuesday could close door on Sanders bid*
> Hope Yen, The Associated Press
> The Canadian Press
> April 25, 2016
> ...


----------



## cupper (26 Apr 2016)

Tonights results show that Trump took all 5 states in tonights primaries with over 50% of the vote in all 5.

Clinton took 4 of 5, with Sanders taking Rhode Island.

With his win, Trump is now claiming to be the presumptive nominee.

*Trump declares himself presumptive nominee*

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/donald-trump-presumptive-nominee-2016-222494?lo=ap_a3



> Donald Trump called the race over after sweeping Tuesday's five Republican primaries with blowout wins.
> 
> “I consider myself the presumptive nominee absolutely," Trump told reporters after delivering election night remarks at Trump
> Tower in New York. “I started off with 17 (competitors) and now I’m winning. It's over."
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (27 Apr 2016)

More on the above:

Associated Press



> *Trump routs rivals in Northeast; Clinton carries 4 states*
> Julie Pace And Catherine Lucey, The Associated Press
> The Canadian Press
> April 26, 2016
> ...




Canadian Press



> *Donald Trump to celebrities threatening to immigrate to Canada: Go*
> 
> Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press
> 
> ...


----------



## Altair (27 Apr 2016)

I remember when everyone said trump's ceiling was in the 30s and 40s...


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Apr 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I remember when everyone said trump's ceiling was in the 30s and 40s...


A lot of people see right through the desperation in Cruz and Kasich. When you basically give up hope to win by trying to focus resources to stop someone, a lot of your supporters are going to stay home on primary day. I think that's why we're seeing big shifts in actual results, only the anti Trump voters are getting out, and there's not as many as thought.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Apr 2016)

The Dems in dissarray. Sanders talks about creating an analogue of the TEA Party on the left, although the historical record suggests that this might not work so well:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/232429/



> NEVER LET IT BE SAID THAT BERNIE SANDERS DOESN’T TAKE RECYCLING SERIOUSLY! Bernie: Create a Tea Party off the Left Within the Democratic Party Now.
> 
> Well, other than Occupy Wall Street, and their predecessors, including, as Glenn noted in 2011, “the Coffee Party, the Brownbaggers, The Other 95%, A New Way Forward, [and] the One Nation Movement,” it’s an idea that — much like Bernie’s underlying socialism — is an idea that’s sure to work this time!



The latest attempt to try and portray Democrat initiatives as some sort of populist movement will fail for the same reason that the others (go to article and click on the links to the various "movements" ); they are "top down" attempts to simulate a mass movement. Sanders himself is perhaps the exception; he is creating a mass movement which _does_ have legs and can carry a large number of prospective voters. Maybe he should follow Donald Trump's advice and run as an independent.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (27 Apr 2016)

Thucidides: You've got to stop relying on the ignorant, but prolific, blogger that is Instapundit, and read the supporting articles.

As of now, here are the number of times senator Sanders has spoken of creating a movement within the Dems: zero, nada, none, absolute silence on the matter.

On the contrary , he has clearly stated that if he lost, he would work very hard to make sure the next president is not a Republican. That smacks of rallying around the Democrat nominee to me, not fighting her.

The article quoted by Instapundit in his blog you reproduced is from Rabi Lerner, a well known Democrat, suggesting to Sanders and/or his followers how they could go about furthering their ideas within the democratic party. It does not originate from Sanders, neither has he indicated in any way that he intends to follow that advice. Nor, for that matter, is there any indication whatsoever that such a movement is in the process of creation within the Democrats.

It's important to read underlying material, especially with people like Glenn Harland Reynolds, a rather insignificant professor of law who would have been classified by the Old Teutonic war staff as being in the "stupid but hard working" category of officer, who were the worse and to be gotten rid of asap.


----------



## Lumber (27 Apr 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> It's important to read underlying material, especially with people like Glenn Harland Reynolds, a rather insignificant professor of law who would have been classified by the Old Teutonic war staff as being in the "stupid but hard working" category of officer, who were the worse and to be gotten rid of asap.



I love that categorization of officers. Makes me feel less bad about being lazy! Now just to figure out if I'm stupid or smart...

Anyways, as for feeling the Bern, there was a good article on CNN about why Sanders will _not_ drop out of the race no matter how bleak his chances of winning are. It said that this campaign is his life's work and that he will continue to speak loudly about the issues in order to attempt political change in the system, even if he's not the one who gets to be the one effecting those changes.


----------



## Lumber (27 Apr 2016)

Found it!

It's an opinion piece, not gospel.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/26/opinions/sanders-is-not-dropping-out-opinion-obeidallah/index.html


----------



## cupper (27 Apr 2016)

Trump made a foreign policy speech today.

Takeaways: Needs to work on his use of a teleprompter. Long on criticism of previous / current policies, short on specifics about his. Donald Trump reading a prepared speech, boring.

*Trump Reset? Sober Foreign Policy Address Gives Peek Into 'Trump Doctrine'*

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/27/475936970/trump-reset-sober-foreign-policy-address-gives-peek-into-trump-doctrine



> Championing "stability" and protectionism, Donald Trump managed a sendup of the foreign policies of the last three American presidents, as well as the candidate he is likely to face this fall in a general election — Hillary Clinton.
> 
> "With President Obama and Secretary Clinton, we've had ... a reckless, rudderless and aimless foreign policy — one that has blazed a path of destruction in its wake," Trump charged in a sober foreign policy address at a hotel in Washington. He added, "[T]he legacy of the Obama-Clinton interventions will be weakness, confusion and disarray."
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (27 Apr 2016)

Cruz is getting desperate. 

He mad a BIG announcement today. Get ready for Ted and Carley's big adventure.

More of a desperate ploy to deflect attention back to him and away from Trump. 

You would think that someone who believes Reagan is the GOP god would take a lesson from Reagan's 1976 run for the nomination and pulled the same publicity stunt, only to have it fail.

*Ted Cruz Names Carly Fiorina As His Vice Presidential Pick*

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/27/475894723/in-unprecedented-move-cruz-will-name-fiorina-as-his-vice-presidential-pick



> Ted Cruz announced Tuesday he is picking former rival Carly Fiorina as his running mate in a last-ditch move designed to shake up the GOP primary race in which he badly trails Donald Trump.
> 
> Calling his decision "one of the most solemn choices you make" as a candidate, at a rally in Indianapolis, Ind., Cruz praised Fiorina's business experience, character and past ability to stand up to the Republican front-runner.
> 
> ...


----------



## Altair (28 Apr 2016)

If one good come from a trump presidency it's that he said he would kick the free loaders out of NATO.

Considering that we, canada, spend half of the two percent of GDP that every NATO member is suppose to, that would mean doubling the 20 billion give or take that the CAF gets to 40 billion or so,or we go it alone.

I don't think any party in power could stand the national shame of being kicked out of NATO. 

Go trump.


----------



## cupper (28 Apr 2016)

The other famous orange skinned man shares his opinion on the GOP race.

John, it's not healthy to hold things in. Tell us what you really think.  ;D

*Boehner Says He's Never 'Worked With A More Miserable Son Of A Bitch' Than Cruz*

http://www.npr.org/2016/04/28/476016486/boehner-says-hes-never-worked-with-a-more-miserable-son-of-a-bitch-than-cruz



> Former House Speaker John Boehner is a retired politician, so he seems to have retired from being politic. He went with radical honesty at a recent event at Stanford, according to the Stanford Daily, when he was asked about his opinion of Republican presidential candidate and Texas Sen. Ted Cruz.
> 
> _*"Lucifer in the flesh," the former speaker said. "I have Democrat friends and Republican friends. I get along with almost everyone, but I have never worked with a more miserable son of a bitch in my life."*_
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (28 Apr 2016)

Remember this?



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> I was wrong. It just got weirder.  :facepalm: :facepalm:
> 
> *Caitlyn Jenner Likes Ted Cruz, Wants to Be His 'Trans Ambassador'
> Jenner says she met Cruz before her transition "and he was very nice."*
> ...



Yeah, well maybe not so much now.

*Caitlyn Jenner Uses Donald Trump's Bathroom to Slam Ted Cruz's Anti-Trans Policies: 'By the Way, Ted, Nobody Got Molested!'
The "I Am Cait" star makes a big political statement in new video*

http://www.nbcwashington.com/entertainment/entertainment-news/Caitlyn-Jenner-Uses-Donald-Trump-s-Bathroom-to-Slam-Ted-Cruz-377372591.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_DCBrand



> Caitlyn Jenner is responding to Donald Trump's message of support.
> 
> Last week, the Republican presidential front-runner supported trans people's right to use any bathroom in which they feel comfortable. While talking about North Carolina's anti-trans bathroom law on "Today," Trump was asked, "So if Caitlyn Jenner were to walk into Trump Tower and want to use the bathroom, you would be fine with her using any bathroom she chooses?"
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Apr 2016)

The fact that this is an issue _at all_ (especially given the magnitude of the _real issues_) speaks to some seriously malfunctioning institutions and social structures in the United States.


----------



## Altair (28 Apr 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The fact that this is an issue _at all_ (especially given the magnitude of the _real issues_) speaks to some seriously malfunctioning institutions and social structures in the United States.


The religious right has lost many battles in the past few decades, bathrooms might be the last stand.


----------



## cupper (28 Apr 2016)

I wouldn't make that bet if I were you. 

They are like the Energizer Bunny.

And they've had some significant wins in the past few years, the Hobby Lobby case being the most significant of them.

Which makes the SCOTUS vacancy all the more problematic for both sides.


----------



## cupper (29 Apr 2016)

Just how bad does one have to be when Satanists are offended by comparison to Ted Cruz?

*Satanists balk at Cruz comparison*

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/278130-the-satanic-temple-dont-link-us-with-cruz



> A leading Satanist group is trying to distance itself from Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) after the presidential candidate was compared to Lucifer this week.
> 
> “Cruz’s failures of reason, compassion, decency and humanity are products of his Christian pandering, if not an actual Christian faith,” Satanic Temple spokesman Lucien Greaves said on Thursday, according to The Friendly Atheist.
> 
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Apr 2016)

I can well imagine even Lucifer would be offended at the thought.  What a low blow insult.


----------



## Journeyman (30 Apr 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> The religious right has lost many battles in the past few decades, bathrooms *might be the last stand*.


See? More misogyny! 

Not everyone stands in the bathroom, ya know.  I'm personally very, very offended on behalf of....well, someone, I'm sure. 



 ;D  <-- so even the dullards know I'm not serious.  :nod:


----------



## Blackadder1916 (30 Apr 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Just how bad does one have to be when Satanists are offended by comparison to Ted Cruz?
> 
> *Satanists balk at Cruz comparison*
> 
> ...



How can you take such Satanists seriously?  Whatever happened to the traditional virtues vices of debauchery, hedonism and sexual perversity that was their appeal?  These guys are trying to sound like Shriners without the funny hats and tiny cars.


----------



## cupper (1 May 2016)

A fairly good discussion on why Clinton could win, but things would not be any different.

Which makes a very interesting case for both parties to consider very carefully who they want to put up in 2020 if Clinton is coronated.

*How Hillary Could Win the Election—and Lose the Country
She’d be a status-quo president at a time when both left and right are desperate for change.*

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/04/how-hillary-could-win-the-electionand-lose-the-country-213852



> Hillary Clinton’s all-but-insurmountable delegate lead in the Democratic race, and her strong numbers against any probable Republican opponent in the fall, now pose a paradox: She might win the presidency but lose the country.
> 
> *The reason is that Clinton lacks a big, new animating idea in a year when voters in both parties are so discontented they have embraced some pretty bad ones. Like them or loathe them, Donald Trump's and Bernie Sanders’ messages are crystal clear and call for dramatic change, while Clinton’s remains spread softly all over the map. And her agenda promises less change than continuation—of the centrist Democratic Party policies that her husband pursued and which Barack Obama has largely followed. It’s no surprise that one of Clinton’s biggest campaign themes is to praise both her predecessor Democratic presidents—the one she married and the one she went to work for—effusively.*
> 
> ...


----------



## cavalryman (3 May 2016)

Ted Cruz is out.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/live-updates-republican-primary-in-indiana/


----------



## cupper (3 May 2016)

But before it was over, it went into a different universe:

*Trump accuses Cruz's father of helping JFK's assassin*

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/05/trump-ted-cruz-father-222730



> Donald Trump on Tuesday alleged that Ted Cruz’s father was with John F. Kennedy’s assassin shortly before he murdered the president, parroting a National Enquirer story claiming that Rafael Cruz was pictured with Lee Harvey Oswald handing out pro-Fidel Castro pamphlets in New Orleans in 1963.
> 
> A Cruz campaign spokesperson told the Miami Herald, which pointed out numerous flaws in the Enquirer story, that it was “another garbage story in a tabloid full of garbage.”
> “His father was with Lee Harvey Oswald prior to Oswald's being — you know, shot. I mean, the whole thing is ridiculous,” Trump said Tuesday during a phone interview with Fox News. “What is this, right prior to his being shot, and nobody even brings it up. They don't even talk about that. That was reported, and nobody talks about it.”
> ...



And Cruz went ballistic:

*Cruz on JFK assassination theory: 'This is nuts'
The Texas senator laces into Trump for insinuating his dad may have somehow been involved in JFK's murder.*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/ted-cruz-jfk-assassination-trump-222736



> Donald Trump is a pathological liar, Ted Cruz said Tuesday in a forceful and passionate rebuke of the Republican presidential front-runner.
> 
> Phoning into Fox News on Tuesday, the real-estate mogul parroted a National Enquirer report alleging that Cruz’s father, Rafael Cruz, was with John F. Kennedy’s assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, suggesting that the elder Cruz was somehow involved in JFK’s murder.
> 
> ...



Yet after all of that, when questioned by reporters whether he would still support Trump as the GOP nominee, he still refused to say whether he would or wouldn't.

All we know for sure is that Rafael Cruz needs to be stopped. JFK, Elvis and Hoffa. Who else is on the list?  anic:


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 May 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Ted Cruz is out.
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/live-updates-republican-primary-in-indiana/



Huzzah.  I'm relieved that religious nutbar won't have a shot.


----------



## a_majoor (4 May 2016)

And so it begins, the marshalling of the "Progressive" forces to reinforce and control the "narrative". While FaceBook is hardly a surprise, given the open support the company's founder has given to the Democrats, it is interesting to contemplate what other avenues and information channels are being compromised, and who is paying for all this? Expect to see a lot more as the election comes closer.

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/232969



> IT’S LIKE IT’S SOCIAL-MANIPULATION MEDIA OR SOMETHING: Surprise! Facebook Blacklists Trending Topics And Conservative News Outlets.
> 
> Related: Could Facebook Swing An Election?


----------



## cupper (6 May 2016)

I suspect this is going to be a scene that is repeated millions of times over come November 8th.

https://youtu.be/ETqPXudGYgI


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 May 2016)

I can see Trump offering the VP job to Cruz.


----------



## GAP (6 May 2016)

Trump does not want the competition...Cruz will always want the attention for his next run


----------



## cupper (7 May 2016)

A good discussion on Clinton's (and the Dem's) problem on messaging, specifically the economic. Trump, for all his faults has messaging down to a science.

*Unlike Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton Lacks A Simple, Clear Economic Message*

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/07/477034130/unlike-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-lacks-a-simple-clear-economic-message



> Hillary Cinton isn't over the finish line yet, but as she continues to battle Bernie Sanders she's also turning her attention to a general election matchup with Donald Trump.
> 
> A lot of Democrats say that in order to beat Trump, she needs to be developing a clearer message on the economy.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (7 May 2016)

P J O'Rourke came out and endorsed Hillary Clinton on today's Wait Wait Don't Tell Me.

His reasoning explains the thing that is wrong with the choices faced by Republican voters in November. 

Trump is wrong on everything he says and believes. And so is Hillary. But Hillary is wrong within normal parameters.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 May 2016)

There was another Republican with a clear economic message a few years back: "Read my lips: No new taxes"

A clear message;
Followed by clear action to the contrary;
Meant he clearly was not gonna get a second term.  ;D


----------



## cupper (8 May 2016)

I'm looking forward to the day that the "Lamestream" media finally decides that Palin has no relevant purpose in politics and she finally gets relegated to the fringe media.

*Sarah Palin says Paul Ryan will soon be ‘Cantored’*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/08/sarah-palin-says-paul-ryan-will-soon-be-cantored/?hpid=hp_special-topic-chain_pp-palin-935am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory



> Sarah Palin said in a television interview broadcast Sunday that she will support Speaker Paul Ryan's primary challenger, and she compared Ryan to former House majority leader Eric Cantor (Va.), who was stunningly defeated in a 2014 primary.
> 
> "I think Paul Ryan is soon to be 'Cantored,'" Palin said on CNN's "State of the Union." Cantor lost his primary to now-Rep. Dave Brat.
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 May 2016)

Ryan is a huge disapointment and the sooner he is out of the Speakership the better.


----------



## a_majoor (9 May 2016)

How FaceBook (and other social media) will attempt to swing the election:

http://gizmodo.com/former-facebook-workers-we-routinely-suppressed-conser-1775461006



> *Former Facebook Workers: We Routinely Suppressed Conservative News*
> Michael Nunez
> Today 9:10am
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (11 May 2016)

:facepalm:

International Business Times



> *Trump Floats Radical Idea To Back Out Of US Debt Obligations; Economists Aren’t Thrilled*
> By Owen Davis @odavis_ On 05/07/16 AT 6:00 PM
> 
> Asked about the state of the U.S. fiscal situation last week, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump floated a novel idea: Stiff bondholders. If the economy tanks again, Trump said he may consider throwing U.S. debt obligations out the window.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (11 May 2016)

The US National Debt in 2007 was @ 5 trillion dollars. Today it is over 19 trillion. Unfunded liabilities for Social Security and Medicare/Medicade could be as high as 100 trillion dollars. Many US States have proportionally vast debts and unfunded liabilities related to their employee pensions and benefits. Any guesses as to how that could ever be paid off?

Trump is only saying openly what people have been suspecting for a while now (and we should remember the Great Depression was also caused by the massive debt overhangs created by the Great War). While a default of this odious debt isn't going to be pretty, we have pretty much passed the point of no return quite some time ago. Most Western nations have debt GDP ratios that are far above any sort of safe level, with Japan having the highest with 229% debt/GDP. Nations like China with highly opaque metrics could be in equal trouble as well. 

GlennReynolds (Instapundit) sums this up with the simple statement:



> Things that can't go on forever, won't. Debt that can't be repaid, won't be. Promises that can't be kept, won't be.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (11 May 2016)

Bull!

https://www.whitehouse.gov/infographics/us-national-debt
http://www.smartvoters.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/us-federal-debt-by-president-political-party.jpg


----------



## Altair (11 May 2016)

According to the most recent poll(reuters/ipsos), trump's support has surged and is now tied with hillary Clinton nationally.

This is a a significant surge because the last poll had him 13 points behind hillary. 

So much for the he will never win camp.

http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0Y21TN


----------



## Loachman (11 May 2016)

I'm still hoping that he fires Trudeau once he wins.


----------



## cupper (11 May 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> According to the most recent poll(reuters/ipsos), trump's support has surged and is now tied with hillary Clinton nationally.
> 
> This is a a significant surge because the last poll had him 13 points behind hillary.
> 
> ...



I wouldn't put ant credence in polls until September. A day in politics is a lifetime.

*Nate Silver rips Trump-Clinton polls in 8-part Twitter rant*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/nate-silver-trump-clinton-polls-223015



> Nate Silver thinks it's time to pump the brakes on predicting the results of a Donald Trump-Hillary Clinton matchup in November.
> "For f--k's sake, America. You're going to make go on a rant about general election polls -- in May?" the editor in chief of FiveThirtyEight wrote as part of a tweetstorm on Tuesday.
> 
> Silver said Clinton has an about 6 percent lead over Trump nationally, but cautioned: "It's early. Trump could win. Also, he could lose in a landslide." He added that Trump's presumptive nomination and Clinton's ongoing battle with Bernie Sanders could be having an effect — "We'll know more in June."
> ...


----------



## cupper (11 May 2016)

And they ain't gonna be voting for Trump.  :nod:

*
Trump’s candidacy sparking ‘a surge’ in citizenship, voter applications*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trumps-candidacy-sparking-a-surge-in-citizenship-voter-applications/2016/05/11/33808f34-177a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_latinos-3pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory



> Donald Trump’s presidential campaign is spurring a record number of citizenship applications and increases in voter registration among Latinos upset by the candidate’s rhetoric and fearful of his plans to crack down on immigration.
> 
> Activists, lawmakers and political consultants around the country say Hispanics are flooding into citizenship workshops and congressional offices and jamming hotlines on how to become U.S. citizens or register to vote. Many say they are primarily motivated by the rise of Trump, who has proposed deporting 11 million undocumented immigrants and building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 May 2016)

I doubt Trump will casually default on debt, although I suppose that is his call to make.  It would be interesting if he is thinking about stiffing purely public debt holders, or also stiffing government agencies on their markers for intragovernmental debt.  For now I suppose he means what most people would interpret his remarks to mean: holders of public (tradeable) US federal debt.

When perusing figures for US debt, pay attention to whether they represent gross or public debt (the former includes the money the government owes to itself).  The second of the "infographics" linked above appears to be based (given the numbers) on gross debt, which tends to overstate the appearance of debt growth during the Bush administration.  Total deficits during the Bush administration only add up to about $2 trillion, not $4 trillion.  US federal public debt was last around $5 trillion in 1995, not 2007 (when it was $9 trillion).  It is currently over $19 trillion.


----------



## cupper (12 May 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I doubt Trump will casually default on debt, although I suppose that is his call to make.  It would be interesting if he is thinking about stiffing purely public debt holders, or also stiffing government agencies on their markers for intragovernmental debt.  For now I suppose he means what most people would interpret his remarks to mean: holders of public (tradeable) US federal debt.



It shows Trumps ignorance about the reality of the powers of each branch of government, and the reality of the US Debt.

He has no power to default, renegotiate or add to or servicing of the debt. Only Congress has that power.

The more Trump becomes a potential resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the more it shows the foresight that the founding fathers had about not the office become the supreme power of government.


----------



## FJAG (12 May 2016)

*On Facebook, Trump's Longtime Butler Calls for Obama to Be Killed
"This pr*ck needs to be hung for treason!!!"*

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/05/trump-butler-anthony-senecal-facebook-kill-obama

This circus just can't get any funnier.  :rofl:

 :cheers:


----------



## Altair (12 May 2016)

I wanted to say he probably doesn't get many policy ideas from his butler...but I can't say that with any confidence


----------



## cupper (12 May 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> *On Facebook, Trump's Longtime Butler Calls for Obama to Be Killed
> "This pr*ck needs to be hung for treason!!!"*
> 
> http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/05/trump-butler-anthony-senecal-facebook-kill-obama
> ...



But wait, it gets better. 

In a phone interview on NBC earlier today: 

He wants to nuke Detroit and Milwaukee. 

The Obama's aren't the real parents of the kids.

*Trump butler thinks Obama should be ‘hung’*

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/trump-butler-thinks-obama-should-be-hung

You really can't make this up.   :rofl:


----------



## cavalryman (12 May 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> But wait, it gets better.
> 
> In a phone interview on NBC earlier today:
> 
> ...


Does that mean when Trump loses we can say the butler did  it?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 May 2016)

Well, that's one butler who will not see the story of his life made into a movie by Oprah.  :nod:


----------



## Journeyman (18 May 2016)

Sad, it's come to this......


----------



## cupper (20 May 2016)

Donald Trump sucks up to panders to gets the endorsement of the NRA. 

Not really a big surprise any way you look at it.

*'I Will Never Let You Down,' Trump Tells National Rifle Association*

http://www.npr.org/2016/05/20/478864228/i-will-never-let-you-down-trump-tells-national-rifle-association?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160520



> The National Rifle Association endorsed Donald Trump on Friday, just before the apparent Republican nominee addressed its annual conference in Louisville, Ky.
> 
> "To get the endorsement, believe me, is a fantastic honor," Trump said, adding that he and his sons are members of the NRA. "They're much better shooters than I am," he said.
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 May 2016)

Well unlike Canada we do enjoy gun ownership which is protected under the Constitution.If the liberals had their way they would disarm the populace,which makes me very uncomfortable.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (20 May 2016)

We have heard a lot of press about how Trump is tearing apart the Republican Party. However, the Democrats seem to be having a similair problem as the infighting between Hilary and Saunders continues. This article, reproduced under the usual caveats of the Copyright Act, hilights the problems the Hilary camp is having.



> Clinton fury with Sanders grows
> By Amie Parnes - 05/20/16 06:00 AM EDT
> 
> In public, Hillary Clinton's aides and allies have kept their anger checked, decrying the rowdy outbursts at Nevada’s state convention last weekend but saying they believe Sanders will ultimately do the right thing by helping to unite the Democratic Party.
> ...



 Article link


----------



## CougarKing (30 May 2016)

Servergate catching up to Hillary Clinton...

Associated Pres



> *Report traces arc of Hillary Clinton server, agency failures*
> [Stephen Braun, Jack Gillum And Chad Day, The Associated Press]
> 
> May 26, 2016
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (30 May 2016)

Trump: The Opera

http://www.cbc.ca/radio/becausenews/opera-star-ben-heppner-sings-trump-quotes-plus-trudeau-s-sexcation-and-skinny-tv-shows-1.3603594/opera-star-ben-heppner-sings-the-role-of-donald-trump-1.3603977


----------



## cupper (30 May 2016)

Neocon and psychic Bill Kristol has thrown a wrench into the Trump party unification process.

*Bill Kristol Announces, ‘There Will Be An Independent Candidate’*

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/05/29/bill-kristol-will-independent-candidate/



> Neoconservative political operative Bill Kristol announced Sunday that an independent candidate will enter the presidential race to challenge both Donald Trump and the Democratic Party nominee.
> 
> Kristol, the editor of The Weekly Standard, has been trying for months to find a third-party challenger since his preferred candidates lost in the Republican primaries to Trump. Now, just weeks after meeting with Mitt Romney to talk about a third-party run, Kristol hinted Sunday that his plot is coming to fruition.
> 
> ...



And Trump has predictably responded in his predictable manner

*Trump jabs at Bill Kristol over independent candidate prediction*

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/29/politics/bill-kristol-donald-trump-independent-candidate/



> Donald Trump took aim Sunday night at Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol, who suggested on Twitter that news of an "impressive" independent conservative presidential candidate is forthcoming.
> 
> In a series of tweets, Trump criticized Kristol, calling him a "dummy" and "an embarrassed loser," suggesting the pundit reflects a lack of party unity that could affect the ideological composition of the Supreme Court.
> 
> ...



And in case anyone thinks Kristol is a political genius, let me remind you he was the one who thought Palin was the prime choice for a running mate for McCain, and the future of the GOP.

*The GOP Should Always Do the Opposite of What Bill Kristol Says
The man who helped bring us the Iraq War and Sarah Palin says Republicans are in danger of being too self-critical. How would he know?*

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/the-gop-should-always-do-the-opposite-of-what-bill-kristol-says/267362/



> As President Obama begins his second term, having soundly defeated Republicans twice, The Weekly Standard's Bill Kristol is advising his fellow partisans to avoid being too hard on themselves. "Republican self-criticism is necessary and healthy, but all things in moderation," he says. "Republicans can and should say, with considerable justification and only a bit of bravado: It is past time we ceased to apologize for an imperfect political party. Find its equal. Probably more than any other party in the world, the Republicans have in recent decades stood unflinchingly for the cause of liberty abroad, and, at home, with a bit more uncertainty, for limited, constitutional government and for the principle that government exists to serve free men and free markets."
> 
> Actually, Republicans flinched from supporting the cause of liberty during the Cold War when it conflicted with anti-communism, and regularly flinch from doing so in the War on Terror, too. (Ahem.) And if the actions of John Ashcroft, John Yoo, David Addington, Dick Cheney, and George W. Bush constitute support for "limited, constitutional government," the words have no meaning.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (31 May 2016)

Trump finally gets the endorsement that he needs to seal election to the White House. 

*North Korean state newspaper praises Donald Trump as 'wise' and 'far-sighted'*

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/31/north-korean-state-newspaper-praises-donald-trump-as-wise-and-fa/



> Donald Trump has won the backing of a major newspaper - in North Korea.
> 
> DPRK Today, the official state paper of Kim Jong-un's regime, published an editorial on Tuesday calling Mr Trump a "wise politician" and "far-sighted presidential candidate".
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jun 2016)

This is the sort of thing which could make an election. Trust the Legacy Media and their enablers to ignore the story for as long as possible, since it hurts their narrative of Hillary's coronation. (That is if Sanders, the server, Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, complete lack of accomplishment as Secretary of State, etc. etc. don't...oh wait, these things aren't reported either)

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/235300-2



> CRAZY BARRY’S IS HAVING A HALF-OFF SALE! “Bank of America gets half off its Justice Dept. settlement…by giving millions of dollars to liberal groups approved by the Obama administration:”
> 
> 
> The bank has wiped about $194 million off its record $16.6 billion 2014 mortgage settlement by donating to nonprofits and legal groups. Thanks to little-known provisions in the settlement, the bank only had to make $84 million in donations to do that.
> ...


----------



## Lumber (3 Jun 2016)

So they paid off...194,000,000/16,600,000,000...~1.2% of their settlement using this method. "Whoop Dee Doo"...

Further, the article on lists 3 organizations that it claims are "Friendly Liberal Groups": National Council of La Raza, the National Urban League, and the Neighborhood Assistance Corporation of America. The total donated to these groups equates to ~$3.4 million. So, where did all of the other $80.6 million go?

Did they _only_ donate to "Friendly Liberal Groups"? Was any money given to politically neutral, or friendly "conservative" groups? The article doesn't say, but their lack of any comment on the matter makes me curious. 

And "Legacy Media" is ignoring the story because it's a non-story to begin with, and isn't even all that interesting or exciting even if it was.


----------



## cupper (4 Jun 2016)

Seems that history is repeating itself, and there are lessons to be learned.

*How an Outsider President Killed a Party
The Whigs chose power over principles when they nominated Zachary Taylor in 1848. The party never recovered.*

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/history-campaign-politics-zachary-taylor-killed-whigs-political-party-213935



> It was summer, and a major U.S. political party had just chosen an inexperienced, unqualified, loutish, wealthy outsider with ambiguous party loyalties to be its presidential nominee. Some party luminaries thought he would help them win the general election. But many of the faithful were furious and mystified: How could their party compromise its ideals to such a degree?
> 
> Sound like 2016? This happened a century and a half ago.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (4 Jun 2016)

Trumps latest tirade against the judge overseeing the class action suit against Trump university raises some serious concerns regarding his view on constitutional limits and separation of powers. When viewed along with some of his other stated views on domestic policy, alarm bells really should be going off.

*Donald Trump Could Threaten U.S. Rule of Law, Scholars Say*

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-constitution-power.html?_r=0



> WASHINGTON — Donald J. Trump’s blustery attacks on the press, complaints about the judicial system and bold claims of presidential power collectively sketch out a constitutional worldview that shows contempt for the First Amendment, the separation of powers and the rule of law, legal experts across the political spectrum say.
> 
> Even as much of the Republican political establishment lines up behind its presumptive nominee, many conservative and libertarian legal scholars warn that electing Mr. Trump is a recipe for a constitutional crisis.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jun 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Trumps latest tirade against the judge overseeing the class action suit against Trump university raises some serious concerns regarding his view on constitutional limits and separation of powers. When viewed along with some of his other stated views on domestic policy, alarm bells really should be going off.
> 
> *Donald Trump Could Threaten U.S. Rule of Law, Scholars Say*
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/politics/donald-trump-constitution-power.html?_r=0



If the system works then it will counter the threat.  That is what it was designed to do.

It's not always a good thing just to acquiesce to the system based on your own suppositions of what your limits are.


----------



## cupper (4 Jun 2016)

That brings up a good point about something I have been considering since the Trump Phenomenon took hold, the importance of who you choose to have as your advisors.

If all you select are yes men who agree to everything you put forth, and are unwilling or unable to challenge you when you are about to go down a dangerous path, then it is your own failing, but also the failing of the people around you to give sound and reasonable advice.

George W. Bush ran into this situation in his first term when he allowed Cheany and his staff to put forth positions on torture which were clear violations of international law and conventions. John Yoo and David David Adlington stretched the legal concepts past the breaking point, and a price was paid. 

The same with the various surveillance programs developed under the patriot act. Fortunately in that case there was push back by the AG's office when it came time to renew. It lead to a minor constitutional crisis which was resolved in a manner favorable to the public interests and constitutional constructs.

Agreed. Ultimately if Trump does go rogue, the system does have checks and balances as the framers of the Constitution meant there to be. But what the US does not need at this time (or any time for that matter) is a major constitutional crisis which would be detrimental for the economy, and the country's place on the world stage.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Jun 2016)

Interesting point about advisors.

I've have a bee in my bonnet about corporate legal and financial (and even engineering) advisors for years.

Most successful companies that I know of have been started by people that do not have a legal, financial or technical background.  When they grow investors invariably lumber management with all of the above.  When the original entrepreneur dies, retires, sells out or is forced out the investors then put the "professionals" in charge.  The company then goes into decline.

For some time now it has been my opinion that a good advisor is not one who declares "you can't do that!" but rather one that says "here are the consequences of that action" and lets the boss man decide whether he is comfortable with the risk.

Too many of the advisors are the opposite of Cheney - they are risk averse to a fault.

Another argument in favour of Trump is the perception of irrationality.  I don't know if he is irrational or not or if he just strives to appear that way.  Either way, I believe, it is necessary pre-condition for a leader in a dangerous world.

I just read an article in the Telegraph.  The author was commenting on an incident in Japan where mum and dad chucked their son out the car and drove off.  He got lost in the woods for seven days.  The author, who grew up in the 70s, was commenting that her kids don't give her the same respect she gave her parents precisely they don't believe her when she tells them she is going to chuck them out if they don't behave.  They know she is rational and would never commit such a heinous act.  On the other hand she knew that both her mum and dad were quite capable of acting irrationally and doing exactly as they threatened.

Ronald Reagan knew that, I believe, and he played the part of the irrational man with the button so well that the Russians believed he was capable of pushing it.   Just like Stalin, Kruschev and Brezhnev.  Everybody in the West believed they were irrational.

Maybe it is time to put the fear of god back in people and buy a pit bull and trust the system to keep it caged.


----------



## cupper (4 Jun 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I just read an article in the Telegraph.  The author was commenting on an incident in Japan where mum and dad chucked their son out the car and drove off.  He got lost in the woods for seven days.  The author, who grew up in the 70s, was commenting that her kids don't give her the same respect she gave her parents precisely they don't believe her when she tells them she is going to chuck them out if they don't behave.  They know she is rational and would never commit such a heinous act.  On the other hand she knew that both her mum and dad were quite capable of acting irrationally and doing exactly as they threatened.



When I heard about that story I said to myself, there is a kid who got ultimate payback against his parents. "Dump me on the side of the road will you?" "Well let's see who gets the last laugh when I disappear for a while."  ;D


----------



## cupper (4 Jun 2016)

I just read an interesting analysis by Ian Bremmer about just what could go wrong with Trump as President. Bremmer was the person who coined the "America First" description of Trump's views on foreign policy. He makes some good sound arguments that things aren't  the whole end of the world as we know it, but there is substantial risk to the US standing and its economy.

*Trump and the World: What Could Actually Go Wrong
The definitive guide to the global risks of a Donald Trump presidency.*

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-international-foreign-policy-global-risk-security-guide-213936



> To hear Hillary Clinton tell it, letting Donald J. Trump anywhere near the Oval Office would be tantamount to inviting a nuclear apocalypse. The address she delivered from San Diego Thursday opened up a new front in the 2016 campaign: whether Trump can be trusted as leader of the free world. Calling Trump’s ideas “dangerously incoherent,” she presented herself a sure-handed, sober-minded alternative to the erratic billionaire. “He is not just unprepared,” she said, “he is temperamentally unfit to hold an office that requires knowledge, stability and immense responsibility.”
> 
> It’s powerful political rhetoric, and Trump is certainly an unknown quantity—perhaps even a radical disruption to the current order. But what are the actual global risks that a Trump presidency would pose?
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (4 Jun 2016)

Pt. 2



> *RED HERRINGS: WHAT NOT TO WORRY ABOUT*
> 
> *1. U.S.-China relations*
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Jun 2016)

Here is what to not worry about: everything Trump says.  He isn't making policy statements; he is pandering to get elected.  What has establishment politicians riled is that he is doing what they do - tell lies to get elected - but he dialed it up to a level they lacked the courage to try.

Importantly with respect to foreign relations: between Clinton and Trump, Trump seems to be the less interventionist.

Rule of law has been strained in the US for four full presidential terms now.  Trump is the lesser risk.  Many establishment Republicans and conservatives are critical of Trump; congressional Republicans and Democrats may be expected to push back against Trump.  Congressional Democrats will not push back against a Democratic president - they have proven it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jun 2016)

Started work on my own page o' links to keep track of the U.S. election - sharing it here in case someone might find it useful.

All adds/suggestions welcome - enjoy!


----------



## cupper (6 Jun 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Started work on my own page o' links to keep track of the U.S. election - sharing it here in case someone might find it useful.
> 
> All adds/suggestions welcome - enjoy!



What? No link to Bernie Sanders?


----------



## cupper (6 Jun 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Here is what to not worry about: everything Trump says.  He isn't making policy statements; he is pandering to get elected.  What has establishment politicians riled is that he is doing what they do - tell lies to get elected - but he dialed it up to a level they lacked the courage to try.
> 
> Importantly with respect to foreign relations: between Clinton and Trump, Trump seems to be the less interventionist.
> 
> Rule of law has been strained in the US for four full presidential terms now.  Trump is the lesser risk.  Many establishment Republicans and conservatives are critical of Trump; congressional Republicans and Democrats may be expected to push back against Trump.  Congressional Democrats will not push back against a Democratic president - they have proven it.



There are a couple of problems with that though.

First, the pandering that Trump is doing is a detriment for the GOP not only going into the general election for this year, but also it has ramifications carrying on into the 2018 midterms and the 2020 race. And the message he is using only appeals to a specific part of the so called GOP base. And it won't get him elected in November, and makes it more difficult for some down ticket GOP candidates to win.

Second, and what I see is the bigger problem, the man has no policy, either foreign or domestic. With no record of public service which he can point to as experience, all he really has to run with is policy proposals. And I've heard nothing from him that comes close to being called a policy.

What gets me when you listen to the pundits and campaign reps speak about Trump and his electability, the Dems and pundits throw out the argument that everything he's done to now is only going to alienate big portions of the electorate. But his supporters and GOP pundits say "Well, it got him the nomination." 

Yes, yes it did. But the GOP primary electorate is only a small part of the overall general electorate. And the percentage that voted for Trump is an even smaller subset of that group. And its not a big enough of a base to rely upon when your campaign message is as toxic to the key voting blocks you need to engage in order to win in November. Especially when there are alternatives on the ballot such as the Libertarians. 

The first rule to follow when you have dug yourself into a hole is to stop digging. :dunno:

Not sure what they say about pulling the dirt back in on top of yourself.   [


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Jun 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> What? No link to Bernie Sanders?


For now, no ...  :nod:


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Jun 2016)

Sure, Trump might not be electable.  But he might be the least damaging of the two likely options.  The US is still pretty much a 50/50 country with respect to its "culture wars", but the Democrats no longer care whether there is strong bipartisan support for the major changes they want to make.


----------



## muskrat89 (7 Jun 2016)

> Second, and what I see is the bigger problem, the man has no policy, either foreign or domestic. With no record of public service which he can point to as experience, all he really has to run with is policy proposals. And I've heard nothing from him that comes close to being called a policy.



So without Google, and off the top of your head - what has been President Obama's policy?


----------



## Lumber (7 Jun 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> So without Google, and off the top of your head - what has been President Obama's policy?



Don't start a war and don't sleep with an intern?


----------



## GAP (7 Jun 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Don't start a war and don't sleep with an intern?



Waste cigars?  ;D


----------



## cupper (7 Jun 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> So without Google, and off the top of your head - what has been President Obama's policy?



[sarcasm]Be the worst possible socialist that ever walked the face of the earth.[/sarcasm]

Obama is not running in this election, and Clinton has at times embraced and then distanced herself from the policies of the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave to the point where it's hard to nail her down with a plan to continue Obama's agenda. 

The GOP has plenty of ammunition to argue against Clinton replacing Obama that they do not need to muddy the waters by mounting a challenge to Obama's policies during his 8 years in office. All of this is in consideration that they have yet to show any viable alternatives to his policies that they have rejected.

Many are saying that Clinton will just become a third term of the Obama administration. I don't think that will be the case. Billary (yes you will get a 2 fer if she is elected) is significantly different from Obama, particularly when it comes to foreign policy that attacking her based on Obama's policies would be missing the point.

Now the GOP and Trump are a different story, and this is where the Clinton campaign is going to have to fight a two front war. Trump's lack of experience and lack of policy means that the Party will be setting the agenda. And that agenda may be in opposition to what Trump wants. You can read it in the tea leaves in the contortions that the current GOP leadership and incumbents are putting themselves through in leveraging nuances between supporting the nominee and endorsing the nominee. Ryan's statement today regarding Trumps diatribe against the judge in his civil suit show this vividly. The party needs to get a Republican in the White House to ensure their conservative agenda can go forth, regardless of how bad that choice is.

You are going to see two campaigns from the GOP. Trump as the attack dog going after Clinton, but not having any form of an agenda of his own. And the Party putting out its' agenda and appealing to the voters that they need to elect Trump and the down ticket candidates in order to ensure that agenda can move forward in 2017.

So asking to name Obama's policies is at best a red herring.


----------



## cupper (7 Jun 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Now the GOP and Trump are a different story, and this is where the Clinton campaign is going to have to fight a two front war. Trump's lack of experience and lack of policy means that the Party will be setting the agenda. And that agenda may be in opposition to what Trump wants. *You can read it in the tea leaves in the contortions that the current GOP leadership and incumbents are putting themselves through in leveraging nuances between supporting the nominee and endorsing the nominee.* Ryan's statement today regarding Trumps diatribe against the judge in his civil suit show this vividly. The party needs to get a Republican in the White House to ensure their conservative agenda can go forth, regardless of how bad that choice is.



More evidence that Trump is the GOP's albatross, but a burden they are willing to bear to regain the White House. McConnell gives Trump a dope slap. But will it work?

*McConnell tells Trump: 'Get on message'*

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/282524-mcconnell-to-trump-get-on-message



> Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) called on his party's presumptive presidential nominee Donald Trump to "get on message" in order to win the White House.
> 
> "We have plenty of issues," McConnell told reporters. "And my advice to our nominee would be to start talking about the issues that the American people care about and to start doing it now."
> 
> ...


----------



## muskrat89 (7 Jun 2016)

> So asking to name Obama's policies is at best a red herring.



Suit yourself, I was genuinely curious as you made that statement like that is something in particular you look for. I was honestly wondering how you would classify the policy of the current administration. Other than a very broad "nationalist" or "isolationist" I wouldn't know how to classify any recent President's policy, nor any candidate's.

Believe it or not, I was trying to learn something.

I always just assumed (reinforced by observation) that regardless of campaign statements, each situation is looked at uniquely, and dealt with after counsel with trusted advisers and depending on goals and current climate.


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Jun 2016)

The conservative folks like myself, are pretty ticked off with the likes of McConnell and Ryan.There were majorities in both houses and not once did they try to stop Obama's policy initiatives.This is why Trump has been able to put together a broad coalition.He defeated 16 well known Republicans he wouldnt have gotten that far if the Republican leadership had done what they were elected to do.


----------



## cupper (7 Jun 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Suit yourself, I was genuinely curious as you made that statement like that is something in particular you look for. I was honestly wondering how you would classify the policy of the current administration. Other than a very broad "nationalist" or "isolationist" I wouldn't know how to classify any recent President's policy, nor any candidate's.
> 
> Believe it or not, I was trying to learn something.
> 
> I always just assumed (reinforced by observation) that regardless of campaign statements, each situation is looked at uniquely, and dealt with after counsel with trusted advisers and depending on goals and current climate.



My apologies, I misinterpreted your comment.

In all honesty, Obama has been a bit of an enigma in trying to understand what he wants or where he wants to go with policy. 

In my opinion he's been very nuanced (to his detriment) on his approach to foreign policy. He's not interventionist, but he has been willing to use US power when it's been necessary, or opportunistic. But his preference seems to be to use diplomatic routes rather than saber rattling. To most it may be taken as weakness, but it's more so a failure in getting the message out in a meaningful way.

It's even more problematic when you look at the domestic agenda. Because of the obstructionist stance that the GOP has taken for his entire presidency any agenda he has gets lost in the noise of partisanship. To the point where good acceptable policy agendas such as investment in infrastructure renewal don't stand a chance, even though it's something that really should have gotten through on bipartisan support. We only just got a transportation bill passed this year that puts investment into the transportation infrastructure which politicians from both sides have been calling for. And it's been a policy issue for most of Obama's 8 years, and came to a partisan head in the 2012 and 2014 election periods. (That's what "You didn't build that" was really all about).

Policies and agendas are what candidates need to be judged against. And what they are evaluated on once they are elected. Obama for the most part (again in my opinion) had a reasonable agenda in both 2008 and 2012, but failed for multiple reasons to deliver. Blame falls on the GOP for following an obstructionist script, The Dems for using the same playbook to suit their own purposes, and Obama for not finding ways to working with the GOP rather than going it alone to get what he wanted done. His signature policy success of teh Affordable Care Act fell short of the mark for exactly that reason.

Hope that answers your question, and again I apologize for missing your sincere inquiry.


----------



## cupper (7 Jun 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The conservative folks like myself, are pretty ticked off with the likes of McConnell and Ryan.There were majorities in both houses and not once did they try to stop Obama's policy initiatives.This is why Trump has been able to put together a broad coalition.He defeated 16 well known Republicans he wouldnt have gotten that far if the Republican leadership had done what they were elected to do.



But don't forget, if a party doesn't have a 60 seat majority in the Senate, no way no how is anything going to get through without support from the opposition, regardless of the size of the majority in the House. The GOP played that role from 2009 to 2011. The Dems played that role since.

And I blame the anger that the electorate has today on that issue. But try explaining that the problem is the people they are voting in. Surveys continually show that people are strongly dissatisfied with Congress and the way things have gone, but when asked how they feel about their own representative they respond that he/she is doing a terrific, yuge, wonderful, fantastic (fill in your own Trumpism here) job.


----------



## cupper (7 Jun 2016)

A better idea of how problematic Trump's nomination is for the GOP.

*Trump 'racism' frenzy engulfs Hill Republicans
This is not the debate elected Republicans wanted to have.*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-house-republicans-racism-224000



> Paul Ryan wanted to talk about fighting poverty. What he got instead, at the kickoff of his much-touted policy agenda on Tuesday, was a barrage of questions about whether Donald Trump is a racist — and whether the House speaker regretted having endorsed the business mogul.
> 
> It was that kind of day for Republicans on Capitol Hill.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (7 Jun 2016)

I'm listening to Trump's victory speech from tonight's primaries and he sounds almost reasonable.

It is a prepared speech being read off the teleprompter, so obviously he's been coached and advised to tone down the rhetoric.

He's even starting to sound like he has started putting together policies and a reasonable agenda.


----------



## cupper (7 Jun 2016)

And you have to love how the mainstream media there their crust shorts in Hillary's cornflakes. 

It's not like this is a big surprise, as it was pretty much a given since the end of the 2008 primary that she would be the next Democratic Party nominee.

But the Dem establishment and Sanders Campaign are both twisting their shorts in a knot, for opposite reasons. :facepalm:

*Clinton's spoiled victory party
Tuesday was supposed to be the crowning moment. Then the media ruined it.*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-clinton-media-2016-223999



> Hillary Clinton has held 419 events since launching her campaign last year, visited 42 states and announced 53 distinct policy proposals.
> 
> But she’s been short on creating big, memorable “moments” as she criss-crossed the country participating in sober roundtable discussions and scripted rallies.
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Jun 2016)

I admit that I found it rather ironic that Mrs Clinton recently gave a speech focusing on wealth inequality while wearing a $12000 jacket.  :facepalm:


----------



## Rocky Mountains (8 Jun 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Blame falls on the GOP for following an obstructionist script, The Dems for using the same playbook to suit their own purposes, and Obama for not finding ways to working with the GOP rather than going it alone to get what he wanted done.



Congress is elected to legislate and the president is elected to administer.  While Obama could have chosen which hill to die on, he chose to die on every hill.  The president isn't the boss that a compliant Congress must follow.  They are equals and 43 other presidents passed legislation through compromise.


----------



## CougarKing (8 Jun 2016)

Clinton clinches the nomination for the Democratic Party's nomination:

Yahoo News



> *Obama phones Clinton and Sanders, praises her ‘historic’ run*
> Olivier Knox
> Chief Washington Correspondent
> June 7, 2016
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (8 Jun 2016)

Is this really something that Trump would want to emphasize? But then again, nothing else seems to have stopped him so far...

Vancouver Sun



> *He paid me a fortune’: Donald Trump says he made ‘a lot of money’ in deal with Moammar Gadhafi*
> 
> Jill Colvin, The Associated Press  06.05.2016
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (9 Jun 2016)

The tip of the iceberg of the groups of women who don't like Hillary?

Associated Press



> 3 women to launch super PAC to support Donald Trump
> [Julie Bykowicz, The Associated Press]
> Julie Bykowicz, The Associated Press
> June 8, 2016
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Jun 2016)

I can see Obama giving Sanders a leg up by allowing Hillary to be prosecuted for her unauthorized email server.The convention then would dump Hillary and Bernie would be a better candidate vs Trump.


----------



## GAP (9 Jun 2016)

Nah...ain't gonna happen.....she's got the numbers and they are good to go with that...


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Jun 2016)

So then the media lines for the Republicans should now turn to:

How can you trust her with state secrets after the email server incident? 

How can you trust her with the lives of our diplomats and soldiers after Benghazi?


----------



## Journeyman (9 Jun 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> So then the media lines for the Republicans should now turn to:
> 
> How can you trust her with state secrets after the email server incident?
> 
> How can you trust her with the lives of our diplomats and soldiers after Benghazi?


...when she's demanding a male intern and a box of cigars...    ;D


----------



## GAP (9 Jun 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> ...when she's demanding a male intern and a box of cigars...    ;D



Well, fair is fair.....


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Jun 2016)

Who would her VP be ? Bill ?


----------



## GAP (9 Jun 2016)

Sanders....give him all the shitty gigs.....


----------



## cavalryman (9 Jun 2016)

GAP said:
			
		

> Sanders....give him all the shitty gigs.....


A heartbeat away from the number one job... and Clinton's health has been questioned a lot of late  [


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Jun 2016)

Can't be half as bad as Dick Cheney's health was ... or that of his hunting parters  ;D


----------



## cupper (9 Jun 2016)

Y'all know that the only reason she is running for President is so she can keep Bill on the tightest of leash.

The Secret Service will now have to give her all the info about his going's on when she asks.

And she can have him disappear and no one will be the wiser. 

:Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Jun 2016)

GAP said:
			
		

> Well, fair is fair.....



Is it fair to assume a male intern?


----------



## George Wallace (9 Jun 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Is it fair to assume a male intern?



Nick Lewinsky ?


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Jun 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Is it fair to assume a male intern?


It's 2016. Gender fluid demiboy.


----------



## cupper (9 Jun 2016)

See... I knew there had to be another explanation.   :facepalm:

*David Duke defends Trump, blames Jews for judge criticism*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/david-duke-trump-judge-224121



> Former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke defended Donald Trump on his radio show earlier this week from criticism of his comments about Judge Gonzalo Curiel, blaming "the Jews" in the media for propagating a long-running negative agenda against the presumptive Republican nominee.
> 
> The white supremacist radio host dropped the names of Fox News' Chris Wallace, along with Jake Tapper and Wolf Blitzer on CNN, who Duke said he had "exposed ... as a Jewish agent." Jeff Zucker, the current president of CNN Worldwide, is "another Jewish extremist," he remarked.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jun 2016)

Funny which fake university story gets all the press:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/235807



> I CAN’T BELIEVE THE DEMOCRATS NOMINATED SOMEBODY WHO RAN A SCAM UNIVERSITY AND IS FACING LAWSUITS: Jonathan Turley:
> 
> The Clinton University Problem: Laureate Education Lawsuits Present Problem For Clintons. “While largely ignored by the media, the Clintons have their own university scandal. Donald Trump has been rightfully criticized and sued over his defunct Trump University. There is ample support for claiming that the Trump University was fraudulent in its advertisements and operations. However, the national media has been accused of again sidestepping a scandal involving the Clintons that involves the same type of fraud allegations. The scandal involves the dubious Laureate Education for-profit college and entails many of the common elements with other Clinton scandals: huge sums given to the Clintons and questions of conflicts with Hillary Clinton during her time as Secretary of State. There are distinctions to draw between the two stories, but the virtual radio silence on the Clinton/Laureate story is surprising.”
> 
> Well, actually it’s entirely predictable.


----------



## CougarKing (10 Jun 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Who would her VP be ? Bill ?



Speaking of her possible VP picks:

Reuters



> *Exclusive: Clinton ally Warren weighs potential VP role, sees hurdles - sources*
> NEW YORK/WASHINGTON | By Michelle Conlin and Caren Bohan
> U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren has considered the idea of serving as Hillary Clinton's running mate but sees obstacles to that choice as she prepares to endorse the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, several people familiar with Warren's thinking told Reuters.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (10 Jun 2016)

I think Warren's talents would be wasted in the VP seat.

She would be more effective for the Dems in the role of Senate leader since Reid will be retiring.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jun 2016)

An excerpt from a longer interview which answered the "how did this happen?" for the Republicans. A similar dynamic exists on the Left to explain the rise of Bernie Sanders, and I still expect to see a revolt of the Sanders supporters (high end being a replay of Chicago '68, low end being millions of disgruntled Sanders supporters sitting this one out):

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/magazine/mollie-hemingway-hates-how-feminists-talk-about-sex.html



> *Mollie Hemingway Hates How Feminists Talk About Sex*
> Talk
> By ANA MARIE COX JUNE 9, 2016
> 
> ...



Something to think about before our own "Donald" appears....


----------



## CountDC (10 Jun 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I can see Obama giving Sanders a leg up by allowing Hillary to be prosecuted for her unauthorized email server.The convention then would dump Hillary and Bernie would be a better candidate vs Trump.



That would be so awesome to see happen.   Bernie for Pres!!!


----------



## cupper (11 Jun 2016)

Interesting think piece on what a nuclear armed President Trump would mean.

Overall, Trump has a history of being against the use and proliferation of nukes, but the reality of a return to the Cold War posturing (if it really ever ended) does make this a question for consideration.

Personally I think Trump is a bigger danger to the US on an economic and influence basis than ending with thousands of mushroom clouds and dancing cock roaches finally inheriting their rightful place as nature's supreme beings.

The conclusion is that things wouldn't be the doomsday scenario that media pundits and anti-Trumpers are making it out to be, but there are questions that remain.

*What Exactly Would It Mean to Have Trump’s Finger on the Nuclear Button?
A nuclear launch expert plays out the various scenarios.*

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/06/2016-donald-trump-nuclear-weapons-missiles-nukes-button-launch-foreign-policy-213955



> Donald Trump, December 15, 2015: “The biggest problem we have is nuclear—nuclear proliferation and having some maniac, having some madman go out and get a nuclear weapon. That's in my opinion that is the single biggest problem that our country faces right now.”
> 
> Hillary Clinton, June 2, 2016: “This is not someone who should ever have the nuclear codes. It’s not hard to imagine Donald Trump leading us into a war just because somebody got under his very thin skin.”
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (11 Jun 2016)

Part 2



> Trump would actually have not one but several fingers on the nuclear button. One finger would be an active digit ready to point up or down for an attack to his nuclear commanders. Other fingers would shape the size and composition of U.S. nuclear forces and the strategy for their use. Additional fingers would determine nuclear actions taken in his absence or demise by presidential successors from his vice president, the Cabinet that he appoints or by generals to whom he may pre-delegate his launch authority.
> 
> As with his predecessors, Trump’s power over the life and death of entire nations would be practically unbounded. Today, the nuclear deluge he could command would consist of thousands of weapons, each 10 or 20 times more deadly than the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Nearly 2,000 U.S. strategic nuclear weapons aimed primarily at Russia and China (at a ratio of roughly 2 to 1), with additional dozens aimed at each of several other nations—North Korea, Iran and Syria—would be at a President Trump’s disposal from his first minutes in office. The city of Moscow alone lies in the bore sights of more than 100 U.S. nuclear warheads.
> There are no restraints that can prevent a willful president from unleashing this hell.
> ...


----------



## cupper (11 Jun 2016)

Part 3



> Let us play out what happens on Inauguration Day. The “nuclear briefcase” would change hands, and a President Trump would be given his special identification card with “the nuclear codes” used to “authenticate” before conveying his nuclear commands. (Presidents Carter and Clinton both lost their cards on two occasions.) If the balloon goes up someday, Trump, assisted by his military aide, would consult the card to find a short reply code (such as “Delta Zulu”) that matches the challenge code (such as “Echo Bravo”) issued by the leader of the Pentagon’s war room (a colonel or brigadier general). This brief exchange would establish Trump’s identity and confer all rights as commander in chief to order the military to carry out his nuclear wishes, possibly including launching an all-out nuclear attack on country X, Y or Z. After authenticating, his menu selection from the war plan in the “black book” is all that is needed to trigger a U.S. strategic nuclear assault. If he does not like the menu, he can request a special dish, but that would delay things by hours or days.
> 
> Again, it’s important to emphasize that any president provoked by real or perceived threats can give the command to launch a nuclear attack at a moment of his or her choosing simply by ordering it up. The Pentagon war room would immediately translate the president’s selection from the menu into an “emergency action message.” Within about one minute, the duty team in the war room would format a message that would unleash the forces assigned to the president’s selection. The message would also contain the all-important launch authorization codes known as sealed-authentication codes (SAS codes) prepared by hand at the National Security Agency and distributed throughout the military nuclear chain of command.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (11 Jun 2016)

Hillary's team acting out again?.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Jun 2016)

Don't people realize the safeguards in place with the 'football'? Don't people realize that it takes more than the POTUS finger on the trigger to launch nukes?

I'd certainly rather have Trump's finger on it though, instead of Clinton's.


----------



## GAP (11 Jun 2016)

She will just find some Seals or contractors to blame as giving her wrong information.....she's done it before, she will do it again.....and she knows the bus schedules....


----------



## cupper (12 Jun 2016)

So that we have an up to date program and all the background on the players, NPR has a summary of the various scandals that the Clintons have been involved in.

To borrow a Rumsfeldian phrase: These are the known Knowns.  [

*Clinton Scandals: A Guide From Whitewater To The Clinton Foundation*

http://army.ca/forums/index.php?action=post;topic=108210.975;last_msg=1440006



> Donald Trump has promised to deliver a speech this week that will address "all of the things that have taken place with the Clintons."
> 
> Trump vowed to cover everything from what he calls the couple's "politics of personal enrichment" to Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server as secretary of state, which he argued was "designed to keep her corrupt dealings out of the public record, putting the security of the entire country at risk." Trump has previously attacked Clinton on the campaign trail for her husband's scandals with women, calling her an "enabler."
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (13 Jun 2016)

Both sides using the recent Orlando tragedy for political gain?

Associated Press



> *Analysis: Trump and Clinton contrasts in Orlando response*
> [Julie Pace, The Associated Press]
> 
> June 13, 2016View photos
> ...


----------



## cupper (13 Jun 2016)

The more I've heard from Trump today, the more batpoop crazy the man comes across, and sounds less qualified to be President of the United States. :facepalm:

I'll take sympathy on y'all and only post links rather than include the full articles. 

*Pentagon rebukes Trump proposal for more airstrikes*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-defense-airstrikes-orlando-224289


*Obama eye-rolls at Trump’s attacks*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/obama-donald-trump-orlando-224284


*Trump: Clinton, Obama protecting terrorists to be 'politically correct'*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-muslim-ban-224272


*Trump to America: Be afraid*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-terrorism-224278


*Trump ally: Clinton aide could be 'terrorist agent'*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/roger-stone-huma-abedin-terrorist-agent-224261


*The four cryptic words Donald Trump can’t stop saying*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/13/the-four-cryptic-words-donald-trump-cant-stop-saying/?hpid=hp_special-topic-chain_wb-fourwords-515pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory


This one is a better article, even uses a Manchurian Candidate reference.

*What Trump Really Meant When He Said Obama Has 'Something Else In Mind'*

http://www.npr.org/2016/06/13/481934467/what-trump-really-meant-when-he-said-obama-has-something-else-in-mind


----------



## QV (13 Jun 2016)

Reminds me of the hate Harper campaign that occurred up here.  

I don't think Trump would do worse than Clinton.  I am kinda looking forward to Trump publicly castigating Trudeau actually.  Maybe he will have the intestinal fortitude to compel all the G7s that don't meet 2% GDP on defence spending to ante up... Maybe not all, just that freeloading northern cousin would do nicely.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jun 2016)

The Clinton unauthorized server was such an easy target, the Russians obviously decided to look for more lucrative hunting grounds:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/russian-government-hackers-penetrated-dnc-stole-opposition-research-on-trump/2016/06/14/cf006cb4-316e-11e6-8ff7-7b6c1998b7a0_story.html



> *Russian government hackers penetrated DNC, stole opposition research on Trump*
> Russian goverment hackers penetrated the Democratic National Committee and had access to the DNC network for about a year, but all were expelled earlier in June. (Jhaan Elker/The Washington Post)
> By Ellen Nakashima June 14 at 3:09 PM
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (16 Jun 2016)

:rofl: This is funny on sooooo many levels.

Even some incredible irony given Trumps relationship with Hispanics.

*GOP consultant calls Trump 'Cheeto Jesus' in epic tweetstorm
Technically Incorrect: Rick Wilson seems to think Twitter is the only place to get the Republican Party to speak out about its true feelings for its presumptive candidate.*

http://www.cnet.com/news/gop-consultant-rick-wilson-calls-trump-cheeto-jesus-in-epic-tweetstorm/



> Twitter is now the epicenter of the business of politics.
> 
> Presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump believes Twitter is one of his great advantages. He fancies himself a sharp tweeter.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (16 Jun 2016)

Eventually someone is going to have to say enough is enough and get the train wreck back on the rails. Otherwise the GOP can kiss a hell of a lot more than just the White House goodbye.

*Trump’s relationship with RNC sours
Tensions flare as the party hires a fired Trump aide and uses vendors linked to #NeverTrump, while fundraising flags.*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-republican-national-committee-224403



> Donald Trump is relying heavily on the Republican Party to bolster his skeletal operation, but his campaign’s relationship with the Republican National Committee is increasingly plagued by distrust, power struggles and strategic differences, according to sources in both camps.
> 
> In recent days, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus has privately grumbled that his advice doesn’t seem welcome with Trump, according to one RNC insider. Other party officials have expressed frustration that Trump’s campaign is trying to take too much control over a pair of fundraising committees with the party while adding little to the effort, according to campaign and party officials familiar with the relationship.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (16 Jun 2016)

You gotta have faith. Otherwise...

*Would checks and balances stop Trump? Don’t bet on it.*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/do-you-really-think-the-gop-will-stand-up-to-trump-if-he-is-president/2016/06/15/70aaa53e-30ed-11e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html



> By Robert Kagan June 16 at 8:01 AM
> 
> Robert Kagan is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a contributing columnist for The Post.
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Jun 2016)

While the anti-Trumpers are busy bashing the guy, its amazing that they havent stopped to realize that the current occupant of the WH seems to be pushing the boundaries of Presidential power.I dont worry about Trump.


----------



## cupper (17 Jun 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> While the anti-Trumpers are busy bashing the guy, its amazing that they havent stopped to realize that the current occupant of the WH seems to be pushing the boundaries of Presidential power.I dont worry about Trump.



No more so than President Cheney did.  ;D


----------



## cupper (17 Jun 2016)

Americans deserve to know the truth. Demand that Trump release the measurements.

https://youtu.be/5LhNjWoBZck


----------



## cupper (17 Jun 2016)

And yes the Japanese are still weird. Just weird for Trump.

https://youtu.be/ZbM6WbUw7Bs


----------



## CougarKing (18 Jun 2016)

Someone's still mad about Trump wanting a larger wall on their common border:

CBC



> *Canada should watch out for 'S T U P I D' Trump, former Mexican president warns*
> [CBC]
> June 17, 2016
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (19 Jun 2016)

Interesting read about the man how gave Trump his approach to business and politics.

*The man who showed Donald Trump how to exploit power and instill fear*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/former-mccarthy-aide-showed-trump-how-to-exploit-power-and-draw-attention/2016/06/16/e9f44f20-2bf3-11e6-9b37-42985f6a265c_story.html



> Donald Trump was a brash scion of a real estate empire, a young developer anxious to leave his mark on New York. Roy Cohn was a legendary New York fixer, a ruthless lawyer in the hunt for new clients.
> 
> They came together by chance one night at Le Club, a hangout for Manhattan’s rich and famous. Trump introduced himself to Cohn, who was sitting at a nearby table, and sought advice: How should he and his father respond to Justice Department allegations that their company had systematically discriminated against black people seeking housing?
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (20 Jun 2016)

Lindsay Graham just outed Donald Trump as being transgender.   ;D

*Graham: Next president likely to be a 'she'*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/lindsey-graham-next-president-she-224551



> Whether it's Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, the next president will need to deal with setting aside defense cuts as part of sequestration, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Monday, though he gave an indication as to which gender he expects the 45th commander in chief to be.
> 
> “*The next president, whoever he or she — most likely she — is going to be, needs to get these defense cuts set aside*," Graham remarked during a discussion at the Center for a New American Security's conference.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jun 2016)

More on the "Why" Trump and Sanders did so well. What the people who worked so hard to keep Sanders off the radar and undermine Trump don't seem to realize is that they are symptoms, not causes, and marginalizing them will simply result in something even worse coming around the next cycle (Trump would not exist as the presumptive candidate if the TEA Party movement's elected candidates had actually worked in the House and Senate to enact the small government program in 2012). If anyone wants to "Dump Trump", I suggest they start looking at Europe's Nativist parties to see what the future will look like in the United States if that happens.

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/17/populism-replacing-conservatism-winning/



> *Why Populism Is Replacing Conservatism, and Why It’s Winning*
> 
> by SCOTT MOREFIELD17 Jun 20161,894
> 
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Jun 2016)

A young British man made a lame attempt to assassinate Trump at a rally today in Las Vegas.  The tool tried to grab a cop's gun and turn it on the Donald.  Needless to say he didn't succeed at either desire.


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Jun 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> A young British man made a lame attempt to assassinate Trump at a rally today in Las Vegas.  The tool tried to grab a cop's gun and turn it on the Donald.  Needless to say he didn't succeed at either desire.



19 year old Michael Sandford overstayed his visa.Grabbing a cops gun is certain to get him some time in a Vegas jail before being expelled.I would put him on a terror watch list for good measure.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/breaking-foreigner-arrested-trying-kill-donald-trump-vegas-rally/


----------



## Lightguns (21 Jun 2016)

The British are becoming an extreme disappointment to me.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jun 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> The British are becoming an extreme disappointment to me.


Because of one idiot in Vegas?  Or other reasons?


----------



## Lightguns (21 Jun 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Because of one idiot in Vegas?  Or other reasons?


Nah, he's piece of sugar candy on the icing of my UK cake.  The whole nation seems being going so far left as to..... That and the British parliamentary system seems become a system of deadlock and division. But all off topic. 

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jun 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Nah, he's piece of sugar candy on the icing of my UK cake.  The whole nation seems being going so far left as to..... That and the British parliamentary system seems become a system of deadlock and division. But all off topic.
> 
> Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk


Just curious - thanks!

Just to bring it back into the U.S. election lanes, here's Wikipedia's tracking of the polling - enjoy!


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Jun 2016)

The polls now only are worth looking at starting after the conventions.


----------



## cupper (21 Jun 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The polls now only are worth looking at starting after the conventions.



Meh. I'd say that they really aren't worth a damn until September / October.


----------



## cupper (21 Jun 2016)

The Trump campaign operation seems to be waaaay behind where it needs to be at this time in the cycle. Only 30 paid staffers for a national campaign. Only $1.3 million in the bank at the end of May. An organization that seems to be feeding on itself. Zero spending on commercial time in June (which actually would be a good thing and get votes in my opinion). Slipping poll numbers since clinching the nomination (although this says more about primary vs general electorate)

This raises some interesting speculation  :Tin-Foil-Hat:  regarding a) whether he is serious about the race, b) what his real net worth actually is, c) whether he is capable of running a national campaign or d) just how bad can this get.

*Trump's puny war chest rattles GOP
'I have a state Senate client that has more in the bank,' said one Republican operative.*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-money-republicans-224607


*Dismissed Trump adviser bashes Lewandowski*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/lewandowski-caputo-trump-staff-224631


*Trump getting crushed by Clinton money machine
The presumptive GOP nominee reported just $1.3 million in cash on hand.*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/scrawny-trump-campaign-sputters-into-general-224580


*Trump on campaign funding: There's 'unlimited' cash
The presumptive GOP nominee said he's not concerned about his fundraising deficit to Hillary Clinton.*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-fundraising-response-224598


*RNC blasts ‘false narrative’ on Trump finances*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-fundraising-rnc-response-224602


*Swing-state polls: Trump slipping in Florida, Ohio*

http://www.politico.com/blogs/swing-states-2016-election/2016/06/trump-florida-ohio-battleground-polls-224568


*There Is No Donald Trump Campaign
Firing your campaign manager is not a big deal when there’s nothing to manage.*

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/donald_trump_s_invisible_campaign.html



> As of Monday morning, the Trump campaign doesn’t have a manager. “The Donald J. Trump Campaign for President, which has set a historic record in the Republican Primary having received almost 14 million votes, has today announced that Corey Lewandowski will no longer be working with the campaign,” spokeswoman Hope Hicks said in a statement to the press. “The campaign is grateful to Corey for his hard work and dedication and we wish him the best in the future.”
> 
> It’s tempting to treat this like a genuine shock—a blow that could disrupt Trump’s effort to win the presidency. But two things are true: First, Lewandoski has been a declining presence since Trump captured the nomination in May, increasingly overshadowed by campaign chairman Paul Manafort. And with Lewandowski gone, explained one Trump ally to Fox News, Manafort is “totally in charge.”
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jun 2016)

I doubt Trump really wants to win, because I doubt he really changed his spots.  If he still, deep down, is mostly Democratic-leaning and Clinton-supporting, he exceeded expectations if all he meant to do was keep the Republican nomination messy to help Clinton along.

If he looks like a guy who is throwing the election, the simplest explanation is that he is a guy who wants to throw the election.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jun 2016)

Given how far in the tank the US Legacy media is in for the Democrats, I would be quite sceptical about _anything_ being published WRT the election campaign.


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Jun 2016)

An astute observation Thucydides.


----------



## CougarKing (23 Jun 2016)

Let's see if he even gets elected first...

Associated Press



> *Trump details goals for first 100 days in White House*
> [By Jill Colvin, The Associated Press]
> 
> June 23, 2016
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (24 Jun 2016)

Trump tries to draw parallels between Brexit and the upcoming US election:

Business Insider



> *Donald Trump cheers Brexit: 'They took their country back, just like we will take America back'*
> 
> Pamela Engel
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Jun 2016)

There is a parallel and it is the blue collar guy.He/she is tired of the politicians intruding into their lives.


----------



## FJAG (24 Jun 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Trump tries to draw parallels between Brexit and the upcoming US election:
> 
> . . . "Trump, who is visiting Scotland, sent out a statement and a series of tweets Friday morning about the referendum result.
> 
> ...



Interesting when one notes that in Scotland the vote was about 62% in favour of staying in the EU and there is now serious talk of Scotland once again having a referendum for independence and a possible return to be an EU member.

Here's a quick link to Gawker that, amongst many other articles, shows just how weak a grasp Trump has on the Brexit issue.

 :cheers:
http://gawker.com/donald-trump-is-stoked-about-brexit-also-on-an-unrelat-1782555907


----------



## Rocky Mountains (24 Jun 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Interesting when one notes that in Scotland the vote was about 62% in favour of staying in the EU and there is now serious talk of Scotland once again having a referendum for independence and a possible return to be an EU member.



So Scotland would gain its independence from a democratically ruled UK only to surrender it to unelected goosestepping European bureaucrats.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (24 Jun 2016)

Trump:

"They took their country back, just like we will take America back. No games!"

Does he mean he'll hold a referendum to see if the US wants to leave from the rest of the world?


----------



## FJAG (24 Jun 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> So Scotland would gain its independence from a democratically ruled UK only to surrender it to unelected goosestepping European bureaucrats.



 :nod:

On the plus side the Scots have had an affinity for the French since the days of the Jacobites. But then maybe I'm watching too many "Outlander" episodes.  ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jun 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> :nod:
> 
> On the plus side the Scots have had an affinity for the French since the days of the Jacobites. But then maybe I'm watching too many "Outlander" episodes.  ;D
> 
> :cheers:



Not quite:

The French have had an affinity for the Scots since they took on the job of keeping the French King safe from the French.

French Body Guard.


The French did agree to aid and assist the Scots in 1295 but mainly got around to it whenever it suited them.  They quit their formal association with the Scots at Leith in 1560 (a particularly bad year for Paris all around).  Strangely enough the Bourbons only really became interested in "assisting" the Scots once the Hanoverians were on the throne.  The French created the Jacobite cause.


----------



## CougarKing (26 Jun 2016)

Can Clinton ever escape the shadow of email gate/server gate?

Associated Press



> *Clinton failed to hand over key email to State Department*
> Michael Biesecker, The Associated Press
> June 24, 2016
> WASHINGTON - Former Secretary Hillary Clinton failed to turn over a copy of a key message involving problems caused by her use of a private homebrew email server, the State Department confirmed Thursday. The disclosure makes it unclear what other work-related emails may have been deleted by the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (27 Jun 2016)

What's this, cupper? Trump actually toning down? Say it ain't so.  [

Wall Street Journal



> *Donald Trump Back-Pedals on Banning Muslims From U.S.
> Republican candidate moves toward more nuanced policy targeting countries with record of terrorism*
> By Beth Reinhard and
> Damian Paletta
> ...


----------



## cupper (27 Jun 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> What's this, cupper? Trump actually toning down? Say it ain't so.  [
> 
> Wall Street Journal



Nah. A phenomenal intellect such as Donald Trump is often misunderstood by the common man. It's simply a clarification so lesser minds can have a clearer picture of what he really meant.  ;D


----------



## cupper (28 Jun 2016)

In response to the bombing at Ataturk Airport in Istanbul, Trump in a speech tonight in St. Clairsville, Ohio is using his standard dog whistle of "Something is going on ..." and is raising his call to go back to the use of torture, and maybe even step it up a notch and use the same tactics that ISIS uses.


----------



## cupper (28 Jun 2016)

Trump's move to the left on trade seems to have lost him the support of the US Chamber of Commerce and other corporate interest groups, traditional GOP backers and sources of financial donations and PAC money. This could be a bad move on his part, even though it appeals to his base.

*Chamber of Commerce rips Trump's trade speech in real time
As Trump spoke, the organization posted a point-by-point rebuttal on social media.*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/trump-trade-speech-chamber-of-commerce-reaction-224900



> The U.S. Chamber of Commerce answered Donald Trump's trade policy speech on Tuesday by attempting to pick apart the presumptive Republican nominee's policies point by point, engaging in a rapid-fire succession of social media posts hitting him for his opposition to international trade deals.
> 
> In a post published before Trump took to the stage at a raw aluminum producer in Monessen, Pennsylvania, the chamber laid out the stakes for trade in both Pennsylvania and in Ohio. (The Republican is set to hold a rally in St. Clairsville, Ohio later Tuesday evening.)
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (28 Jun 2016)

This explains *A LOT*    [

*Warning: House office water tainted with lead*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/house-office-water-unsafe-to-drink-224913



> A House office’s water supply has been tainted by high lead levels and may be unsafe, according to a warning blasted out to congressional offices Tuesday night.
> 
> In a “dear colleagues” letter, House office buildings superintendent William Weidemeyer told members and staff that the Cannon House Office Building was experiencing lead levels above normal, according to a recent water test.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (28 Jun 2016)

*FINALLY!*

They started running anti Hillary superPAC ads in my market. It's about time. I was wondering if Christmas was ever gonna come. Getting bored of the anti Trump ads.

 :rofl: :nana:


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jun 2016)

Donald Trump and the Brexit reveal the true size and shape of the electorate. Look at what the Democrats might have to deal with in Middle America:

http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/237328



> TRUMP’S GOT PROBLEMS, BUT SO DOES HILLARY: Clinton struggling in some reliably blue states.
> 
> Despite an increasing lead over businessman Donald Trump in head-to-head matchups, presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton is struggling to connect in some reliably blue states.
> 
> ...



_- mod edit to fix link -_


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Jun 2016)

This is what happens when the Papacy proclaims it is socialist.  

The universal brotherhood of man directed versus the universal brotherhood of man undirected.  

The only difference for those of the directed faction is who is gets to do the directing.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Jul 2016)

Hillary was interviewed by the FBI for 3 1/2 hours today.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hillary-clinton-fbi-email-investigation-election-2016/

Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton met with FBI officials Saturday about her private email server that has sparked a federal investigation, her campaign said.

"Secretary Clinton gave a voluntary interview this morning about her email arrangements while she was Secretary," Clinton campaign spokesman Nick Merrill said in an email Saturday afternoon. "She is pleased to have had the opportunity to assist the Department of Justice in bringing this review to a conclusion. Out of respect for the investigative process, she will not comment further on her interview."


----------



## SupersonicMax (5 Jul 2016)

And no charges will be laid...

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/world/clinton-email-fbi-1.3665051

I am wondering what would happen if one of us, peasant, would do the same...


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jul 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> And no charges will be laid...
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/world/clinton-email-fbi-1.3665051
> 
> I am wondering what would happen if one of us, peasant, would do the same...



Could this be the FALL OF AMERICA, where the corruption being exposed is being ignored by the power elite?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HA8FnC3ryA


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Jul 2016)

Or the power elite covers for its own.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jul 2016)

>

So?  Does this 'judgement' that nothing was 'wrong' justify kicking the US of A out of Five Eyes?

 [     >


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jul 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Could this be the FALL OF AMERICA, where the corruption being exposed is being ignored by the power elite?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7HA8FnC3ryA


You're sounding awfully rabble.ca-ish, GW  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jul 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> You're sounding awfully rabble.ca-ish, GW  ;D



Well....Two of the American versions of the likes of Rex Murphy are Judge Jeanine Pirro and Tomi Lahren, both of whom are definitely not in the Clinton Camp.  Always interesting to watch their commentaries.   [


----------



## cupper (5 Jul 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well....Two of the American versions of the likes of Rex Murphy are Judge Jeanine Pirro and Tomi Lahren, both of whom are definitely not in the Clinton Camp.  Always interesting to watch their commentaries.   [



Jeanine Pirro is just bitter because Hillary handed Pirro her ass when they ran against each other for the NY senate seat. And from what I've seen of her and read about her, it appears that she would need someone to help her find said posterior, even with the correct address plugged into her GPS.  :nod:

And you need to issue an apology to Mr. Murphy for the comparison.  [


----------



## George Wallace (5 Jul 2016)

OH! LOOK!......People are already talking about how she got off and had it been someone else.......Well, from last July:

http://fox40.com/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/



> Navy Engineer Sentenced for Mishandling Classified Material
> POSTED 12:42 PM, JULY 29, 2015, BY AP WIRE
> 
> SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A Naval reservist has been sentenced for mishandling classified military materials.
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jul 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> OH! LOOK!......People are already talking about how she got off and had it been someone else.......Well, from last July:
> 
> http://fox40.com/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/



But it's not likely the reservist was going to kill anyone to stop the legal system from charging him.  ;D


----------



## cupper (5 Jul 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> But it's not likely the reservist was going to kill anyone to stop the legal system from charging him.  ;D



He just wasn't ambitious enough. That was his problem, he should have aspired to higher office.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Jul 2016)

And people wonder why Trump is able to provide an alternative.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Jul 2016)

From The Blaze, Tomi Lahren in her Final Thoughts presentation on "Crooked Hillary Clinton's family & jihadist Hussein Obama's regime play by different rules":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DvLJhAzrzQ


----------



## cupper (6 Jul 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> From The Blaze, Tomi Lahren in her Final Thoughts presentation on "Crooked Hillary Clinton's family & jihadist Hussein Obama's regime play by different rules":
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DvLJhAzrzQ



OMG. My ears are bleeding. Arrrrrgh. Shouldn't have watched that.  :not-again:


----------



## George Wallace (7 Jul 2016)

https://www.facebook.com/FoxNews/videos/10154424215896336/

Another and more detailed look at The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee
Read more at http://www.inquisitr.com/3283841/will-hurd-goes-for-the-jugular-during-comey-hearing-demands-one-set-of-law-be-applied-to-all/#VitmYCVWil0rdhSg.99:



> Hurd questions FBI chief about Clinton inquiry
> Aaron Martinez, El Paso Times 7:07 p.m. MDT July 7, 2016
> 
> U.S. Rep. Will Hurd was a key player in the House Oversight Committee hearing Thursday in which the FBI director was questioned about the agency's investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server.
> ...



More on LINK.

Another LINK:

http://www.inquisitr.com/3283841/will-hurd-goes-for-the-jugular-during-comey-hearing-demands-one-set-of-law-be-applied-to-all/


From that link:


> During the James Comey hearing, a number of Republican House members stated the American people are concerned that a double standard was at play during the Hillary Clinton investigation.
> 
> “I’ve heard it a lot,” Comey said when referencing the accusations about the powerful career politician getting a pass on criminal charges when so many others accused of similar or lesser breaches of classified material did not. “It’s not true, but I’ve heard it a lot.”
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jul 2016)

Yup, it sure does suck when someone is sooooo highly placed that they don't get charged, even if anyone else who did the same thing likely would have been ...


----------



## cupper (8 Jul 2016)

And as Comey points out to Hurd, in the 100 year history of that piece of law, only once was it ever used to prosecute anyone.

You need to look at the full text of what Comey said, not just the cherry picked portions selected by the media outlets. And I say this about both sides, not just the so called vast right wing conspiracy. The pro Clinton camp doing a victory lap are just as bad.

She f'd up. Pure and simple.   Why? Because she is arrogant, paranoid and feels priveledged.

But criminal lwas required specific standards that need to be met. And they weren't.

And the GOP needs to STFU by claiming a double standard and pointing to Petraeus as an example. He got off lucky, as his ass could have been tossed in a hole. He committed a felony in that he obstructed the investigation. But the decision was made to only charge him with a misdemeanor.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Jul 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> And as Comey points out to Hurd, in the 100 year history of that piece of law, only once was it ever used to prosecute anyone.
> 
> You need to look at the full text of what Comey said, not just the cherry picked portions selected by the media outlets. And I say this about both sides, not just the so called vast right wing conspiracy. The pro Clinton camp doing a victory lap are just as bad.
> 
> ...



I'm sorry and I don't want to get into a big discussion, but I'm not buying what you're selling.

The whole thing stinks. From the planning visit with Clinton and the Lynch. The bald faced lies that Hillary told about this before and during the investigation and is repeating now again. Obama blatantly stick handling the whole thing. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

If there is one reason why Trump should win, this is it. So he can reopen the investigation.

If Hillary Clinton becomes the next POTUS? It will be the bellwether to the end of democracy in the United States. It will become ancient Rome where you are a citizen or a politician.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jul 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> And as Comey points out to Hurd, in the 100 year history of that piece of law, only once was it ever used to prosecute anyone.



There are multiple laws that were broken, and just upthread there is a prime example of what happens to one of the _hoi poli _when they do the same thing: http://army.ca/forums/threads/108210/post-1443582.html#msg1443582

The open breakdown of the Rule of Law in the United States is a terrifying thing to behold, and no one either has a plan to reinstitute the Rule of Law nor are prepared for the inevitable consequences of failing to do so.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jul 2016)

And now Wikileaks enters the fray:   http://fortune.com/2016/07/05/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-emails/



> WikiLeaks Published Over 1,200 of Hillary Clinton's Iraq War Emails
> 
> by  Valentina Zarya  @valzarya  JULY 5, 2016, 3:36 PM EDT
> 
> ...



More on LINK to Fortune.


More from the Independent in the UK:  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/wikileaks-publishes-more-than-1000-hillary-clinton-war-emails-a7120011.html

Not hacked, eh?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (8 Jul 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And now Wikileaks enters the fray:   http://fortune.com/2016/07/05/wikileaks-hillary-clinton-emails/
> 
> More on LINK to Fortune.
> 
> Not hacked, eh?



Whether Mrs. Clinton's basement server was hacked or not doesn't play a part in the availability of the emails referred to in the article since it was the US government that provided them (openly and according to law).



> The emails were part of a trove of 30,322 emails made available by the U.S. State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request, according to WikiLeaks.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Jul 2016)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> Whether Mrs. Clinton's basement server was hacked or not doesn't play a part in the availability of the emails referred to in the article since it was the US government that provided them (openly and according to law).


Way to make it all unsexy now ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Jul 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Way to make it all unsexy now ...



The server was against the law.Classified information on a non governmental server is another violation.Then we have lying to Congress is a whole new problem.Lying to the FBI is a felony,but the FBI chose to ignore it.A Republican administration can chose to prosecute her if the Donald is elected.I wouldnt trust the woman plain and simple.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Jul 2016)

I should have been clearer:  the unsexy part was how Wikileaks - gasp - shared documents "made available by the U.S. State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request".


----------



## cupper (8 Jul 2016)

I'm not saying she doesn't deserve the crap that she's getting over this. Yes she lied in the public square. Yes she felt she deserved special treatment and made stupid decisions due to her arrogance and her paranoia over the so-called right wing conspiracy.

But the only reason this is an issue is because she is running for President, and the GOP did a crapassed job of selecting a nominee that has little or no chance of winning the general election.

So rather try and do something about making their nominee electable, they are pushing an agenda to make her unelectable, but they get stymied at every step. And their nominee just keeps blowing every chance he's given to score points and gain support. 

Personally I'm glad I can't vote, because I really cannot see either one deserving to be in office. Sometime the lesser of two evils still isn't the best choice.


----------



## George Wallace (8 Jul 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> But the only reason this is an issue is because she is running for President, and the GOP did a crapassed job of selecting a nominee that has little or no chance of winning the general election.



Actually, I think it was an issue prior to her submitting her name.  I could be wrong, but there are a lot of different reasons on a long list of problems with her, and they date back a few years.


----------



## cupper (8 Jul 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Actually, I think it was an issue prior to her submitting her name.  I could be wrong, but there are a lot of different reasons on a long list of problems with her, and they date back a few years.



I don't disagree George. But everyone knew thay she was going to run in 2016, going back to her conceding the nomination in 2008. The GOP made it a point at every turn, even used it when criticizing Obama. Which is why we've been treated to the spectical of multiple investigations of Benghazi, all of which came up with the conclusion that there was no there there. And the constant banging of the drum on the email issue. 

The one thing you cannot deny is that Clinton is the most experienced and qualified of any of the people that threw their hats into the ring. But at the same time she carries so much baggage she really should not be in the race.

Comey did her no favors by eviserating all of her arguments and excuses, and leveling the criticism he did. And thanks to the bumbling orange skinned freak they nominated, the GOP lost any advantage the should have had on this matter. And calling an "emergency" hearing to grandstand in front of the media as they did only compounded the issue. If they had left it to a rational and astute nominee, this would have been prime fodder. But they gave Comey the opportunity to rebut their biased opinions and rehtoric, blunting the sword they were handed. Meanwhile the nominee rants about Saddam Hussein being a great guy when it comes to dealing with terrorism, overlooking the fact that every thing he did would violate every clause in the Constitution and rule of law. He rants about symbolism of a star, while doubling down on an anti semetic retweet. And for bonus points we learned he hates mosquitos.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Jul 2016)

The problem is that when the rule of law is inconsistent and baldly political, the trust that is required to make pluralistic societies work further disintegrates.  Except for the difference between "extremely careless" and "grossly negligent" (I haven't found an explanation of the distinction yet), Clinton should be answering in court to a felony charge.  All the other particulars of the charge are there.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Jul 2016)

>most experienced and qualified

On what basis?  She was never a state governor.


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Jul 2016)

Who doesn't hate mosquitoes??   Common ground, common ground.   :nod:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Jul 2016)

Perhaps it's good that she'll be judged in a public forum instead of the courts. At least if it was held in court, either way, guilty or not, that's the end of it.

Now it won't ever go away and it'll get worse with every telling. By the election, only her most fervent zombies will vote for her.


----------



## Old Sweat (9 Jul 2016)

Her record could be summed up by the two classic old statements that supposedly appeared on officers' PERs:

a. [Mrs Clinton] never makes the same mistake twice, however she has made all of them once; and

b. [The public] will follow [Mrs Clinton] anywhere, if for no other reason than to see what she is going to do next.


----------



## cupper (9 Jul 2016)

One of the things I can't get my head around with her is this:

If you believe that there is the vast right wing conspiracy against you and your husband, why do you keep giveing them things to help the cause?

If someone keeps threatening to shoot you, you don't keep giving them bullets for the gun.


----------



## cupper (9 Jul 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >most experienced and qualified
> 
> On what basis?  She was never a state governor.



True, but of the governors that ran for the GOP nomination served as a member of congress AND Secretary of State? 

She has the most experience and exposure to how things really work at the presidental level. Jeb Bush may have had some exposure to it, but not to the level that Clinton had. The same with her time in the Senate giving the experience of how Congress really functions, not as it is supposed to work. And no one has the foreign policy experience.

But having said all that, her baggage makes it difficult, if not impossible to allow her to be effective should she be elected.

As I said previouslt, this is a choice of the lesser evil. But if all you have to save a drowning man is an anchor or a rock, is that really a choice?


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Jul 2016)

Service != achievement; appointment != accomplishment; experience != competence.

6 years in Senate; 4 as SoS.  Generally I expect a competent, accomplished, high-achieving person to complete two or more major useful initiatives a year.

So what, over those 10 years, did Clinton do that was noteworthy and usefully advanced the interests of the US in particular and/or the world community in general?

My view is that she rides her husband's coat-tails and is just another connected mediocre pol.  Without Bill and the doors he opens, she'd be nothing.


----------



## cupper (9 Jul 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> My view is that she rides her husband's coat-tails and is just another connected mediocre pol.  Without Bill and the doors he opens, she'd be nothing.



EXACTLY!  

And so far in the campaign he's shown himself to be as big a liability as Trump is for the GOP.


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Jul 2016)

You don't need experience to be elected, look at Trudeau.


----------



## cupper (9 Jul 2016)

Australian comedian Jim Jefferies has an excellent take on Trump in his new standup special.

Warning NSFW.

https://youtu.be/CceQISThDYQ


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jul 2016)

In other news the Green Party is supposed to be considering offering Bernie Sanders the candidacy. This would her a leftist dream come true (and splitting the Progressive vote would have a positive long term impact as well).


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Jul 2016)

I think Sanders should do it.  That would put at least three people on the ticket who are too flaky to be there.


----------



## CougarKing (12 Jul 2016)

A backroom deal for Sanders to get the VP slot as opposed to Senator Elizabeth Warren?

BBC



> *US election 2016: Bernie Sanders endorses Hillary Clinton*
> 
> Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has received an endorsement from her former rival Bernie Sanders.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (12 Jul 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> A backroom deal for Sanders to get the VP slot as opposed to Senator Elizabeth Warren?
> 
> BBC



Nah. Can't see it. Clinton's problem is she needs someone closer to the middle of the road, and Bernie is definitely in the field on the opposite side of the road. Tim Kaine is the likely front runner for the position.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jul 2016)

While polls this far out are notoriously unreliable, I will enjoy seeing the amount of time and effort begin put into trying to explain or refute this by the Dems. The sounds of heads exploding will be quite satisfying. 

https://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2365



> July 13, 2016 - Clinton Losing On Honesty In Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll Finds
> ---
> FLORIDA: Trump 42 - Clinton 39
> OHIO: Clinton 41 - Trump 41
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (13 Jul 2016)

Best pictorial response to Bernie's "endorsement"


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Jul 2016)

The Mayor of Cleveland has ordered his police to stand aside next week during the RNC convention.This might be a replay of the terror inflicted on Trump supporters by leftist thugs in California earlier this year.The unintended consequence might be looting of downtown Cleveland.The democrats need to face legal action for organizing against Trump and his supporters.


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Jul 2016)

Trump supporters attacked by a mob in California have filed a civil rights case against the Mayor of San Jose,the SJ PD and named/unnamed attackers.Good for them.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/trump-rally-attendees-sue-san-jose-mayor-police-chief-attackers-violence-june-rally/

Fourteen individuals who attended the Donald J. Trump presidential campaign rally on June 2, 2016, in San Jose, Calif., filed a class action lawsuit this morning against the City of San Jose, its mayor, Sam Liccardo, its chief of police, Edgardo Garcia, certain named individual rioter defendants, and 38 yet-unknown “Doe” defendants, alleging that the Defendants created a dangerous situation for all Trump Rally attendees that caused plaintiffs to be exposed to brutal assault, intimidation, false imprisonment, and threats by an angry mob of hundreds of anti-Trump protesters.

“Law-abiding citizens leaving the Trump rally were victimized by being forced by armed police to walk into a riot in full swing where many were assaulted while police looked on,” said Plaintiffs’ attorney, Harmeet K. Dhillon. “We seek redress for the serious physical and other injuries our clients and the class suffered as a direct result of the City’s acts and omissions, as well as the deliberate acts of the individual assailants.”


----------



## mariomike (15 Jul 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Mayor of Cleveland has ordered his police to stand aside next week during the RNC convention.This might be a replay of the terror inflicted on Trump supporters by leftist thugs in California earlier this year.The unintended consequence might be looting of downtown Cleveland.The democrats need to face legal action for organizing against Trump and his supporters.



Looks like the City of Cleveland is getting ready for a bloodbath,

Last-minute scramble among safety forces preparing for RNC
http://fox8.com/2016/07/12/i-team-last-minute-scramble-among-safety-forces-preparing-for-rnc/


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jul 2016)

While polls this far out are relatively unreliable, it is interesting to see the Dems are already starting to sound worried. I think the true cause of their angst is the simple fact that although they are outspending the GOP by a vast margin, they are not seeing commensurate results (and which party is always saying that "big money" should not ba allowed in politics?)

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/287845-democrats-freaked-out-about-polls-in-meeting-with-clinton



> *Democrats ‘freaked out’ about polls in meeting with Clinton*
> TheHill.com
> 
> Nervous Senate Democrats raised concerns with Hillary Clinton during a private meeting in the Capitol Thursday over a recent poll showing Donald Trump leading or tied in several battleground states.
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (15 Jul 2016)

Yesterday, CNN listed Pence, Christie and Gingrinch as the top three contenders for the VP slot. The baggage the other two have should have make it obvious who was going to be the only choice.

CNN



> *Donald Trump selects Mike Pence as VP*
> 
> By Eric Bradner, Dana Bash and MJ Lee, CNN
> 
> ...



And in other news:

Canadian Press




> *Trump seeks $10 million in damages from former campaign aide*
> [Julie Pace And Chad Day, The Associated Press]
> July 14, 2016
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (15 Jul 2016)

Well, we avoided the end of days. Thank God he passed on Palin.


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Jul 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Well, we avoided the end of days. Thank God he passed on Palin.



I've never heard of who he did pick.   Hope he's not a fid.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Jul 2016)

Mike Pence.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/14/politics/donald-trump-vice-presidential-choice/


----------



## jollyjacktar (15 Jul 2016)

I should have said,  I've never heard of Pence until now.  Know SFA about him.


----------



## PuckChaser (15 Jul 2016)

Link had a little montage about him, pretty biased though. I've never heard of him either. Looks like a hard social conservative to appease Republican base.


----------



## cupper (16 Jul 2016)

He's a hard right conservative who fails to learn the lessons that others have. He signed into law a freedom of religion law that essentially rolled back LGBT rights after the Supreme Court brought down its decision for same sex marriage. 

CO Governor Jan Brewer refused to sign essentially the same law when it hit her desk, stating that it was too draconian and enshrined discrimination, and would never stand up to a challenge in SCOTUS.

He neded up walking it back after several days of waffling back and forth. He was criticized by moderates in his own party as be bein ineffectual during the crisis.

He also signed into law an anti abortion bill that made it a crime for a doctor to induce a miscarriage at any point in a pregnancy regardless of circumstances. However the bill was so broad in scope that prescribing the morning after pill could fall under the same restrictions. It also eliminated state funding to Woman's health clinics that also performed abortion services. Pro Choice groups subjected the governors office and personal e-mail to a unique campaign of protest. Women would e-mail descriptions of their menstrual cycles to him and other members of the conservative state GOP legislature.

Pense is so low in popularity that the State GOP was hoping he would get picked as VP so they could put someone else on the Gubenitorial ticket.

All Pense does for Trump is shore up the base who had concerns about his lack of conservative values. How that would actually work is beyond me since Trump not Pense will be calling the shots, and Trump does not abide by his underlings going against his message. And Pense has a record that is in opposition to some key points of Trumps platform, such as it is.

Trump had a problem with the woman vote, but Pense just made that problem worse.

Pense spent time in Congress. Over his 12 years in Washington he was never able to pass a single bill he introduced, but has a hard right voting record.

This is only a selection to shore up the base, and does nothing to gain votes in the middle where Trump needs them.


----------



## muskrat89 (18 Jul 2016)

> CO Governor Jan Brewer



Jan Brewer was Governor of Arizona


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Jul 2016)

Pence is a solid choice and balance's out the ticket,geographically and ideologically.As Governor Indiana has a $2b surplus.solid fiscally too.Under our constitution everyone is considered equal.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jul 2016)

The political class which created Donald Trump is now wondering how Donald Trump happened. Sow the wind indeed:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/03/20/donald-trump-political-establishment-elites-tea-party-bourgeois-working-class-column/82047484/



> *Glenn Reynolds: How David Brooks created Donald Trump*
> Glenn Harlan Reynolds 10:17 a.m. EDT March 21, 2016
> Political establishment denounced bourgeois Tea Party. Now, they must face raucous working-class Trumpsters.
> 
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (18 Jul 2016)

An 11th hour attempt to derail his campaign?

Associated Press



> *Ohio Republican delegation gives cold shoulder to Trump*
> 
> Dan Sewell, The Associated Press
> July 16, 2016
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Jul 2016)

Kasich is a sore loser.Trump seems to have broad support that none of the other candidates except maybe Cruz,were able to achieve.He had democrats crossing over to vote for him.Hillary is not even sure she will have the support of her base.The establishment is out in the cold,a first.Gingrich even told the Bush clan to get "over it ".Of course the media eats this up,as they are an organ of the DNC.It wont do for the Donald to be President.Of course after 8 years of Obama,I doubt he could do worse.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Jul 2016)

Stephen Colbert gets on stage to do his Hunger Games impression before security chase him off.   ;D

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/watch-stephen-colbert-prank-rnc-123057881.html


----------



## CougarKing (19 Jul 2016)

Melania Trump gets some unwanted attention:

Canadian Press



> *Calls for firings erupt during Republican convention over Melania Trump speech*
> 
> Alexander Panetta, The Canadian Press
> July 19, 2016
> ...


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (19 Jul 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Melania Trump gets some unwanted attention:
> 
> Canadian Press



This is becoming embarrassing. Trump is looking more and more unready, un-presidential, and ridiculous by the day. When your speech writer can't even write a new speech for your wife to give at a convention and includes "rick-rolling" the world you have moved past political maverick and right to embarrassment. After this election the RNC will, hopefully, take a good long look at itself and fix whatever went wrong that allowed this clown to be the nominee.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jul 2016)

Politicians plagiarize each others speeches all the time.

Besides, there's only so many catch phrases for politicians to use, that they're bound to be repeated.

What is embarrassing is how the MSM is attacking and playing PR machine for the Clinton Mob Family and how little ammunition they have, on Trump, that they try make this something it's not.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Jul 2016)

I love the "Rick Rolling" that was also used in her speech.


----------



## Altair (20 Jul 2016)

Gary johnson is up to 13 percent in the polls


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jul 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> This is becoming embarrassing. Trump is looking more and more unready, un-presidential, and ridiculous by the day. When your speech writer can't even write a new speech for your wife to give at a convention and includes "rick-rolling" the world you have moved past political maverick and right to embarrassment. After this election the RNC will, hopefully, take a good long look at itself and fix whatever went wrong that allowed this clown to be the nominee.



At the same time, SHE IS NOT A POLITICIAN so why should she be held accountable for her speech.  If she were indeed a political figure, then it would be inexcusable.  However, you could also look at is as a "good thing" that she is removed from politics and reflects on the average person, who would not have access to researchers and political writers.  The 'appearance' that she did her own research and writing, finding words in other's speeches to press her points, may be what enamors her with the 'common people'.  That is where the Trump campaign has been getting its momentum.


----------



## GAP (20 Jul 2016)

If JFK can do it why can't Trump's wife?

JFK's famous line about asking America what it can do for you was actually plagerized from a 9012 speech.....JFK took it one step further, thats all


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Jul 2016)

GAP said:
			
		

> If JFK can do it why can't Trump's wife?
> 
> JFK's famous line about asking America what it can do for you was actually plagerized from a 9012 speech.....JFK took it one step further, thats all



Geeze, if he had a time machine you'd of thought he would have avoided Dallas that day.


----------



## PuckChaser (20 Jul 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Geeze, if he had a time machine you'd of thought he would have avoided Dallas that day.


Maybe he travelled back in time to shoot himself because he couldn't bear the thought of having plagiarized the speech?


----------



## dapaterson (20 Jul 2016)

There is a huge difference between building on a quote to make a point, and parroting someone else's words.

Plus,  once you get on stage to pimp your third husband, you are fair game.  You're not immune from public criticism once you present yourself to the public.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jul 2016)

Really, that was a childish attempt by someone to sabotage Trump. It is also a perfect opportunity of the Legacy media to ignore everything else that is going on in the convention, the speeches by heavyweight politicians, business people, astronauts etc. and focus on picking fly s**t from pepper.

Frankly, if thats all they've got, we really should ignore the Legacy Media.

Of course the exact opposite will happen during the DNC: every gaff, misstatement or even bald faced lie will be quickly brushed over and never brought up again.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jul 2016)

The media jumped on this speech to humiliate Trump and totally ignored the poignant speech given by the mother of one of the Benghazi victims.  Shows, like in Canada, a definite political bias in the American media.


----------



## Lightguns (20 Jul 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Gary johnson is up to 13 percent in the polls



And Hillary wins......


----------



## Remius (20 Jul 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> At the same time, SHE IS NOT A POLITICIAN so why should she be held accountable for her speech.  If she were indeed a political figure, then it would be inexcusable.  However, you could also look at is as a "good thing" that she is removed from politics and reflects on the average person, who would not have access to researchers and political writers.  The 'appearance' that she did her own research and writing, finding words in other's speeches to press her points, may be what enamors her with the 'common people'.  That is where the Trump campaign has been getting its momentum.



No but as First Lady (or potential First Lady) you might as well be.  Her position as First Lady will be scrutinised just as much as the pick for VP.  And if your very first speech is a repeat of a speech given by a former First Lady who happens to be on the other team, then yeah, that makes news.  It wasn't just the MSM reporting this.  EVERYONE was reporting this.  Even entertainment shows, and even conservative news stations.


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Jul 2016)

These people dont write their own speeches they have speech writers.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Jul 2016)

So you're saying Trump doesn't hire very good people to work for him?  Not quite what folks are looking for in the POTUS. 

At this rate, a write in campaign for Pikachu is looking more and more like America's best option.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (20 Jul 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> At the same time, SHE IS NOT A POLITICIAN so why should she be held accountable for her speech.  If she were indeed a political figure, then it would be inexcusable.  However, you could also look at is as a "good thing" that she is removed from politics and reflects on the average person, who would not have access to researchers and political writers.  The 'appearance' that she did her own research and writing, finding words in other's speeches to press her points, may be what enamors her with the 'common people'.  That is where the Trump campaign has been getting its momentum.



Why should she be held accountable? She's on a stage, in front of the nation, commending reasons why her husband should be the President of the USA and can't come up with her own speech and you see no problem or reason for embarrassment in this? The "common person" giving a best man speech at a wedding did a better job of coming up with new material than her, and she was undoubtedly surrounded by hordes or hired speech writers. I also don't think anyone who watched that speech would think that she did her own research on it, unless of course she had been listening to Rick Astley earlier in the day and heard her inspirational bard. I don't think anyone was expecting a Gettysburg Address from her but to have basically copied Michelle Obama's speech (Michelle Obama! Their mortal enemy!) is past unfortunate and right into embarrassing.

On that, it's sad to see the Republicans, the party of great orators and introspective men such as Abraham Lincoln, Ulysses Grant, Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, and Ronald Reagan, reduced to this. The party has come a long way since the Gettysburg address, unfortunately the direction travelled has been down.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jul 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> And Hillary wins......



Depends. The Barry Bro's could do immeasurable damage by casting write in ballots for Bernie. Might even be enough to cancel out the dead voter advantage the Dems usually have in an election.


----------



## Remius (20 Jul 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> These people dont write their own speeches they have speech writers.



Sure. But all this is highlighting is the lack of depth his campaign seems to have.  Someone should have flagged and vetted that stuff.  Plus it does not help when she says she wrote it with a little help.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Jul 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> So you're saying Trump doesn't hire very good people to work for him?  Not quite what folks are looking for in the POTUS.
> 
> At this rate, a write in campaign for Pikachu is looking more and more like America's best option.



Corey Lewandowski, left under a cloud.


----------



## Jed (20 Jul 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Really, that was a childish attempt by someone to sabotage Trump. It is also a perfect opportunity of the Legacy media to ignore everything else that is going on in the convention, the speeches by heavyweight politicians, business people, astronauts etc. and focus on picking fly s**t from pepper.
> 
> Frankly, if thats all they've got, we really should ignore the Legacy Media.
> 
> Of course the exact opposite will happen during the DNC: every gaff, misstatement or even bald faced lie will be quickly brushed over and never brought up again.



Legacy Media...   Bringing us all down to bottom feeder levels.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jul 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> .....  Plus it does not help when she says she wrote it with a little help.



That part was quite obvious.  

At least she didn't copy all of Michelle's speech:



> When I look at young British Muslim women, I see myself.


or


> I wake up in a house that was built by slaves.





Speaking of plagiarizing.....Obama has on numerous occasions plagiarized others:

https://www.facebook.com/molonlabeind/videos/1224060970958082/

So.....Pot....this is Kettle.


----------



## Remius (20 Jul 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That part was quite obvious.
> 
> At least she didn't copy all of Michelle's speech:
> or
> ...



Sure.  But he admitted it.  Both Obama and Deval Patrick are on the same political spectrum as well.  If Mrs. Trump had at least lifted something from the Republican side it might not have been as big a deal. link below explaining the relationship.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/07/20/barack-obama-vs-patrick-duval/

I doubt that anyone on the Trump side is willing to admit it like he did. 

No one is buying it.

In the end though we'll all be talking about something else next week.


----------



## Remius (20 Jul 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> I doubt that anyone on the Trump side is willing to admit it like he did.



eating my own words now...


http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/events/republican-national-convention/

_July 20, 2016 12:36pm


Trump staffer takes responsibility for alleged plagiarism in Melania Trump speech

Trump staffer Meredith McIver has taken responsibility and apologized for the alleged plagiarism of Melania Trump's speech, but id in a statement that the campaign rejected her offer to resign.

Describing herself as an 'in-house staff writer' at the Trump organization, McIver says Mrs. Trump read her some passages of Michelle Obama's speech as examples of what she liked.

"I wrote them down and later included some of the phrasing in the draft that ultimately became the final speech. I did not check Mrs. Obama's speeches. That was my mistake, and I feel terrible for the chaos I have caused Melania and the Trumps, as well as to Mrs. Obama. No harm was meant," she said in a statement.


"Yesterday, I offered my resignation to Mr. Trump and the Trump family, but they rejected it. Mr. Trump told me that people make innocent mistakes and that we learn and grow from these experiences."


"I asked to put out this statement because I did not like seeing the way this was distracting from Mr. Trump’s historic campaign for president and Melania’s beautiful message and presentation," she wrote._

Now that is a way better way to handle this.   Take responsibility, the Trump campaign looks magnanimous by keeping her on and the story has nowhere to go.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Jul 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> In the end though we'll all be talking about something else next week.



Yes we will.  There is more controversy to come.  You can bet on it.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Jul 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes we will.  There is more controversy to come.  You can bet on it.



For the whole election. I don't think Stephen Colbert's parody of "The Hunger Games" character, Caesar Flickerman , was too far off on this years three ring circus the election has become (both sides for me).  Makes you wonder, "just what will happen next...?"   :nod:


----------



## FJAG (20 Jul 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> eating my own words now...
> 
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/events/republican-national-convention/
> ...



I wouldn't chow down on them yet. 

There's another article that says two different writers wrote Melania's speech a month ago and then heard nothing further until she gave the speech. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/us/politics/melania-trump-convention-speech.html?_r=1 and http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/20/politics/donald-trump-campaign-organization/index.html and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/melania-trump-speech-meredith-mciver_us_578fa921e4b07c722ebd4376?rq1c3bzdj5k359udi. Now we hear that a "Trump organization" writer re-wrote the speech with a few suggestions from Melania. 

Quite frankly the inclusion of a few good phrases from Michelle Obama's speech don't bother me near as much as the fact that originally Melania said that she wrote the speech herself with "as little help as possible." That seemed an outright lie even before the plagiarism issue came up. Add that to the fact that the Trump organization has still not addressed the fact that she claims to have graduated with a degree in architecture and design in Slovenia when all the evidence points to the fact that she dropped out after first year having failed two courses. It boggles my mind that Republicans are taking up the chant of "Crooked Hillary" when lying appears to be second nature to the entire Trump machine. How stupid are republicans really?  :2c:

:cheers:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Jul 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Quite frankly the inclusion of a few good phrases from Michelle Obama's speech don't bother me near as much as the fact that originally Melania said that she wrote the speech herself with "as little help as possible." That seemed an outright lie even before the plagiarism issue came up. Add that to the fact that the Trump organization has still not addressed the fact that she claims to have graduated with a degree in architecture and design in Slovenia when all the evidence points to the fact that she dropped out after first year having failed two courses. It boggles my mind that Republicans are taking up the chant of "Crooked Hillary" when lying appears to be second nature to the entire Trump machine. How stupid are republicans really?  :2c:
> 
> :cheers:



Obama still hasn't released his education transcripts or long form census, so I wouldn't worry about Trump. After all the Clinton Mob Family email scandal, lying to Congress, lying about Benghazi, lying about just about anything and everything, it takes a certain kind of person that holds up Trump's minor faux pas as the crime of the century. Yup, a very special kind of person to say the Trumps are liars of an unusual veracity and magnitude, when the Clinton Mob Family hasn't spoken a true word in their lives. How stupid are the Democrats really?

I'll also state once more, that if this is the best that Clinton can do, she's out of tricks. Of course, she can and does, lie her way out of everything anyway. The Clinton mob is full of disbarred lawyers, including Bill and Hillary. They got disbarred for, wait for it......lying. She has been called a pathological liar. Not only did she lie about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia, but in another airport, she happened to run into Sir Edmund Hillary, who was the first man to climb Mt. Everest. She claimed that her mother named her Hillary after Sir Edmund Hillary the climber. Only problem with this lie Sir Edmund Hillary didn't make news climbing anything until 5-years after Clinton was born. Before then, he was a beekeeper.

So, before we go on the rampage and start calling the Trumps liars, lets not forget the Clintons hold that particular trait as a daily way of conducting business.


----------



## FJAG (20 Jul 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Obama still hasn't released his education transcripts or long form census, so I wouldn't worry about Trump. After all the Clinton Mob Family email scandal, lying to Congress, lying about Benghazi, lying about just about anything and everything, it takes a certain kind of person that holds up Trump's minor faux pas as the crime of the century. Yup, a very special kind of person to say the Trumps are liars of an unusual veracity and magnitude, when the Clinton Mob Family hasn't spoken a true word in their lives. How stupid are the Democrats really?
> 
> I'll also state once more, that if this is the best that Clinton can do, she's out of tricks. Of course, she can and does, lie her way out of everything anyway. The Clinton mob is full of disbarred lawyers, including Bill and Hillary. They got disbarred for, wait for it......lying. She has been called a pathological liar. Not only did she lie about landing under sniper fire in Bosnia, but in another airport, she happened to run into Sir Edmund Hillary, who was the first man to climb Mt. Everest. She claimed that her mother named her Hillary after Sir Edmund Hillary the climber. Only problem with this lie Sir Edmund Hillary didn't make news climbing anything until 5-years after Clinton was born. Before then, he was a beekeeper.
> 
> So, before we go on the rampage and start calling the Trumps liars, lets not forget the Clintons hold that particular trait as a daily way of conducting business.



I'm not here to carry the water for Clinton. She's capable of doing that herself. I'm also not about to do research to rustle up fact about the various "lies" that you cite although much of it is pure Republican bulls**t and hyperbole. I think the whole Benghazi thing has been examined to death by her worst enemies and they still have no evidence.

I'll just correct the point on the Clintons' "disbarment". Neither were ever disbarred. Bill Clinton received a five year suspension in 2001 for "evasive and misleading answers" during the Lewinski discovery process. He could have applied to have his licence reinstated after those five years but never has. Hillary has never been disbarred, suspended or anything of the kind, much less for lying. In 2002 she let her licence lapse as she was no longer practising as a lawyer.  That's pretty standard for any lawyer that retires or moves on to some other endeavour.

The Arkansas Supreme Court, Office of the Comittee on Professional Discipline has a very good searchable database here: https://courts.arkansas.gov/administration/professional-conduct/opinions. There is no disciplinary record respecting Hillary.

One final point Recceguy. I've never been a lover of the Democrats. I'm a fiscal conservative so here in Canada I'm a Conservative and historically my views in the US have always leaned towards those of the Republicans. In the last decade or two, however, I've found that the Republicans have abandon reasonable policies of fiscal conservatism for rabid, racist, nativist, fundamental Christianity with a side order of homophobia and constitutional originalism. While I fully believe that every political party's first priority is to cling to power, I believe that the Republicans in the US have in the last twenty years developed that policy to a fine art which has them supporting policies that cater to the worst of their core supporters so that the interests of the electorate in general has been run roughshod. One need only look at their positions on healthcare, reasonable gun controls, and social equality to see that they no longer express the interests of the majority of the electorate. I guess we'll all see in November how well their shoddy approach sells. I don't like Hillary all that much and I think that the Democrats could have done much better but in the end--when you look at what is now the alternative--I really can't see that there's a choice. 

 :cheers:


----------



## FJAG (20 Jul 2016)




----------



## ModlrMike (20 Jul 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I really can't see that there's a choice.
> 
> :cheers:



Actually, there are two: bad and worse. I'll leave it to other folks to figure out which is which.


----------



## Remius (20 Jul 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Actually, there are two: bad and worse. I'll leave it to other folks to figure out which is which.



Depends on what side you're on.  I just see bad and bad.  I don't envy Americans and the choice they have in November.


----------



## Remius (21 Jul 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Yes we will.  There is more controversy to come.  You can bet on it.



Didn't take long.

Everyone is talking about Ted Cruz now and how he essentially just called artillery down on his own position.

What a clown show this is.


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Jul 2016)

Most of the also rans are petty men,who dont deserve to be President.Cruz has already stated he will be running in 2020,but after his failure to endorse Trump he wont stand much of a chance.Historically people who dont muster behind the nominee dont recover politically.


----------



## jollyjacktar (21 Jul 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Most of the also rans are petty men,who dont deserve to be President.Cruz has already stated he will be running in 2020,but after his failure to endorse Trump he wont stand much of a chance.Historically people who dont muster behind the nominee dont recover politically.



Good, he's a major dickwad.


----------



## Altair (21 Jul 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> And Hillary wins......


johnson has been pulling more votes from the Democrats than the Republicans


----------



## Remius (21 Jul 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Most of the also rans are petty men,who dont deserve to be President.Cruz has already stated he will be running in 2020,but after his failure to endorse Trump he wont stand much of a chance.Historically people who dont muster behind the nominee dont recover politically.



Agree about the pettiness.  But, I (and some pundits) think that his speech was not meant for the crowd in Cleveland.  I think it was meant for those republicans who opted not to come (McCain, Bush etc etc).  He's banking on THEIR support if this all goes south.


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Jul 2016)

Under the heading of Know Your Enemy here is an interesting article by Judge Napolitano.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/07/21/judge-napolitano-what-if-fix-was-in-for-hillary-at-obama-justice-department.html

What if the folks who run the Department of Political Justice recently were told that the republic would suffer if Hillary Clinton were indicted for espionage because Donald Trump might succeed Barack Obama in the presidency? What if espionage is the failure to safeguard state secrets and the evidence that Clinton failed to safeguard them is unambiguous and overwhelming?


----------



## Rifleman62 (21 Jul 2016)

Sounds like he has some sources. 

Cruz reminds me of, looks a bit like Sen McCarthy.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Jul 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Under the heading of Know Your Enemy here is an interesting article by Judge Napolitano.
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/07/21/judge-napolitano-what-if-fix-was-in-for-hillary-at-obama-justice-department.html
> 
> What if the folks who run the Department of Political Justice recently were told that the republic would suffer if Hillary Clinton were indicted for espionage because Donald Trump might succeed Barack Obama in the presidency? What if espionage is the failure to safeguard state secrets and the evidence that Clinton failed to safeguard them is unambiguous and overwhelming?



What if this guy doesn't have a clue and that's the reason every single statement in his article starts with "what if" and he was using that device merely to avoid potential law suits based on defamation ?

And what if he stopped calling himself "judge", which he isn't anymore?

And what if he was to join the ranks of the conspiracy theorists of America?

And what if he wrote fiction books instead of claiming to be a serious (well as serious a can be when you work of Fox News) unbiassed media commentator?

Just saying  ;D  

Starting every sentence in an article with what if creates something which scientists call "not even false", meaning that, like any other 'scientific" statement if it cannot even be proven false, it has no value whatsoever as a statement.


----------



## Remius (21 Jul 2016)

Well if we are going to talk conspiracy theories here's a good one.

http://blackbag.gawker.com/is-donald-trump-running-a-false-flag-campaign-to-help-h-1723925057

Basically that Trump is actually trying to get Clinton elected and that this is one massive plan on the Clintons' part to destabilise the Republicans.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Jul 2016)

Now we're talking conspiracy !

 [


----------



## cupper (21 Jul 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Most of the also rans are petty men,who dont deserve to be President.Cruz has already stated he will be running in 2020,but after his failure to endorse Trump he wont stand much of a chance.Historically people who dont muster behind the nominee dont recover politically.



I disagree.

It depends on what the 2016 outcome is. If Trump loses in a close vote, Cruz will be blamed and vilified for these antics.

If Trump loses in a landslide, and the down ticket results damage the party's holdings in Congress then Cruz stands in a good position to offer a better vision than they did in 2016. (it was hard to type that with a straight face) A landslide loss will essentially show that the party f'd up in letting Trump direct the narrative right from the start, and ignored their own 2012 postmortem results.

If Trump wins :rofl: then it will be a moot point and Cruz will have to wait until 2024. Unless the end of days actually occurs as many are predicting a Trump win will bring, then you can maybe see Cruz standing in a position to challenge a sitting president for the nomination.

Personally I believe Cruz was an idiot for trying to walk the fine line when he pledged to endorse the party's nominee at the first of the debates, then go all HULK when Trump pulled his BS on Cruz's wife and father but not rescind that same pledge, and then refuse to endorse at the speech. And the Trump camp is just as tarred with the stunt they pulled, by allowing Cruz to make the speech he did, or put him on the stage at all. They were well aware of what was going to be said, and then staged Trump's arrival to detract from the speech, and as some have said perhaps prompted a lot of the negative reaction at the end.


----------



## cupper (21 Jul 2016)

Remember that the is a 3rd alternative to Dumb and Entitled.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/30/is-this-gary-johnsonbill-weld-spot-the-g


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Jul 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> johnson has been pulling more votes from the Democrats than the Republicans



Boris?


----------



## cupper (21 Jul 2016)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Boris?



See link in my post above.


----------



## Altair (21 Jul 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Remember that the is a 3rd alternative to Dumb and Entitled.
> 
> http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/30/is-this-gary-johnsonbill-weld-spot-the-g


If he could make it to 15 percent and get on the debate stage it would be a dream come true for me.

He's also killing it with the troops 

http://thehill.com/policy/defense/288546-poll-libertarian-johnson-beating-trump-clinton-among-active-duty-troops


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jul 2016)

Bill Clinton took suspension in AR in order to prevent being disbarred, and was in fact disbarred from practicing before the Supreme Court.  I don't see any way to spin that more favourably.  No-one disputes his association with Jeffrey Epstein.

FBI Director Comey essentially laid out as facts all the particulars of the misdemeanour charge which should have been brought against Hillary Clinton, and then offered up some imagined distinction between "gross negligence" and "extremely careless" (defined where in law, I wonder) as an excuse not to do so.  There is guilt, and there is guilt in law.  Hillary is guilty, but we don't know if she would be found guilty in law because Democrats will no longer discipline their own.

Trump at least has the novelty of lying about mostly trivial, personal issues.  But even if he wins, I can't see him surviving a nomination challenge in 2020.


----------



## cupper (21 Jul 2016)

I am beginning to suspect that there may be an active campaign within the party machine to sabautage Trump's run at every possible turn. Latest news has come out that his speech this evening was leaked by someone on the inside of the campaign to a the pro Hillary Superpac Correct The Message a short while before it was previewed to the press outlets.

At the very least it is another example of poor management by the campaign that has been common place during the convention, and going back in the run for the nomination.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Jul 2016)

The Democrat's disconnect from reality is going to do more to help Trump than any other factor:


----------



## tomahawk6 (22 Jul 2016)

Then you have the current occupant of 1600 cracking a joke during a presser about Munich.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/obama-cracks-joke-daughter-making-statement-munich-attack/


----------



## CougarKing (22 Jul 2016)

An anti-abortion Democrat to make Hillary's ticket more palatable for conservative US voters?

Wall Street Journal



> *Sen. Tim Kaine Seen as Clinton’s VP Pick*
> Virginian with Spanish-speaking skills and low-key style could aid Democrat Hillary Clinton in the general election
> 
> (...FULL ARTICLE AT LINK ABOVE)


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Jul 2016)

cupper:  





> I am beginning to suspect that there may be an active campaign within the party machine to sabautage Trump's run at every possible turn. Latest news has come out that his speech this evening was leaked by someone on the inside of the campaign to a the pro Hillary Superpac Correct The Message a short while before it was previewed to the press outlets.
> 
> At the very least it is another example of poor management by the campaign that has been common place during the convention, and going back in the run for the nomination.



I heard on two TV news reports it was leaked by, guess?

A media person. Now isn't that funny. I guess they don't like been called what they are by Trump.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (22 Jul 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The Democrat's disconnect from reality is going to do more to help Trump than any other factor:



Yes, the Democrats disconnect......

http://mashable.com/2016/07/22/jon-stewart-comeback-colbert/#XR4u9lJY2Oqz


----------



## cupper (23 Jul 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> An anti-abortion Democrat to make Hillary's ticket more palatable for conservative US voters?
> 
> Wall Street Journal



Kaine personally is against abortion, however he also believes that it is a personal choice and that the government has no place in telling people what is right and wrong in the case of abortion. So this was not a choice to woo social conservatives.

The Kaine choice does a ouple of things. It shores up support in a swing state, Virginia. It also gives her a boost in the middle to appeal to moderates. And Kaine's fluency in Spanish shores up the Latino vote.

Kaine has a tendency to be wonkish, but he also can deliver explanations in ways that the average person can understand, ala Warren, where Hillary has troubles.

The biggest knock against Kaine is that he is boring. But maybe that works in this cycle.

Kaine was the safe choice.


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Jul 2016)

He's so boring (by his own admission),  I've never heard of him too.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (23 Jul 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I'll just correct the point on the Clintons' "disbarment". Neither were ever disbarred. Bill Clinton received a five year suspension in 2001 for "evasive and misleading answers" during the Lewinski discovery process.



In other than legalese weasel words, Bill was essentially disbarred.  An interesting point is that neither of the prominent lawyer couple, the Obamas, is a member of the bar, having somehow whizzed it away.  And don't tell me they didn't want it anyway.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Jul 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Started work on my own page o' links to keep track of the U.S. election - sharing it here in case someone might find it useful.


I've added a few more source links since first sharing -- enjoy!


----------



## Altair (23 Jul 2016)

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/07/22/politics/dnc-wikileaks-emails/index.html?client=ms-android-rogers-ca#



> Nearly 20,000 emails sent and received by Democratic National Committee staff members were released Friday by Wikileaks, and some messages are raising questions about the committee's impartiality during the Democratic primary.
> 
> One email appears to show DNC staffers asking how they can reference Sanders' faith to weaken him in the eyes of Southern voters. Another seems to depict an attorney advising the committee on how to defend Clinton against an accusation by the Sanders campaign of not living up to a joint fundraising agreement.
> 
> ...


 I don't think those sanders supporters are showing up for clinton.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Jul 2016)

If the Democrats didnt have the Super Delegates Sanders would be the nominee.


----------



## tomahawk6 (23 Jul 2016)

Trump called the Cleveland Police Chief to thank him and the officers for a safe convention.Its on video. 

http://fox8.com/2016/07/22/donald-trump-calls-cleveland-police-chief-calvin-williams-to-say-thank-you/


----------



## FJAG (23 Jul 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> If the Democrats didnt have the Super Delegates Sanders would be the nominee.



Last count that I saw had Clinton with 2,205 pledged delegates plus 602 super delegates while Sanders had 1,846 pledged delegates and 48 super delegates. Either way Clinton's ahead.

 :cheers:


----------



## tomahawk6 (24 Jul 2016)

With the WikiLeaks dump the DNC Chairwoman has resigned.She has also been served with a class action law suit alleging the DNC conspired to rig the primaries.

http://observer.com/2016/06/debbie-wasserman-schultz-served-class-action-lawsuit-for-rigging-primaries/

On June 28, the Miami-based law firm Beck & Lee filed a class action lawsuit against the Democratic National Committee and DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

“There are essentially six legal claims we are asserting in this lawsuit on behalf of the composed class members,” said attorney Jared Beck in a YouTube video announcing the lawsuit. “The first is a claim for fraud—against the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz—based on the revelations from the recent Guccifer 2.0 documents purportedly taken from the DNC’s own computer network.” The Guccifer 2.0 documents include internal memos in which the DNC broke legally binding neutrality agreements in the Democratic primaries by strategizing to make Hillary Clinton the nominee before a single vote was cast.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Jul 2016)

op:


----------



## PuckChaser (25 Jul 2016)

And the Democrats thought they were free after Clinton escaped being charged....

Some of them are probably raging after their friendly Wikileaks website attacked them this way. No loyalty among Liberals?


----------



## cavalryman (25 Jul 2016)

What kind of a world is it when the Democratic  Party isn't even subjected to a RICO investigation?   >

I hear the mafia is pretty mad at the double standard.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jul 2016)

One of the other interesting things to come from the Wikileaks emails is just how closely the Legacy media colluded with the DNC; as Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) says; "Think of them as Democrat operatives with bylines". This is the smoking gun for media bias, but I expect the usual suspects will attempt to spin things with ridiculous claims (i.e. Russian hackers) or simply pretend this isn't out there.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2016/07/22/hilary-leaks-wikileaks-releases-democratic-national-committee-emails/



> *WikiLeaks’ DNC Email Leak Reveals Off The Record Media Correspondence*
> July 22, 2016 12:29 PM
> 
> KPIX 5's Phil Matier spoke with Hillary Clinton at a campaign stop in Oakland on May 6, 2016. (CBS)
> ...



and for the twofer; Rhetoric vs Dialectic:

https://voxday.blogspot.ca/2016/07/the-importance-of-rhetoric.html



> *The importance of rhetoric*
> James Carville explains, in an email released by Wikileaks as part of the #DNCleaks in a note of unknown provenance:
> 
> Ideologies aren't all that important. What's important is psychology.
> ...


----------



## Remius (25 Jul 2016)

Well, if the Republican's convention became a clown show, then the Democrats have started with one.

What a mess.  As much as our politics seem screwed up, it pales in comparison to what is happening south of the border...


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Jul 2016)

The democrats are expecting another WikiLeaks document drop,which is probably intended to help Sanders.If Hillary can be knocked out of the running prior to delegate voting,then who knows what can happen ?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/breaking-wikileaks-drop-another-bomb-dnc-convention/


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Jul 2016)

> Some of the most interesting emails to read are those exchanged by DNC staffers as they decide how to respond to media inquiries, and then their off-the-record and deep background responses to numerous national media outlets. The emails contained off the record correspondence with reporters at the Washington Post, Politico, and the Wall Street Journal, among others.



It is interesting to see "Reporters" sending their columns to the DNC, before sending to their Editors, to be approved prior to publishing. Not for fact checking of i.e. financial numbers. but approval.


----------



## dimsum (25 Jul 2016)

Interesting article comparing the two.  I wouldn't say Trump is exactly emulating Putin, but there are some parallels.  Plus, the cover (obviously Photoshopped) photo is both hilarious and slightly nauseating  :-X



> ...The answers might lie behind the walls of Red Square. America’s arch-capitalist doesn’t just admire Vladimir Putin, he resembles him. From the disdainful attacks on opponents to the promises of renewed national glory, to the manipulation of the media and the appeal to the public’s basest fears, Trump is following the Russian leader’s template. Both men obsess over even the mildest criticism, like to revel publicly in their virility, and choose to focus almost exclusively on outcomes, rather than policy. The apprentice, it appears, is cribbing notes from the master.



http://www.macleans.ca/news/world/trumputin-the-disturbing-parallels-between-donald-trump-and-vladimir-putin/


----------



## cavalryman (25 Jul 2016)

I'll just leave this right here and back away quickly

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/24/487081526/rallies-marches-and-a-fart-in-philadelphia-gets-ready-for-the-dnc



> To stand out, you have to be creative. That's why Cheri Honkala with the Poor People's Economic Human Rights Campaign is gathering cases of donated beans in her office. She plans to feed them to protesters on the last night of the convention when Hillary Clinton accepts her party's nomination.
> 
> You could say her protest plan is a real gas.
> 
> "We thought that this process really stinks," Honkala says. "So we decided to organize a national fart-in." She doesn't like that only two political parties dominate American politics.



:evil:


----------



## Journeyman (25 Jul 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> .....gathering cases of donated beans in her office. She plans to feed them to protesters on the last night of the convention when Hillary Clinton accepts her party's nomination.
> "So we decided to organize a national fart-in."



      A "shining city upon a hill," indeed.     :not-again:


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Jul 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Some of them are probably raging after their friendly Wikileaks website attacked them this way. No loyalty among Liberals?


C'mon, we KNOW it was the Russians ...  ;D


> Cyber security experts and U.S. officials said on Monday there was evidence that Russia engineered the release of sensitive Democratic Party emails in order to influence the U.S. presidential election.
> 
> The FBI said it was investigating a cyber intrusion at the Democratic National Committee (DNC), which has led to discord as the party's convention in Philadelphia opens on Monday to nominate former U.S. secretary of state Hillary Clinton as its candidate.
> 
> ...





			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> > Some of the most interesting emails to read are those exchanged by DNC staffers as they decide how to respond to media inquiries, and then their off-the-record and deep background responses to numerous national media outlets. The emails contained off the record correspondence with reporters at the Washington Post, Politico, and the Wall Street Journal, among others.
> 
> 
> It is interesting to see "Reporters" sending their columns to the DNC, before sending to their Editors, to be approved prior to publishing. Not for fact checking of i.e. financial numbers. but approval.


Is there something in that quote, or in the article in question at all, that says reporters are vetting columns w/the DNC?  I stand to be corrected, but I didn't see that mentioned.

Getting an off-the-record/deep-background answer to an emailed question =/= reporter asking the party "is this piece OK?".

No shortage of media errors to be scrutinized, but let's at least be precise in what we're dinging them for.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jul 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The democrats are expecting another WikiLeaks document drop,which is probably intended to help Sanders.If Hillary can be knocked out of the running prior to delegate voting,then who knows what can happen ?
> 
> http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/breaking-wikileaks-drop-another-bomb-dnc-convention/



All the super delegates are bought and paid for. Hillary will not give up her coronation unless she actually falls dead on the convention stage, the party be damned.

Of course the Bernie Bro's chanting "Lock Her Up" and the resignation of DWS on day one are just two of the talking points that will be quickly passed over by the Legacy Media, since the Democrat Party leadership hasn't approved these stories for release.

Frankly, the only real question about the DNC coverage should be "How many seconds video delay is built into the coverage?", so missteps, gaffes and even outright lies can be airbrushed away before viewers see them.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Jul 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> C'mon, we KNOW it was the Russians ...



If the FBI investigates they will discover the DNC was "careless" in protecting the server and did not "intentionally" have damaging emails stored on it, and there was "no intent" to sabotage Bernie Sander's campaign or collude with the Legacy Media.....


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Jul 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Of course the Bernie Bro's chanting "Lock Her Up" and the resignation of DWS on day one are just two of the talking points that will be quickly passed over by the Legacy Media, since the Democrat Party leadership hasn't approved these stories for release.


I guess the media didn't get the DNC's DWS memo ...



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> If the FBI investigates they will discover the DNC was "careless" in protecting the server and did not "intentionally" have damaging emails stored on it, and there was "no intent" to sabotage Bernie Sander's campaign or collude with the Legacy Media.....


So it's the DNC's fault, then?


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Jul 2016)

The DNC internal emails show that they were behind the anti-Trump protests,they rigged the primaries to favor Hillary which I am sure is a violation of election laws.Use of Clinton Foundation money violations.Assange doesnt like Clinton and is definitely exacting payback.This is going to be a fun week.Stocking up on pop and pop corn.


----------



## cupper (25 Jul 2016)

I think someone needs to explain to Julian Assange exactly what a stooge, dupe or puppet means. Preferably right before pulling the trigger.

This piece of human waste needs to start giving a f$&@ about the consequences of his actions rather than tilting at windmills.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Jul 2016)

He sends out the truth, right from the DNC's own computers and you're mad at him? How about all this same DNC bullshit not coming to light except for Assange. They purposely skewed the vote results toward Clinton, played fast and loose with election rules, were the cause of many of the street riots against Trump, etc. Do you honestly think they were ever going to tell you that themselves? Hillary Huggers can't see the forest for the trees. Time for the Clinton Crime Family to take up some new living accommodations and it won't be the White House, but I can see Federal prison in their future, if Trump gets the nod.


----------



## cupper (25 Jul 2016)

What pisses me off about this is not about what the DNC did, because they had a bowel movement in their own bed, so they can deal with the mess. It's not like no one knew this was happening. Bernie was crying foul all through the primary, and Wasserman Shultz never denied that the DNC wanted Hillary as the nominee. However it is ironic and absolutely hilarious that they are dealing with another unsecured e-mail scandel. If there is one thing that the Clinton Dems do best it's giving the vast right-wing conspiracy more grist for the mill.  :facepalm:

It is the fact that some dumbass Swede who plays up his holier than thou ethical stance, yet has no problem in doing something at the behest of some unknown group with an agenda to influence the outcome of the campaign, while claiming that it is in the cause of transparancy and true freedom. All the while hiding in a foreign embassy to keep himself from being arrested and deported to face criminal charges in Sweden.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Jul 2016)

I for one have no desire to shoot the messenger(s).  Just to see the messages.

Suddenly the damage that can be done by unsecured email servers is seen in a different light by Democrats.


----------



## Altair (26 Jul 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> What pisses me off about this is not about what the DNC did, because they had a bowel movement in their own bed, so they can deal with the mess. It's not like no one knew this was happening. Bernie was crying foul all through the primary, and Wasserman Shultz never denied that the DNC wanted Hillary as the nominee. However it is ironic and absolutely hilarious that they are dealing with another unsecured e-mail scandel. If there is one thing that the Clinton Dems do best it's giving the vast right-wing conspiracy more grist for the mill.  :facepalm:
> 
> It is the fact that some dumbass Swede who plays up his holier than thou ethical stance, yet has no problem in doing something at the behest of some unknown group with an agenda to influence the outcome of the campaign, while claiming that it is in the cause of transparancy and true freedom. All the while hiding in a foreign embassy to keep himself from being arrested and deported to face criminal charges in Sweden.


Everyone knew, nobody had proof. Proof is out there now.

Does it help some foreign group or organization? Probably.

Does the truth deserve to be known to the public? Yes.

Remember, this isn't a issue if the people at the DNC didn't write those emails.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jul 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Everyone knew, nobody had proof. Proof is out there now.
> 
> Does it help some foreign group or organization? Probably.
> 
> ...



Thumbs up Altair.  Sorry.


----------



## Altair (26 Jul 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Thumbs up Altair.  Sorry.


Urge to go take a shower must be overwhelming.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jul 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Urge to go take a shower must be overwhelming.



I'll survive. I fear for your health.


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Jul 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> What pisses me off about this is not about what the DNC did, because they had a bowel movement in their own bed, so they can deal with the mess. It's not like no one knew this was happening. Bernie was crying foul all through the primary, and Wasserman Shultz never denied that the DNC wanted Hillary as the nominee. However it is ironic and absolutely hilarious that they are dealing with another unsecured e-mail scandel. If there is one thing that the Clinton Dems do best it's giving the vast right-wing conspiracy more grist for the mill.  :facepalm:
> 
> It is the fact that some dumbass Swede Aussi who plays up his holier than thou ethical stance, yet has no problem in doing something at the behest of some unknown group with an agenda to influence the outcome of the campaign, while claiming that it is in the cause of transparancy and true freedom. All the while hiding in a foreign embassy to keep himself from being arrested and deported to face criminal charges in Sweden.



FTFY


----------



## Rifleman62 (26 Jul 2016)

> Urge to take a shower.



http://observer.com/2016/07/clinton-rewards-wasserman-schultzs-shady-behavior-with-new-job/

*Clinton Rewards Wasserman Schultz’s Shady Behavior With a New Job*

DWS will continue to push the corrupt brand of politics she perfected as DNC chair

By Michael Sainato • 07/25/16

On July 22, Wikileaks released 20,000 DNC emails, exposing DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the DNC staff of sabotaging Bernie Sanders’ campaign. In the wake of the fallout, Wasserman Schultz formally resigned from her position as DNC chair, only to be replaced by another Clinton surrogate, DNC vice chair Donna Brazile.

Rather than allowing Wasserman Schultz’s career to go down with her resignation, Clinton has (immediately) awarded Wasserman Schultz a new role as honorary chair to the Clinton campaign’s 50-state program.

“There’s simply no one better at taking the fight to Republicans than Debbie—which is why I am glad that she has agreed to serve as honorary chair of my campaign’s 50-state program to gain ground and elect democrats in every part of the country, and will continue to serve as a surrogate for my campaign nationally, in Florida, and other key states,” Clinton announced.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jul 2016)

DWS was prepared to go nuclear on Obama the lsat time the idea of moving her out was floated, so this might be a case of payoff to keep her quiet. Of course the optics of this is a direct slap at the Sanders supporters, another own goal for the Dem team:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-hiring-dws-thank-you-or-damage-control/article/2597609



> *Clinton hiring DWS: 'Thank you' or damage control?*
> By ASHE SCHOW (@ASHESCHOW) • 7/25/16 3:47 PM
> 
> PHILADELPHIA — Shortly after Debbie Wasserman Schultz abruptly resigned from the Democratic National Committee, presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton named the Florida congresswoman to her campaign team.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jul 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I guess the media didn't get the DNC's DWS memo ...



Apparently not:





> Baghdad Bob Moment: MSNBC Claims DNC Chair 'Receives Cheers'...As She's Booed Relentlessly
> By Tim Graham | July 25, 2016 | 3:39 PM EDT
> 
> They had a Baghdad Bob moment on MSNBC this morning in the 9am hour (Eastern time). The Lean Forward network's screen graphic read "WASSERMAN SCHULTZ RECEIVES CHEERS AT FLORIDA DELEGATION BREAKFAST," while it was very plain to viewers that she was being booed relentlessly.
> ...



Of course the usual suspects will point to the fact the news anchors had to acknowledge reality, but I also want you to take notes on how much time was spent on this compared to the far less consequential story about Mrs Trump's speech.

Speechwriter lifted @ 35 words from another speech: Two days on the news cycle (an excellent way to displace things like the speech by Patricia Smith, for example).

Today the resignation of the party's national chairman over the Sanders email scandal isn't mentioned at all. Only about 12 hr have passed..Oh, and the email scandal is also down the memory hole, while the other email scandal (the collusion between the DNC and Media) has never come up.

Other comparisons should be interesting.


----------



## cupper (26 Jul 2016)

Wasserman Shultz deserves having her ass handed to her. How she managed to get to the position shed did is beyond me. Anytime I've seen her interviewed, at best she came across as a lightweight. Most of the time shevcouldn't stand up to tough scrutiny by the press.

The bigger question at hand though is if the speculation of a Russian connection to the leaked emails is true, why is Putin trying to interfer in the election and set things up to help Trump. What does he stand to gain?

*The (alleged) Russian hack of the DNC should be one of the biggest stories of the year. Why isn’t it? - The Washington Post*



> Heads have certainly rolled over the DNC email scandal. Party chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to step down, and acting chair Donna Brazile issued an apology to the Sanders campaign and anybody else who was offended by the emails exchanged between party staffers that were released by Wikileaks.
> 
> But there’s something utterly bizarre about the kind of coverage this story is getting. _Evidence currently suggests that the Russian government may have attempted to sway the results of the U.S. presidential election _. I put that in italics, because it ought to be in screaming 72-point headlines on every front page in America. And yet, it’s being treated like just one more odd story in a wacky election year, not much more important than the latest fundraising numbers or which ethnic group Donald Trump has insulted most recently.
> 
> ...



 https://apple.news/AXTjUXtYLQ6OIRmGlcllWzQ


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Jul 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Today the resignation of the party's national chairman over the Sanders email scandal isn't mentioned at all. Only about 12 hr have passed..Oh, and the email scandal is also down the memory hole, while the other email scandal (the collusion between the DNC and Media) has never come up.


Funny, the link you shared in the quote still has stuff as recent (as of this post) as less than an hour old, not to mention at LEAST the attached editorial cartoons - looks like a real cover up, alright - but I guess your internet works differently than mine when it comes to media coverage.

And don't forget to throw in that U.S. flags weren't allowed at the DNC story ...


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jul 2016)

Tony, in fairness,

In a world where people DO conspire (plan co-operatively if you are positively inclined) and yet we are encouraged to treat any such activity as solely the figment of the over-active imaginations of people in tin-foil hats, it is a fair question to ask if the Russians are involved or is it deflection on the part of the DNC.

These days I am reduced to reading tea-leaves to understand the world because there is little to choose between the latest Hollywood blockbuster and the stuff being published as News.

Vast Right Wing Conspiracy - Socialist International   :dunno:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (26 Jul 2016)

No matter who you might prefer, this is an epic burn......


----------



## cupper (26 Jul 2016)

Ouch.

:rofl:


----------



## George Wallace (26 Jul 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> *The (alleged) Russian hack of the DNC should be one of the biggest stories of the year. Why isn’t it? - The Washington Post*



Double Indemnity  :dunno:

Hillary has already been cleared of her "Email Scandal".......to a certain extent...... [Xp


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Jul 2016)

From what I have gleaned is that Gucifer hacked the DNC servers and then gave the emails to Assange.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Jul 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> In a world where people DO conspire (plan co-operatively if you are positively inclined) and yet we are encouraged to treat any such activity as solely the figment of the over-active imaginations of people in tin-foil hats, it is a fair question to ask if the Russians are involved or is it deflection on the part of the DNC.


That's a MORE-than-fair question - and you've asked it quite reasonably.  We have a DNC with stuff to paint over versus a country that's done this before -  and this ...


			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> From what I have gleaned is that Gucifer hacked the DNC servers and then gave the emails to Assange.


... may not close the case (dated almost a month ago), either:


> On Wednesday, a hacker calling themselves “Guccifer 2.0” claimed responsibility for hacking into the servers of the Democratic Party and stealing “thousands” of documents, including oppo research into Donald Trump. The individual, who called themselves a “lone hacker,” also made fun of the American security company CrowdStrike for accusing two Russian intelligence agencies of being behind the hack ...



Saying media is ignoring something when they're not, though?  "Media's not plastering my version of events on the front page" =/= "media's not covering it"  One example:


			
				cupper said:
			
		

> *The (alleged) Russian hack of the DNC should be one of the biggest stories of the year. Why isn’t it? - The Washington Post*


In the internet world I'm looking at, this IS being covered, by mainstream & technological media.  I guess I'm a bit down about everyone shouting past each other, with the Clinton Haters not recognizing Donald Trump's history of failed businesses and maybe-less-than-ideal depth while the Donald Haters not recognizing that Hilary's just "more of the same".



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> These days I am reduced to reading tea-leaves to understand the world because there is little to choose between the latest Hollywood blockbuster and the stuff being published as News.
> 
> Vast Right Wing Conspiracy - Socialist International   :dunno:


Happy to agree with you there, too, CP


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Jul 2016)

Bernie supporters are running amok and the national media so far has ignored the chaos.I wonder if its too late for Bernie to file as a 3d party candidate ?

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Day-2-of-DNC-Protests-Includes-March-Against-Police-Brutality-388295732.html

More at Gateway Pundit.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/07/breaking-bernie-protesters-locked-dnc-convention-climb-fence-video/


----------



## dimsum (27 Jul 2016)

From a friend's FB page (slight spoilers if you haven't watched US House of Cards past season 1)...



> Remember how the Underwoods seemed to have no chance of avoiding jail or public shunning let alone become the leaders of the US... that was such a great fictional tv series.



 :nod:


----------



## muskrat89 (27 Jul 2016)

> In a world where people DO conspire (plan co-operatively if you are positively inclined) and yet we are encouraged to treat any such activity as solely the figment of the over-active imaginations of people in tin-foil hats, it is a fair question to ask if the Russians are involved or is it deflection on the part of the DNC.



Yes - the same Russians that the DNC insist didn't breach Hillary's private insecure server - hacked into DNC emails instead

 ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Jul 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> No matter who you might prefer, this is an epic burn......



If this is a true tweet and reply, Trump just played Wack-a-Mole with
 Clinton.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Jul 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Yes - the same Russians that the DNC insist didn't breach Hillary's private insecure server - hacked into DNC emails instead
> 
> ;D


And the same website leaked both sets of emails...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (27 Jul 2016)

Well, its known fact that the real name of the website operator is Hulianiy Kaspersky Assangovitch.

 [


----------



## cupper (27 Jul 2016)

This pretty much sums up why I think Hillary is not a good pick and the Dems should have looked for other viable options instead of going for the coronation.

*Why Can’t Hillary Stop Fudging the Truth?
Email-gate is only the latest instance in a 25-year habit of dissembling.*

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/hillary-clinton-emails-history-214095



> What is it with Hillary Clinton? What is it about this brilliant and accomplished woman—described by Barack Obama as possibly “more qualified” to be president than anyone in history—that makes so many people certain she is an incurable liar? More than anything else about Clinton—her occasional tin ear for politics, her seeming inability to connect with large crowds, her ultracautiousness—it is the trust issue that could yet cost her a general election she should otherwise win, given her opponent’s vulnerabilities.
> 
> Plainly put, Clinton herself has kept the issue alive over 25 years of public life, with long-winded, defensive, obfuscating answers to questions that—in politics, if not in law—cry out for a crisp yes-or-no reply.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jul 2016)

So who did hack the emails? I expect to see more whining about the Russians as various email dumps occur in the coming weeks and months, without ever acknowledging *who* actually wrote the emails in the first place. I am also waiting for the Russians or Chinese to take up Trump's challenge and release the classified and deleted emails that were scooped from Hillary's unsecured private server.

If I had to place money on this, I would say the actual source of the leak is a disaffected insider from the DNC itself. This seems too much like some sort of revenge plot by someone who was maybe passed over or insulted by the Clinton machine.

https://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2016/07/26/whos-hillarys-hacker-and-why/?singlepage=true



> *Who's Hillary's Hacker and Why?*
> BY MICHAEL LEDEEN JULY 26, 2016 CHAT 177 COMMENTS
> 
> The Twitter crowd has devoted a lot of bandwith to the theory that the WikiLeaks dump on the DNC is a Russian operation. They may well be right, although I wouldn’t take Joshua Micah Marshall as a source for the time of day—he slandered me and my daughter without so much as checking anything. Here is a critique on his Trump/Putin claims. Nor do I think Franklin Foer --who I like--is a major scholar of intelligence. Still, it may be correct. Putin may be meddling in our politics, as he has meddled in European politics lo these many years.
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Jul 2016)

> In January of 1917, British cryptographers deciphered a telegram from German Foreign Minister Arthur Zimmermann to the German Minister to Mexico, von Eckhardt, offering United States territory to Mexico in return for joining the German cause. This message helped draw the United States into the war and thus changed the course of history. The telegram had such an impact on American opinion that, according to David Kahn, author of The Codebreakers, "No other single cryptanalysis has had such enormous consequences." It is his opinion that "never before or since has so much turned upon the solution of a secret message." In an effort to protect their intelligence from detection and to capitalize on growing anti-German sentiment in the United States, the British waited until February 24 to present the telegram to Woodrow Wilson. The American press published news of the telegram on March 1. On April 6, 1917, the United States Congress formally declared war on Germany and its allies.



https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/zimmermann/

Content.

Provenance.

Separate but related.

Like the Zimmermann telegraph, I am inclined to believe that, regardless of provenance (in light of the DNC's failure to deny and their actions taken), that these emails fall under the category of "inconvenient truths".


----------



## cupper (27 Jul 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I am also waiting for the Russians or Chinese to take up Trump's challenge and release the classified and deleted emails that were scooped from Hillary's unsecured private server.



This is why Trump really REALLY should not be considered as President, and why he really should no be given any of the intel briefings he is now getting. I'm waiting to hear him spout off about some confidential info he received to sue it as part of the campaign.  :facepalm:



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> If I had to place money on this, I would say the actual source of the leak is a disaffected insider from the DNC itself. This seems too much like some sort of revenge plot by someone who was maybe passed over or insulted by the Clinton machine.



My money is on Little Debbie. I think she's all PO's about Martin O'Malley not getting the nod.  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jul 2016)

Trump's latest (sorta) endorsement ...


> North Korea has backed presumptive U.S. Republican nominee Donald Trump, with a propaganda website praising him as "a prescient presidential candidate" who can liberate Americans living under daily fear of nuclear attack by the North.
> 
> A column carried on Tuesday by DPRK Today, one of the reclusive and dynastic state's mouthpieces, described Trump as a "wise politician" and the right choice for U.S. voters in the Nov. 8 U.S. presidential election.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (27 Jul 2016)

Was just reading the transcript of Trump's presser where he called for the Russians to look forbthe emails. One thing that got lost in the mix was his statement about his opinion on the use of torture and in relation to the Geneva Conventions.

Could be interesting if he gets in and follows up with his desire to someone's kick ass kicks in.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/27/donald-trumps-falsehood-laden-press-conference-annotated/



> QUESTION: Do you think the Geneva Convention are out of date?
> 
> TRUMP: I think everything's is out of date. We have a whole new world. When I said that NATO, to Wolf Blitzer, is obsolete, I got attacked. Three days later people that study NATO said you know Trump is right. You know what? We have a lot of things that are out date because they're 20 and 30 and 40 years old.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Jul 2016)

I'm no fan of Trump.  I am truly grateful that I don't have to vote in the US.  

Having said that - he isn't wrong.

NATO has been leaning on the US treasury for a very long time -  a matter made worse when it expanded.  

NATO doesn't respond effectively to low level warfare.

The Geneva Conventions are out of date in a world of "little green men" and "special forces" working with insurgent forces.

Not sure about enhanced interrogation - on the one side shoving hands into meat grinders a la Saddam Hussein seems a little excessive but on the other hand some folks consider 24 hours of Taylor Swift to be cruel and unusual.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (27 Jul 2016)

From the New Yorker, an interesting article on Trump by the man who ghostwrote his book "The Art of the Deal." Reproduced under the usual caveats of the Copyright Act.



> DONALD TRUMP’S GHOSTWRITER TELLS ALL
> 
> July 25, 2016 Issue
> 
> ...



Part 1


----------



## Retired AF Guy (27 Jul 2016)

> Week after week, the pattern repeated itself. Schwartz tried to limit the sessions to smaller increments of time, but Trump’s contributions remained oddly truncated and superficial.
> 
> “Trump has been written about a thousand ways from Sunday, but this fundamental aspect of who he is doesn’t seem to be fully understood,” Schwartz told me. “It’s implicit in a lot of what people write, but it’s never explicit—or, at least, I haven’t seen it. And that is that it’s impossible to keep him focussed on any topic, other than his own self-aggrandizement, for more than a few minutes, and even then . . . ” Schwartz trailed off, shaking his head in amazement. He regards Trump’s inability to concentrate as alarming in a Presidential candidate. “If he had to be briefed on a crisis in the Situation Room, it’s impossible to imagine him paying attention over a long period of time,” he said.
> 
> ...



Part 2


----------



## Retired AF Guy (27 Jul 2016)

> Trump’s self-portrayal as a Horatio Alger figure has buttressed his populist appeal in 2016. But his origins were hardly humble. Fred’s fortune, based on his ownership of middle-income properties, wasn’t glamorous, but it was sizable: in 2003, a few years after Fred died, Trump and his siblings reportedly sold some of their father’s real-estate holdings for half a billion dollars. In “The Art of the Deal,” Trump cites his father as “the most important influence on me,” but in his telling his father’s main legacy was teaching him the importance of “toughness.” Beyond that, Schwartz says, Trump “barely talked about his father—he didn’t want his success to be seen as having anything to do with him.” But when Barrett investigated he found that Trump’s father was instrumental in his son’s rise, financially and politically. In the book, Trump says that “my energy and my enthusiasm” explain how, as a twenty-nine-year-old with few accomplishments, he acquired the Grand Hyatt Hotel. Barrett reports, however, that Trump’s father had to co-sign the many contracts that the deal required. He also lent Trump seven and a half million dollars to get started as a casino owner in Atlantic City; at one point, when Trump couldn’t meet payments on other loans, his father tried to tide him over by sending a lawyer to buy some three million dollars’ worth of gambling chips. Barrett told me, “Donald did make some smart moves himself, particularly in assembling the site for the Trump Tower. That was a stroke of genius.” Nonetheless, he said, “The notion that he’s a self-made man is a joke. But I guess they couldn’t call the book ‘The Art of My Father’s Deals.’ ”
> 
> The other key myth perpetuated by “The Art of the Deal” was that Trump’s intuitions about business were almost flawless. “The book helped fuel the notion that he couldn’t fail,” Barrett said. But, unbeknown to Schwartz and the public, by late 1987, when the book came out, Trump was heading toward what Barrett calls “simultaneous personal and professional self-destruction.” O’Brien agrees that during the next several years Trump’s life unravelled. The divorce from Ivana reportedly cost him twenty-five million dollars. Meanwhile, he was in the midst of what O’Brien calls “a crazy shopping spree that resulted in unmanageable debt.” He was buying the Plaza Hotel and also planning to erect “the tallest building in the world,” on the former rail yards that he had bought on the West Side. In 1987, the city denied him permission to construct such a tall skyscraper, but in “The Art of the Deal” he brushed off this failure with a one-liner: “I can afford to wait.” O’Brien says, “The reality is that he couldn’t afford to wait. He was telling the media that the carrying costs were three million dollars, when in fact they were more like twenty million.” Trump was also building a third casino in Atlantic City, the Taj, which he promised would be “the biggest casino in history.” He bought the Eastern Air Lines shuttle that operated out of New York, Boston, and Washington, rechristening it the Trump Shuttle, and acquired a giant yacht, the Trump Princess. “He was on a total run of complete and utter self-absorption,” Barrett says, adding, “It’s kind of like now.”
> 
> ...



 Article Link


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Jul 2016)

Trump completely threw the democrat info machine out of wack.Instead of talking about last night at the DNC,Trump used their inane argument that the Russians hacked their server against them.He simply asked maybe the Russians could help find the 30,000 missing Hillary Clinton emails. ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Jul 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> ... Trump used their inane argument that the Russians hacked their server against them.He simply asked maybe the Russians could help find the 30,000 missing Hillary Clinton emails. ;D


Or, in the words of Russian state media:


> *Trump Actively Encourages International Espionage Against Clinton
> *
> Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is emboldening international espionage against his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton, Clinton Campaign Policy Director Jake Sullivan said in a statement on Wednesday.
> 
> "This has to be the first time that a major presidential candidate has actively encouraged a foreign power to conduct espionage against his potential opponent," Sullivan stated. "That’s not hyperbole, those are just the facts. This has gone from being a matter of curiosity, and a matter of politics, to a being a national security issue." ...


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Jul 2016)

To think its already not happening, is naive at best. Clinton has already demonstrated she's a soft target for cyber intelligence gathering, I'm willing to bet as a potential US President, China and Russia have big files created on all her online dealings.


----------



## cupper (27 Jul 2016)

You mean like her intenet browser history showing she's a closet lesbian dominatrix?  ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Jul 2016)

The espionage - if any occurred - was in the past.

Trump has - tongue-in-cheek - "asked" the Russians to reveal Hillary's non-official emails - the ones containing no secrets or sensitive information, remember - if they have them.  Hardly a matter for hand-wringing.


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Jul 2016)

New material from Wikileaks,this time voice mail. ;D

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/?file=mp3&count=50#searchresult


----------



## mariomike (28 Jul 2016)

A protester caught on fire stomping on a burning flag in Philadelphia. 
https://twitter.com/ndiblasio/status/758497532670541824


----------



## CougarKing (28 Jul 2016)

Bloomberg weighs in against Trump even as his predecessor Guiliani pledged his support for Trump last week, if I can recall correctly:

Reuters



> *In clash of billionaires, Bloomberg calls Trump White House race 'a con'*
> By: Reuters
> July 28, 2016 6:09 PM
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jul 2016)

I thought I was a political junkie, but my wife has been glued to CNN.

Today, while going in and out of the apartment I saw two examples of the "moral equivalency express" derailed.

1. The commentators were foaming at the mouth because Trump's remarks about Russia "were threatening national security". I wonder which nominee's _actual actions_ threatened national security, or caused the deaths of Americans?

2. Van Jones was introduced and commented as a "Former Presidential advisor". Any guesses as to why he is "former"? The media certainly didn't enlighten us.

And this is simply two examples from waling through the living room at random times. I can only imagine what the rest of the day must have been like.


----------



## cupper (28 Jul 2016)

People need to do more research before spouting off.

*
Republicans said Kaine’s pin was the Honduran Flag. It was actually a symbol of his son’s military service.*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/checkpoint/wp/2016/07/28/republicans-said-kaines-pin-was-the-honduran-flag-it-was-actually-a-symbol-of-his-sons-military-service/



> In a since-deleted tweet, the North Carolina Republican Party called out Democratic vice-presidential nominee Tim Kaine for wearing the flag of Honduras on his lapel during his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention Wednesday.
> 
> Except it wasn’t the flag of the small Latin American country where Kaine had spent a year doing missionary work, but instead the pin was a mini Service Flag, or blue star flag, denoting his son’s current service in the United States Marine Corps.
> 
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (28 Jul 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> People need to do more research before spouting off.


That should be a mantra in several venues, not merely political.     :nod:


----------



## cupper (28 Jul 2016)

Still not entirerly sure about this being a good thing or not.

*Intelligence Director: Clinton and Trump Will Receive Classified Briefings*

http://time.com/4429507/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-james-clapper-intelligence-briefings/



> James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, reaffirmed Thursday that both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump would be offered classified national security briefings in the coming weeks, despite protests from partisans about the briefing of both nominees.
> 
> It’s tradition dating back to former President Harry Truman. The presidential and vice presidential nominees of both parties are presented with the option to be briefed by top intelligence officials about broad threats facing the nation. Clapper, as the highest-ranking intelligence official, oversees the process.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (28 Jul 2016)

More on how bad things got at the DNC under Wasserman Shultz.

*DNC insiders detail months of escalating dysfunction
As Wasserman Schultz faltered, the White House and Clinton campaign fretted but failed to act.*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-debbie-wasserman-schultz-226352



> PHILADELPHIA — Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn’t supposed to ask Joe Biden to come to her daughter’s bat mitzvah.
> 
> Democratic National Committee staff had sent the chair to the vice president armed with four specific requests for getting him involved in raising money for the party.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (29 Jul 2016)

From the Canada Party FB page:



> Hey everybody start saying Hillary's a secret Hindu born in Amsterdam, see how long it takes Trump to confirm it. #DemsInPhilly





> Hearing a lot of this "greatest country in the world" crap at #DemsInPhilly. Umm, we're standing right here!


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Jul 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Still not entirerly sure about this being a good thing or not.
> 
> *Intelligence Director: Clinton and Trump Will Receive Classified Briefings*
> 
> http://time.com/4429507/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-james-clapper-intelligence-briefings/



Anybody giving odds?  Who will leak first?  Clinton by email or Trump on stage?


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jul 2016)

The real reason the GOP establishment hates Trump is that he has cut off their access to great rivers of cash. From the comments thread of a website:

https://voxday.blogspot.ca/2016/07/that-was-fast.html



> I'm hoping that this both the birth of the American party and the death of the Republican party as VD alluded to yesterday. The poobahs aren't celebrating Trump because they're not personally benefiting from his success they would they would if a GOPe candidate were somehow swelling their ranks. So to hell with them and their party.
> 
> Other than a few diehards like Jonah Goldberg, who can't stand trump for ideological reasons, the very real reason why the establishment doesn't like Trump, and didn't like Trump, is because he is totally outside of the permanent party infrastructure.
> 
> ...



BTW the "That as fast" in the title refers to Bernie Sanders dropping his Democrat affiliation of convenience and reverting to being an "Independent"  in the Congress.

I have heard that at least 5% of the Bernie Bros may vote for Trump as an act of defiance against the Democrats. It is unknown how many will cross over to the Green Party or Libertarians, Trumps greatest advantage may simply be that millions of Bernie Bros will sit out the election or write in Senator Sanders as their candidate on election day.

Personally, it would be the most epic trolling of the Dems if Donald Trump had a televised Presidential debate against Garry Johnson and Jill Stein, exposing millions of Americans to two alternatives to the current party system.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jul 2016)

More surprises from the Bernie Bro's: wearing glow in the dark T shirts saying "Enough is Enough" during the acceptance speech. This really is turning into the most interesting election campaign ever, watching both party establishments trying to reign in rebellions.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Jul 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Who will leak first?  Clinton by email or Trump on stage?


Yes.


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Jul 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Anybody giving odds?  Who will leak first?  Clinton by email or Trump on stage?



"Depends".... I think Hilary is of an age....   maybe that'll control leaks.


----------



## cupper (29 Jul 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> "Depends".... I think Hilary is of an age....   maybe that'll control leaks.



That Depends. Does she have Poise?  ;D


----------



## cupper (29 Jul 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This really is turning into the most interesting election campaign ever, watching both party establishments trying to reign in rebellions.



And to think, it's only just begun.  :facepalm:

This is going to be the most negative election cycle in recent history. And since I live within the DC market it will be ground zero. And because Virginia is a swing state, and the DC 'burbs particularly key to that swing, TV will be all but unpalatable.  :

When the F will Hockey start again, so I can start yelling at the TV and blame Sidney Crosby for all the world's woes again.  [


----------



## cupper (29 Jul 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Anybody giving odds?  Who will leak first?  Clinton by email or Trump on stage?



My money is on the Russians leaking to Wikileaks, then Trump calling for Russians to search for the missing briefing notes, and the Dems claiming that Melania Trump plagerized the Russians leaked info.


----------



## mariomike (29 Jul 2016)

July 29, 2016 

Q. Who protects DNC in PHL from VBIEDs? 
A: Police? B: FBI? C: Secret Service?
A: D: The DOT

'Just Another Day at the Office' for the Human Bomb Shields Outside the DNC
http://www.villagevoice.com/news/just-another-day-at-the-office-for-the-human-bomb-shields-outside-the-dnc-8920535?

Edit to add:

Why Obama’s half-brother says he’ll be voting for Donald Trump
http://nypost.com/2016/07/24/why-obamas-half-brother-says-hell-be-voting-for-donald-trump/


----------



## Remius (29 Jul 2016)

Not a bad fact check of both candidates' speeches.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/fact-check-a-look-at-trump-and-clinton-s-speeches-1.3007282


----------



## cupper (29 Jul 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> July 29, 2016
> 
> Q. Who protects DNC in PHL from VBIEDs?
> A: Police? B: FBI? C: Secret Service?
> A: D: The DOT



Knowing that area well from all the ongoing work my company has been doing for the last 5 years, I'd say it would be rather difficult for a potential VBIED to get through construction traffic anywhere along the stretch of I-95 that runs through Philly. Every time I have to go to one of several job sites I end up crawling through several miles as they widen 95 in three different sections all within a mile of each other.

But on the bright side it gives me lots of time around Broad Street to give the finger to Flyers fans at Wells Fargo, Eagles fans at Lincoln Financial, and Phillies fans at their stadium. [


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jul 2016)

Another interesting sign of the internal rebellion in the ranks of the Democrats: huge walkouts during the DNC. Several videos embedded in the piece, as well as a large selection of tweets about this:

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7844/leftist-filmmaker-uploads-video-showing-his-shock-chase-stephens



> *Leftist Filmmaker Uploads Video Showing His Shock At Just How Empty The DNC Is*
> Screencap: YoutubeScreencap: Youtube
> BY: CHASE STEPHENS JULY 27, 2016
> 108621049
> ...



Garry Johnson (Libertarian) and Jill Stein (Green) will probably be the first candidates outside of the two-party system to receive more than a fraction of a percent of the votes in this election.


----------



## mariomike (30 Jul 2016)

Jul 30, 2016

No comment on party politics. I can move this from Radio Chatter to the Emergency Services forum, as it has to do with safe capacity.
I only noticed it because it involved a Fire Marshall,

Donald Trump complains about Colorado Springs Fire Marshal’s ‘incompetence’ over capacity issue
http://www.statter911.com/2016/07/30/donald-trump-complains-colorado-springs-fire-marshals-incompetence-capacity-issue/

The Fire Marshall* did his job and put public safety ahead of politics.

* Fire Marshal - Brett Lacey
Brett is the Fire Marshal for the Colorado Springs Fire Department. He is a graduate of Oklahoma State University and is a registered professional engineer and a certified safety professional. He has worked in the fire service industry for over 36 years serving in the ranks of firefighter, paramedic and fire protection engineer up to his current position. He has also worked for Fire Protection Publications of the International Fire Service Training Association and has served on various technical validation committees as well as a current Executive Board Member and chairing the technical committee for the Fire Inspection and Code Enforcement manual re-write for the 8th Edition. Brett currently serves on the NFPA Technical Committees for 1031 Professional Qualifications for Fire Inspector and Plan Examiner, 1037 Professional Qualifications for Fire Marshal, and 1730 Standard on Organization and Deployment of Code Enforcement, Plan Review, Fire Investigation, and Public Education Operations to the Public. Brett is co-author of two Fire Protection Publication text books, Fire Prevention Applications and Fire Prevention Applications for the Company Officer and has co-authored articles for Firehouse magazine and Fire Journal. He has served on the Colorado Fire Marshal’s Association Code Committee, as well as various other state committees. He has completed various curriculums at the Center for Creative Leadership and served as a member of the City of Colorado Springs Strategic Leadership Team which was responsible for major change and leadership initiatives for the City.

“We’re just here to do the job.”


----------



## tomahawk6 (30 Jul 2016)

The democrats that support Bernie as socialists.Hillary has had to tack farther left to counter his appeal.The country generally is more centrist can she get back to the center and write off the far left ?I dont see Sanders supporters going for Trump unless they want to punish the democrats.Third party runs are not successful and they peel away support.Perot for example hurt the Republicans.Going forward I think its uphill for Hillary.It will probably get nasty and might prove to be entertaining. Alot more Wikileaks coming out which will embarass the democrats.


----------



## GAP (30 Jul 2016)

I hear there was another attempt on the DNC server, hinting it was the Russians, today.

they say they got nothing, but.............


----------



## dimsum (30 Jul 2016)

Wow.

Just wow.



> On ABC this morning, Trump responded to Khan’s speech. I don’t know what I expected from Trump. Maybe he would show some gentleness. Maybe he would show some empathy. Maybe he would refuse to comment. Maybe he would attack Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s foreign policy leadership. All of those responses would have been fine.
> 
> Trump’s actual response, though, wasn’t fine.
> 
> ...



http://www.vox.com/2016/7/30/12332922/donald-trump-khan-muslim

ETA:  Of *course* Ann Coulter had to go even more over-the-top, with this gem:



> You know what this convention really needed? An angry Muslim with a thick accent like Fareed Zacaria.
> 
> — Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) July 29, 2016



http://www.liberalamerica.org/2016/07/29/conservatives-turn-ann-coulter-smear-muslim-marines-dad/


----------



## cupper (30 Jul 2016)

:facepalm:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Jul 2016)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Wow.
> 
> Just wow.
> 
> ...



A pro democrat article. Full of ad hominem and conjecture. The author speculated, unsuccessfully, to attribute his thoughts as Trump's by putting them in quotation marks. Trump said he'd like to have heard the mother speak and asked if she was allowed to. All speakers at these things are vetted and so are the speeches and the DNC decides who talks and who doesn't. It was a reasonable question. The article is a hack job on Trump.

The second, with Coulter, doesn't warrant discussion. The right has Coulter, the left has Rosie O'Donnell. Both screaming, frustrated harpies. Neither deserves the press they get.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jul 2016)

So as many suspected and the DNC emails told us, Sanders was the _real_ winner and Democrat nominee:

http://usapoliticsnow.com/?p=4058



> *Election Justice USA finds that Bernie Sanders lost an estimated 184 delegates to Election Fraud*
> July 27, 2016 usapoliticsnow admin  1 Comment Bernie Sanders, Delegates, Democrats, DNC, Election Fraud, elections 2016, presidential
> 
> Well, 184 is only the upper estimate considering election fraud. Not even counting in the immense MSM bias, lack of debates, DNC bias/shenenigans outside of fraud, Hillarys huge funding thanks to corruption… It should have been a landslide for Bernie!
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jul 2016)

More interesting news. The Libertarian Party seems to have slipped from its moorings in the hopes of being more pragmatic and electable. How this plays out among the electorate is going to be interesting to see.

http://www.cato.org/blog/johnson-weld-libertarian-ticket



> *Is Johnson-Weld a Libertarian Ticket?*
> By ILYA SHAPER SHARE
> 
> Plenty of libertarians were wary of seeing former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld as the Libertarian Party’s nominee for vice president. Even those of us who haven’t had anything to do with the LP would like to see the party represented by, you know, libertarians. Weld, who seems like a nice man and was apparently a decent governor, is the living expositor of the difference between a libertarian and someone who’s “socially liberal and fiscally conservative.”
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jul 2016)

Why are the Dems actin so surprised about yet another of their computer systems being hacked? Their nominee set the standard for uncertified and unprotected systems, after all....

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-democrats-investigation-exc-idUSKCN1092HK?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social



> *Exclusive: Clinton campaign also hacked in attacks on Democrats*
> WASHINGTON/SAN FRANCISCO | BY MARK HOSENBALL, JOSEPH MENN AND JOHN WALCOTT
> 
> A computer network used by Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign was hacked as part of a broad cyber attack on Democratic political organizations, people familiar with the matter told Reuters.
> ...


----------



## Baloo (31 Jul 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> A pro democrat article. Full of ad hominem and conjecture. The author speculated, unsuccessfully, to attribute his thoughts as Trump's by putting them in quotation marks. Trump said he'd like to have heard the mother speak and asked if she was allowed to. All speakers at these things are vetted and so are the speeches and the DNC decides who talks and who doesn't. It was a reasonable question. The article is a hack job on Trump.



You're kidding, right?

That entirely shameful, outright disrespectful comment made by a potential *Commander-in-Chief* and all you have to say is that it is a pro-Democrat article? Take out the author's conjecture, fine. Read a different article by a different news agency and Donald Trump's commentary is absolutely no different. 

That American soldier's mother, by the way, spoke to ABC News separately and indicated, all by herself, as to the reason why she didn't talk at the DNC. 

How was it a "reasonable" question? Do you seriously believe that? You believe that there was no insinuation of religion or culture as to why she wasn't talking on the stage? Why else would he care if she was allowed to speak? Does he think that it is some form of Democrat cover-up, that she would have sang his praises to everyone and accused Hillary Clinton of murdering her son? That it was innocent and innocuous and 'if only people knew what he really meant'? 

This man is reprehensible.


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Jul 2016)

Baloo said:
			
		

> You're kidding, right?
> 
> That entirely shameful, outright disrespectful comment made by a potential *Commander-in-Chief* and all you have to say is that it is a pro-Democrat article? Take out the author's conjecture, fine. Read a different article by a different news agency and Donald Trump's commentary is absolutely no different.
> 
> ...



You are out of line with your attack on recceguy.All Trump asked was if the wife had something to say.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Jul 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> All Trump asked was if the wife had something to say.


And I wonder how calmly it would be taken if, say Hillary had questioned the lack of statement of the mother of a fallen warrior?


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Jul 2016)

Mr Khan made a political stand by speaking before a political convention.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Jul 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Mr Khan made a political stand by speaking before a political convention.


I hear he wasn't alone in doing that sort of thing.


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Jul 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I hear he wasn't alone in doing that sort of thing.



Wasnt she criticised as well ?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-republican-convention-hillary-clinton-benghazi-perspec-0720-md-20160719-column.html


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (31 Jul 2016)

Biased, but you can't argue with facts (unless you're a Republican of course). The sooner this gong show ends the better.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNdkrtfZP8I


----------



## Baloo (31 Jul 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> You are out of line with your attack on recceguy.



What attack? I've offered criticism of a presidential candidate, nothing more and certainly not against a member here.

EDIT. If that was the impression, it was not my intent.



> All Trump asked was if the wife had something to say.



Do you genuinely believe that all he wanted was clarification as to her stance on her dead son?


----------



## mariomike (31 Jul 2016)

> All Trump asked was if the wife had something to say.



For reference to the discussion,

July 30, 2016.

The Washington Post

Donald Trump responds to the Khan family: ‘Maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say’
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/30/donald-trump-responds-to-the-khan-family-maybe-she-wasnt-allowed-to-have-anything-to-say/?tid=pm_politics_pop_b


----------



## Baloo (31 Jul 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Wasnt she criticised as well ?
> 
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-republican-convention-hillary-clinton-benghazi-perspec-0720-md-20160719-column.html



Patricia Smith was criticized by those in the public sphere that took exception to Hillary Clinton being held personally responsible for the death of her son at Benghazi.

Ghazala Khan was being mocked by a candidate for President of the United States on her refrain from speaking at the DNC about the death of her son in Afghanistan.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Jul 2016)

Hillary Clinton is a pathological liar. Leaving Trump aside for a moment, how can anyone with a single moral fibre support her for POTUS? Why would anyone defend her after her email debacle. Especially when she proved to the country that she is above the law. All the while, Obama has meddled in the whole election process more than any sitting president in history. The DNC has proven their willingness to fix the primary election, what other illegal things are they willing to break the law on?

Anyone defending Clinton is as morally bankrupt as she is.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (31 Jul 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Anyone defending Clinton is as morally bankrupt as she is.




Anyone defending Trump is as uneducated, small-minded, racist, and duplicitous as he is.

See what I did there?  I cast anyone who defends Trump (ie makes up their own mind, based on the available facts) in an extremely negative light, which added very little to the discussion.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Jul 2016)

> author=PPCLI Guy link=topic=108210/post-1447372#msg1447372 date=1469995822]
> 
> Anyone defending Trump is as uneducated, small-minded, racist, and duplicitous as he is.
> 
> See what I did there?  I cast anyone who defends Trump (ie makes up their own mind, based on the available facts) in an extremely negative light, which added very little to the discussion.



Point taken. It doesn't answer the question though. Neither does listing Trump's characteristics.

So, without trying to change the convo to Trump, what kind of person would back Clinton knowing the facts that are out there about her massive dishonesty and the Clinton Foundation? What kind of person can look beyond her immoral judgment and still think she should be POTUS?


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Jul 2016)

Someone fact checked Hillarys acceptance speech and found she had made up an anecdote she told.

http://wbsm.com/hillarys-anecdotal-in-convention-acceptance-speech-is-yet-another-lie/

From The New Bedford Standard Times April 17, 2015 in an article by Steve Urbon:
The idealistic young woman with the long hair and huge eyeglasses had just graduated from Yale Law School, the future holding nothing but potential. But instead of shipping off to a New York or Washington law firm, she joined Marian Wright Edelman’s fledgling Children’s Defense Fund (which Edelman, Yale Law Class of 1963, still leads).

Hillary Rodham Clinton apparently would have you believe that, in 1973 she had forgone a career at a lucrative Washington D.C. law firm to instead, serve the public at Yale University’s Children’s Defense Fund (CDF). Not exactly the truth..but that’s not the whopper I speak of yet. While she did indeed work at the CDF in New Bedford in 1973, it seemed more like Plan B than her passion, but this was her fate and it served her well.

Hillary Rodham actually went for the big bucks at that dreamy law firm in D.C….but she failed to pass her bar exams in the District of Columbia, instead eventually passed them in Arkansas.
In last night’s acceptance speech, Secretary Clinton told a story of her experience on the South Coast of Massachusetts in the City of New Bedford as an attorney for the CDF that didn’t all add up according to my radio colleague Chris McCarthy:


----------



## cupper (31 Jul 2016)

I was going to throw my   :2c:  in on the latest, but having listened to this crap play out for two days while driving from Nova Scotia to Virginia my mind is fried.

But I do want to make one observation I had while listening to the Trump - Khan debacle play out.

Lets remember that Trump, if he is elected, WILL be sending troops into harms way.

Political statements aside. Is this really what you would expect from the potential Commander in Chief, the man who will be sending young men such as Capt. Khan into a situation where they may well not be coming home alive?

Ask yourselves, is this the kind of temperment you want in the oval office. One that would disrespct the families of service men and women who he will be sending into some crappy situations?


----------



## cupper (31 Jul 2016)

I'll throw my  :2c:  in on the rest tomoorrow after I have had a chance to get some US currency.  [


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Jul 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> I was going to throw my   :2c:  in on the latest, but having listened to this crap play out for two days while driving from Nova Scotia to Virginia my mind is fried.
> 
> But I do want to make one observation I had while listening to the Trump - Khan debacle play out.
> 
> ...



Same old argument the left peddled with Reagan and we didnt go nuclear.Nor was he unstable.

http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3411215/posts


----------



## cupper (31 Jul 2016)

You have the wrong takeaway from my comment. The point I was trying to make was the fact that he disrespected the family of a fallen soldier.

Reagan was criticized as being provocative and potentially trigger happy. But one thing he was not was disrespectful of the people he would ultimately command, and the families they were serving to defend.

Trump's hot headedness and thin skin are one thing, and there are checks and balances in the system. But it'rs the disrespect of a family of a fallen soldier that sets him apart.


----------



## jollyjacktar (31 Jul 2016)

I have to agree, he was totally disrespectful of the family.  Not POTUS type of behavior whatsoever.


----------



## Remius (31 Jul 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I have to agree, he was totally disrespectful of the family.  Not POTUS type of behavior whatsoever.



Yep. I'm starting to think that now that he is officially the nominee, that this kind of thing won't fly anymore.  He needs to change tact a bit. This kind of thing will be damaging come debate time.  

Even the most die hard partisan is looking uncomfortable defending this.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Aug 2016)

While the media is mostly quiet about the rifts in the Democrat party, this is going to cause lots of issues both in November and downrange. It is also worth doing the math to see just how many potential voters have been driven from the Democrat ranks into the Independent and GOP ranks due to the radicalization of the Democrat party:

http://www.ocregister.com/articles/party-724083-democrats-economic.html



> *What happened to my party?*
> July 31, 2016 Updated 12:00 a.m.
> By JOEL KOTKIN / STAFF COLUMNIST
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Aug 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I have to agree, he was totally disrespectful of the family.  Not POTUS type of behavior whatsoever.


And, maybe because of that, the roll-back begins ...


> Republican vice presidential candidate Mike Pence says he and presidential candidate Donald Trump believe a Muslim American soldier killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq in 2004 is a hero and families like his "should be cherished by every American."
> 
> The statement late Sunday followed intense criticism of Trump's reaction to an appearance by U.S. Army Captain Humayun Khan's parents at last week's Democratic National Convention. Khan was killed by a suicide bomber in Iraq in 2004 ...


More via Pence's FB page:


> *STATEMENT FROM REPUBLICAN VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, GOVERNOR MIKE PENCE*
> 
> Donald Trump and I believe that Captain Humayun Khan is an American hero and his family, like all Gold Star families, should be cherished by every American.
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Aug 2016)

The media and others want to destroy Trump much like they did with Palin.Sadly Trump isnt helping his cause shooting from the lip.The Khan has sacrificed a son for the country and deserves respect for the memory of his son.However,more is coming out about Mr Khan.He is an immigration lawyer with questionable ties to the democrat power structure.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/khan-specializes-in-visa-programs-accused-of-selling-u.s.-citizenship/article/2598279?custom_click=rss

The father of a Muslim American soldier killed in Iraq who is caught up in a war of words with Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump is an immigration lawyer who specializes in a highly controversial program accused of letting immigrants buy their way into the U.S.

Khizr M. Khan's website notes that he works to help clients with the E-2 and EB-5 programs that let overseas investors buy into U.S. companies and also provides green cards for family members.

It also said that he helps in the purchase of U.S. real estate and businesses. The website lists his ability to practice in New York, though it gives a Washington phone number for the lawyer who lives in Virginia. A man who answered the phone said the website was correct, though he would not identify himself.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Aug 2016)

Trump may be going "all in" on the disaffected American.

I think that Hillary is toxic enough that a lot of voters that might swing in the center can't bring themselves to support her even when the alternative is Trump.
Equally Trump is also toxic.  

The result is that many "mainstream" voters may be inclined to sit this one out and join that ever increasing pool of voters that wish a pox on both their houses.

But Trump is playing to that pool and engaging those people that: don't recognize themselves in either of the mainstream parties, or their platforms; that have seen their concerns and their opinions ignored and; that feel themselves disrespected and often times vilified.  He is offering carrots to people that have been driven with sticks. 

I think the demographics of the non-participating voters may be taking a swing.  Trump as Huey Long, as Richard Daley, as Boss Tweed (peculiarly all Democrats).


----------



## Remius (1 Aug 2016)

Chris, you are certainly right on the toxicity factor.

I'm not sure that Trump is going all in though on disaffected voters.  He already has the support of his base.  They were never going to vote for Clinton, regardless of any factors. She's Clinton and she's a Democrat.  That's all they need to not vote for her.

The problem with Trump and disaffected voters from the Democrats' side, is that he isn't endearing himself to them.  At all.  That's fine, but those that might of voted for Trump as a protest vote or are likely going to vote for a third option might just go back to the Hillary camp out of fear that trump might actually become the POTUS.  Trump needs these voters to stay home or vote green or whatever.  By making callous statements or fear mongering too much he will eventually drive these voters to come out and take the bad medicine in order to not have the worst medicine.  And at the same time force Republicans to stay home as well who can't stomach Clinton but would hate Trump as President.  A double whammy against him.  

If they have to choose mountain dew or crab juice, they might just opt for the crab juice.  (obscure Simpson reference).


----------



## mariomike (1 Aug 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Trump as Huey Long, as Richard Daley, as Boss Tweed (peculiarly all Democrats).



Trump as .... Rob Ford? 

Ford Nation - Trump Nation?

Globe and  Mail

Why is Donald Trump so popular? Look no further than Rob Ford 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/why-is-donald-trump-so-popular-look-no-further-than-rob-ford/article26482893/

“Rob [Ford] could commit murder on the steps of city hall and they would still vote for him”: Doug Ford
Oct., 2010

"I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters.": Donald Trump
Jan., 2016

Trump vows to 'stop the gravy train'  
Republican rolls out Rob Ford slogan during speech
http://www.winnipegsun.com/2016/05/06/trump-vows-to-stop-the-gravy-train

“Who would you rather have negotiating with Iran — President Obama or Toronto Mayor Ford? My money is on Ford,” Trump tweeted.
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/11/25/donald-trump-picks-rob-ford-over-barack-obama

Edited.


----------



## cupper (1 Aug 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Trump as .... Rob Ford?
> 
> “Rob [Ford] could commit murder on the steps of city hall and they would still vote for him”: Doug Ford
> Oct., 2010.
> ...



Again, another example of the Trump campaign plagerizing. When will this stop? ;D


----------



## Rocky Mountains (1 Aug 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I have to agree, he was totally disrespectful of the family.  Not POTUS type of behavior whatsoever.



They dug up their dead son and beat Trump over the head with him.  The attack on Trump was a total set-up and a shameful and cowardly political act.  These parents should be hanging their heads in shame.  They've had 11 years to get used to their son being dead.  I mistrust the emotion.


----------



## Remius (1 Aug 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> They've had 11 years to get used to their son being dead.



Wow.  Just wow.


----------



## cupper (1 Aug 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> They dug up their dead son and beat Trump over the head with him.  The attack on Trump was a total set-up and a shameful and cowardly political act.  These parents should be hanging their heads in shame.  They've had 11 years to get used to their son being dead.  I mistrust the emotion.



WHat the ever lovin F?   :facepalm:


----------



## Altair (1 Aug 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> They dug up their dead son and beat Trump over the head with him.  The attack on Trump was a total set-up and a shameful and cowardly political act.  These parents should be hanging their heads in shame.  They've had 11 years to get used to their son being dead.  I mistrust the emotion.


The Democrats have found a good strategy. 

Trump cannot resist hitting back when attacked. So find a bunch of sympathetic people who should never be attacked, parents of war vets, disabled people, probably children, and maybe a puppy,  trump will hit back at them all.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (1 Aug 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> They dug up their dead son and beat Trump over the head with him.  The attack on Trump was a total set-up and a shameful and cowardly political act.  These parents should be hanging their heads in shame.  They've had 11 years to get used to their son being dead.  I mistrust the emotion.



Wow.... what does rock bottom look like?


----------



## cupper (1 Aug 2016)

Changing tact.

Trump needs to understand that everything he has ever said in a public forum is easily checked and open to scrutiny.

In 2013 he claims to have a good relationship with Putin in a TV interview.

This week he says that he has no relationship with Putin. Well? Which is it?

And you don't make excuses that are going to come back to haunt you, like claiming you received a letter from the NFL asking you to push for a change in the debate schedule as it conflicts with several nationally televised games. Only to have the NFL come out and say we didn't make any such request.

Or claiming that It was the GOP establishment that stripped provision of military equipment to Ukraine from the party platform, when in fact it was his own reps that pushed for ang got that removed.

Oh, and speakin of Ukraine, you need to stay up on current events, even if they have been going on for the past couple of years. Like Russian intervention in Eastern Ukraine.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (1 Aug 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Wow.  Just wow.



The son died 12 years ago.  When you get old you find that most of the people you knew have died.  My wife is the sole surviving member of her family and I have one sibling left.  Saving up emotion for 12 years and spewing it at a public convention is not normal.  I know grief but don't use it as an offense.  It's all a set up.


----------



## Altair (1 Aug 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> The son died 12 years ago.  When you get old you find that most of the people you knew have died.  My wife is the sole surviving member of her family and I have one sibling left.  Saving up emotion for 12 years and spewing it at a public convention is not normal.  I know grief but don't use it as an offense.  It's all a set up.


Was it an act? Maybe.

Should it have been avoided? Yes.

Trumps just cannot resist fighting back. Which leads to him falling into traps like this one.

If he does it against the political class that everyone hates already that's probably a good thing for him. Minority groups that his supporters are fearful of? Sure. 

War vets and their parents? Didn't hurt him with mccain but he was a politician. We shall see the fallout from this.


----------



## Remius (1 Aug 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> The son died 12 years ago.  When you get old you find that most of the people you knew have died.  My wife is the sole surviving member of her family and I have one sibling left.  Saving up emotion for 12 years and spewing it at a public convention is not normal.  I know grief but don't use it as an offense.  It's all a set up.



I can't even imagine anything worse than outliving your kids. You never get over that.  Ever.


----------



## cupper (1 Aug 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> They dug up their dead son and beat Trump over the head with him. * The attack on Trump was a total set-up and a shameful and cowardly political act.*  These parents should be hanging their heads in shame.  They've had 11 years to get used to their son being dead.  I mistrust the emotion.



The highlighted portion was all you needed to say. The rest was unnecessary vitriolic crap and did nothing but diminish your arguement.

And the Dems are not alone in pulling a stunt like this. The week before the Trump campaign rolled out Patricia Smith, mother of Sean Smith, one of the casualties of the attack in Benghazi.


----------



## cupper (1 Aug 2016)

And the Simpsons weigh in on the 3:00 am phone call.

https://youtu.be/tLSy8Tl2bjs


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Aug 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> *They've had 11 years to get used to their son being de(a)d.*


Really?  Really??  As others have said, this just takes away from the argument ...


> ... The attack on Trump was a total set-up and a shameful and cowardly political act ...





			
				Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Saving up emotion for 12 years and spewing it at a public convention is not normal.


As someone who knows grief (and I know grief is a _very_ individual journey), you must know this typically isn't how it works - unless you have evidence of this family showing zero grief _before_ this engagement.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Aug 2016)

Gentlemen.

Is anybody going to "win" this discussion?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Aug 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Gentlemen.
> 
> Is anybody going to "win" this discussion?



Nope.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Aug 2016)

What is so amazingly hypocritical about the entire thing is the contrast with the Media and Dem's treatment of Patricia Smith. Watching the CNN "commentator" remarking that the speech "spoiled her night" to the totally disgusting Bethlehem Shoals tweeting he wants to beat  Patrica Smith to death. (although he quickly erased the tweet, it was captured so proof of his mendacity will be there for everyone to see.

How much airtime or how many news cycles did that dominate?

Yeah, stay classy Dems.


----------



## cupper (1 Aug 2016)

The Houston Chronical makes a surprise endorsement.

*These are unsettling times that require a steady hand: That's not Donald Trump. *

http://www.chron.com/opinion/recommendations/article/For-Hillary-Clinton-8650345.php?



> On Nov. 8, 2016, the American people will decide between two presidential contenders who represent the starkest political choice in living memory. They will choose between one candidate with vast experience and a lifelong dedication to public service and another totally lacking in qualifications to be president. They will decide whether they prefer someone deeply familiar with the issues that are important to this nation or a person whose paper-thin, bumper-sticker proposals would be dangerous to the nation and the world if somehow they were enacted.
> 
> Her opponent
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (1 Aug 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> What is so amazingly hypocritical about the entire thing is the contrast with the Media and Dem's treatment of Patricia Smith. Watching the CNN "commentator" remarking that the speech "spoiled her night" to the totally disgusting Bethlehem Shoals tweeting he wants to beat  Patrica Smith to death. (although he quickly erased the tweet, it was captured so proof of his mendacity will be there for everyone to see.
> 
> How much airtime or how many news cycles did that dominate?
> 
> Yeah, stay classy Dems.



The difference is that you don't have the candidate making this a personal attack with the Dems. The criticism of Patricia Smith comes from left wing press and vocal minority attack dogs. They've been around for every election cycle and are not really a surprise.

This goes to Trump personally, and his need to lash out at any perceived slight. And his need to not just rebut the criticism but to destroy the messenger.

This is not politics as usual. So we are not going to see him let it go. So someone within the campaign telling him to STFU is not going to happen. But that's what needs to be done.

Clinton was right in her speech. Trump can easily be derailed from the task at hand. This has sucked up 4 days of the news cycle, and shows little sign of tapering off. And he's being played like a fiddle with the Dems and their media outlets putting the Khans front and center at every oppourtunity.

Look at his first big presser after the convention. Does he go after Clinton and get the campaing off an a good footing? No. He goes after Ted Cruz with a dog whistle about his father meeting with Lee Harvey Oswald..

I was listening to a discussion about how easily Trump can be manipulated, as part of a larger discussion on the whole Russian / Putin influence debate. Trump can be played with flattery or with criticism. An experienced intelligence operative such as Putin recognizes this as a weakness to be exploited.

Trump is his own liability.


----------



## cupper (1 Aug 2016)

Just watching Warren Buffet play the McCarthy card while introducing Clinton at an Omaha campaign event.

Even Buffet is plagerizing. Damn him.  ;D


----------



## mariomike (1 Aug 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> And the Simpsons weigh in on the 3:00 am phone call.
> 
> https://youtu.be/tLSy8Tl2bjs



They crack me up. 

Marge: If that's your vote, I question if I can ever be with you again.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Aug 2016)

One of our founding fathers made a powerful argument for freedom and the sacrifices required.


http://www.nationalcenter.org/SamuelAdams1776.html




> "Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say 'what should be the reward of such sacrifices?
> 
> Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth?
> 
> ...


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (2 Aug 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> What is so amazingly hypocritical about the entire thing is the contrast with the Media and Dem's treatment of Patricia Smith. Watching the CNN "commentator" remarking that the speech "spoiled her night" to the totally disgusting Bethlehem Shoals tweeting he wants to beat  Patrica Smith to death. (although he quickly erased the tweet, it was captured so proof of his mendacity will be there for everyone to see.
> 
> How much airtime or how many news cycles did that dominate?
> 
> Yeah, stay classy Dems.



The difference is that Bethlehem Shoals is a nobody that no one really cares about. Donald Trump is a potential POTUS and should act accordingly. Your argument here is akin to comparing something a Private says to the CDS.

The Right and the Left are both hypocritical. Both are filled with mouth breathers who should likely be discounted off hand. The problem for the Republicans is that somehow one of the mouthbreathers who should be discounted won a primary and seems intent on taking the party down with him.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Aug 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Gentlemen.
> 
> Is anybody going to "win" this discussion?


No,  given the key participants' track record thus far, it will just go mindlessly on and on..... unless the site owner says "enough of this BS," and shuts it down like the equally repetitious dead horse beating that was the Canadian political thread.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Aug 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> No,  given the key participants' track record thus far, it will just go mindlessly on and on..... unless the site owner says "enough of this BS," and shuts it down like the equally repetitious dead horse beating that was the Canadian political thread.



I will withdraw from the discussion such as it is.I am a bit tired of the 24/7 anti-Trump bashing by the media and cannot wait until the election.Although if Trump wins then the media wont let up.Meanwhile I hope Trump learns that he doesnt have to respond to every attack.In the case of the Khans he is in a lose-lose argument.Best to avoid these in the future.Focus on Hillary there is enough damaging info out there and she isnt a very sympathetic figure.


----------



## Journeyman (2 Aug 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I will withdraw from the discussion such as it is.


Unlike the ideologues with their individual chew-toys, you're the only one with a direct stake in this "discussion";  you _should_  be part of this.



... assuming there's any value to be had in continuing :deadhorse:


----------



## Remius (2 Aug 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I will withdraw from the discussion such as it is.I am a bit tired of the 24/7 anti-Trump bashing by the media and cannot wait until the election.Although if Trump wins then the media wont let up.Meanwhile I hope Trump learns that he doesnt have to respond to every attack.In the case of the Khans he is in a lose-lose argument.Best to avoid these in the future.Focus on Hillary there is enough damaging info out there and she isnt a very sympathetic figure.



I think that is exactly what he needs to do.  focus on Clinton and why she is a bad choice.  I'm sure that Clinton will engage by using proxies.  Khan and his wife are perfect examples.  Trump never served, but neither have the Clintons (I know Hillary is a woman and couldn't have served at the time) but they are winning that side of things by using proxies to fight her fight.  Focus on her and why she would be a terrible POTUS.  Her approval ratings are her weak point right now.  Keep hammering at that and leave the Khans and whoever to their own things.  No one would have batted an eye over this Khan thing if he had kept his mouth shut or at least state something along the lines of him respecting his opinion but disagreeing.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Aug 2016)

Agreed !!


----------



## Altair (2 Aug 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> I think that is exactly what he needs to do.  focus on Clinton and why she is a bad choice.  I'm sure that Clinton will engage by using proxies.  Khan and his wife are perfect examples.  Trump never served, but neither have the Clintons (I know Hillary is a woman and couldn't have served at the time) but they are winning that side of things by using proxies to fight her fight.  Focus on her and why she would be a terrible POTUS.  Her approval ratings are her weak point right now.  Keep hammering at that and leave the Khans and whoever to their own things.  No one would have batted an eye over this Khan thing if he had kept his mouth shut or at least state something along the lines of him respecting his opinion but disagreeing.


he can't.  He is incapable of not responding and hitting back. 

If I were the Democrats I would have someone on TV, a sympathetic person, little girl, handicap individual, wounded war vet, grieving mother, and have them attached trump. 

Then I sit back and watch as trump tries to destroy all who have takes badly about him. It makes him look like an ass while clinton stays out of the negative spotlight. And it's trumps own fault.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (2 Aug 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> I know Hillary is a woman and couldn't have served at the time



My aunt served in WWII.  Is Hillary older than her?



> Keep hammering at that and leave the Khans and whoever to their own things.



Their own thing?  That would be an immigration lawyer specializing in Muslim immigration.


----------



## Remius (2 Aug 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> My aunt served in WWII.  Is Hillary older than her?
> 
> Their own thing?  That would be an immigration lawyer specializing in Muslim immigration.




You know what I meant.  She would never have deployed into combat. No offence but you seem to have missed the point of my post.

Who cares about Khan?  And who would have guessed that Clinton would have had partisan speakers at her own nomination.  Figure that.

Trump cannot win this particular fight.  He won't and can't.  So why even bother.  Do you know why no one is not too up in arms about the speaker at the GOP convention who lambasted Clinton about her son dying during the Benghazi incident? Because Clinton didn't respond.  Trump responded and created this mess.  KHan could have been an obscure footnote but he couldn't let it go.


----------



## Altair (2 Aug 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> You know what I meant.  She would never have deployed into combat. No offence but you seem to have missed the point of my post.
> 
> Who cares about Khan?  And who would have guessed that Clinton would have had partisan speakers at her own nomination.  Figure that.
> 
> Trump cannot win this particular fight.  He won't and can't.  So why even bother.  Do you know why no one is not too up in arms about the speaker at the GOP convention who lambasted Clinton about her son dying during the Benghazi incident? Because Clinton didn't respond.  Trump responded and created this mess.  KHan could have been an obscure footnote but he couldn't let it go.


He never let a slight go.after the rnc who did he attack? Ted cruz


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Aug 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> You know what I meant.  She would never have deployed into combat. No offence but you seem to have missed the point of my post.
> 
> Who cares about Khan?  And who would have guessed that Clinton would have had partisan speakers at her own nomination.  Figure that.
> 
> Trump cannot win this particular fight.  He won't and can't.  So why even bother.  Do you know why no one is not too up in arms about the speaker at the GOP convention who lambasted Clinton about her son dying during the Benghazi incident? Because Clinton didn't respond.  Trump responded and created this mess.  KHan could have been an obscure footnote but he couldn't let it go.



But there is the salient point that has been brought up by others.  Mr. Trump is too quick to rise to the bait and swallow it whole.  I would expect that most folks would want someone at the tiller who isn't so easy to get going like that.  He continues at times to behave as one might expect on a reality television garbage type show.  I would hope he could do better.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Aug 2016)

I'm sure he is getting plenty of pointers from his family and GOP supporters. If he can put them into practice and polish his tone and his speech a bit, I'm sure he'd have no trouble finishing off Clinton. They just need to take his phone away from him so he can't post to anything.

The whole Khan debacle should have run its course by now. Given all the ties the guy has shown he has with the Clintons and his conflict of interest, he's outlived his usefulness and the Clintons are ready to jettison him and not look back.


----------



## Altair (2 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm sure he is getting plenty of pointers from his family and GOP supporters. If he can put them into practice and polish his tone and his speech a bit, I'm sure he'd have no trouble finishing off Clinton. They just need to take his phone away from him so he can't post to anything.
> 
> The whole Khan debacle should have run its course by now. Given all the ties the guy has shown he has with the Clintons and his conflict of interest, he's outlived his usefulness and the Clintons are ready to jettison him and not look back.


he was on abc (?) when he attacked the khan family.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Aug 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> he was on abc (?) when he attacked the khan family.



So what.


----------



## Altair (2 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> So what.


So taking his phone away does sfa


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm sure he is getting plenty of pointers from his family and GOP supporters ... They just need to take his phone away from him so he can't post to anything.


 :nod:  I wouldn't want to be the one to try to take it, though.


----------



## cupper (2 Aug 2016)

The last year has shown that no one can do anything to rein him in, or they would already have done it.

Trump has been this way since he was old enough to politely ask the servants wipe his butt.

His father taught him that any sign of weakness was a failure and failure was to be rejected. Upthread I posted a link to an article about one of his mentors, Roy Cohn. Trump learned a lot of his adversarial, punch back harder than they hit you, scorched earth approach from Cohn. 

https://army.ca/forums/threads/108210/post-1441397.html#msg1441397

Trump will not change, and there is no one within the campaign organization, or his family that can. Short of literally threateniing his manhood, The only thing that he understands is a beatdown, both literally and figuratively. And this is a man that has the resources to destroy all that challenge him and the willingness to use them. Short of having him locked up in solitary, we are stuck with him.

I will be interested to see how he reacts should he lose the electiion. I don't expect there will be a consession speech. There may be a long diatribe on how the system was rigged, and that Clinton bought the election, and there may well be a court challenge, especially if the final results are anywhere close. Which now makes the vacant SCOTUS seat all the more problematic.


----------



## cupper (2 Aug 2016)

And as further proof of Trump's vindictive nature towards those he perceives as being disloyal:

*Trump refuses to support Paul Ryan, John McCain in upcoming Republican primaries*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-refuses-to-endorse-paul-ryan-in-gop-primary-im-just-not-quite-there-yet/2016/08/02/1449f028-58e9-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html



> Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump is refusing to back House Speaker Paul D. Ryan in his upcoming primary election, saying in an interview Tuesday that he is “not quite there yet” in endorsing his party’s top-ranking elected official.
> 
> Trump also said he was not supporting Sen. John McCain in his primary in Arizona, and he singled out Sen. Kelly Ayotte as a weak and disloyal leader in New Hampshire, a state whose presidential primary Trump won handily.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (2 Aug 2016)

Really, the only person who has had the cahones to call Trump out, and stand on his convictions is Ted Cruz.

I'm now going to go have a long hot shower and try to wash that icky feeling away. [


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Aug 2016)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3635882/Hillary-Clinton-called-disabled-children-Easter-egg-hunt-f-ing-ree-tards-referred-Jews-stupid-k-s-Bill-called-Jesse-Jackson-damned-n-r-claims-Bill-s-former-lover.html



> EXCLUSIVE: Hillary Clinton once called disabled children at an Easter egg hunt 'f***ing ree-tards' and referred to Jews as 'stupid k***s' while Bill called Jesse Jackson a 'damned n****r,' claims Bill's former lover
> •	Bill Clinton's former lover Dolly Kyle claims the Clinton couple regularly used racial epithets in her new book, Hillary: The Other Woman
> •	She writes that Hillary was caught on record blurting out the terms 'stupid k**e' and 'f***ing Jew b*****d'
> •	She says Bill called the Reverend Jesse Jackson a 'Goddamned n****r'
> ...




This isn't the only unfavourable book to be coming out about her either. Should add grist for the mill, just before the elections.


----------



## cupper (2 Aug 2016)

Based on how this has gone for Trump this cycle, it's quite likely to get her a landslide.  ;D


----------



## muskrat89 (3 Aug 2016)

Interesting... I thought all the God lovin, gun-lovin redencks couldnt read....

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/3-of-4-nyt-bestsellers-are-anti-clinton-books/article/2598379



> For the first time, three of the top four New York Times nonfiction best sellers are anti-Clinton books.


----------



## muskrat89 (3 Aug 2016)

I am actually surprised at Trump's quiet popularity when  talking to friends, colleagues and others. I think Trump is viewed as well meaning, but brash and unpolished. Hillary is viewed as contrived, scheming  and perpetually dishonest. I don't even think "popularity" is the right term - maybe "better than Hillary rating" would be more applicable... 

http://www.chicksontheright.com/hillarys-story-about-helping-a-disabled-child-was-complete-bs/

That article references this one: http://wbsm.com/hillarys-anecdotal-in-convention-acceptance-speech-is-yet-another-lie/

http://www.youngcons.com/trump-was-right-mayor-who-restricted-1000s-from-rally-today-has-ties-to-hillary-clinton/


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Aug 2016)

If Trump's style turned off voters he wouldnt have set a record for votes received in the primary.He has great appeal across the spectrum and should translate into great appeal in the general election.The other contenders didnt make the cut.Ryan and et al wouldnt agree to support Trump so now they will have to pay the price.I would love to see Ryan lose in his primary,but its tough to knock off an incumbent.

By the way the first #NeverTrumper Congressman Huelskamp-Kansas lost his primary last night to a pro-Trump opponent Roger Marshall.Maybe Ryan should worry after all.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Aug 2016)

I have had a chance to talk to a friend who was travelling in upstate New York, and he reports that the upstate area is pretty uniform in their support for Trump. It seems that the divide is really between the urbanites and the political/academic/bureaucratic classes and everyone else. The uniform contempt that is felt for the "Flyover States" and middle Americans who don't share the progressive viewpoint could backfire on the Dems and even establishment Republicans as it drives more people to the polls to make their displeasure known.

WRM looks at the opposite angle in this article in The American Interest, trying to understand why we have the worst political class in history. His take; pandering to the vanity of rich but stupid people:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/08/01/the-soul-sick-leadership-elite-in-america/



> *The Soul-Sick Leadership Elite in America*
> WALTER RUSSELL MEAD
> The New York Times digs into the DNC email dump:
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Aug 2016)

> 99.999% of the things that rich donors tell politicians will be laughed at, ignored and trashed—though staffers will be assigned to write letters maintaining the illusion that the donor’s half-educated ramblings have somehow been incorporated in something official.



That right there.....

That is the problem and Mead is as guilty as any of the progressive pundits.

He thinks there is a right answer and that he knows it.

The key to a functioning democracy is acceptance.

Acceptance of the knowledge that you will never get agreement on what is right, what is fair, what is just.

The only thing you can count on is getting agreement, by the majority, on what is acceptable.

And when people find the situation in which they live their lives unacceptable then the "fraggings" will begin.

What happens when the turnout in November falls below 50% (let's say 40%) and the vote is split 50:50?

What is legitimate about a government that finds itself running a country with 20% in support, 20% opposed and 60% that don't recognize the process and just want the whole mess to go away?


The problem is that too many people with lots of training but little intelligence fail to accept the validity of the concerns of those with whom they disagree.


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Aug 2016)

The RNC is talking to Trump about his lack of support for Ryan and McCain.Both have been bashing Trump so why should he play ball ? I wouldnt either.


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Aug 2016)

That's awful nice of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary to be peacemakers like this.   :nod:


----------



## Journeyman (3 Aug 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> What happens when the turnout in November falls below 50% (let's say 40%) and the vote is split 50:50?
> 
> What is legitimate about a government that finds itself running a country with 20% in support, 20% opposed and 60% that don't recognize the process and just want the whole mess to go away?


Ahh, the joys of the Electoral College system.   The US system doesn't actually need _anyone_  to show up at the polls; if there's no majority of votes cast, the House of Representatives picks the President and the Senate chooses the VP.  It's been required several times in the past. 

Is it legitimate?  Not when compared to other democratic forms, but it's not our cross to bear.  In fact, the recurring complaints are that it makes the popular vote largely irrelevant, and so actually discourages voter participation.   :dunno:

And while there will be a *whole lot of 'stupid'*, trying to pass itself as delegate campaigning, pundit analysis, political debates, and masturbatory blogging before 8 November.... I don't think voter apathy will be an issue;  my completely useless and irrelevant guess is that we may see some sort of record voter turn-out.  I also think it will overwhelmingly favour Trump. 

I don't think that's a good thing, but it's overwhelmingly for the same reasons I didn't like our options north of the 49th last October; I simply cannot believe that those are/were _remotely_  the best candidates that could have been put forward (by the valid Canadian parties; I'm sure Elizabeth May is the best the Greens can do, and the NDP will have to wait for the zombie apocalypse to get Layton back). 


Nonetheless, once again the electorate will get the government(s) they deserve..... and Idocracy comes that much closer to being a documentary.   :not-again:


----------



## dapaterson (3 Aug 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That's awful nice of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary to be peacemakers like this.   :nod:



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/royal-newfoundland-constabulary-twitter-mixup-trump-republican-1.3685178


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Aug 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Ahh, the joys of the Electoral College system.   The US system doesn't actually need _anyone_  to show up at the polls; if there's no majority of votes cast, the House of Representatives picks the President and the Senate chooses the VP.  It's been required several times in the past.
> 
> Is it legitimate?  Not when compared to other democratic forms, but it's not our cross to bear.  In fact, the recurring complaints are that it makes the popular vote largely irrelevant, and so actually discourages voter participation.   :dunno:
> 
> ...



All true.  Crap!

Including the bit about turnout and support for Trump.  A metaphorical "fragging"?

Too many people ignored for too long willing to "blow up" the system?


----------



## muskrat89 (3 Aug 2016)

> It seems that the divide is really between the urbanites and the political/academic/bureaucratic classes and everyone else.



Exactly what I have been saying, although you said it much better - and so far at least, confirmed in my conversations with people....


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (3 Aug 2016)

In spite of some of the Rosie Trump predictions here, I suspect this story is closer to the reality.

As for urbanites vs country folk,  that's the trend for every country. Rural people vote more conservative and urban people vote more liberal. Luckily for those rural New Yorkers 87.9% of new York state is considered urban, so they're outnumbered. Further, I suspect voter turnout AGAINST Trump will be high this election, so I personally don't see it getting much closer than the 48-43 polls now.

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/donald-trump-gop-trumplosion-begins/


----------



## Remius (3 Aug 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> In spite of some of the Rosie Trump predictions here, I suspect this story is closer to the reality.
> 
> As for urbanites vs country folk,  that's the trend for every country. Rural people vote more conservative and urban people vote more liberal. Luckily for those rural New Yorkers 87.9% of new York state is considered urban, so they're outnumbered. Further, I suspect voter turnout AGAINST Trump will be high this election, so I personally don't see it getting much closer than the 48-43 polls now.
> 
> https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/donald-trump-gop-trumplosion-begins/



Trumplosion... [lol:


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Aug 2016)

Better take a second look at Hill's election numbers. 

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/devastating-hillary-clinton-received-1-5-million-fewer-votes-2016-2008-democrats-7-million-votes/


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (3 Aug 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Better take a second look at Hill's election numbers.
> 
> http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/06/devastating-hillary-clinton-received-1-5-million-fewer-votes-2016-2008-democrats-7-million-votes/



I prefer to look at current poll numbers, but I can see how the primaries may be a reflection of apathy. Personally, I just dont see many of the left-wing people there taking a chance at a Trump presidency. We have a long time until the US election, so as much as I believe that a man who yelled at a baby has no chance at being the leader of the free world, I'll enjoy watching his show... one thing you can say is that he definately has no "hidden agenda"...

As a Canadian conservative, the problem I have with Trump is that he seems to be a caricature of the buffoonish/boorish right winger. Canadians,for better or worse, still believe Republican=Conservative Party of Canada and Democrats=Liberal Party of Canada, so the longer the "trump-losion" last down in the US the worse things get for our Conservative Party.


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Aug 2016)

The polls wont be very useful this far out as they are heavily weighted in Hillarys favor.By this I mean there are more democrats polled so the results are slanted,shocking I know.The polls were get real maybe a week before the election.This is a common democrat campaign tactic to depress the opposition voters and make them think its a lost cause.
The democrat machine includes the news media.Fox used to be the conservative answer but no more.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Aug 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> In spite of some of the Rosie Trump predictions here, I suspect this story is closer to the reality.
> 
> As for urbanites vs country folk,  that's the trend for every country. Rural people vote more conservative and urban people vote more liberal. Luckily for those rural New Yorkers 87.9% of new York state is considered urban, so they're outnumbered. Further, I suspect voter turnout AGAINST Trump will be high this election, so I personally don't see it getting much closer than the 48-43 polls now.
> 
> https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/donald-trump-gop-trumplosion-begins/



The article is all pure speculation. It reads like an article from Movie Star magazine. Sources close..... a friend said.....someone deep , on the team.... Plain old  :stirpot: not to be taken seriously.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (3 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The article is all pure speculation. It reads like an article from Movie Star magazine. Sources close..... a friend said.....someone deep , on the team.... Plain old  :stirpot: not to be taken seriously.



I would say that the article is no less reliant on weak sources and speculation than many posted that go as far as to say all progressives are lazy or stupid (almost literally).

edited for tone


----------



## cupper (3 Aug 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> By the way the first #NeverTrumper Congressman Huelskamp-Kansas lost his primary last night to a pro-Trump opponent Roger Marshall.Maybe Ryan should worry after all.



Yeah, but Huelskamp got his ass handed to him because he was a extreme conservative ideolog who represented a fully rural agricultural district, yet voted against the farm bill. Because of his anti establishment stance and constant friction with the party leadership he was booted off the agricultural committee. And he did not support funding of a Federal agricultural facility being built in the district.

What this shows more is that pure ideology is meaningless when you cannot deliver for your constituents. I was listening to an NPR interview with Marshall, and he said that Huelskamps numbers dropped with every ideological stance he took, and money and support for Marshall went up.

From The National Review



> Anger at Washington is not a mandate for ideological purity. That’s one valuable lesson from Tuesday night’s primary result in Kansas’s first congressional district. And Representative Tim Huelskamp learned it the hard way.
> 
> Huelskamp, a conservative agitator who’s been a thorn in the Republican leadership’s side since coming to Congress in the tea-party wave of 2010, lost his seat Tuesday to obstetrician Roger Marshall, who campaigned on the message that Huelskamp was representing a rigid ideology rather than the people of Kansas’s “Big First” congressional district.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (3 Aug 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> I would say that the article is no less reliant on weak sources and speculation than many posted that go as far as to say* all progressives are lazy or stupid (almost literally).*
> 
> edited for tone



No. It's true. We're all lazy and stupid. I'll give them that.  [


----------



## mariomike (3 Aug 2016)




----------



## a_majoor (4 Aug 2016)

The media plan for the election. It should seem pretty familiar to Canadians:





> *Ultimate Media Privilege: Hillary’s Crimes Versus Trump’s Mouth*
> Trump only 'talks awful'—Hillary actually 'does awful'
> By Austin Bay • 08/03/16 10:00am
> 
> ...


----------



## Remius (4 Aug 2016)

This is a pretty good breakdown showing why there is such a gap in the latest polls.


Fox news gives a pretty good breakdown by demographic.  

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/03/fox-news-poll-clinton-leads-trump-by-10-points-both-seen-as-flawed.html

The key take away that I think is the crux of her lead is that although she is distrusted, she is still viewed as the more qualified and capable of the two.

We'll see what happens in the coming months.


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Aug 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> This is a pretty good breakdown showing why there is such a gap in the latest polls.
> 
> 
> Fox news gives a pretty good breakdown by demographic.
> ...



IGNORE the polls.They are meaningless this far out.There is a concerted campaign by GOP insiders along with the democrats to destroy Trump.Kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.Obama was a college professor and activist before becoming President.He wasnt qualified to be President by todays supposed standard.At least Trump employs people in a multi-billion dollar company.Hate to say it but being President is OJT.


----------



## Remius (4 Aug 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> IGNORE the polls.They are meaningless this far out.There is a concerted campaign by GOP insiders along with the democrats to destroy Trump.Kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.Obama was a college professor and activist before becoming President.He wasnt qualified to be President by todays supposed standard.At least Trump employs people in a multi-billion dollar company.Hate to say it but being President is OJT.



Oh it is early, but Fox news for the most part seem to not be anti Trump.  And this poll was conducted by them.  And while I agree that being the POTUS is more OJT than anything else, it does not change the fact that people will vote with the thought of who is better qualified to lead the country.    Doesn't matter if one is or not, it's how the voter will view that and that view I think is what has created a large margin between them in the polls.

There is a wide gap now and my point is that this poll seems to explain why.


----------



## FJAG (4 Aug 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> IGNORE the polls.They are meaningless this far out.There is a concerted campaign by GOP insiders along with the democrats to destroy Trump.Kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.Obama was a college professor and activist before becoming President.He wasnt qualified to be President by todays supposed standard.At least Trump employs people in a multi-billion dollar company.Hate to say it but being President is OJT.



The polls are what they are: a statement of current positions but not a predictor of the eventual outcome. Trends along the way, however, will become more meaningful as time goes on.

As to Obama's experience, I think that you are glossing over the fact that in the eleven years before he became president he was a state senator from 1997 until 2004 when he resigned to run for the US Senate, a position he held until 2008. That's eleven years working in legislatures and is a pretty decent level of experience for a president; in fact it's six more years than GW Bush had (no legislative experience but governor of Texas from 1995-2000)

Trump has no qualifications whatsoever. Being an employer does not mean one have experience in dealing with government. Trump's experience is mostly in dealing with municipal level agencies and financial institutions and those dealings were with a focus on Trump's self-interest and not the public's. 

Look. I also come from the side that one could do much better with respect to the political elite that makes up our North American political systems (and I include without reservation the cabals who currently run Ontario and Canada). I also believe that the right businessman/woman could do the job; but not Trump. The man is the apitimy of everything that is wrong with the US business elite; narcissistic, greedy, selfish, and without any empathy for those of his subcontractors, investors in condos, students at his university etc etc. I fully understand that there is a portion of the US public who wants to teach the political system a lesson but unfortunately with Trump they would probably be harming themselves more than the system.

 :cheers:


----------



## larry Strong (4 Aug 2016)

Succinctly stated       :goodpost:


Cheers
Larry


----------



## FJAG (4 Aug 2016)

"Military veterans demand Republicans unendorse Trump and his 'ignorance'

Group of veterans visit Capitol Hill to present petition to Senator John McCain urging him and other Republican leaders to disavow presidential nominee John McCain. One military veteran said during the visit to Capitol Hill: ‘Senator McCain, please be brave and courageous as you have in the past and please rescind your endorsement of Donald Trump.’ 

The backlash against Donald Trump escalated on Thursday as angry US military veterans arrived on Capitol Hill urging Republican leaders to withdraw their support for the party’s nominee.

The protest came after a torrid week for the maverick candidate, whose criticism of Khizr and Ghazala Khan, the parents of an American Muslim soldier killed in Iraq in 2004, triggered a Republican revolt.

The veterans presented a petition on Thursday to the office of Senator John McCain , a Vietnam war veteran and former prisoner of war who was the Republican presidential nominee in 2008. McCain joined the condemnation of Trump this week, but stopped short of withdrawing his endorsement of him.

“Donald Trump and his surrogates have demonstrated that their bigotry and hate speech know no bounds,” Nate Terani, the first Muslim American to serve in the US Navy Presidential Honor Guard, told reporters. “Donald Trump is a racist and bigot and wholly unfit for this position.”

Terani and other veterans gathered under trees on a lawn outside the US Capitol building, urged McCain to put country before party and “unendorse” the nominee. They said their petition had more than 100,000 names in less than a day, including veterans, their families and ordinary voters.

Alexander McCoy, a former sergeant in the marines, said: “Donald Trump’s reckless ignorance about America’s responsibility to the world shocks me to the core ... I am done listening. I have heard enough. Senator McCain, you served and you sacrificed in ways Trump cannot begin to understand. You have heard enough too.”

Jim Lyons, a former nuclear machinist mate 2nd class in the navy, added: “He sows hate, fear and division ... His bigoted and racist and divisive remarks are not taken lightly by those on the receiving end of them ... From one veteran to another, Senator McCain, please be brave and courageous as you have in the past and please rescind your endorsement of Donald Trump.”

And Crystal Cravens, an ex-army sergeant, said: “When Trump attacks the Khan family, he attacks all military families who have lived experiences that Trump will never know. Trump’s message seeks to divide our country, and a nation divided against itself cannot stand.

“Do not be afraid to condemn this man; he does not represent what this country stands for. Senator McCain, please stand with your fellow veterans, good men and women who sacrificed themselves for this country.”

The petition on MoveOn.org was started by Perry O’Brien, who served as a medic in Afghanistan with the 82nd Airborne Division and was discharged as a conscientious objector in 2004. “Every vet I know is absolutely outraged,” he said on Wednesday. “Trump is someone who clearly does not share core American values and the values that we in the military hold dear: respect, sacrifice, selflessness.

“When he said he’s always wanted a Purple Heart, it showed he doesn’t know what a Purple Heart is. It’s like saying: ‘I want to be shot in the face’ or ‘I want to be blown up’. He doesn’t have a certain awareness that there are some things you don’t do or don’t say in this country. Even George W Bush knew not to personally slander a gold star mother.”

Trump received five deferments – four for university, one for medical reasons (heel spurs) – from the military draft for the Vietnam war. O’Brien, an organiser of the #VetsvHate campaign and Common Defense political action committee, added: “I’ve heard a lot of Vietnam veterans joke: ‘Thank God he got a deferment and I didn’t have Donald Trump at my back.’”

Asked about the prospect of Trump as commander-in-chief, O’Brien remarked: “His recklessness, his instinct towards authoritarianism, his unhealthy attraction towards dictators – all these things raise questions. Why would a soldier go to fight knowing that, if they’re killed, President Donald Trump would slander their family? Who would enlist knowing he would attack their mother if she disagrees with him?”

During rallies, Trump has repeatedly stressed his support for the military and pledged to improve conditions for veterans. A Fox News poll, based on interviews with 1,022 randomly chosen registered voters from 31 July to 2 August, found him still leading Hillary Clinton among veterans by 53%-39%. But the survey also found that 77% of voters are familiar with the exchange between Trump and the Khans, and 69% describe his attacks on the family as “out of bounds”.

The Khans appeared at the Democratic convention last week. Brandishing a copy of the US constitution, Khizr Khan criticised Trump’s plan to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the country and said Trump has “sacrificed nothing and no one”. Trump hit back by denigrating the Khans on Twitter and in television appearances, including suggesting that Ghazala Khan did not speak on stage because “maybe she wasn’t allowed to have anything to say”.

His attitude towards the Khans – known as “gold star” parents because of their loss – seems to have crossed a line for some. David Callaway, a former Marine corps physician who served in Iraq and Kuwait in 2003, said: “For me it boils down to this: when you are in the military, you swear this oath and it’s service above self. For Trump, it’s all about service to self.

“He has never served any other cause except for his own greed and wealth, and for veterans the idea that this man would support and defend the constitution and the ideals on which our country was founded – that being liberty, equality, opportunity – initially was comical and now it’s just frightening.”

Callaway, 42, from Charlotte, North Carolina, added: “There’s no longer anybody who can make a rational argument that he’s just being unpredictable or he’s trying to keep our opponents on their toes, or he wants to spice up the debate. He’s just a petty demagogue and he will attack anybody at the slightest provocation and that’s not who we need as the commander-in-chief of our military.”

A friend, Dan McCready, served in the marine corps from 2005-09, and was then an inactive reserve, rising to captain. “In my view, Trump is the greatest threat to our constitution and our democracy of my lifetime, and people must view this as a final straw,” the 33-year-old said.

“I think a lot of Americans are living in a Facebook and Fox News distortion field. What I hear from many friends who are conservative is that Clinton is just as bad, that people view the selection as two equally bad choices. I think if you look at the facts and draw your information from reasonable sources, what Trump is doing and what he said is a thousand times worse than what Hillary has done and what Hillary has said.

“It makes me sick to my stomach,” McCready continued. “I think of the hundreds of thousands of Americans who gave up their one precious life for our country. He completely dishonours them. I think Mr and Mrs Khan represent what’s best about America and his belittling them, it really makes me sick.”

Not everyone agrees. In a response to questions from the Guardian posted on the Veterans for Trump website, the webmaster, Michael Kelly, said: “I struggle to understand how so much media attention is given to Mr Khan and virtually nothing given to Pat Smith and Charles Woods [parents of soldiers who died in the 2012 Benghazi attack who have criticised Clinton]. No, I still support Trump over Clinton.”

He added: “Donald Trump displays the ‘rugged individualism’ that makes America great. He exemplifies leadership qualities that I came to admire during my 23 years of military service.”

On Wednesday, Adam Kinzinger, a Republican congressman who is a veteran of the Iraq war, said he cannot support Trump in the wake of the row. “I don’t see how I get to Donald Trump anymore,” he told CNN. “Donald Trump for me is beginning to cross a lot of red lines of the unforgivable in politics.”"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/aug/04/us-military-veterans-donald-trump-petition-john-mccain

 :cheers:


----------



## muskrat89 (4 Aug 2016)

To be fair, there's lots of veterans who have endorsed trump too...


----------



## cupper (5 Aug 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> To be fair, there's lots of veterans who have endorsed trump too...



Tomorrows headline:

*Trump creates split within the Veteran Community*

 [


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Aug 2016)

Hillary announced yesterday that she would tax the middle class more. :-[

http://www.newsmax.com/DeroyMurdock/middle-podesta-kaine-tax/2016/08/04/id/742193/

Standing before am adoring crowd in Omaha on Monday, Hillary Rodham Clinton read from her teleprompter and shouted:

“I’m telling you right now, we’re going to write fairer rules for the middle class, and we are going to raise taxes on the middle class.”

The Democratic presidential nominee did not correct that statement, nor had her campaign, at this writing. Clinton’s official website claims that she wants to offer “tax relief to working families,” although it says nothing about tax cuts for Americans who are single, childless, or both. 

As of now, Clinton is on record as advocating tax hikes on America’s middle class.


----------



## Remius (5 Aug 2016)

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/clinton-trump-ivanka-cabinet/index.html

I can't really say I didn't see this coming.  His kids are actually are one of his better assets in this campaign.

Interesting to see if this takes off or if it was just a passing comment.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Aug 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> ... just a passing comment.


Trump?  Never ...  >


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Aug 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> As to Obama's experience, I think that you are glossing over the fact that in the eleven years before he became president he was a state senator from 1997 until 2004 when he resigned to run for the US Senate, a position he held until 2008. That's eleven years working in legislatures and is a pretty decent level of experience for a president; in fact it's six more years than GW Bush had (no legislative experience but governor of Texas from 1995-2000)



Apples and paper clips.  

GW had _executive_ experience for those years.  And I would offer that Mr Obama's experience as a legislator actually hindered him in his job; he's executive branch who acted as though he were legislative.  

Mr Trump's experience as a CEO isn't worthless regarding his potential as POTUS.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Aug 2016)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> GW had _executive_ experience for those years.  And I would offer that Mr Obama's experience as a legislator actually hindered him in his job; he's executive branch who acted as though he were legislative.
> 
> Mr Trump's experience as a CEO isn't worthless regarding his potential as POTUS.


When you put it that way, then the question becomes:  is _political_ experience less or more important (best to understand how a system works before you try to "execute" within it) than _executive_ experience (best to know how to make things happen before you try to make things happen in a new environment) for a president?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Aug 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> When you put it that way, then the question becomes:  is _political_ experience less or more important (best to understand how a system works before you try to "execute" within it) than _executive_ experience (best to know how to make things happen before you try to make things happen in a new environment) for a president?



Good corporate managers surround themselves with SME's. The nuts and bolts belong to them. They are the ones that navigate the machinations of the system.

Truth be told, it might be good to have a person with business acumen as POTUS, instead of pure politicians.


----------



## cupper (5 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Truth be told, it might be good to have a person with business acumen as POTUS, instead of pure politicians.



If by business acumen you mean multiple bankruptcies, several failed business ventures, countless litigation for failure to pay legitimate debts, and questionable financial practices, then Trump is your man.


----------



## CougarKing (5 Aug 2016)

Something these GOP members will regret if Trump wins?

Reuters



> *In slap at Trump, some wealthy Republicans campaign for Clinton*
> 
> By: Olivia Oran and Amanda Becker, Reuters
> August 5, 2016 9:43 PM
> ...


----------



## CougarKing (5 Aug 2016)

I once saw a Newsweek political cartoon that parodied a General MacArthur quote by saying "Old Soldiers never die... They just go on CNN"

Marine Corps Times



> *Former Joint Chiefs chairman: Retired generals shouldn't speak at political conventions*
> 
> 
> Retired Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is arguing that retired general officers should not endorse political candidates.
> ...


----------



## mariomike (5 Aug 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> I once saw a Newsweek political cartoon that parodied a General MacArthur quote by saying "Old Soldiers never die... They just go on CNN"
> 
> Marine Corps Times


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Aug 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> If by business acumen you mean multiple bankruptcies, several failed business ventures, countless litigation for failure to pay legitimate debts, and questionable financial practices, then Trump is your man.



Back up there Capt Liberty, I just made an observation. No names, no packdrill.

But seeing as you brought it up, if by business acumen, you mean multiple bankruptcies, several failed business ventures, countless litigation for failure to pay legitimate debts, and questionable financial practices, never being able to tell the truth, then Clinton is your pick.


----------



## cupper (5 Aug 2016)

Hey, I in no way would claim that either Clinton has business acumen.

In fact, her e-mail server debacle shows that in spades. Why in the hell would you pay for something your employer is willing to give you for free?   ;D


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (5 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Back up there Capt Liberty, I just made an observation. No names, no packdrill.
> 
> But seeing as you brought it up, if by business acumen, you mean multiple bankruptcies, several failed business ventures, countless litigation for failure to pay legitimate debts, and questionable financial practices, never being able to tell the truth, then Clinton is your pick.



Trump has 4 bankruptcies, not including Trump U (which was a joke). You could add the US FL too, though it's more Debateable.  Though.... good business sense in driving a CFL-ish league to compete against the NFL.

regardless... unless the polls change, Trump is, thankfully, about to be rolled Dukakis style


----------



## QV (5 Aug 2016)

A little early to make that call, don't you think?

Since Trump is a billionaire and his family seems well put together... I would classify that as success.  

Trump may be a blow hard at times but it seems to me that he is genuine in his intent to try and improve America, whereas I don't get that feeling from crooked Hillary.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Aug 2016)

QV said:
			
		

> Trump may be a blow hard at times but it seems to me that he is genuine in his intent to try and improve America, whereas I don't get that feeling from crooked Hillary.



Never really been interested in this subject but I agree with you 100% there.  He doesn't seem like a politician to me which is why I like him.  He seems like the kind of guy to send in tanks or drones against ISIS. Hillary seems like the type to poison their wells.

Also Hillary has a bunch of odd videos of her on the net making weird faces and acting all fucked up- I'm pretty sure she's possessed.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Aug 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Also Hillary has a bunch of odd videos of her on the net making weird faces and acting all ****ed up- I'm pretty sure she's possessed.



That's because she's had years of training on how to act in public as a politician, everything is forced. She's the Manchurian Candidate.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (5 Aug 2016)

QV said:
			
		

> A little early to make that call, don't you think?
> 
> Since Trump is a billionaire and his family seems well put together... I would classify that as success.
> 
> Trump may be a blow hard at times but it seems to me that he is genuine in his intent to try and improve America, whereas I don't get that feeling from crooked Hillary.



Hence the, "if the polls hold up" part of the comment.


----------



## cupper (5 Aug 2016)

You are all F'ing insane.

Congratulations, you now qualify to run as the Republican nominee for President of the United States.

Please line up and get your dead animal tupee and your Let's Make America Great Again novelty trucker hat.

Now, raise your right hand and repeat after me: 

"I will be a spectacular President, as only I can be. I will build a wall and Mexico will pay for it. Crooked Hillary should be locked up. And Putin is a great man who will help us find those missing e-mails. And as it says in Two Corinthians, Lying Ted's father met with Owsald just before he killed Kennedy. So help me God."


Yuge smilie!   ;D


----------



## cupper (5 Aug 2016)

That's it. I no longer have any faith in Donald Trump.

It is now obvious that he will stoop to any level to pander for votes, principles be damned.

He has come out and endorsed Paul Ryan in his bid to hold his congressional seat.

I ask you sir, have you no decency?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (5 Aug 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> That's because she's had years of training on how to act in public as a politician, everything is forced. She's the Manchurian Candidate.



Or she might just not be particularly comfortable in those settings, like our previous PM. They both appear to have a tough time actually getting people to like them, which impacted their ratings and polling numbers.


----------



## cavalryman (5 Aug 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> I ask you sir, have you no decency?


Decency seems to have vanished from American politics circa Bill Clinton.   :nod:


----------



## muskrat89 (6 Aug 2016)

> Trump has 4 bankruptcies, not including Trump U (which was a joke). You could add the US FL too, though it's more Debateable.  Though.... good business sense in driving a CFL-ish league to compete against the NFL.





> If by business acumen you mean multiple bankruptcies, several failed business ventures, countless litigation for failure to pay legitimate debts, and questionable financial practices, then Trump is your man.



Wow - even Snopes takes issue with your lack of context....


http://www.snopes.com/2016/08/01/donald-trumps-bankruptcies/




> Many of the United States' largest and most prominent businesses have filed for (and emerged from) Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection one or more times, including General Motors, Charter Communications, Delta Air Lines, Kmart, Macy's, and the Texas Rangers baseball team.


----------



## muskrat89 (6 Aug 2016)

Oh - the whole hollering at the baby's mom thing? Funny - the baby's Mom wasn't offended...

http://www.chicksontheright.com/mother-of-crying-baby-mr-trump-never-kicked-me-or-my-child-out/



> “Hello, this message is for Donald J. Trump. I was the mother in his rally on Tuesday, August 2nd, in Ashburn, VA, with the baby who started to cry. I would just like him to know personally that I, by no means felt I was ever “kicked out” of his rally. I excused myself and my child when he awoke from his nap and began to cry. It was only because I had to grab my child’s belongings and then make my way out of the aisle I was seated in that I wasn’t out of there sooner. I realize Mr. Trump doesn’t know me personally, but for those that do, know that I am the first one to excuse myself and my child when he begins to cry because I personally believe it’s rude to disturb anyone else’s ability to hear what they came to see. I’ve left movies, violin recitals, and other events if I felt my child was disturbing others. It is the considerate thing to do. I stood right outside the doors of the auditorium continuing to watch and listen to what Mr. Trump had to say. In fact, the police that were right outside in the same hallway with me, treated me with so much respect it was incredible. They were so kind and made me feel welcomed to stand with them. One officer commended me on my bravery to bring my child to Mr. Trump’s rally. I fully support Mr. Trump. I thought he responded very graciously to my child crying and he made a lighthearted moment out of what I usually consider to be stressful. I actually was out of the auditorium before he even made his follow up comment about my child and even then, when I was informed of his comment, I laughed. I understand he says things jokingly, and I understand no one wants to speak over or struggle to listen over a crying baby. I am in no way offended and I again reiterate, Mr. Trump NEVER kicked me or my child out of the Briar Woods High School, Trump rally. And for the record, while my child and I stood outside of the auditorium, my eleven year old stepdaughter and my Grandmother sat inside the auditorium and continued to support and listen to everything Mr. Trump had to say. We all were so excited to be able to see Mr. Trump so close to home. I didn’t have a babysitter to watch my kids and honestly, to me it was a historical moment that I am happy that my kids were there for. I apologize for the trouble this has caused Mr. Trump. The media has severely blown this out of proportion and made it out to be something that it wasn’t and is clearly using this as political gain for the Democratic party. I hope this message sheds light to what really happened.”
> 
> “Thank you for your time. Best of luck! You have our vote. Trump 2016”



Look, I'm not a Trump fan. For the first time in twenty years, I'm glad I'm not a Citizen and won't be voting. That being said, the prevalence of anti-Trump bias in  the media, and the near-obsession with Trump (negative) from many of my Canadian friends - based mostly on Facebook posts and Huffington Post articles it seems - is annoying. The only reason I post anything it all is tor try and add some balance to the discussion.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Aug 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Oh - the whole hollering at the baby's mom thing? Funny - the baby's Mom wasn't offended...
> 
> http://www.chicksontheright.com/mother-of-crying-baby-mr-trump-never-kicked-me-or-my-child-out/
> 
> Look, I'm not a Trump fan. For the first time in twenty years, I'm glad I'm not a Citizen and won't be voting. That being said, the prevalence of anti-Trump bias in  the media, and the near-obsession with Trump (negative) from many of my Canadian friends - based mostly on Facebook posts and Huffington Post articles it seems - is annoying. The only reason I post anything it all is tor try and add some balance to the discussion.



I agree. Neither front candidates are any good, but this whole thread is a Trump thumping. It has fallen into the same trap as the rest of the election coverage. Everyone is focussed on Trump and giving Clinton a buy. Let's swing the spotlight to her for a change and balance out the thread.


----------



## FJAG (6 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I agree. Neither front candidates are any good, but this whole thread is a Trump thumping. It has fallen into the same trap as the rest of the election coverage. Everyone is focussed on Trump and giving Clinton a buy bye. Let's swing the spotlight to her for a change and balance out the thread.



FTFY

Actually most of us here aren't giving her a bye and don't like her much more than you do. The reason it may feel like we're piling on vis a vis Trump is that most of us think that Trump is by a far margin the biggest a**hole in the race and, unlike Hilary who has a reasonable track record and proven abilities, is a clear and present danger to society.

The trouble is that there are only two choices and deciding not to vote heightens the risk that Trump may sneak in. A lot of Americans are going to have to suck it up, hold there noses and vote for Hillary regardless.

 :cheers:


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Aug 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> FTFY
> 
> Actually most of us here aren't giving her a bye and don't like her much more than you do. The reason it may feel like we're piling on vis a vis Trump is that most of us think that Trump is by a far margin the biggest a**hole in the race and, unlike Hilary who has a reasonable track record and proven abilities, is a clear and present danger to society.
> 
> ...



And trust, in either case, that their much vaunted system of "checks and balances" actually works.

I keep thinking that, if the system does work, and Trump gets in, it may be just the thing necessary to kill "The Imperial Presidency" and, perhaps, the Party System as it works in the US.


----------



## FJAG (6 Aug 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And trust, in either case, that their much vaunted system of "checks and balances" actually works.
> 
> I keep thinking that, if the system does work, and Trump gets in, it may be just the thing necessary to kill "The Imperial Presidency" and, perhaps, the Party System as it works in the US.



That reminds me of a book I read a few years ago about the Duke of Wellington and a comment of his around the time that he became prime minister (1828). It seems that before then, even though there were already political parties, most members of parliament voted their conscience (or self interest or their constituent's interest) rather than a party line. Around this time the start of "whipping" the members into voting the way that the party leaders were directing was becoming more and more common. Wellington was of the view that voting by parties would spell the end of democracy.

 :cheers:


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Aug 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> That reminds me of a book I read a few years ago about the Duke of Wellington and a comment of his around the time that he became prime minister (1828). It seems that before then, even though there were already political parties, most members of parliament voted their conscience (or self interest or their constituent's interest) rather than a party line. Around this time the start of "whipping" the members into voting the way that the party leaders were directing was becoming more and more common. Wellington was of the view that voting by parties would spell the end of democracy.
> 
> :cheers:



He had a nose for strategy.


----------



## muskrat89 (6 Aug 2016)

> A lot of Americans are going to *will* have to suck it up, hold there noses and vote for Hillary *Trump* regardless.



FTFY

It amazes me how many of you are so sure that Trump will spell certain disaster for our country. For you armchair elitists and pontificators north of the border, there's almost half this country that doesn't feel the last 8 years have been all that great...

Granted, most of my circles run in the zone right of center, but the vast majority of my friends and business colleagues are voting for Trump. Some of them are physicians, some are women, some are people of colour, many are accomplished business people, all are educated. None are rednecks, none are bigots.

You know, all I heard growing up was "arrogant Americans"; now I read Canadian opinions and comments on the internet and some are thoughtful, even when I don't agree. On the other hand, most make me wonder when the roles reversed....

If Americans were opining so strongly about Canadian politics, some of you would be going out of your minds.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Aug 2016)

Hillary Clinton presents her own "clear and present danger", on two points: her willingness to subordinate the interests of the nation to the interests of the Clinton family; the unlikelihood that anyone she appoints/selects for her administration will be chosen for ability rather than servile lickspittle loyalty.  I can't envision anyone in a Clinton administration challenging her on anything, ever, because I can't envision her ever appointing a person with that kind of character.

Suppose someone got something highly controversial off the email server, and attempts blackmail.  Which response do you think is likely: meet the demands (presumably at a cost to the US but not Clinton Inc), or "publish and be damned, sir"?


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Aug 2016)

The Trump campaign hired Cambridge Analytica,which was the firm behind the successful Brexit vote.

http://www.thewrap.com/donald-trump-campaign-brexit-move/

Donald Trump and his team have upped their game to win the race for the White House by hiring the company that got the Brexit message to millions, resulting in the split of Great Britain from the European Union.

Cambridge Analytica is a marketing film that targets voters (and potential donors) based on their unconscious psychological biases.

The strategic communications company also worked with former GOP candidates Ted Cruz, Ben Carson and the “Leave.EU” campaign in the United Kingdom. According to the Daily Beast, Cambridge Analytica “went after first-time voters and those who felt left out of the political process, the kinds of people that Trump was successful bringing to the polls in primary elections.”


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Aug 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> FTFY
> 
> It amazes me how many of you are so sure that Trump will spell certain disaster for our country. For you armchair elitists and pontificators north of the border, there's almost half this country that doesn't feel the last 8 years have been all that great...
> 
> ...



Drove through Washington State a couple of weeks back.  Saw half a dozen Trump signs along the highway.  Zero Clinton signs.


----------



## FJAG (6 Aug 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> He had a nose for strategy.



I saw what you did there.  

 :cheers:


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Aug 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I saw what you did there.
> 
> :cheers:



Hard to miss....


----------



## a_majoor (7 Aug 2016)

More on why Trump (and Bernie Sanders) are symptoms rather than the problem in this election cycle. The same thinking behind the failed public pensions and the mendacity which allowed this to take place and attempt to cover up the unfolding disaster in other parts of the West led to the Brexit and the growth of Nativist parties in Europe as well. (The actual subject matter, failed public pensions and the trillions in dollars in unfunded liabilities could go in the "Grand Strategy for a Divided America" thread, or even "Making Canada Relevant Again economic superthread" (considering our own $500 billion + in unfunded liabilities for Federal pensions).

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/08/04/actuarial-establishment-tries-to-suppress-explosive-paper-on-public-pensions/



> *Actuarial Establishment Tries to Suppress Explosive Paper on Public Pensions*
> 
> America’s slow-motion public pension train-wreck (by some estimates, the shortfall currently exceeds $3 trillion) has been kept in motion for years by deeply dishonest accounting practices employed by state and local governments, which presume unrealistically that pension funds can consistently earn white-hot annual returns approaching eight percent. So it’s disappointing, but not particularly surprising, that the actuarial establishment moved to suppress a report pointing this out. Pensions and Investments reports:
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Aug 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Suppose someone got something highly controversial off the email server, and attempts blackmail.  Which response do you think is likely: meet the demands (presumably at a cost to the US but not Clinton Inc), or "publish and be damned, sir"?



She'll just have them commit suicide, like the rest that got in her way. ;D  What's the count with the new guy from the DNC that was going to testify. He makes 43. :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## cupper (7 Aug 2016)

Trump's biggest problem is that he forgets that there is this thing called television, and it has this thing called video archives.

http://youtu.be/kSE-XoVKaXg


I particularly like his criticism on Vincente Fox swearing in an interview about not paying for that €%#£ wall.

 ;D


----------



## muskrat89 (7 Aug 2016)

> Trump's biggest problem is that he forgets that there is this thing called television, and it has this thing called video archives.



Like that doesnt work both ways?  LOL

https://youtu.be/vGqD8-a-REQ

https://youtu.be/wbkS26PX4rc


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Aug 2016)

It would seem that the USA is living this quote from Churchill:

'Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others'


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Aug 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Like that doesnt work both ways?  LOL
> 
> https://youtu.be/vGqD8-a-REQ
> 
> https://youtu.be/wbkS26PX4rc



:rofl:  I am loving this circus this election.


----------



## cupper (7 Aug 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Like that doesnt work both ways?  LOL
> 
> https://youtu.be/vGqD8-a-REQ
> 
> https://youtu.be/wbkS26PX4rc



Never said it didn't. But you forgot rule number 3 of political campaigns. Anything said or brought up in a previous campaign cannot be used in a future campaign. Just isn't kosher.  ;D

But you have to admit, Trump is just so much better at it and much more entertaining too.



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> :rofl:  I am loving this circus this election.



Me too. And I have the added bonus that Hillary feels her chances of taking Virginia are good enough that she's pulled her ads.  For that alone I'd vote for her. Many times. Over and over again.

 ;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (7 Aug 2016)

People are wondering if Hillary is sick or just very tired.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/hillarys-dark-side-strange-man-observed-hillary-leads-questions-health/


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Aug 2016)

Soooo, which is it, then?

_"Intelligence Community ‘Fear’ A Hillary Clinton Presidency"_
_"America's Top Spies and Analysts Warn of Real Threat of a Trump Presidency: 5 Leaders Who Have Spoken out"_


----------



## muskrat89 (7 Aug 2016)

> Soooo, which is it, then?
> 
> "Intelligence Community ‘Fear’ A Hillary Clinton Presidency"
> "America's Top Spies and Analysts Warn of Real Threat of a Trump Presidency: 5 Leaders Who Have Spoken out"



Probably both - and therein lies the problem :-/


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (8 Aug 2016)

Finally, a campaign to get behind...... Best of both worlds really... 

B list Celebrity (Trump)- CHECK!

Famous in the early 90's (Hillary)- CHECK!


----------



## cupper (8 Aug 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Finally, a campaign to get behind...... Best of both worlds really...
> 
> B list Celebrity (Trump)- CHECK!
> 
> Famous in the early 90's (Hillary)- CHECK!



And he even has an issue with plagerism!  ;D


----------



## mariomike (8 Aug 2016)

> People are wondering if Hillary is sick or just very tired.



Regarding peoples right to know,

Do voters have the right to know presidential candidates' health histories?
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/14/health/presidential-candidate-health-disclosure/


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Aug 2016)

And the Amish have been asked for their voting intentions.



> 'No Amish is going to vote for Hillary': Pennsylvania community mostly backs Trump
> 
> Despite 'too much bragging' by Trump, Amish against social liberalism and voting for a woman
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/amish-community-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-us-election-1.3711008


----------



## Remius (8 Aug 2016)

Back to actual elections. 

Trump outlines his economic policy.   Should be interesting.  He seems to favour re-opening the Keystone Pipeline issue.

He could start making some headway if he shows his strength on the economy.  something he is likely going to better at than Clinton.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/trump-talks-economics-keystone-pipeline-in-detroit-today-1.3711541


----------



## Remius (8 Aug 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Oh - the whole hollering at the baby's mom thing? Funny - the baby's Mom wasn't offended...
> 
> http://www.chicksontheright.com/mother-of-crying-baby-mr-trump-never-kicked-me-or-my-child-out/
> 
> Look, I'm not a Trump fan. For the first time in twenty years, I'm glad I'm not a Citizen and won't be voting. That being said, the prevalence of anti-Trump bias in  the media, and the near-obsession with Trump (negative) from many of my Canadian friends - based mostly on Facebook posts and Huffington Post articles it seems - is annoying. The only reason I post anything it all is tor try and add some balance to the discussion.



Just to add some context to this as well. 

I'm not a Trump fan either.  But context seems to be something people forget when getting on the bandwagon.

http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-crying-baby/


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Aug 2016)

We all know she's crazy as a bag of bats, but this may give her an excuse:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqbDBRWb63s


----------



## muskrat89 (8 Aug 2016)

> We all know she's crazy as a bag of bats, but this may give her an excuse:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OqbDBRWb63s



http://theralphretort.com/breaking-hillarys-handler-carrying-auto-injector-syringe-anti-seizure-drug-diazepam-8007016/

Wow - they're all a tizzy about her seizures. I'm not sure why it's relevant to her ability to run the country...


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Aug 2016)

Not a medic but seizures could result in a stroke,not good if you are Commander in Chief.


----------



## muskrat89 (8 Aug 2016)

> Not a medic but seizures could result in a stroke,not good if you are Commander in Chief.



Well I get that, but that's why there's a defined succession plan. Lots of Presidents have had significant health issues. I guess I'm not saying "it's nothing", but not seeing it as a disaster either..


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Aug 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> http://theralphretort.com/breaking-hillarys-handler-carrying-auto-injector-syringe-anti-seizure-drug-diazepam-8007016/
> 
> Wow - they're all a tizzy about her seizures. I'm not sure why it's relevant to her ability to run the country...



None of what was "reported" is consistent with a seizure.


----------



## mariomike (9 Aug 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> None of what was "reported" is consistent with a seizure.



I'm not a doctor, but it's not like any seizure I ever saw.

Having said that, these two presidential candidates are 69/70 years old. I had to pass a medical every three years to keep my job. After age 65, it would have been every year. 
Perhaps unbiased medicals should be considered for presidential candidates? With these two, if I was an eligible voter, I would be checking out their VP candidates "in case of emergency".

We need unbiased medical exams for presidential candidates
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-health-medical-exam-trump-clinton-president-perspec-0518-20160517-story.html


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Aug 2016)

There is something wrong with Hillary,no question.There is video of her making a speech and in mid sentence stop talking.One doctor though it was post concussion syndrome.Here is the video.Running for President can run down even a healthy person.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlxWckQbpug


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Aug 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> There is something wrong with Hillary,no question.There is video of her making a speech and in mid sentence stop talking.One doctor though it was post concussion syndrome.Here is the video.Running for President can run down even a healthy person.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlxWckQbpug



Most people refer to that as choking, in it's more informal sense:

...failing to perform at a crucial point of a game or contest owing to a failure of nerve...


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Aug 2016)

She has an aide who carries an injector for Diazepam in plain sight.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (9 Aug 2016)

My guess is congestive heart failure.  She sat down when others were speaking during debates.  She needs help up stairs.  She never wears skirts so we can't see her swollen ankles and legs.  She coughs up a lot of goo.  I have minor symptoms.  Hillary has major symptoms.  She really wants to be first woman president so badly that she is campaigning on her deathbed.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Aug 2016)

Is it just me, or does it seem that, be it medical diagnoses for Hillary, or mental health diagnoses for Donald, are based more on hearsay, and less on clinicians examining and reporting?


----------



## mariomike (9 Aug 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> She really wants to be first woman president so badly that she is campaigning on her deathbed.





			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or does it seem that, be it medical diagnoses for Hillary, or mental health diagnoses for Donald, are based more on hearsay, and less on clinicians examining and reporting?



"Cruel Bill forces her to stay on campaign trail."


----------



## Lightguns (9 Aug 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Is it just me, or does it seem that, be it medical diagnoses for Hillary, or mental health diagnoses for Donald, are based more on hearsay, and less on clinicians examining and reporting?



It was the same with Regan, he was supposed to die in office and his apparently crazy VP was going to nuke the Soviets as I recall.


----------



## mariomike (9 Aug 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> It was the same with Regan, he was supposed to die in office and his apparently crazy VP was going to nuke the Soviets as I recall.



"We begin bombing in five minutes."  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv13ZnkpWos

American Evita?


----------



## Rocky Mountains (9 Aug 2016)

I suspect those legs are full of fluid from a weak heart and circulation issues.  Remember that she would be treated for heart disease and she still looks this bad.  Note that she has given up on skirts.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Aug 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> "Cruel Bill forces her to stay on campaign trail."


Just the tabloids keep talking about the "Dying Queen Elizabeth" -- at some point, they'll be right and say, "We _TOLD_ you she was dying."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Aug 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> "Cruel Bill forces her to stay on campaign trail."



Billy likes campaigning, he gets to meet more women and Hillary is pre-occupied. ;D


----------



## mariomike (9 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Billy likes campaigning, he gets to meet more women and Hillary is pre-occupied. ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Aug 2016)

:goodpost:

I'm stealing that. ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Aug 2016)

Try this on for size:

New Hilary campaign strategy -

I know you don't like me.

I know you don't like Trump.

But vote for me anyway.  There's a chance I may croak in office and you get a do over.  

Too vicious?


----------



## GAP (9 Aug 2016)

Nah, just to early......try again in October....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Aug 2016)

GAP said:
			
		

> Nah, just to early......try again in October....



If she makes it til then.


----------



## cupper (9 Aug 2016)

BS and joking aside, the VP pick is significant when the top of the ticket is of questionable health or of an age that not serving out a full term may be an issue. John McCain is a prime example of why this matters, and even more so when looking at the trainwreck that was Palin post 2008.


----------



## cupper (9 Aug 2016)

Interesting article on just how much the GOP has fallen and given up in their rabidly dogged pursuit of destroying Obama through the last 8 years.

*The Republicans tried to sink Obama. Instead, the party imploded*

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/aug/09/gop-tried-sink-obama-imploded-extremism



> It may seem too early to call, but we already have a winner in the 2016 election.
> 
> He’s someone the pundits wrote off long ago. An improbable outsider who rode an insurgent wave to snatch the nomination from the establishment. An unconventional politician whose raucous rallies underscored his appeal to voters far outside his party base.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (9 Aug 2016)

*THIRTY THINGS DONALD TRUMP’S ADVISERS MANAGED TO PERSUADE HIM NOT TO DO LAST MONTH*

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/daily-shouts/thirty-things-donald-trumps-advisers-managed-to-persuade-him-not-to-do-last-month?intcid=mod-most-popular



> 1. Enter the Quicken Loans Arena riding on Chris Christie.
> 
> 2. Open a rally in Dayton, Ohio, by making fun of Mitch McConnell’s neck.
> 
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Aug 2016)

DNC staffer who was murdered was a wikileaks informant.Crazy stuff.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/wow-breaking-video-julian-assange-suggests-seth-rich-wikileaks-dnc-source-shot-dead-dc/


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Aug 2016)

Jeffrey Archer wouldn't dare to write this plot line.........


----------



## dapaterson (9 Aug 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Jeffrey Archer wouldn't dare to write this plot line.........



Is he out of jail?


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Aug 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Is he out of jail?



2003 apparently.... and still Baron Archer


----------



## cupper (10 Aug 2016)

Assange needs to STFU.

http://www.snopes.com/seth-conrad-rich/


----------



## dapaterson (10 Aug 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> 2003 apparently.... and still Baron Archer



#CanPoliDigression  Hmm.. I see where Canada's Senate gets it, then - convicted perjurer, yet still a Lord.  A role model for The Duffster.


----------



## cupper (10 Aug 2016)

Trump's economic plan apparently includes breast augmentation.

http://youtu.be/IJigwEikRwY


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Aug 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Trump's economic plan apparently includes breast augmentation.
> 
> http://youtu.be/IJigwEikRwY



Why, is he going to become a stripper if he loses the bid?


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Aug 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> #CanPoliDigression  Hmm.. I see where Canada's Senate gets it, then - convicted perjurer, yet still a Lord.  A role model for The Duffster.



Lords are lords regardless of whether or not they are party bagmen, or if they have a seat in the House.  They are lords because they always have been and are entirely separate from the jumped up johnnies dumped in their seats by these political types..... Donchano?  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (10 Aug 2016)

Interesting take on how the Legacy media works:

https://pjmedia.com/diaryofamadvoter/2016/08/09/real-reason-msm-hates-trump/?singlepage=true



> *The Real Reason the Mainstream Media Hates Trump*
> BY ROGER L SIMON AUGUST 9, 2016 CHAT 276 COMMENTS
> 
> In a much talked about August 7 piece—“Trump Is Testing the Norms of Objectivity in Journalism”—New York Times "mediator" Jim Rutenberg takes the mainstream media out of the closet and publicly declares them in the tank for Hillary.
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Aug 2016)

The other thing the media doesn't like is that in today's internet age, you can go back and look at the source information for yourself. When we were primarily in the age of print, the press had virtually absolute control of information. Now it's out there for everyone to see for themselves. Sadly, few do.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Aug 2016)

True/Not True?

This is supposed to be a poll conducted by college kids:









[edit to add: https://www.lyingcrookedhillary.com/ is credited at bottom of page as a "Paid for by Donald J. Trump for President, Inc." site]


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Aug 2016)

Interesting find and good question - I can't find the list of questions or stats like margin of error anyplace.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> True/Not True?
> 
> This is supposed to be a poll conducted by college kids:
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (11 Aug 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Interesting find and good question - I can't find the list of questions or stats like margin of error anyplace.



As you follow the money/internet links and see it is sponsored by the Trump campaign, it could just be the Trump propaganda machine at work.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Aug 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> As you follow the money/internet links and see it is sponsored by the Trump campaign, it could just be the Trump propaganda machine at work.


True - pay the piper, call the tune and all that - but one never knows.  I'm going to do a bit deeper dive later this evening for details on this, but the fact that it's not readily available also speaks a bit of some truth.

I'm kinda intrigued from a statistical standpoint re:  more responses _*can*_ generally make results closer to "reality," but you can't tell without a bit more detail than what's on the graphic that's out there.

Also, like others smarter than me here (lots, I know), the only poll that counts is the vote - all else are like bikinis:  interesting in what they reveal, but vital in what they don't  ;D


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Aug 2016)

If Hillary Clinton wins an electoral college majority but suffers an incapacitating health event before the inauguration (incompetent to take the oath/hold the office), is there a finite span of time during which Barack Obama is no longer president but Joe Biden is still the vice president (the new VP-elect not having been sworn in).  And if so, would Biden automatically ascend to the vacant presidency?


----------



## mariomike (11 Aug 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If Hillary Clinton wins an electoral college majority but suffers an incapacitating health event before the inauguration (incompetent to take the oath/hold the office), is there a finite span of time during which Barack Obama is no longer president but Joe Biden is still the vice president (the new VP-elect not having been sworn in).  And if so, would Biden automatically ascend to the vacant presidency?



I think this is how it would go,

On February 15, 1933, Roosevelt was giving an impromptu speech from the back of an open car in the Bayfront Park area of Miami, Florida, where Zangara was living, working the occasional odd job, and living off his savings. Zangara joined the crowd, armed with a .32-caliber US Revolver Company pistol he had bought for $8 at a local pawn shop. However, being only five feet tall, he was unable to see over other people, and had to stand on a wobbly, metal folding chair, peering over the hat of Lillian Cross to get a clear aim at his target. After the first shot, Cross and others grabbed his arm, and he fired four more shots wildly. Five people were hit, including Chicago mayor Anton Cermak, who was standing on the running board of the car next to Roosevelt. En route to the hospital, Cermak allegedly told Roosevelt, "I'm glad it was me instead of you," words now inscribed on a plaque in Bayfront Park.

Roosevelt was not among those injured during the incident. Had Zangara successfully assassinated him, however, then the Vice President-elect, John Nance Garner would have become President upon the expiry of incumbent President Herbert Hoover's term the following month.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Zangara#Assassination_attempt


----------



## FJAG (11 Aug 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If Hillary Clinton wins an electoral college majority but suffers an incapacitating health event before the inauguration (incompetent to take the oath/hold the office), is there a finite span of time during which Barack Obama is no longer president but Joe Biden is still the vice president (the new VP-elect not having been sworn in).  And if so, would Biden automatically ascend to the vacant presidency?



No. In fact the swearing in of the president and the vice-president take place at the same ceremony and the vice-president is sworn in before the president. Both the president and vice-president begin their terms at noon of inauguration day. In your scenario Kaine would be sworn in as vice-president and immediately take over in an acting position from Obama.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vice_President_Oath_of_Office_(United_States)

 :cheers:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (11 Aug 2016)

It certainly looks like some kind of propaganda.

It is certainly not a method of polling that has even the slightest value or capacity to predict anything.

Just to give a quick example of why: Lets say that in Vermont (pop 625,000) 80% supported Trump (that's 800 out of the 1000 polled), while in California (39,300,000) 65% supported Clinton in the 1000 polled.

Very first thing is that, the two states polls have different values as far as margins of errors are concerned as the proportion of polled population is vastly different. That's a big no-no in statistics.

So using my example, these "students" would have found 1150 votes for Trump and 850 for Clinton. However, On a distributed basis of population (i.e. projecting the values found into the actual population numbers, Clinton would have a wide lead in support, at 25,670,000 against Trump's 14,255,000.Yet, it is important to remember that the Great Electors from each state are somewhat proportional to the state's population, and that they may or may not, depending on the state, be allowed to vote in proportion of the state's popular vote as opposed to block voting for the winner.

You can see right away that those numbers gotten by the "students" don't mean much where every state has the same "1000 polled", with equal weight in the overall figure.

Moreover, Using registered voters list and splitting the vote equally between registered Democrat, Republican and Independent  at 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3, is equally ridiculous unless the number of registered Republican, for instance, is the same as the number of registered Democrat, in any given state. As for the independent, the fact that a registered voter does not lists himself or herself as Democrat or Republican does not in and of itself indicate in any way that they are independent. It may very well be just I want to vote and my vote is secret.


----------



## Old Sweat (11 Aug 2016)

Thanks for that, OGBD. I had problem with both the equal number of voters per state and the methodology. The whole thing sounds made up and certainly is voodoo statistics.


----------



## FJAG (11 Aug 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Thanks for that, OGBD. I had problem with both the equal number of voters per state and the methodology. The whole thing sounds made up and certainly is voodoo statistics.



Especially with that stupid tagline at the bottom of the slide -- "Approved by lyingcrookedhillary.com Paid for by America" - superficial Trump supporter BS at best.

Come on guys. We're all smarter than that; aren't we?

 :cheers:


----------



## GAP (11 Aug 2016)

but....but.....but..they said!!......


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Aug 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Thanks for that, OGBD. I had problem with both the equal number of voters per state and the methodology. The whole thing sounds made up and certainly is voodoo statistics.



Much the same as Clinton's poll numbers, given the fact that the MSM are her PR department. Their polls, at times, are even more unrealistic than this.

The only poll that matters and can be taken for granted is, on election day, when the vote is the poll.


----------



## cupper (11 Aug 2016)

Another thing to note about the stats, nation wide there are more registered Democrats than registered Republicans.

And I believe that in Vermont, they do not register party affiliation, which is why Sanders can claim to be a Democrat while still saying he is an independent.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (11 Aug 2016)

I think there is a distinction to be made here, Cupper.

Unless I am mistaken, the need to register with a party affiliation is to participate in the primaries or caucuses of those parties for the choice of their nominee (with the exception of those states that permit a vote in the primaries by anyone who has not claimed to be affiliated with an other party). You do not have to register with any affiliation if you do so in order to vote in the election of the state's Great Electors (i.e. the actual presidential election).

That's how I've always understood the system to work.


----------



## cupper (11 Aug 2016)

Seems that Both Clinton and Trump have an aversion to being completely truthful, or prefer to leave a lot of what they say open for interpretation as to the level of truthiness. Clinton comes by it from her experience as a lawyer and multiple times in front of inquiries. Trump just seems to prefer to stretch things out of obsession or compulsion.

*Even under oath, Trump struggled with the truth*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/classic-apps/even-under-oath-trump-struggled-with-the-truth/2016/08/09/07ee5d22-5818-11e6-831d-0324760ca856_story.html



> The lawyer gave Donald Trump a note, written in Trump’s own handwriting. He asked Trump to read it aloud.
> 
> Trump may not have realized it yet, but he had walked into a trap.
> 
> ...



And it's another example of how Trump also seeks out to hurt anyone whom he feels has attacked him in any way, without thinking of what the costs and outcomes will be.

And it shows that he really is not a legal whiz, and should have been advised against this action.


----------



## cupper (11 Aug 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I think there is a distinction to be made here, Cupper.
> 
> Unless I am mistaken, the need to register with a party affiliation is to participate in the primaries or caucuses of those parties for the choice of their nominee (with the exception of those states that permit a vote in the primaries by anyone who has not claimed to be affiliated with an other party). You do not have to register with any affiliation if you do so in order to vote in the election of the state's Great Electors (i.e. the actual presidential election).
> 
> That's how I've always understood the system to work.



That is true, and it becomes relevant depending on whether your state has open or closed primaries. Open primaries allow voters to cast votes in either party's primary, but only vote in one or the other, not both. Closed primaries only allow voters who are registered with that specific party to vote in that party's primary.

However as I suspected, there is no Party registration in Vermont. From the VT Sec of State Website FAQ

https://www.sec.state.vt.us/elections/frequently-asked-questions/voter-registration.aspx



> Do I have to register as a Democrat, Republican, Independent or some other party in Vermont?
> 
> No. There is no party registration in Vermont.
> 
> All registered voters can vote in the primary election—but can only vote on one ballot. You will be given a ballot for each of the major parties. You mark one of the ballots and put the remaining unvoted ballots into a discard bin. Which ballot you chose to vote is private and not recorded (except during the presidential primary, where voters must publicly take one ballot or the other, and their choice is recorded on the entrance checklist).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Aug 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Seems that Both Clinton and Trump have an aversion to being completely truthful, or prefer to leave a lot of what they say open for interpretation as to the level of truthiness. Clinton comes by it from her experience as a lawyer and multiple times in front of inquiries. Trump just seems to prefer to stretch things out of obsession or compulsion.
> 
> *Even under oath, Trump struggled with the truth*
> 
> ...



From 2007? Can't find anything more recent? Lied under oath? Was he charged with perjury? Don't think so. More left wing tripe to try create a boogey man.

However, if we're conjecting about people hurting others, what about Killery's 40 something body bags. What about landing in Bosnia under sniper fire. Or:



> The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther – and goes much deeper – than anyone realizes.
> 
> Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.
> 
> ...



Clinton didn't become a liar because she was a lawyer as you contend. She was always a pathological liar.

We could get into Benghazi, but I believe I've made my point.


----------



## Remius (11 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Much the same as Clinton's poll numbers, given the fact that the MSM are her PR department. Their polls, at times, are even more unrealistic than this.
> 
> The only poll that matters and can be taken for granted is, on election day, when the vote is the poll.



Other polls like the ones commissioned by Fox News are showing the same results unfortunately.  Realistically polls open as of sept 9th and continue up until Election Day.  Advance polls, absentee voting in various states etc.  This is why Trump is running out of time. The first votes will be cast in less than a month and frankly, he's being outdone by a better campaign organisation, media bias yes and to be honest his own doing.  

I don't like either candidate for different reasons.  But unless a video of Clinton eating live kittens appears, I think the outcome is starting to become obvious.  Clinton is one of the most disliked candidates in recent history and Trump can't even manage to get the edge.  She has momentum and a much savvier organisation.  

He's on damage control every day.


----------



## tomahawk6 (11 Aug 2016)

As has happened in the past rosy polls for Clinton could act to cut her turnout.Trump supporters are angry and will turn out no matter what.CNN and others are bashing Trump 24/7 with real and made up stories.One telling fact is that Trump continues to have sell out venues while Hillary cant even fill a high school gym.


----------



## cupper (11 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> From 2007? Can't find anything more recent?



Hey, I only had to go back 9 years for my post. You counter with something from Watergate.

I was only 6 years old when that happened. You must have been getting your third bar for you CD at that point.   ;D

Seriously though, as I said upthread, people need to research before they go off half cocked.

*Zeif-geist
Hillary Clinton was not fired from the House Judiciary Committee's Watergate investigation by Chief Counsel Jerry Zeifman.*

http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/zeifman.asp



> CLAIM: Hillary Clinton was fired from the House Judiciary Committee's Watergate investigation by Chief Counsel Jerry Zeifman.
> 
> FALSE
> EXAMPLE: [Collected via e-mail, 2014]
> ...


----------



## cupper (11 Aug 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> But unless a video of Clinton eating live kittens appears, I think the outcome is starting to become obvious.



Never underestimate the cat hater vote. And we dog lovers are a voting block to ignore at your peril.   [


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Aug 2016)

Hey Cupper.  You and Recceguy are debating each other with information found on the internet.........


----------



## cupper (11 Aug 2016)

Well, you know what they say, it must be true, cause it's on the internet, and you aren't allow to post false information on the web. It's the law. Google it. :rofl:


Or to borrow from Trump: "He started it.  [Xp "

Tee Hee


----------



## cupper (11 Aug 2016)

I had a friend from back home call me tonight to find out if everyone down has gone batpoop.

Obama is the founder of IS IS (shout out to Jim Jefferies). Seriously?

But I blew his mind when I filled him in that the real truth goes deeper, and that it was really Obama that lead the Iranian Revolution.

But the deeper conspiracy is that Obama is the real father of Osama Bin Laden.

My friend just couldn't take it any more.

http://youtu.be/5j2F4VcBmeo


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 Aug 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> I had a friend from back home call me tonight to find out if everyone down has gone batpoop.
> 
> Obama is the founder of IS IS (shout out to Jim Jefferies). Seriously?
> 
> ...



To be fair, Trump's family can't even be honest about their family name...


----------



## FJAG (12 Aug 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Hey, I only had to go back 9 years for my post. You counter with something from Watergate.
> 
> I was only 6 years old when that happened. You must have been getting your third bar for you CD at that point.   ;D
> 
> ...



 :goodpost:

Good one, Cupper. When I read the earlier threads raising Zeifman's allegations I also searched his _bona fides_ and came up with numerous conservative repetitions about his allegations as well as a number of "fact checks" which debunks him and which includes the one you quote. For the fun of it, here's one more that talks about Zeifman and whether he really is a "life long democrat" at heart.



> The Newsmax Democrat
> 
> For a self-proclaimed "lifelong Democrat," Jerry Zeifman sure spends a good chunk of his time bashing his alleged fellow Dems on the ConWeb.
> 
> ...



I think that the only thing these numerous internet searches and articles show is that there is absolutely no shortage of commentators, authors, bloggers etc who are more than prepared to fudge the truth and perpetuate previously debunked falsehoods in order to advance their own agendas. (Incidentally, I fact checked Zeifman's "Eleanor Roosevelt" articles and they do in fact exist although one hopes, sincerely, that he doesn't actually believe he really dreamed about Eleanor and is only using an allusion to her to voice his own beliefs.  ;D) One really needs to dig to see which, if any, of these claims have any basis in reality.

 :cheers:


----------



## cupper (12 Aug 2016)

This may shed some light on the skewed polls narritive up thread.

*Who’s Behind A Mysterious Website Saying Polls Are Skewed Against Trump?*

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whos-behind-a-mysterious-website-saying-polls-are-skewed-against-trump/



> AUG 11, 2016 AT 2:25 PM
> 
> Who’s Behind A Mysterious Website Saying Polls Are Skewed Against Trump?
> By Clare Malone
> ...


----------



## Rocky Mountains (12 Aug 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> I had a friend from back home call me tonight to find out if everyone down has gone batpoop.
> Obama is the founder of IS IS (shout out to Jim Jefferies). Seriously?



Oh yeh!  Obama destabilized the Middle East by promoting the Arab Spring dream that turned into a nightmare.  Figuratively speaking Obama was more responsible for the creation of ISIS than anyone.  Not even a debate.  Weaken the stable governments in the Middle East and bail out on Iraq before it achieved stability.


----------



## Remius (12 Aug 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Oh yeh!  Obama destabilized the Middle East by promoting the Arab Spring dream that turned into a nightmare.  Figuratively speaking Obama was more responsible for the creation of ISIS than anyone.  Not even a debate.  Weaken the stable governments in the Middle East and bail out on Iraq before it achieved stability.



Or, or, George Bush who went into there in the first place and destabilised it all...

Both have had their parts to play in that mess.  The founder comment is ridiculous.  I know your a fan but come on.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (12 Aug 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Or, or, George Bush who went into there in the first place and destabilised it all...
> 
> Both have had their parts to play in that mess.  The founder comment is ridiculous.



Ever heard the term metaphor?  Why when Trump speaks metaphorically is he taken literally and when he speaks literally the MSM assumes metaphor, depending on the preferred slant.

Bush - a bit but if we are into ancient history it was really Mr. Sykes and M. Picot.  When Bush left office the situation was relatively stable.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (12 Aug 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Ever heard the term metaphor?  Why when Trump speaks metaphorically is he taken literally and when he speaks literally the MSM assumes metaphor, depending on the preferred slant.
> 
> Bush - a bit but if we are into ancient history it was really Mr. Sykes and M. Picot.  When Bush left office the situation was relatively stable.



I have heard the term metaphor - and so has Trump:

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/watch-surrogate-sits-in-painful-silence-after-cnn-reads-him-trumps-quote-on-obama-founding-isis/



> Donald Trump was given an opportunity to clean up his assertion that President Obama is the “founder of ISIS” on Thursday… and he declined.
> 
> Right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt asked Trump on Thursday if he meant that Obama founded ISIS metaphorically — that is, because he pulled out of Iraq, it created a power vacuum that was filled by ISIS.
> 
> “No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS,” was Trump’s reply.



You can't have it both ways....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Aug 2016)

I don't think Trump would know what a metaphor is if it bit him on the nose.

He meant what he said;
And he said what he meant;
Unless he meant something else;
In which case that something else is what he meant;
You figure it out for yourselves: It's all pretty clear in his mind.

And those are facts;
If they weren't facts, he wouldn't say it;
But he said it so they are facts;
That's what he believes, so it must be true;
And it must be true, cause those are the facts.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Aug 2016)

OGBD - I can't make up my mind if you are channeling R.D. Laing on "experience" or Jean Chretien on "proof".  ;D


----------



## cupper (12 Aug 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> OGBD - I can't make up my mind if you are channeling R.D. Laing on "experience" or Jean Chretien on "proof".  ;D



Or Sarah Palin on what newspapers she reads.  ;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (12 Aug 2016)

Guccifer 2.0 leaked the cell numbers of all democrats in the House of Represenatives.Dont worry I believe the numbers arent visible. 

http://thesmokinggun.com/buster/democratic-national-committee/guccifer-dccc-hack-645891



> In a message today, the hacker branded the U.S. presidential elections a “farce” that is “being settled behind the scenes as it was with Bernie Sanders.” He added, “I wonder what happened to the true democracy, to the equal opportunities, the things we love the United States for. The big money bags are fighting for power today. They are lying constantly and don’t keep their word. The MSM are producing tons of propaganda  hiding the real stuff behind it. But I do believe that people have right to know what’s going on inside the election process in fact.


----------



## cupper (12 Aug 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Guccifer 2.0 leaked the cell numbers of all democrats in the House of Represenatives.Dont worry I believe the numbers arent visible.
> 
> http://thesmokinggun.com/buster/democratic-national-committee/guccifer-dccc-hack-645891



See. This is why Hill wanted her own server, so no one could get a hold of her e-mail ...  ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Aug 2016)

Guccifer is a "Vandal" according to that piece.  He/She hacked the Democrats.

Remind me again:  What were Snowden and Assange called?  And what did they hack?


----------



## muskrat89 (13 Aug 2016)

> Obama is the founder of IS IS (shout out to Jim Jefferies). Seriously?



How about Al Qaeda?

http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin910.htm

https://willyloman.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/clinton-admits-we-created-al-qaeda-but-lies-about-why-and-when/

http://yournewswire.com/hillary-clinton-admits-we-created-terrorists-we-funded-them/

https://youtu.be/WnLvzV9xAHA



> “We also have a history of kind of moving in and out of Pakistan. Let’s remember here, the people we are fighting today we funded 20 years ago and we did it because we were locked in this struggle with the Soviet Union, they invaded Afghanistan and we did not want to see them control central Asia and we went to work. And it was President Reagan in partnership with the Congress led by democrats who said you know what? Sounds like a pretty good idea. Let’s deal with the ISI and the Pakistani military. Let’s go recruit these Mujaheddin. That’s great let’s get some to come from Saudi Arabia and other places importing their Wahhabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union. And guess what? They retreated. It cost billions of dollars and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. And there’s a very strong argument that it wasn’t a bad investment to end the Soviet Union. But let’s be careful what we sow because we will harvest.” Hillary Clinton


----------



## muskrat89 (13 Aug 2016)

Trump is racist...

https://youtu.be/UacjqluH-Cw


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Aug 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> How about Al Qaeda?
> 
> http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin910.htm
> 
> ...


To be fair, if you're looking at who funded anti-Soviets in AFG, some of whom ended up becoming AQ, and who could have dealt with AQ, it was a mix of Democrat & Republican presidents (2 x Dem, 3 x Rep) at the helm between the Soviet invasion and 9-11.***

As for how ISIS grew, believe it or not, this, from Cracked.com (the old Cracked magazine crowd) offers a pretty accessible explanation.

*** - And I'm not going into the rabbit hole of "who killed Bin Laden?" because even though president z was at the helm, a whoooooooole lot of work through presidents w, x & y had to be done to get there.


----------



## muskrat89 (13 Aug 2016)

> To be fair, if you're looking at who funded anti-Soviets in AFG, some of whom ended up becoming AQ, and who could have dealt with AQ



To be fair, I'm not looking at anything. Hillary's own words are quoted. And I'm merely pointing out that the stretch to connect isnt as laughable as some say it is. I find it interesting that people can take Trump's comments and twist them into suggesting Hillary be assasinated, but Hillary admitting they fostered Al Qaeda is a stretch

Its just a constant double standard


----------



## cupper (13 Aug 2016)

I don't think that there really han't been a lot of doubt that US funding of groups during the Soviet occupation helped put the basis for the creation of AQ in place.

And it is generally accepted that through the concept of blow back the US takes some responsibility in the creation of AQ.

As for the the creation of IS IS, the blame should be laid at the feet of the Bush Administration for failing to plan for the post combat phase of Iraqi Freedom. The aversion to nation building lead to decisions being made that created the conditions for the Sunni uprising, and for AQ in Iraq to come to the fore. IS IS is what remained of AQ in Iraq after Zarquawi met his 72 Virginians in Paradise.

The two key moves that put the trainwreck in motion were Bremmer's edict disbanding the Iraqi Army, and the aggressive de-Ba'athification program. Overnight they tore down the existing machinery to keep the counrty running, and put out of work rthe only people who were capable of running it. By disbanding the Army, they essentially put thousands of trained Officers and NCO's on the streets with nothing to occupy their time, creating the perfect base for an insurgency.


----------



## Remius (13 Aug 2016)

The point is that Trump is encouraging and repeating conspiracy talk that is common in Russia and middle eastern media.  Dangerous talk.  I'm all about straight talk and off the cuff demeanour.  But what he's doing is irresponsible and not what you want to have a president saying.  If how a campaign being run is any indication of how someone will run an administration then Trump is in trouble.  The sad thing is that Clinton would likely be way behind anyone else she would be facing. She has truly lucked out.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Aug 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> The point is that Trump is encouraging and repeating conspiracy talk that is common in Russia and middle eastern media.  Dangerous talk.  I'm all about straight talk and off the cuff demeanour.  But what he's doing is irresponsible and not what you want to have a president saying.  If how a campaign being run is any indication of how someone will run an administration then Trump is in trouble.  The sad thing is that Clinton would likely be way behind anyone else she would be facing. She has truly lucked out.



I would say that not many of the candidates on either side were very outstanding.

However, all we have to judge Trump on are "words".  The opposite is true of Clinton, where she can be judged on her "actions".  She has proven to be all that some have claimed, with her lies/falsehoods about her trip to Bosnia, her actions in reference to Libya and Benghazi, and so on.  All we have on Trump are "words".


----------



## Rocky Mountains (13 Aug 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> All we have on Trump are "words".



Subject to main stream media interpretation as required for the Democratic Party narrative.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (13 Aug 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I would say that not many of the candidates on either side were very outstanding.
> 
> However, all we have to judge Trump on are "words".  The opposite is true of Clinton, where she can be judged on her "actions".  She has proven to be all that some have claimed, with her lies/falsehoods about her trip to Bosnia, her actions in reference to Libya and Benghazi, and so on.  All we have on Trump are "words".



"Just words"?  Really?  

Do the words not reveal the thoughts and intent?  Or are you saying he is LyingTrump, and that his words are not true?  That he can not be trusted to speak the truth about his thoughts and intent?  That we should judge him solely on his actions as a business man (which will, to be fair, not be all positive)?


----------



## PPCLI Guy (13 Aug 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Subject to main stream media interpretation as required for the Democratic Party narrative.



Do you mean "interpretation" like this?



> Donald Trump was given an opportunity to clean up his assertion that President Obama is the “founder of ISIS” on Thursday… and he declined.
> 
> Right-wing radio host Hugh Hewitt asked Trump on Thursday if he meant that Obama founded ISIS metaphorically — that is, because he pulled out of Iraq, it created a power vacuum that was filled by ISIS.
> 
> “No, I meant he’s the founder of ISIS,” was Trump’s reply.



Those MSM scoundrels sure did interpret all of the truthiness out of that statement by Mr Trump....oh wait - they merely quoted his response to a direct question.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (13 Aug 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I would say that not many of the candidates on either side were very outstanding.
> 
> However, all we have to judge Trump on are "words".  The opposite is true of Clinton, where she can be judged on her "actions".  She has proven to be all that some have claimed, with her lies/falsehoods about her trip to Bosnia, her actions in reference to Libya and Benghazi, and so on.  All we have on Trump are "words".



The Benghazi incidents that she was cleared of wrongdoing on?  

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/21/mike-pence/mike-pences-false-claim-about-clintons-role-and-re/


----------



## George Wallace (13 Aug 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Do you mean "interpretation" like this?
> 
> Those MSM scoundrels sure did interpret all of the truthiness out of that statement by Mr Trump....oh wait - they merely quoted his response to a direct question.



But.....





> Trump tweeted Friday morning that the media was missing his sarcasm.


 http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/12/politics/donald-trump-obama-clinton-isis-founder-sarcasm/

 >


----------



## George Wallace (13 Aug 2016)

I must admit;  I sure am glad that I am not an American voter trying to decide between these two.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (13 Aug 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> But..... http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/12/politics/donald-trump-obama-clinton-isis-founder-sarcasm/



You buy that?

If you were to look at this issue as an Intelligence Operator, what credibility would you assign to that statement?

Note that I am not touting either candidate - merely questioning the strength of various arguments.  It seems that objectivity is not an easy thing to find in the political arena.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (13 Aug 2016)

Whoops!  Missed the emoticon!

Many apologies Mr Wallace.

 :-[


----------



## George Wallace (13 Aug 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Whoops!  Missed the emoticon!
> 
> Many apologies Mr Wallace.
> 
> :-[



Not a problem.  You know me.....I am quite capable of stepping on my 

But I really am glad that I have no legal standing or stake in making a decision that will have some sort of outcome as who becomes one of the most powerful people in the world.  The options are scary.  Interesting times.


----------



## George Wallace (13 Aug 2016)

F6

F6 for the majority of the crap being posted.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Aug 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> ... Hillary admitting they fostered Al Qaeda is a stretch ...


I'm not saying Hillary didn't say that.  The "we" she's mentioning in your YouTube link sounds like more than JUST the Democrats - she could just as easily mean "the U.S. helped create AQ."  The program to fund anti-Soviet groups in AFG started with this guy after the Soviet invasion ...





... and they picked up speed under this guy:




"We helped create AQ" doesn't ONLY mean "The Democrats helped create AQ".

We can guess what we'd see if she now says "in hindsight, maybe we shouldn't have funded some anti-Soviet fighters", right?


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Aug 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> But..... http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/12/politics/donald-trump-obama-clinton-isis-founder-sarcasm/
> 
> >


Am I the only one seeing him channel Joe Pesci in the first part of this clip?  >


----------



## cupper (13 Aug 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I must admit;  I sure am glad that I am not an American voter trying to decide between these two.



Me too. I can just sit back and watch all the fun. op:


----------



## cupper (13 Aug 2016)

Speaking of voter fraud....

Trump's latest conspiracy strategy is to mobilize supporters to act as poll watchers to make sure the Dems don't steal the election.

Yeah, like that's not going to creat problems on election day.

*Trump: I'll Only Lose With 'Cheating,' Asks Supporters To Watch Polling Places*

http://www.npr.org/2016/08/13/489889496/trump-calls-to-stake-out-polling-places



> Politicians often urge supporters to get out and vote. But Donald Trump wants them to go further: get out and vote, and then stake out polling places to watch for cheating.
> 
> At a Friday campaign event in Altoona, Penn., the Republican presidential nominee said voting might not be enough for him to win.
> 
> ...



At the very least Trump is setting up a case to argue for legal action should the outcome on Nov. 8th not be in his favour. At worst this creats an atmosphere as bad or worse than the claims of illegitimacy that have dogged Obama through his 8 years.


----------



## FJAG (13 Aug 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Speaking of voter fraud....
> 
> Trump's latest conspiracy strategy is to mobilize supporters to act as poll watchers to make sure the Dems don't steal the election.
> 
> ...



I can already see rag tag crews of the 2nd Amendment people exercising their AR15 open carry rights at the poling booths.  aranoid:

 :cheers:


----------



## Rocky Mountains (13 Aug 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I can already see rag tag crews of the 2nd Amendment people exercising their AR15 open carry rights at the poling booths.



Or you might see scrutineers like in every Canadian election.

If state law allows open carry at particular polling places, why not?  Rag tag?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Aug 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I can already see rag tag crews of the 2nd Amendment people exercising their AR15 open carry rights at the poling booths.  aranoid:
> 
> :cheers:



Most US polling stations do not allow open carry. Most polling stations are in schools, government buildings and churches. The majority of these are 'no gun zones'.

No matter the Canadian thoughts on it, the Second Amendment gives them the right. If people in the US wish to exercise that right, free and legal, why shouldn't they? Not everyone gets paranoid at the sight of a firearm. The idea of picking and choosing which part of the Constitution and Amendments is allowed and which is not (Free speech vs right to bear arms). They both carry the same weight. You can't maintain the First by discounting the Second.


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Aug 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I can already see rag tag crews of the 2nd Amendment people exercising their AR15 open carry rights at the poling booths.  aranoid:
> 
> :cheers:



Dont forget the Democrat poll watchers from the Black Panthers. 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/6/problems-black-panthers-surface-pa-polling-places/


----------



## muskrat89 (13 Aug 2016)

> No matter the Canadian thoughts on it, the Second Amendment gives them the right.





Ahhh... the old days when it was Americans who were the arrogant ones...


----------



## cupper (13 Aug 2016)

Ok, when your spokesperson is this stupid, and you continue to let her spout Palinesque drivel, what does that say about your campaign?



*Trump spokeswoman: Afghanistan was 'Obama’s war*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/trump-spokeswoman-afghanistan-was-obamas-war-226983



> Donald Trump spokeswoman Katrina Pierson on Saturday morning said the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan was "Obama's war."
> 
> During an interview with CNN's Victor Blackwell, Pierson was asked about the GOP nominee's comments on President Barack Obama as the founder of ISIS, and if they were sarcastic, as Trump had subsequently claimed.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (13 Aug 2016)

Dems are already planning for the post election and looking to try and work with the GOP in congress.

*Dem senators to Clinton: Stick with Garland
Renominating the judge could help Clinton preserve valuable political capital if she wins the presidency.*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-merrick-garland-nomination-226967



> Top Senate Democrats are pushing Hillary Clinton to renominate Merrick Garland for the Supreme Court, a move party strategists argue would give her an early advantage against Republicans if she wins the presidency.
> 
> They're not waiting until Election Day — or a lame-duck session of Congress — to define the first major decision of a Clinton presidency.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (13 Aug 2016)

Now we know why Trump is running for President. He's afraid of roasting in the here after. What a pussy.  ;D

*Trump predicts winning the presidency will get him into heaven*

http://www.politico.com/video/2016/08/trump-predicts-winning-the-presidency-will-get-him-into-heaven-060323


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Aug 2016)

I fail to see why everyone is getting excited about what Trump says. Clinton hasn't told the truth since she could talk. She says outlandish stuff also. So we have two people that don't tell the truth.

Now, on top of all that, we have Clinton creating one of the biggest intelligence leaks ever in the US. We have Clinton, who has been acting physically unwell for awhile because of head injuries. Loretta Lynn, the AG, who worked for the Clinton's tax lawyers, has moved to suppress Clinton's emails until 2018. She's ignoring requests from the FBI to open investigations of the Clinton Foundation. Comey was appointed Director of HSBC Holdings in March, 2013. HSBC was tied to the Clinton Foundation and ended up paying over a 1 billion dollar fine. He also refused to press charges on Clinton. I could keep going, but it won't matter.

Yes, Trump is a horrible orator that sometimes inflates his facts, but that's all he is. A business man that needs a handler. That's the fault he has in this.

Clinton is an entitled criminal, who places herself above the law. Her husband's time as POTUS is marked by the almost daily scandals that rocked the White House. She traumatized a 12 years old rape victim and got her animal off. Whitewater and the White House travel employee scandal. It never stops with her.

Yes Trump is out of his league, but I'd still, if the field was two, vote for him.

The other choice is a criminal that is only in it for herself and will sell the United States to the highest bidder. I also can't wait to see what kind of staff she'll have. People around this criminal have a way of turning up dead.


----------



## Altair (13 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I fail to see why everyone is getting excited about what Trump says. Clinton hasn't told the truth since she could talk. She says outlandish stuff also. So we have two people that don't tell the truth.
> 
> Now, on top of all that, we have Clinton creating one of the biggest intelligence leaks ever in the US. We have Clinton, who has been acting physically unwell for awhile because of head injuries. Loretta Lynn, the AG, who worked for the Clinton's tax lawyers, has moved to suppress Clinton's emails until 2018. She's ignoring requests from the FBI to open investigations of the Clinton Foundation. Comey was appointed Director of HSBC Holdings in March, 2013. HSBC was tied to the Clinton Foundation and ended up paying over a 1 billion dollar fine. He also refused to press charges on Clinton. I could keep going, but it won't matter.
> 
> ...


Field is three, people should vote johnson.


----------



## cupper (14 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I fail to see why everyone is getting excited about what Trump says. Clinton hasn't told the truth since she could talk. She says outlandish stuff also. So we have two people that don't tell the truth.
> 
> Now, on top of all that, we have Clinton creating one of the biggest intelligence leaks ever in the US. We have Clinton, who has been acting physically unwell for awhile because of head injuries. Loretta Lynn, the AG, who worked for the Clinton's tax lawyers, has moved to suppress Clinton's emails until 2018. She's ignoring requests from the FBI to open investigations of the Clinton Foundation. Comey was appointed Director of HSBC Holdings in March, 2013. HSBC was tied to the Clinton Foundation and ended up paying over a 1 billion dollar fine. He also refused to press charges on Clinton. I could keep going, but it won't matter.
> 
> ...



Got the facts to back all this up? And I don't expect to see anything that tracks back to Alex Jones or Extreme right wing conspiracy websites which take their evidence from othe nut job websites.

I've never heard Clinton's name connected to any of the following intelligence leaks, all of which did more actual damage to the US than has even been speculated with the Clinton server scandle.

1) The Snowden theft and release of NSA program docs.

2) Aldrich Ames

3) Robert Hannsen

4) Johnathon Pollard

The Fox News trope on Clintons physical health is so bogus that they can't even find a credible medical professional who is willing to go on record that she has medical issues. (At least none that aren't on Fox News payrolls)

Lorretta Lynn is an 84 year old country singer. Lorretta Lynch is the current AG. As for the investigation of the Clinton Foundation, I will reserve comment until more info is available. But you missed a more obvious point to convict her on, having been appointed as a Federal prosecutor by Bill Clinton.

Comey was appointed to the board of directors of HSBC to improve the company's compliance program after its $1.9 billion settlement with the Justice Department for failing to comply with basic due diligence requirements for money laundering regarding Mexican drug cartels and terrorism financing. 

As for the tramatization of the rape victim, blame the man that raped her, not the defence lawyer who was appointed to the case and had a legal and an ethical obligation to provide her client with the best defense possible. Just as the victim has said in several interviews since this was brought to light back in 2008. 

I do applaud you for not bringing up Benghazi.

As for seeing dead people, I'll leave that one to M. Night Shamalan.

There are much more valid reasons why Clinton is a poor candidate for the Presidency. Her obsessive need to parse comments in lawyer speak makes a lot of what she says fodder for the Right. She is paranoid about the Vast right wing conspiracy, but yet continues to do stupid things that feed the conspiracy machine. She has her husband ('nuff said). Her age. That shrill harpy like voice that is constantly shouting, that reminds people of their mother when they were kids. The inability to connect with people on a personal level. The wonkish inability to explain policy in terms the regular voter can grasp. Her seeming sense of entitlement (personally I'm not convinced that she truely wants the job, but rather feels obligated at this point).

But I still love you, RG.  :-*


----------



## cupper (14 Aug 2016)

As for everyone getting excited about what Trump says, well, the man is the least qualified person in a field of 16 that the GOP had to select from. And on an almost hourly basis he provides evidence of how unfit he is for the office he seeks.

It's telling that the party has now taken to babysitting him at campaign events. Reince Prebius showed up at an event this weekend to squelch rumours of disunity, but in reality was there to keep Trump on message and not do harm for the down ticket candidates.

And you have to question how serious he really is in seeking the position, based on the lack of campaign resources being used. 

There is virtually no campaign machine to speak of at the individual state level. Some toss up states only have one campaign office to cover the entire state. And these are critical for him to win if he has even a slight chance of reavching the magic 270.

Since the end of the conventions, the campaign has spent $0 on television advertising. Even the Green Party has spent in the 6 figures on advertising. I got the privilage of seeing Green Party ads for about a week at the end of July. I see Clinton ads periodically on national broadcasts, but her campaign pulled ad money out of Virginia because the pols have her leading by double digits (and I am so grateful not to hear her voice because of it). We're not even seeing SuperPAC ads against Clinton here. 

And he has an almost constant fight with the Party over resources, and makes threats to not provide funds from his campaign unless they fall in line with him (rather than he fall in line with the Party).

Again, it's telling that since Paul Ryan finally came out with his reluctant statement of support for the party's nominee, he has had to admonish that same nominee at least once a week over some gaff or inappropriate comment.

I don't necessarily agree with the concept that the choice is binary, Trump or Clinton. There are other options when it comes time to cast a ballot. 3rd party (Libertarian or Green), write in (there are a lot of GOP lawmakers and big names who have said they would go that route) or only cast a vote for the down ballot races. However, in reality any vote other than for Trump or Clinton is a vote in favour of the other the way the system is set up.

And one of the reasons there is a lot of angst resulting in a more vocal anti-Trump drum beat than anti-Clinton is that this didn't need to happen. It could have been easily avoided at every step, but no one took it seriously until it was too late. In a field of 16, Trump was able to hide his true self by using the means of deflection and distraction, especially in the debates. He can't do that in the general election, where it's only him and Hillary. Which is why he's waffling on the debates.

But having said all that, the over riding drive for the concerns about what Trump says is that there is still a chance he could win. And that scares the shit out of a majority of people down here, whether they admit it or not.

As I said in a previous post, this election shows why it is important to look at who is advising the person, either in the campaign or once they are in office. Trump's lack of meaningful experience other than his questionable business sense make the selection of advisors all the more critical. And so far he hasn't shown signs of having picked anything more than yes men he can over rule or ignore.

That, in a coconut nut shell is why everyone is getting excited.


----------



## observor 69 (14 Aug 2016)

"But having said all that, the over riding drive for the concerns about what Trump says is that there is still a chance he could win. And that scares the crap out of a majority of people down here, whether they admit it or not."

And a number of Canadians also Cupper. Very well written response sir.  :nod:


----------



## muskrat89 (14 Aug 2016)

> But having said all that, the over riding drive for the concerns about what Trump says is that there is still a chance he could win. And that scares the crap out of a majority of people down here, whether they admit it or not.



Without getting into the technicalities of electoral colleges and the election process, or the  definition of "majority" as it pertains to US elections- how would he ever get elected if the "majority of people" are scared of him winning? If your statement is true, sounds like you have nothing to worry about


----------



## cupper (14 Aug 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Without getting into the technicalities of electoral colleges and the election process, or the  definition of "majority" as it pertains to US elections- how would he ever get elected if the "majority of people" are scared of him winning? If your statement is true, sounds like you have nothing to worry about



It comes down to a couple of things. An October surprise that leaves Clinton in a position that Trump becomes competitive. Or more likely the Dem electorate becomes complacent and stays home on election day.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (14 Aug 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> As for everyone getting excited about what Trump says, well, the man is the least qualified person in a field of 16 that the GOP had to select from.



He was the most qualified so he won.  He was not a politician and Republican voters are sick of politicians and their correctspeak.  Experience created Crooked Hillary, the scariest person to ever run for president.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Aug 2016)

:2c:


----------



## cupper (14 Aug 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> He was the most qualified so he won.  He was not a politician and Republican voters are sick of politicians and their correctspeak.  Experience created Crooked Hillary, the scariest person to ever run for president.



If that was the voters criterion for selecting the nominee, explain why Carson and Fiorina didn't do better.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Aug 2016)

.


----------



## cupper (14 Aug 2016)

.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (15 Aug 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> If that was the voters criterion for selecting the nominee, explain why Carson and Fiorina didn't do better.



Primary - black/woman

Secondary - worse than poor speaker/not attractive


----------



## Remius (15 Aug 2016)

I'm on the record as not liking either candidate. 

But, I sort of like this plan.  

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/14/politics/donald-trump-isis-fight/index.html


----------



## a_majoor (15 Aug 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> If that was the voters criterion for selecting the nominee, explain why Carson and Fiorina didn't do better.



Because voters are tired of the status quo, and are not keen for the elites to fight to the last taxpayer to maintain their privileges and power.

Sanders, Trump and to a lesser extent Garry Johnson and Jill Stein represent a break from the status quo and hold out the possibility of new alignments and new structures which provide pathways for ordinary Americans to grow and flourish. If you actually agree with their programs or even believe that they are willing or capable of doing what they promise is almost beside the point, they made the most compelling case for change, not the status quo.

This isn't confined to the United States, Toronto has its own "Ford Nation", England had the Brexit and may European States are seeing a massive rise in support for Nativist parties (most of whom ironically preach National Socialism as their actual political platform). I believe that if the "elites" push back too hard, the next wave will be far worse than anything we have seen so far. Trump is the logical progression from the TEA Party movement, had their concerns been addressed and Republicans elected under the TEA Party banner actually gone to Washington and done what they were elected to do, there would be no Donald J Trump as candidate. Now stop and think; how will the  _hoi polloi_ react if they feel they and their concerns are thwarted this time?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (15 Aug 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Because voters are tired of the status quo, and are not keen for the elites to fight to the last taxpayer to maintain their privileges and power.
> 
> Sanders, Trump and to a lesser extent Garry Johnson and Jill Stein represent a break from the status quo and hold out the possibility of new alignments and new structures which provide pathways for ordinary Americans to grow and flourish. If you actually agree with their programs or even believe that they are willing or capable of doing what they promise is almost beside the point, they made the most compelling case for change, not the status quo.
> 
> This isn't confined to the United States, Toronto has its own "Ford Nation", England had the Brexit and may European States are seeing a massive rise in support for Nativist parties (most of whom ironically preach National Socialism as their actual political platform). I believe that if the "elites" push back too hard, the next wave will be far worse than anything we have seen so far. Trump is the logical progression from the TEA Party movement, had their concerns been addressed and Republicans elected under the TEA Party banner actually gone to Washington and done what they were elected to do, there would be no Donald J Trump as candidate. Now stop and think; how will the  _hoi polloi_ react if they feel they and their concerns are thwarted this time?



It's great that the voters are tired of the status quo, but the ones who voted for Trump, potentially the worst candidate in history, are about to get 4 years of Hillary Clinton because of their "rebellion". Seems more like a self inflicted wound than a message, and one that will probably just send the message "no more Trumps!" if the polls hold.

Also- Trump is the epitomy of the entitled rich white guy... they couldn't have found a worse way to "stick it to the man"


----------



## CougarKing (15 Aug 2016)

Trump alienates another minority/diaspora group in the US with his comments last week.

As I stated in another thread, wherever, Filipinos have immigrated, there is a propensity to serve in the military of the adoptive country. Over Several thousand Filipinos have joined the US Navy since the 1950s and one can see large Filipino-American communities in areas near naval bases in the US such as in San Diego or even Norfolk, Virginia. Their US-born offspring can be found by the thousands in other US services as well.

Thus, it wouldn't be surprising then that US officials from Hawaii, Alaska and Guam, who have substantial number of constituents from this group, would be quick to blast Trump for this.

Inquirer



> *US senator, 2 Guam officials blast Trump rant on PH and terrorism*
> 
> INQUIRER.net US Bureau
> 11:07 PM August 8th, 2016
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (15 Aug 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Primary - black/woman
> 
> Secondary - worse than poor speaker/not attractive



I hope you aren't saying that Hillary is attractive.    [


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Aug 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I hope you aren't saying that Hillary is attractive.    [



In a unique, fetishist, sort of way?


----------



## Rocky Mountains (15 Aug 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I hope you aren't saying that Hillary is attractive.    [



Not unattractive for an old broad other than the hyperthyroid eyes. (Apparently she has hypothyroidism - not sure what the eyes are about)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Aug 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> I'm on the record as not liking either candidate.
> 
> But, I sort of like this plan.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/14/politics/donald-trump-isis-fight/index.html



Yes CNN is an impeccable source 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc5p5mD08D4&feature=player_embedded

Or you can try MSNBC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc5p5mD08D4&feature=player_embedded


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Aug 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Not unattractive for an old broad other than the hyperthyroid eyes. (Apparently she has hypothyroidism - not sure what the eyes are about)


I know whose hair is better, though ...  >


----------



## cupper (15 Aug 2016)

Trump shill Rudy Giuliani should have himself screened for Alzheimers Disease.

*Giuliani Claims There Were No Terror Attacks On US Soil Before Obama*

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/rudy-giuliani-forgets-sept-11-donald-trump



> Speaking in Youngstown, Ohio ahead of Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, who was the mayor of New York City on 9/11, declared that Islamic extremists hadn't carried out any terror attacks on American soil before Barack Obama's presidency.
> 
> "Under those 8 years, before Obama came along, we didn't have any successful radical Islamic terrorist attack in the US," Giuliani told the crowd. "They all started when Clinton and Obama came into office."
> 
> It's not the first time Giuliani has made remarks that seemed to gloss over the terror attacks that left nearly 3,000 dead and that defined him in the eyes of many Americans. While suggesting in 2010 that Obama could stand to take some cues from George W. Bush, the former mayor claimed, "We had no domestic attacks under Bush."



Video at link


----------



## cupper (15 Aug 2016)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Primary - black/woman
> 
> Secondary - worse than poor speaker/not attractive



So you are saying that 45% of the voters in the Republican Primaries are either racist, sexist or both. I know that can't be the case, regardless of what the European American Rights groups say.

And Trump fails your secondary criterion. Worst speaker I've heard this cycle, with or without the teleprompter. And frankly I'd say Fiorina beats Trump in the looks department, even with the less than stellar work she's had done.


----------



## Remius (15 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Yes CNN is an impeccable source
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nc5p5mD08D4&feature=player_embedded
> 
> ...



Ugh.  The story under that link was changed. Initially it was about Trump's Isis strategy.  It clearly has been changed.  

My point was that I like more or less his plan.


----------



## FJAG (15 Aug 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Trump shill Rudy Giuliani should have himself screened for Alzheimers Disease.
> 
> *Giuliani Claims There Were No Terror Attacks On US Soil Before Obama*
> 
> ...



Much as his actual words make it look like he has a very selective memory, in fairness he did mention a few minutes before this excerpt that "Remember: We didn't start this war; they did. We don't want this war; they do. And they didn't start it even in 2001. They attacked the World Trade Center in 1993," The 1993 attack came just a month or so just after Clinton took over from Bush 1. 

The trouble with all this blaming Obama for Daesh and every other Islamic problem in the Middle East is that everyone with half a brain knows that the deterioration of the situation there came about because of Bush 2's attack of Iraq and his administration's failure to have any plan in place for what to do with Iraq after the war. He created the power vacuum which allowed the growth of the AQI, the ISI and subsequently Daesh. All this was firmly established and underway under the noses of and as a result of the incompetence of the Bush Republicans. 

Obama took the best advice from his generals and surged in Iraq and later Afghanistan but, regardless, his failure simply was not being able to resolve the Bush mess. It's not that Obama shouldn't get some of the blame for the wider problems beyond Iraq but it seems that the Republicans are becoming quite blind to their own complicity in what is a long standing, complex problem and are being quite disingenuous a**holes in shoving all the blame onto Obama. 

 :soapbox:

The trouble is that the longer they keep telling the lies, the more of the electorate will actually start believing this BS.

 :cheers:


----------



## mariomike (15 Aug 2016)

15 Aug 2016

IAFF refuses to endorse either candidate.  
Starts 43:05
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUr2DYoNBIg


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Aug 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Much as his actual words make it look like he has a very selective memory, in fairness he did mention a few minutes before this excerpt that "Remember: We didn't start this war; they did. We don't want this war; they do. And they didn't start it even in 2001. They attacked the World Trade Center in 1993," The 1993 attack came just a month or so just after Clinton took over from Bush 1.
> 
> The trouble with all this blaming Obama for Daesh and every other Islamic problem in the Middle East is that everyone with half a brain knows that the deterioration of the situation there came about because of Bush 2's attack of Iraq and his administration's failure to have any plan in place for what to do with Iraq after the war. He created the power vacuum which allowed the growth of the AQI, the ISI and subsequently Daesh. All this was firmly established and underway under the noses of and as a result of the incompetence of the Bush Republicans.
> 
> ...



The Democrats and Clintons do the same thing.

They all throw shit against the wall and see what sticks. If it appears to stick, they keep picking at it until they find the next thing to lie about their opponents.

Clinton can be blamed for the same thing, revisionist truth, like landing in Bosnia under sniper fire and her mother naming her after Sir Edmund Hillary. She's lied all her life, she's still doing it and will continue to do so.

Like I said earlier. Trump is pilloried because of words. Words for fuck sake. Sticks and stones and all that. 

However, Clinton has so many scandals happening, that it's obvious she's a criminal. The FBI has been interfered with 3 times by Obama and at least one by Lynch, when they tried investigating the Clinton Foundation. Shillary and Slick Willie are being protected. By the White House, by Lynch, by Soros and Goldman Sachs.

The Rothchilds own the Central Bank in every country except Cuba, Iran and North Korea. Guess what Obama's been doing? Opening relations with Cuba and Iran.

The open border globalizers, including millionaire and billionaire Republicans and Democrats, are part of the New World Order. That used to be tinfoil hat talk, but people are waking up to the truth. Soros has been behind nearly every civil war in recent history, in order to install the people the NWO needs to tow the line. He has admitted to engineering the mass migration of Muslims from the ME in order to destabilize Europe. Black Lives Matter is another group, with Islamist ties, that Soros created and pays for.

These are the people behind and backing Clinton.

But it's Trump's *words* that have everyone all upset because of what he says.

P.S. - You can draw your own conclusions on how this parallels what's happening in Canada at the moment.


----------



## cupper (15 Aug 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> 15 Aug 2016
> 
> IAFF refuses to endorse either candidate.
> Starts 43:05
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUr2DYoNBIg



It's a good thing, because we're going to need them when the results come in and things start burning down. ;D


----------



## FJAG (15 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The Democrats and Clintons do the same thing.
> 
> . . .
> 
> ...



RG. You don't need to do a tit for tat re Clinton with me. I don't like her or her husband very much and I've never been a Democrat (although I was briefly a Liberal as a protest move) and I'm not about to defend her or the Democrats (or the Liberals for that matter). 

My only point in this whole thread is that the Republicans have during my lifetime (which is damn lengthy) gone from a party that I had respected to a dysfunctional organism that has given up even a pretence of being there for the people and America in general; one that caters to extreme special interest groups and uses pure obstructionist tactics. This is currently made most obvious by the fact that they have nominated the most useless piece of s**t in America as their presidential candidate.

Words do matter. Trump's words (and also his actions) are a window on his mind and show that he has such a high level of contempt for the truth and general decency that it should make every right-thinking person immediately dismiss him as the buffoon that he is. He's not a good businessman unless you believe that borrowing to the hilt and then leaving bankers and investors and contractors stranded when he pulls out is good business practice. He thinks it's terrific because he does it over and over again. Half of his so-called net worth is based on his own "valuation" of his "brand" rather than tangible assets.

I'm sorry RG. I know that there are millions of people out there who have drunk deeply of the Trump Kool-Aid but his words are not being misrepresented by the main stream media and there will come a time when even those millions will see that he is a shallow man, with a shallow staff and a shallow platform that merely caters to the public's basest fears and insecurities. The longer he uses his words (even the best words that he says he has) the more the core Republican base will slip away just as a number of the Republican "elites" are already starting to do.

I doubt if any of us will ever convince you or any of the other Trump supporters in this thread that Hillary is a better choice.  I wouldn't even try to. :deadhorse: All I ask is that, for a little while, you ignore the BS rhetoric about the Democrats so that you can instead really focus critically and logically on what Trump is actually saying and doing and then maybe, just maybe, you might lessen your defence of him. Frankly I pity the real Republicans; they are caught between a rock and a stupid place for this election.

Anyway, in the meantime I'm going to sit back and op:

 :cheers:


----------



## cupper (15 Aug 2016)

SQUIRREL!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Aug 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> RG. You don't need to do a tit for tat re Clinton with me. I don't like her or her husband very much and I've never been a Democrat (although I was briefly a Liberal as a protest move) and I'm not about to defend her or the Democrats (or the Liberals for that matter
> ...................
> 
> 
> ...


FJAG,
I think we're not quite on the same page, but I think, at least the same chapter.   I'm not a Trump fanboy and haven't looked into the crystal ball to see if he does or doesn't do a good job. I am willing to give him a try though. I don't  know what kind of politician he is, if he gets impeached, so what. 

I already know what kind of politician Clinton is. I wouldn't trust her if she was in a locked trunk in front of me. She's playing a dangerous game with voters because if she crashes, she will likely be the final nail in the coffin of the career politicians  and lobbyists. The  same thing Trump  may hopefully  accomplish. 

Ànd man, heaven knows,The Donald needs a devils advocate here,for sure  8)


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Aug 2016)

An FOIA request from 2015 seems to show that Trump was right in his assertion that the actions of the administration created ISIS.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/trump-right-foia-document-shows-obama-hillary-knew-actions-create-isis/


----------



## FJAG (16 Aug 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> An FOIA request from 2015 seems to show that Trump was right in his assertion that the actions of the administration created ISIS.
> 
> http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/08/trump-right-foia-document-shows-obama-hillary-knew-actions-create-isis/



I think that all that this DoD message discloses is an understanding that the Syrian situation created "the ideal atmosphere for AQI to return to its old pockets . . . under the presumption of unifying the jihad among Sunni Iraq and Syria."

The fact is that the organisation which would take on the name ISIL already existed before Obama took office. This excerpt from Wikipedia gives you a good thumbnail sketch the actual genesis of the organization:



> Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Jordanian Salafi jihadist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his militant group Jama'at al-Tawhid wal-Jihad, founded in 1999, achieved notoriety in the early stages of the Iraqi insurgency for their suicide attacks on Shia Islamic mosques, civilians, Iraqi government institutions and Italian soldiers partaking in the US-led 'Multi-National Force'. Al-Zarqawi's group officially pledged allegiance to Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda network in October 2004, changing its name to Tanzim Qaidat al-Jihad fi Bilad al-Rafidayn (تنظيم قاعدة الجهاد في بلاد الرافدين, "Organisation of Jihad's Base in Mesopotamia"), also known as al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI).[2][84][85] Attacks by the group on civilians, Iraqi government and security forces, foreign diplomats and soldiers, and American convoys continued with roughly the same intensity. In a letter to al-Zarqawi in July 2005, al-Qaeda's then deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahiri outlined a four-stage plan to expand the Iraq War. The plan included expelling US forces from Iraq, establishing an Islamic authority as a caliphate, spreading the conflict to Iraq's secular neighbours, and clashing with Israel, which the letter says "was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity".[86]
> 
> In January 2006, AQI joined with several smaller Iraqi insurgent groups under an umbrella organisation called the Mujahideen Shura Council (MSC). According to Brian Fishman, this was little more than a media exercise and an attempt to give the group a more Iraqi flavour, and perhaps to distance al-Qaeda from some of al-Zarqawi's tactical errors, more notably the 2005 bombings by AQI of three hotels in Amman.[87] On 7 June 2006, a US airstrike killed al-Zarqawi, who was succeeded as leader of the group by the Egyptian militant Abu Ayyub al-Masri.[88][89]
> 
> On 12 October 2006, the MSC united with three smaller groups and six Sunni Islamic tribes to form the "Mutayibeen Coalition". It swore by Allah "to rid Sunnis from the oppression of the rejectionists (Shi'ite Muslims) and the crusader occupiers ... to restore rights even at the price of our own lives ... to make Allah's word supreme in the world, and to restore the glory of Islam".[90][91] A day later, the MSC declared the establishment of the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI), comprising Iraq's six mostly Sunni Arab governorates.[92] Abu Omar al-Baghdadi was announced as its emir,[62][93] and al-Masri was given the title of Minister of War within the ISI's ten-member cabinet.[94]



and:



> After the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, [Abu Bakr] al-Baghdadi helped found the militant group Jamaat Jaysh Ahl al-Sunnah wa-l-Jamaah (JJASJ), in which he served as head of the sharia committee.[26] Al-Baghdadi and his group joined the Mujahideen Shura Council (MSC) in 2006, in which he served as a member of the MSC's sharia committee. Following the renaming of the MSC as the Islamic State of Iraq (ISI) in 2006, al-Baghdadi became the general supervisor of the ISI's sharia committee and a member of the group's senior consultative council.[26][31]
> . . .
> [Abu Bakr] Al-Baghdadi was announced as leader of the ISI on 16 May 2010, following the death of his predecessor Abu Omar al-Baghdadi.[39]



It was the Arab Spring and particularly the Syrian protest movement in 2011 that gave the ISI the opportunity to push the Sunni jihad agenda across the border (and therefore expand its operations and its name to include the Levant).

At the heart of the creation of ISIL are three situations: the historical split between Sunnis and Shias; the existence of several non-Sunni regimes that suppressed Sunnis creating an environment of revolt; and the Bush invasion of Iraq that destabilized the region and resulted in the creation/strengthening of numerous Sunni/Islamist movements (including AQI/MSC/ISI etc)

To allege that Obama's administration "created ISIS/ISIL" is sheer sophistry. The genesis of the situation goes back far beyond Obama and is significantly more complex than the simplistic rhetoric that Trump espouses. I think the fact that Trump has walked back on his at-the-time support of Bush's Iraq invasion to his current lie that he opposed it is ample proof of the fact that he knows that the major US created triggering event in the region (including the rise of ISIL) came years before under the Bush administration.

Have a good one.

 :cheers:


----------



## cupper (16 Aug 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> At the heart of the creation of ISIL are three situations: the historical split between Sunnis and Shias; the existence of several non-Sunni regimes that suppressed Sunnis creating an environment of revolt; and the Bush invasion of Iraq that destabilized the region and resulted in the creation/strengthening of numerous Sunni/Islamist movements (including AQI/MSC/ISI etc.)



The one thing that gets overlooked in the statement is that in the case of Iraq, it was supression of the Shia majority by the Sunni minority under Sadam Hussain that was at issue, and when the regime was overthrown, the Sunnis now became the oppressed minority, reaping what was sown over several decades. Had the Bush administration had a decent post hostility plan in place for a transition from minority to majority rule, I don't think things would have deteriorated to the same degree that it ultimately did.

So the Trumpets can spin it all they want, but the revisionist history just doesn't hold up to scrutiny.


----------



## Lumber (16 Aug 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> a decent post hostility plan...



Was such a thing even possible in the middle east? I mean, it's possible in some places; Germany, Japan, even Vietnam, why has the middle turned into such a s*** hurricane?


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Aug 2016)

Before Obama Libya,Syria and Iraq were relatively stable.After Obama engineered the so called arab spring there remains two stable countries SA and Israel.The jury is out on Turkey.


----------



## Lumber (16 Aug 2016)

Ok now I'm confused. First the tin-hats are saying it was caused by Bush's lack of a decent post hostilities plan, now the tin-hats are saying it was a plan engineered by Obama, Geroge Soros, and the pro-Israel lobby. Which is it? Wait! I know!


----------



## FJAG (16 Aug 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Before Obama Libya,Syria and Iraq were relatively stable.After Obama engineered the so called arab spring there remains two stable countries SA and Israel.The jury is out on Turkey.


at the time 

"Relatively stable" is a subjective term so there isn't much sense arguing about it. In April of 2008 Petraeus urged congress to delay troop withdrawals, saying, "I've repeatedly noted that we haven't turned any corners, we haven't seen any lights at the end of the tunnel". By Feb 2009 Obama announced the US would end combat operation by 31 Aug 2010. I can concede that for a brief time, Iraq had a measure of stability it didn't have during the period from the Bush invasion and the debacle of the L Paul Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority and up to 2008 and then after 2011.

I strongly disagree with the suggestion that Obama "engineered" the Arab Spring. It started more or less spontaneously in Tunisia on Dec 18th, 2010 with the self-immolation of Mohamed Bouazizi and carried on in cascading protests that spread to Algeria, Jordan, Oman, Egypt, Yemen, Djibouti, Somalia, Sudan, Egypt, Bahrain, Libyia, Kuwait, Morocco, Mauritania, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the UAE, and Palestine. I have seen no evidence that the US "engineered" these events but only that they had to quickly learn to react and tread the narrow path in providing humanitarian support and in fostering the movements for democratic government. I think that the issues facing the US at the time were best summed up by Henry Kissinger in an article in early 2012 where he stated at the end: 



> The U.S. conduct during the Arab upheavals has so far been successful in avoiding placing America as an obstacle to the revolutionary transformations. This is not a minor achievement. But it is just one component of a successful approach. U.S. policy will, in the end, also be judged by whether what emerges from the Arab Spring improves the reformed states’ responsibility towards the international order and humane institutions.



http://www.henryakissinger.com/articles/iht040212.html

I think reasonable persons may argue as to how successful or not the Obama administration was in responding to the Arab Spring but I would suggest that to say they "engineered" it is going too far. 

 :cheers:


----------



## Lumber (17 Aug 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I think reasonable persons may argue as to how successful or not the Obama administration was in responding to the Arab Spring but I would suggest that to say they "engineered" it is going too far.



What? GlobalResearch.ca isn't a reasonable website run by reasonable people? Sounds pretty legit to me...

The Arab Spring: Made in the USA

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-arab-spring-made-in-the-usa/5484950


----------



## FJAG (17 Aug 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> What? GlobalResearch.ca isn't a reasonable website run by reasonable people? Sounds pretty legit to me...
> 
> The Arab Spring: Made in the USA
> 
> http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-arab-spring-made-in-the-usa/5484950



I haven't read the book, just the review that you link to and based on that I'm not so sure that a book that is "Relying mainly on Wikileaks cables and the websites of key CIA pass through foundations (which he reproduces in the appendix)" is authoritative. That said, if one accepts Bensada then:



> None [of the revolutions] were spontaneous – all required careful and lengthy (5+ years) planning, by the State Department, CIA pass through foundations, George Soros, and the pro-Israel lobby.1



and:



> Between 2005 and 2010, the State Department funneled (sic) $12 million to opposition groups opposed to Assad.



Ergo, if one follows Bensada's logic then the foundations for the Arab Spring were laid by the Bush administration.

I don't doubt that various US agencies had, over the several decades before the Arab Spring been generally in contact with and provided some funds (and $12 million over five years is a very small amount) to democracy oriented individuals and groups and the Middle East. That doesn't equate to "Obama engineered" the Arab Spring.

 :cheers:


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Aug 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> What? GlobalResearch.ca isn't a reasonable website run by reasonable people? Sounds pretty legit to me...


OK, I'll be "that" guy and ask:  are you serious, or just being sarcastic?

According to this source ...

9-11 was an inside job
The U.S. military is controlling the weather
The U.S. was behind the Cirillo & Vincent murders

If I missed the <sarcasm>, my apologies - otherwise, caveat lector ...


----------



## Lumber (17 Aug 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> OK, I'll be "that" guy and ask:  are you serious, or just being sarcastic?
> If I missed the <sarcasm>, my apologies - otherwise, caveat lector ...



 :sarcasm:

Mind you, as far as conspiracy theories go, I'm starting to believe more and more each day (although it's still a very small belief) that Trump is intentionally attempting to sewer his own campaign.

The scary part, for me, is that even if Trump was not playing fair and intentionally trying to lose, he has in the process lent a voice and a level of legitimacy to a cadre of the American public that is just down right ignorant. When, god be willing, Trump loses the election, and again, god willing, the Republicans fix their s***, do you think this cadre of yokels is just going to quietly sit back down?


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Aug 2016)

Is there a link to Trump's speech where he said he might ban immigration from the PI and elsewhere ?


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Aug 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Is there a link to Trump's speech where he said he might ban immigration from the PI and elsewhere ?


Haven't seen a transcript out there, but the speech (4 Aug, Portland, Maine) appears to be here at YouTube in its entirety (~50 minutes).


			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> :sarcasm:


Good to hear.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Aug 2016)

I'd suppose a much higher likelihood of conviction following impeachment if Trump is president than if Clinton is president.

Either one of them is damaging - my view is that for the sake of rule of law, the US really needs to show that it can end the Clintons - but some Republicans would work against Trump, and I doubt any Democrats would work against Clinton.  The lack of a prospective corrective capability - safety valve - is really the deciding factor in choosing the lesser of two evils.


----------



## cupper (17 Aug 2016)

If you havn't already done so, I would suggest that you cash in your RRSP's and invest in Alcoa as fast as you can.

Now that the CEO of Brietbart is now running the Trump campaign, tin foil sales are going to go through the roof. I am already hearing rumours of long lineups at Walmarts waiting for new shipments to come in.

Just when I thought this cycle could not get any more entertaining, he had to go and up the anty. 

 :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## muskrat89 (17 Aug 2016)

> he had to go and up the anty.



It's "ante"

Just because you're so darned condescending.....


----------



## cupper (17 Aug 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> It's "ante"
> 
> Just because you're so darned condescending.....



I'll try to be less condesending and more patronizing. ;D


----------



## muskrat89 (17 Aug 2016)

> I'll try to be less condesending and more patronizing



Much better   ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Aug 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> I'll try to be less condesending and more patronizing. ;D



 :goodpost:


----------



## Journeyman (18 Aug 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> I'll try to be less condesending and more patronizing. ;D


Good luck with that;  sometimes you just find yourself in a target-rich environment.   :nod:


----------



## CougarKing (18 Aug 2016)

Thoughts, cupper?

Washington Post



> *Trump suggests racial profiling and says of Omar Mateen’s father, ‘I’d throw him out’ *
> 
> The Washington Post
> Aaron Blake
> ...


----------



## cupper (18 Aug 2016)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> Thoughts, cupper?
> 
> Washington Post



He's got to get elected first.

And although I've said before polls this far out really are not that helpful, the trend is certainly alarming for Trump, and more importantly the down ballot GOP candidates.

And even if the nightmare became reality, it would never stand up to a constitutional challenge.


----------



## dimsum (21 Aug 2016)

From May, but still relevant.  

"Why Trump voters are not 'complete idiots'".



> You can scrap this entire analysis as silly if you want, but please try and understand the core point missing from much of the current dialogue — large parts of the US have become completely isolated, socially and economically.
> 
> Kids are growing up in towns where by six, or seven, or eleven, they are doomed to be viewed as second class. They feel unvalued. They feel stuck. They are mocked. And there is nothing they feel they can do about it.
> 
> ...



https://medium.com/@Chris_arnade/trump-politics-and-option-pricing-or-why-trump-voters-are-not-idiots-1e364a4ed940#.ynpytlana


----------



## FJAG (21 Aug 2016)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> From May, but still relevant.
> 
> "Why Trump voters are not 'complete idiots'".
> 
> https://medium.com/@Chris_arnade/trump-politics-and-option-pricing-or-why-trump-voters-are-not-idiots-1e364a4ed940#.ynpytlana



Oh, Boy. I promised myself to hold back on this thread but this post got me antsy.

Firstly I do buy into the genral premise of this article that individuals, for the most part, want to move themselves "to the right" ie better themselves and their family's position in life. Much of the rest I think misunderstands society in general.



> You can scrap this entire analysis as silly if you want, but please try and understand the core point missing from much of the current dialogue — large parts of the US have become completely isolated, socially and economically.



I don't think that "large parts of the US have become completely isolated, socially and economically ...". If you look back fifty years and more you'll see that there always was a divide between the richer and more affluent elements of society. What happened after WW2 was that large parts of the poor class moved upward leaving other elements behind. The big point though is that we generally accepted our lots in life. Growing up in the Fifties all of my schoolmates and friends came from the same economic class as myself and we never really were dissatisfied because, in large part, we didn't know better. Communications these days are all pervasive (even for the poor country cousins) and now everyone who doesn't reach Kim Kardashian wealth levels feels that they are being "held back by the man". It's not isolation, but too much communication and too great a feeling of entitlement that fuels dissatisfaction.



> Kids are growing up in towns where by six, or seven, or eleven, they are doomed to be viewed as second class. They feel unvalued. They feel stuck. They are mocked. And there is nothing they feel they can do about it.



See Kim Kardashian above. They are not mocked but may very well consider themselves looked down on. There is an answer for that: education and hard work. The trouble is that a large part of our society resists being educated and turns to disablers such as toxic relationships , drugs and alcohol which will ensure that they will never move to the right.



> When they turn to religion for worth, they are seen by the elites as uneducated, irrational, clowns. When they turn to identity through race they are racists. Regardless of their color.



I disagree that the "elites" take this view. In fact in much of the US, the so-called elite is, or at least pretends to be, highly religious. It is quite appropriate however to question why individuals govern themselves and attempt to govern others with various faith-based belief systems that were designed for nomadic shepherds thousands of years ago. Over a century ago Karl Marx stated that "religion is the opiate of the masses". He was right then. It continues to amaze me that with all the knowledge that is available to everyone these days that there are still tens or more of millions of people allow themselves to become indoctrinated and stay tied to such systems. One doesn't consider them uneducated or clowns but one does question their ability to think rationally. 



> The only thing they can do, faced with that, is break the f***ing system. And they are going to try. Either by Trump or by some other way.



This is another sign of how some people refuse to be educated, or at least refuse to learn from history. The most simple study shows that "breaking the system" in an anarchic sense leads to a decrease in the standard of life for the vast majority of the populace and particularly for the lower classes for a significant period of time. If your aim is to guard the hen house from coyotes, why would you elect a coyote to be the hen house guard? The policies being expounded by Trump do not demonstrate a logical path to increased opportunities or a bettering of the opportunities for the individuals the author is writing about. It is simply an attempt to leverage fears (some rational some highly irrational) that exists within segments of the American society. 

So (with due respect to others who might differ) Trump voters aren't "complete idiots" but one has to question their ability to analyse issues and evaluate them rationally. One may be tempted to take God on faith but it would be suicide to do the same with Trump and so far that's all he's offering.

Okay. That's my last word on the subject. Have at it.

 :cheers:


----------



## GAP (21 Aug 2016)

> Okay. That's my last word on the subject. Have at it.
> 
> :cheers:



Liar!!  it's like driving by a car wreck.....you gotta look!!    ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Aug 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> So (with due respect to others who might differ) Trump voters aren't "complete idiots" but one has to question their ability to analyse issues and evaluate them rationally. One may be tempted to take God on faith but it would be suicide to do the same with Trump and so far that's all he's offering.



Much like the Democrats and Clinton. She is just, if not more, scarier than Trump. She has offered nothing 
than she's always done, no matter what she says. She promised the world to the middle class as a senator and has yet to deliver on any of her promises. She doesn't care about honesty or the people. Trump, generally, cares for the people he speaks to. Clinton(s) are for themselves and how much they can suck out of the US of A for their foundation. Along with her buddy, supporter and banker George Soros.

It still amazes me how people can give the Democrats and Clinton a free ride. They're worried about the US going up in flames if Trump gets elected, but not a word about that madwoman Clinton who could turn the place into a total conflagration.

As such, I too am out of here.


----------



## QV (21 Aug 2016)

Don't bow out yet, it's just about to get interesting.  Didn't someone on here say a week is a long time in politics?  There are many weeks left and Trump just had a great week.  Go Trump!


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Aug 2016)

> RealClearPolitics Election 2016
> 
> Election 2016	Clinton	Trump	Spread
> RCP Poll Average	46.8	41.5	Clinton +5.3
> ...



I'll take a fiver at 4:1.

The most amusing bit is the Favorability Ratings - literally a case of "who do you hate least?"

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

And 20% looking for ????


----------



## a_majoor (22 Aug 2016)

I can see the new Trump Team is going back to the roots of Trumps's initial success and running an IO campaign that negates and even turns their enemies strength against them.

Trumps speeches on Immigration and how the Democrats have essentially betrayed black Americans cause no end of screeching among the chattering classes, but by screeching and virtue signalling, they are actually pushing his message much farther and faster than he would have done himself. The best part is they cannot help themselves, since doubling down is the second rule of SJWs (The first rule is they always lie, and the third rule is they always project. Listening them talk about what they see as a Trump Administration is a good way to predict what a Clinton Administration will be).

Coming at them from different angles, punching holes in their narratives and ultimately letting everyone see their true world views may not be enough to win the election, but it is certainly going to crash a lot of people's perceptions. I had the pleasure of having coffee with journalist Salim Mansur a while ago and he thinks this is battlefield preparation (much like Russian Hybrid Warfare), the real battle starts after the debates when the vast majority of Americans finally start paying attention to the campaign. Crashing the narrative now means the Democrats will essentially be starting from scratch when that time comes.

YMMV


----------



## cupper (22 Aug 2016)

*1,500 American Refugees Wash up on the Canadian shore of Lake St. Claire seeking asylum ahead of November's election. No word if they were fleeing a Clinton or Trump presidency.*

Ignore the comments about this being partiers. I suspect that there is a huge coverup going on, but the truth will come out sooner or later.

*U.S. partiers wash up in Canada, blown across Lake St. Clair
'We had 1,500 people who were in complete need of help, and everyone walked away alive'*

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/floatdown-sarnia-americans-wash-ashore-1.3730792



> An estimated 1,500 Americans illegally and unexpectedly washed up in Canada late Sunday after strong winds blew them across the St. Clair River near Sarnia, Ont.
> 
> They were participating in the annual Port Huron Float Down, during which people simply float down the river on rafts, inner tubes and other flotation devices from Port Huron, Mich.
> 
> ...


----------



## Remius (22 Aug 2016)

Well a wall would have stopped them.  

I think you are in fact correct.  More of this will happen in the coming months.   

all joking aside though, its a pretty good testament to the relationship our countries have that this played out the way it did.


----------



## Lumber (22 Aug 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> [size=18pt]*1,500 American Refugees Wash up on the Canadian shore of Lake St. Claire seeking asylum ahead of November's election.
> ..
> Ignore the comments about this being partiers. I suspect that there is a huge coverup going on, but the truth will come out sooner or later.
> *


*

Please tell me this is sarcasm...*


----------



## cavalryman (22 Aug 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> *1,500 American Refugees Wash up on the Canadian shore of Lake St. Claire seeking asylum ahead of November's election. No word if they were fleeing a Clinton or Trump presidency.*
> 
> Ignore the comments about this being partiers. I suspect that there is a huge coverup going on, but the truth will come out sooner or later.
> 
> ...



Bloody hell.  The Fenians are back!


----------



## Remius (22 Aug 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Please tell me this is sarcasm...



Please tell me that THIS is sarcasm..


----------



## Lumber (22 Aug 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Please tell me that THIS is sarcasm..



I'm so confused now... do people actually thing there is some kind of conspiracy involved here? This event is not something new...


----------



## Remius (22 Aug 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I'm so confused now... do people actually thing there is some kind of conspiracy involved here? This event is not something new...



You asked Cupper if he was being sarcastic.  

I asked you if you were being sarcastic about asking him if he was being sarcastic.  

I am also confused as I thought you were being sarcastic about him being sarcastic.  I'm pretty sure he was.  But now I question if you were being sarcastic about him being sarcastic and actually believe that he might believe in the conspiracy theory.  One thing is certain, we need to use eth sarcasm emoji more often to ensure that we are showing sarcasm. 

Also we need a wall in the water to stop this invasion. 

 :sarcasm:


----------



## Lumber (22 Aug 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> You asked Cupper if he was being sarcastic.
> 
> I asked you if you were being sarcastic about asking him if he was being sarcastic.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Aug 2016)

Can someone go over why Hillary is qualified or eligible to run for office again?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/new-abedin-emails-reveal-hillary-clinton-state-department-gave-special-access-top-clinton-foundation-donors/



> *New Abedin Emails Reveal Hillary Clinton State Department Gave Special Access to Top Clinton Foundation Donors*
> 
> AUGUST 22, 2016
> Crown Prince of Bahrain Forced to Go Through Foundation to See Clinton, after Pledging $32 Million to Clinton Global Initiative
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Aug 2016)

and:



> *FBI uncovers 14,900 more documents in Clinton email probe*
> By Spencer S. Hsu August 22 at 2:42 PM
> 
> The FBI’s year-long investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server uncovered 14,900 emails and documents from her time as secretary of state that had not been disclosed by her attorneys, and a federal judge on Monday pressed the State Department to begin releasing emails sooner than mid-October as it planned.
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Aug 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Can someone go over why Hillary is qualified or eligible to run for office again?


OK, I came back. Didn't last long :dunno:

:sarcasm:




Because it's all lies and conspiracy. She really is a sweetheart and would never do anything wrong. Trump is evil, he used words that some people don't like. She is the only choice. Ignore her perjury, access for money schemes, ties to Soros, vote rigging and health problems. She's entitled to be POTUS. It's her destiny. 


 :sarcasm:


----------



## cupper (22 Aug 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Please tell me this is sarcasm...



I am exercising my rights under the fifth ammendment of the US Constitution to refuse to answer as it may or may not incriminate me.   ;D 



> FBI uncovers 14,900 more documents in Clinton email probe



Phew, thats better. The mainstream media is reporting that it was 15,000. And if that was true then she'd have a problem.  op:


----------



## Remius (22 Aug 2016)

If this is any indication, the circle is closing on her...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/22/politics/judicial-watch-clinton-emails/index.html


----------



## cupper (22 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> OK, I came back. Didn't last long :dunno:



I missd you dude! How've you been? 



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Because it's all lies and conspiracy. She really is a sweetheart and would never do anything wrong. Trump is evil, he used words that some people don't like. She is the only choice. Ignore her perjury, access for money schemes, ties to Soros, vote rigging and health problems. She's entitled to be POTUS. It's her destiny.



See, I knew you would come over to the dark side. It was the cookies, wasn't it?

 ;D


----------



## CougarKing (23 Aug 2016)

"Wrestling"? Pondering with many sleepless nights? Really? Something tells me he might instead come up with "You're deported!" slogan to replace his signature "You're Fired!" phrase.  ;D

Tribune Washington Bureau



> *Trump ‘wrestling’ with how — and whether — to deport 11 million people *
> Tribune Washington Bureau
> 
> By Brian Bennett
> ...


----------



## cupper (23 Aug 2016)

Its a big issue today in the mainstream media.

They have cancelled three huge rallys events over the next seven days, the first scheduled for Thursday in Colorado which was supposed to be the immigration policy speech.

The big question is why cancel three events? And there seems to be mixed messages coming from the campaign since the meeting with hispanic Republicans on Saturday. The take away from that meeting by the invitees was that he may be softening his stance, and perhaps dropping the deportation forces from his plans.

But Bannon on his Breitbart show Sunday said that he won't be softening his stance on deportation. But Kellyanne Conway said on the Sunday talkshows that deportation forces was "to be determined".

Media travelling with Trump are reporting from their sources inside the campaign that there is still confusion within the camp on messaging, policy, and even scheduling.


----------



## QV (23 Aug 2016)

There are also reports that he is laying low to not create news in order to allow the bad press on Clinton to be at the forefront of the news cycle for a change.  

With all that has surfaced, how can anyone consider Clinton for POTUS?  

This election is Establishment vs The People.  The more pundits suggest only fools/idiots/uneducated would vote Trump, the more people will turn to Trump.  This could go in a similar fashion as the most recent Alberta election when a pretentious Prentice told Albertans to look in the mirror for blame on failings in government...after 40 years of conservative rule.  I think this election will essentially be: "Out with you!" to the political class/establishment who consider themselves the elite when it is becoming more and more evident some of them are corrupt.  The Clinton Foundation, how could that be allowed to go on is beyond me.  

My guess is Trump takes the win by 10 points or more.


----------



## Remius (23 Aug 2016)

QV said:
			
		

> There are also reports that he is laying low to not create news in order to allow the bad press on Clinton to be at the forefront of the news cycle for a change.
> 
> With all that has surfaced, how can anyone consider Clinton for POTUS?
> 
> ...



You make some good points but unfortunately you are forgetting a lot of things.  Clinton does not need the popular vote to win.  She needs eth electoral college votes to do so.  she has most democratic states locked in.  She's actually making some ground in swing states and Trump unfortunately is losing in some key republican states that are listening to the Republican establishment.  Also he's behind in the polls (he had a good week but we've seen him squander good days).  While we all likely to say a week is a long time in politics it isn't so much in the US.  No one has come back from that kind of deficit in polling in US elections.  Trump has his base locked in.  What he isn't gaining in is in undecided, women Latino and black votes.  This why he's changing his tone on immigration deportation and appealing to the Black community.  Without their support or a chunk of it the math won't add up.  His campaign knows this which is why they are changing their tune. 

As for Clinton, I think most voters are apathetic to that.  Almost as if they are shrugging it off as business as usual and expect this from their politicians.  Now what could help Trump is if something criminal or revelatory comes from these e-mails.  THAT could help.  

Lastly, it is possible that third party types might just act as spoilers, enough to make it closer.  

My guess is Trump loses by 5-10 points. 

The out with you thing will likely happen at the congressional and senate level.  And may hit the Republicans more than the Democrats.


----------



## Lumber (23 Aug 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> As for Clinton, I think most voters are apathetic to that.  Almost as if they are shrugging it off as business as usual and expect this from their politicians.  Now what could help Trump is if something criminal or revelatory comes from these e-mails.  THAT could help.



This right here. Most people don't want to rock the boat; better the devil they know than the devil they don't. 

Besides, between the Clinton Foundation and her family's friendship with good Samaritans like George Soros, we're looking at a potential executive branch that really believes in charity.


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Aug 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> This right here. Most people don't want to rock the boat; better the devil they know than the devil they don't.
> 
> Besides, between the Clinton Foundation and her family's friendship with good Samaritans like George Soros, we're looking at a potential executive branch that really believes in charity.



You mean so long as it conforms to the 144th Rule of Acquisition...

"There's nothing wrong with charity, so long as it winds up in your pocket."


----------



## Lumber (23 Aug 2016)

I was thinking more along the lines of rules 60 and 99.

60: "Keep your lies consistent." and

99: "Trust is the biggest liability of all."


----------



## Remius (23 Aug 2016)

Eric Grenier with some analysis.  

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-uselection-update-aug22-1.3730844

The last two paragraphs caught my eye. 

_In Iowa, where the YouGov poll suggests there's a tie and Trump has just as much support as he does in Ohio, he scored worse on all of these measures. But so did Clinton. That suggests Trump may have a floor that his campaign's problems can't sink him below, but Clinton can be moved into a tie with Trump in some states in part due to her problems on issues like trust.

It raises the question: just how badly would Donald Trump be losing if his opponent wasn't Hillary Clinton?
_

Trump really can't go any further down.  But Clinton could.  also one could say how badly would Clinton be losing if Donald Trump wasn't her opponent.


----------



## muskrat89 (23 Aug 2016)

> No one has come back from that kind of deficit in polling in US elections.



Depends on which poll of course. Not sure that +2 is a deficit

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-trump-gains-ground-against-clinton-1471817853-htmlstory.html


----------



## Remius (23 Aug 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Depends on which poll of course. Not sure that +2 is a deficit
> 
> http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-trump-gains-ground-against-clinton-1471817853-htmlstory.html



Eric Grenier's tracker is pretty good.  it's an aggregate of many polls.  If you look at it you'll see an average of national polls but more importantly the electoral college vote spread and where they stand.  That's the one to watch. It really does not matter what the popular vote says.  Right now, Trump is way behind.


----------



## cupper (23 Aug 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Depends on which poll of course. Not sure that +2 is a deficit



There is a problem in correlation between national polls which show Trump gaining some (it you can call +2 something more than fluctuations in the polling base), and the state level polls which show that he is losing ground across the board. State level polling tends to give results closer to the final vote than do national poles in the past few election cycles. 

*Election Update: National Polls Show The Race Tightening — But State Polls Don’t*

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-national-polls-show-the-race-tightening-but-state-polls-dont/

Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight has an interesting discussion on the LA Times poll, and polling in general.

*Election Update: Leave The LA Times Poll Alone!
Instead of arguing about it or ignoring it, adjust for it.*

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-leave-the-la-times-poll-alone/

Also another fivethirtyeight article on the myth that polls are skewed in one way or another.

*The Polls Aren’t Skewed: Trump Really Is Losing Badly*

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-polls-arent-skewed-trump-really-is-losing-badly/


----------



## cupper (23 Aug 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Trump has his base locked in.  What he isn't gaining in is in undecided, women Latino and black votes.  This why he's changing his tone on immigration deportation and appealing to the Black community.  Without their support or a chunk of it the math won't add up.  His campaign knows this which is why they are changing their tune.



Trump doesn't have the GOP base locked in. A lot of the changes in tone the past week or so are a sign that there is concern with not making enough gains in traditional GOP voter groups. But there is the problem too in that if the campaign leans too much back to try and shore up the so-called establishment GOP voters, he will lose some of the core group that got him the nomination in the first place.

*Trump's Schizophrenic Base Strategy*

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/439255/trumps-schizophrenic-base-strategy



> The Republican base still has not united behind Donald Trump.
> 
> This explains why he’s polling at or below 40 percent in the majority of surveys taken, both nationally and in battleground states, over the past three weeks. That’s a sharp drop-off from late July, when, immediately following a week of solidarity-themed speeches at the GOP convention, Trump registered in the mid-forties in a chorus of surveys and was neck-and-neck with Hillary Clinton.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (23 Aug 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> As for Clinton, I think most voters are apathetic to that.  Almost as if they are shrugging it off as business as usual and expect this from their politicians.



It's more of a case that voters have been listening to this year after year since 1991 when Bill threw his hat into the ring for the '92 election. Every few months, weeks and even days now a new allegation, a new conspiracy, a new scandal gets air time. After 25 years of incessant drum beating, it's more of a case that many of the voters just don't hear it any more. Like the construction worker who for years hears the backup alarms going constantly, but gets run over because he's tuned it out.

And Clinton isn't entirely wrong when she starts spouting off about the vast right wing conspiracy that has been out to get her and her husband. The past two years of constant drum beating from congressional investigations, calls for special prosecutors to investigate criminal accusations, and the associated right wing media campaign show that the conservative right is out to get her, and destroy any chance of getting into the White House.



> “Anyone not paranoid in this world must be crazy. . . . Speaking of paranoia, it's true that I do not know exactly who my enemies are. But that of course is exactly why I'm paranoid.”
> ― Edward Abbey, Postcards from Ed: Dispatches and Salvos from an American Iconoclast



One of my issues with the Clintons is that they keep doing stupid things. And then they go the legal weasel words for explanations or justifications. And then they do something else just as stupid. 

*DON"T FEED THE VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY AND MAYBE IT WILL STOP*

And this will become a liability for her in office, as we will face 4 years of gridlock that will make the last 8 look like the Woodstock Festival. Constant calls for her head by the GOP in congressional hearings. Accusations of lack of transparency, cover-ups and scandals by the truck load. I don't think that this country can take any more gridlock in congress. There is too much that has sat undone in trying to defeat Obama, even after he won reelection. I can just imagine where the US would be if there was cooperation in congress rather than obstruction by both parties. It would be in a hell of a lot better position than it currently is. But at lest it isn't as bad as Trump's dark apocalyptic view of the US.

This is why I believe Clinton should not have been the Democratic nominee, because it will be worse than what we've just gone through.

And the GOP hasn't done anything to give a viable alternative to another Clinton presidency.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (23 Aug 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Trump really can't go any further down.  But Clinton could.  also one could say how badly would Clinton be losing if Donald Trump wasn't her opponent.



Which is why I shake my head at all the people that say, "Trump is beating the establishment!".... No, he's actually pretty much guaranteeing that the establishment, the Clinton's, stay in power. Perhaps there can be a comeback, but I dont think so. It feels too much like last autumn when people kept hoping the Conservatives could pull it out. 

that is, if Hillary stays out of jail. This could end up as a Joe Biden/Bernie Sanders vs. Cruz battle after all.


----------



## mariomike (23 Aug 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> This could end up as a Joe Biden/Bernie Sanders vs. Cruz battle after all.



Joe will turn 74 this year. Bernie 75. They say age is just a number...


----------



## cupper (23 Aug 2016)

Quote from a conservative radio host while discussing the shift in Trump' immigration policy:

"I have a proposal for a new product he can add to his line of luxury items: TRUMP WAFFLES"


----------



## muskrat89 (24 Aug 2016)

> There is a problem in correlation between national polls which show Trump gaining some (it you can call +2 something more than fluctuations in the polling base), and the state level polls which show that he is losing ground across the board. State level polling tends to give results closer to the final vote than do national poles in the past few election cycles.



I'm well aware of statistical analysis, polls, margin of error and how all those things work. My issue is that you make statements in absolutes - there are exceptions to your absolutes.

You make statements, someone counters them, then you change the argument. If you say "All skies are blue" and I say "Well, actually in Arizona they are grey today. Thus, not all skies are blue." My statement is no less accurate than yours. Probably more accurate.

On the other hand if you make the statement "Night time and local weather conditions aside, the sky is generally blue across the nation" - I guess I wouldn't have much to add to that now would I?


----------



## Journeyman (24 Aug 2016)

Not sure who you're responding to, since the quote isn't linked...   ;D



			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> My issue is that you make statements in absolutes


.....but _that_  seems to be a common denominator in these politics "discussions."  Sometimes even the Recruiting threads seem more rationally developed.


----------



## Lightguns (24 Aug 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Not sure who you're responding to, since the quote isn't linked...   ;D
> .....but _that_  seems to be a common denominator in these politics "discussions."  Sometimes even the Recruiting threads seem more rationally developed.



Rational? In a world where a conservative can be hided by the media for $16 OJ but $288 a day in meals for a Liberal is the "wrong focus" for accountability?


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Aug 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Rational? In a world where a conservative can be hided by the media for $16 OJ but $288 a day in meals for a Liberal is the "wrong focus" for accountability?



Shhhhhhh, you'll upset the Liberal cheerleaders that live here.   >


----------



## Altair (24 Aug 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Rational? In a world where a conservative can be hided by the media for $16 OJ but $288 a day in meals for a Liberal is the "wrong focus" for accountability?


weird. I thought this was American politics.


----------



## mariomike (24 Aug 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> weird. I thought this was American politics.



Canadian Politics is locked.


----------



## Remius (24 Aug 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Rational? In a world where a conservative can be hided by the media for $16 OJ but $288 a day in meals for a Liberal is the "wrong focus" for accountability?



I'm curious, and this is off topic but related to this. 

The max rate for food is 148 euros a day?  So 215$ a day using today's currency exchange.  And are they calculating the incidentals as part of that?  That might bring it to 288.  Unless there were extenuating circumstances.

Also you can't tell me that some events we're not catered and that a meal wasn't provided though at some points for some people.

It stinks but 288 CAD doesn't seem too far off the mark depending on how it was looked at.

Edit: actually 148 does include incidentals.


----------



## Lightguns (24 Aug 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> weird. I thought this was American politics.


Quite right, I should have picked an American example

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk


----------



## cupper (24 Aug 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Not sure who you're responding to, since the quote isn't linked...   ;D
> .....but _that_  seems to be a common denominator in these politics "discussions."  Sometimes even the Recruiting threads seem more rationally developed.



That's because the people posting in the recruiting threads haven't lived long enough to become as jaded as those of us posting here. [


----------



## muskrat89 (24 Aug 2016)

> That's because the people posting in the recruiting threads haven't lived long enough to become as jaded as those of us posting here



Now THAT is funny!


----------



## muskrat89 (24 Aug 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> and the state level polls which show that he is losing ground across the board. State level polling tends to give results closer to the final vote than do national poles in the past few election cycles.



Not in Arizona at least. There's a state level poll showing he's +5. Again, it may be the exception but certainly not every state has Hillary ahead.

http://www.azfamily.com/story/32833816/cnn-poll-trump-tops-clinton-in-arizona?autostart=true



> WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are neck and neck in North Carolina, a state solidifying its position as a perennial presidential election battleground, while Trump holds a 5-point lead in the traditionally GOP-tilting state of Arizona, according to new CNN/ORC battleground state polls.
> 
> Trump is the choice of 43% of registered voters in Arizona, while Clinton stands at 38%, followed by Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson at 12% and Green Party nominee Jill Stein at 4%. In North Carolina, Clinton stands at 44%, Trump at 43% and Johnson at 11%. Stein will not appear on the ballot there.
> 
> Looking at the narrower pool of those likely to turn out in November, the race doesn't change significantly in either state. Trump's lead in Arizona widens slightly to 7 points, while the 1-point difference between the two candidates in North Carolina shifts to a tied race. Likely voters become a more meaningful subgroup as the election gets closer and voters settle on whether they will turn out and whom they will support.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Aug 2016)

Why does this campaign remind me of:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v7XXSt9XRM


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Aug 2016)

There's no conspiracy to "get" the Clintons.  The simple explanation is the correct one: they behave corruptly and with impropriety.  For all the people who fret that the Clintons are somehow held unfairly under a microscope, the truth is that it would be more worrisome if they attracted no investigations.  Eventually, too much good fortune is unlikely to be mere perspicacity and luck.

Trump will most likely lose the EC.  The Democratic party doesn't really seem to have a principled element the same way the Republican party does (the Trump detractors, who are numerous).


----------



## cupper (25 Aug 2016)

Seems Trump will have his own cows coming home to roost if he doesn't deliver on his promises with respect to immigration.

And I know this is the extreme end of the fringe, but it only takes one to act on the idea.

*Glenn Beck Caller Has Chilling Message For Trump If He Doesn’t Build The Wall*

http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2016/08/24/glenn-beck-caller-chilling-message-trump-doesnt-build-wall/



> When your bread-and-butter is stirring up the worst in people, you need to be really cautious about crossing your base.
> 
> This election has brought out some ugly, scary characters. On both sides. Trump, however, has plumbed the depths of living hell with his rhetoric and it may come back to bite him.
> 
> ...



You can hear the call here: 

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/08/24/trump-supporter-issues-threatening-message-to-gop-nominee-live-on-the-air/


----------



## FJAG (25 Aug 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> There's no conspiracy to "get" the Clintons.  The simple explanation is the correct one: they behave corruptly and with impropriety.  For all the people who fret that the Clintons are somehow held unfairly under a microscope, the truth is that it would be more worrisome if they attracted no investigations.  Eventually, too much good fortune is unlikely to be mere perspicacity and luck.
> 
> Trump will most likely lose the EC.  The Democratic party doesn't really seem to have a principled element the same way the Republican party does (the Trump detractors, who are numerous).



 :rofl:

I'm sorry. I just had to come back. I couldn't help myself.

 :cheers:


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Aug 2016)

I've read plenty of commentary from Republicans, and conservatives in general, explaining their reasons for refusing to support Trump, and their refusals to be swayed by mere practical issues such as a shift in balance on the USSC.  Hence, principled.  There isn't a matching - at least not within a couple of orders of magnitude - contingent of Democrats explaining why they won't support Clinton.


----------



## Lumber (26 Aug 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I've read plenty of commentary from Republicans, and conservatives in general, explaining their reasons for refusing to support Trump, and their refusals to be swayed by mere practical issues such as a shift in balance on the USSC.  Hence, principled.  There isn't a matching - at least not within a couple of orders of magnitude - contingent of Democrats explaining why they won't support Clinton.



This is simple to explain.

The democrats smell victory, and they all want a spot on the coat tails so they get a chance to suck on the presidential teet (not literally...although...). Ergo, they are not rocking the boat.

On the other hand, the Republicans smell defeat, and therefore, with nothing to lose, they are speaking there minds, and causing a ruckus. They aren't afraid of pissing off the executive branch that wasn't.

There are no principled politicians.

 :2c:


----------



## Lightguns (26 Aug 2016)

In democratic politics, principles will kill your campaign every time.  The drones may whine about dirty politics but they all tune in to cheer their team for the fight.


----------



## CougarKing (26 Aug 2016)

Hmm. The headline apparently said "Trump gaining on Clinton" on the MSN newsfeed, but this was the headline below at the source article.

Reuters



> *Clinton leads Trump by 5 points in Reuters/Ipsos poll *
> Reuters
> 
> By Chris Kahn
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Aug 2016)

In this wikileaks release Hillary takes credit for the fall of Qaddafi.It could make a powerful Trump ad.

https://www.scribd.com/document/322287777/Libya-Tick-Tock#from_embed


----------



## a_majoor (27 Aug 2016)

How progressives have changed. This goes a long way to explain why millennial were so supportive of Obama, Sanders and now the hope is they transfer their allegiance to Clinton:


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Aug 2016)

When I read the word progressive I think socialist.I dont know why they want to camoflage who they are.Socialists in Europe dont mind the term so why not the US version ?


----------



## a_majoor (28 Aug 2016)

Dissecting Hillary Clinton's speech:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQtCiW5hTes


----------



## CougarKing (29 Aug 2016)

Trump already alienated the overwhelmingly Catholic, Hispanic American vote with his views on immigration, and add this to his wanting to ban immigration from countries like the Philippines, also a predominantly Catholic country.

Washington Post



> *Analysis: Donald Trump has a massive Catholic problem*
> 
> The Washington Post
> Aaron Blake
> ...


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (29 Aug 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> How progressives have changed. This goes a long way to explain why millennial were so supportive of Obama, Sanders and now the hope is they transfer their allegiance to Clinton:



Since we are just using stereotypes here's one:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Aug 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Since we are just using stereotypes here's one:



It is the Democrats that were pro slavery, KKK, Jim Crowe, etc.


----------



## Lightguns (29 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It is the Democrats that were pro slavery, KKK, Jim Crowe, etc.



Correct, it is amazing how few Americans understand their political history.  Johnson reformed the Democrat stance in the 60s by embracing Civil Rights but even he said it was just to get their vote and nothing to do with his personal stance. US political history is full of two faced people.  Lincoln did believe in slavery but also felt Blacks should not be an equal component of society.  Maggie Sanger believed planned parenting raised better kids but felt that the best planning for Black families was little to no children as they were a burden on American society.  The Clintons embraced the KKK moderates for years to get the vote and run Arkansas with a iron fist.  The heyday of Black culture in the US was during the soft segregation of the 30s, 40s and 50s in the Southwest and Northeast.  Black communities had their own Hollywood, their own economic system, their own sports and they thrived independent of white political machinations.  The Hard segregation of the South was a different thing however.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (29 Aug 2016)

Or economic history: The USA created its industrial base by having the most protectionist tariffs in the history of the world. It's only after they became such an industrial powerhouse (as a result of such protectionism) that they became "free traders". Benjamin Franklin, the greatest proponent and architect of this system of protectionism, used to call the process "industry incubation", i.e. protect until adult enough to stand on its own feet.


----------



## FJAG (29 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It is the Democrats that were pro slavery, KKK, Jim Crowe, etc.



In light of your use of the P.J. O`Rourke quote in the tagline on your posts, I thought you might be interested in this article.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/pj-orourke-endorses-hillary-clinton-222954



> P.J. O'Rourke hate-endorses Hillary Clinton on NPR quiz show
> By Nick Gass
> 05/09/16 07:01 AM EDT
> 
> ...



 ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (29 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> It is the Democrats that were pro slavery, KKK, Jim Crowe, etc.



I'm aware it was the democrats that were pro slavery as Lincoln was a Republican (also why the term "southern Democrat" came into vogue). The name of the party does not equal it's political affiliation, so I would suggest that Conservative=Democrat until the WWII is completely irrelevant (same as Republican = liberal/progressive until WWII was for Thucydides meme).

The point, of course, is that using stereotypes to describe any group of people is wrong.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (29 Aug 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Correct, it is amazing how few Americans understand their political history.  Johnson reformed the Democrat stance in the 60s by embracing Civil Rights but even he said it was just to get their vote and nothing to do with his personal stance. US political history is full of two faced people.  Lincoln did believe in slavery but also felt Blacks should not be an equal component of society.  Maggie Sanger believed planned parenting raised better kids but felt that the best planning for Black families was little to no children as they were a burden on American society.  The Clintons embraced the KKK moderates for years to get the vote and run Arkansas with a iron fist.  The heyday of Black culture in the US was during the soft segregation of the 30s, 40s and 50s in the Southwest and Northeast.  Black communities had their own Hollywood, their own economic system, their own sports and they thrived independent of white political machinations.  The Hard segregation of the South was a different thing however.



The history of Republicans vs Democrats doesn't equal progressive vs. conservative. The point was that Thucydides meme, which essentially equates progressives to being lazy is, at best, ridiculous in the way that my meme was.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Aug 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Correct, it is amazing how few Americans understand their political history.  Johnson reformed the Democrat stance in the 60s by embracing Civil Rights but even he said it was just to get their vote and nothing to do with his personal stance. US political history is full of two faced people.  Lincoln did believe in slavery but also felt Blacks should not be an equal component of society.  Maggie Sanger believed planned parenting raised better kids but felt that the best planning for Black families was little to no children as they were a burden on American society.  The Clintons embraced the KKK moderates for years to get the vote and run Arkansas with a iron fist.  The heyday of Black culture in the US was during the soft segregation of the 30s, 40s and 50s in the Southwest and Northeast.  Black communities had their own Hollywood, their own economic system, their own sports and they thrived independent of white political machinations.  The Hard segregation of the South was a different thing however.



Not just moderates, but the top echelon. Clinton even made a big deal about how Byrd was her mentor.


----------



## FJAG (29 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Not just moderates, but the top echelon. Clinton even made a big deal about how Byrd was her mentor.



And now for the rest of the story.

http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/

Which includes this eulogy from the NAACP:



> In 2010, even the NAACP released a statement honoring Senator Byrd and mourning his passing:
> 
> The NAACP is saddened by the passing of United States Senator Robert Byrd. Byrd, the longest serving member of congress was first elected to the U.S. House from [West Virginia] in 1952 and was elected Senator in 1958. Byrd passed away this morning at the age of 92.
> 
> ...



Sounds like that at the time that he and Hillary had that smooch he was an upstanding guy. But let's not stand in the way of another Republican piece of misinformation by omission.

 :cheers:


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Aug 2016)

All that tells me is that Democrats and progressives are allowed to change their way of thinking, but if a Republican or conservative does it, they're flip flopping or not genuine.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Aug 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> And now for the rest of the story.
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/
> 
> ...



I'll have to look for it, but Snopes was caught changing articles to better suit the Democrats. Snopes can no longer be considered an unbiased authority. However, you'll never change a Hillary Shill's mind about their Madonna, so it's not even worth the effort trying.


----------



## FJAG (29 Aug 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'll have to look for it, but Snopes was caught changing articles to better suit the Democrats. Snopes can no longer be considered an unbiased authority. However, you'll never change a Hillary Shill's mind about their Madonna, so it's not even worth the effort trying.



This is the 2010 press release re Senator Byrd on the NAACP's own website:

http://www.naacp.org/press/entry/naacp-mourns-the-passing-of-u.s.-senator-robert-byrd/

 :cheers:


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Aug 2016)

>There are no principled politicians.

Most of the people to whom I referred are not politicians.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (30 Aug 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> All that tells me is that Democrats and progressives are allowed to change their way of thinking, but if a Republican or conservative does it, they're flip flopping or not genuine.



Michael Ignatieff, Stephane Dion, and Paul Martin were regularly criticized for flip flopping on positions. Literally just punch in any of those name and "flip flop" into google. 

For Mr. Byrd- 2 points.

1. "Flip flopping" from being in the KKK to believing in racial equality isn't so much flip flopping... it's more moving from being a piece of s*&t to being a good person.

2. Attacking the Byrd relationship (and the DD one for Trump) is just another attack on the person and not their positions. Conservatives and Liberals (in Canada and the US) have to get over this obsession with attacking and trying to "bring down" individuals (Harper, Trudeau, Clinton, Trump, Obama, Bush, etc) and focus more on what they bring to the table. This current fascination only leads to a complete inability to have any sort of productive across the floor bi-partisan processes and frankly dumbs down our political machine to a "he said, she said" argument a 7 year old would be proud of.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Aug 2016)

Most of the calls for civility and reason seem to emanate from Democrats / progressives / Canadian LPC+NPC types.  Then I find them, in print and on TV, mocking people for lifestyle, social, and political choices.  The limitations on who it is acceptable to mock are narrow, but the zone exists.

To those who are calling for it: you start - and persist - first.

And I see articles by principled Democratic objectors to Hillary are starting to emerge (read one today - certainly not the first; just the first one in a while on the aggregator sites I frequent).  I'd like to see a big splinter of each of the two teams break off and vote for the L or G candidates.


----------



## FJAG (30 Aug 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> . . . And I see articles by principled Democratic objectors to Hillary are starting to emerge (read one today - certainly not the first; just the first one in a while on the aggregator sites I frequent).  I'd like to see a big splinter of each of the two teams break off and vote for the L or G candidates.



A similar example is the recent New York Times editorial calling for Clinton to sever her ties to the Clinton Foundation now rather than waiting to be elected. While I expect that the Trump gang would call that an admission that she was corrupted in the past, most right (or maybe I should say most center and left) thinking people would just see this as logical and proper thing to do. One would hope it gets done well before the first debate.

 :cheers:


----------



## cupper (30 Aug 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> 2. Attacking the Byrd relationship (and the DD one for Trump) is just another attack on the person and not their positions. Conservatives and Liberals (in Canada and the US) have to get over this obsession with attacking and trying to "bring down" individuals (Harper, Trudeau, Clinton, Trump, Obama, Bush, etc) and focus more on what they bring to the table. This current fascination only leads to a complete inability to have any sort of productive across the floor bi-partisan processes and frankly dumbs down our political machine to a "he said, she said" argument a 7 year old would be proud of.



I agree with most of what you said, but I disagree that the attacks on the Byrd-Clinton relationship vs the Duke-Trump relationship are the same thing. The Byrd-Clinton attack is an attack of Clinton as a person. Byrd disavowed the views of the KKK and spent the rest of his life apologizing for it. 

However Duke still expounds his racist views, thinly veiled with less offensive names and tag lines. Trump, whether knowingly or not has reposted or retweeted or used information taken from known racist websites, put on staff people who further those views of Duke and his ilk. And when challenged on the racial undertones in his campaign refuses to disavow it. He even refuses to disavow the support from David Duke. During his tenure with the defunct Reform Party he spoke out about the involvement of Duke, and why he was not staying with the party. So the attacks on the Duke-Trump relationship is more of an attack on positions / platforms / statements and less an attack on his person.


----------



## cupper (30 Aug 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> A similar example is the recent New York Times editorial calling for Clinton to sever her ties to the Clinton Foundation now rather than waiting to be elected.



What gets me about the Clinton Foundation debacle is that they knew she would be running in 2016. Why did they not start divesting and separating from the foundation. They had 4 freaking years to do it. One interview I heard with Donna Shalala, head of the Foundation, they only started looking at winding things down and preparing for a separation from the Clintons when she declared her intention to run last year.

Again, another example of lack of good judgement, and feeding the GOP critics with more ammunition. It's insane how they bitch about the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" yet continue to provide the bullets for the shooters to use against them. There aren't enough O's in the word stupid to describe how dumb they are when it comes to furthering the corruption narrative.


----------



## cupper (30 Aug 2016)

Somehow I think God is saying "This is all on you, I didn't do any of this"  :nod:

And to think we could have had her as the GOP nominee if things had been different in 2008. Dodged a bullet there. ;D

*Bachmann: God 'raised up' Trump to be GOP nominee*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/michele-bachmann-god-trump-nominee-227556



> God raised up Donald Trump to be the Republican presidential nominee, Michele Bachmann said in an interview with a Christian news channel released Tuesday.
> 
> “I don’t think God sits things out. He’s a sovereign God. Donald Trump became our nominee. I think it’s very likely that in the day that we live in, that Donald Trump is the only individual who could win in a general election of the 17 who ran,” the former Minnesota congresswoman told CBN News’ The Brody File.
> 
> ...


----------



## FJAG (30 Aug 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> What gets me about the Clinton Foundation debacle is that they knew she would be running in 2016. Why did they not start divesting and separating from the foundation. They had 4 freaking years to do it. One interview I heard with Donna Shalala, head of the Foundation, they only started looking at winding things down and preparing for a separation from the Clintons when she declared her intention to run last year.
> 
> Again, another example of lack of good judgement, and feeding the GOP critics with more ammunition. It's insane how they ***** about the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" yet continue to provide the bullets for the shooters to use against them. There aren't enough O's in the word stupid to describe how dumb they are when it comes to furthering the corruption narrative.



Tend to agree.

Just as an aside I just went to the Clinton Foundation website to have a look at it:

https://www.clintonfoundation.org/about

Interesting thing is that it was originally called the William J. Clinton Foundation but was then renamed the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation.

That said however, I also noted that while Bill and Chelsea are on the board of directors (Chelsea as the vice chair and Bill just as a member, Hillary is not and neither is she listed as a member of the leadership team (as of Feb 2016)

I've also looked at the last posted financial statements (including IRS filings) and note that there is nothing unusual here for a large non-profit collecting a fair amount of contributions and also providing excellent programs. The IRS filings show that Bill, Hillary or Chelsea salary for their respective roles (Hillary was listed as a director until 12 April 2015) was $0.00 each (the same as all the other directors [except the Chair and CEO, neither of which was a Clinton]).

I expect that there would be reimbursement to the Clintons for various travel and other board related expenses and possibly some other indirect benefits but my cursory review of the fairly detailed documentation doesn't raise andy red flags (Unlike Trumps campaigns use and reimbursement of the various Trump owned properties airplanes etc)

Long story short, I really don't see what the fuss is all about vis a vis Hillary. I do think both Bill and Chelsea should also step aside (the sooner the better) primarily because of the optics (Caesar's wife [or rather husband] and daughter should be above reproach)

Anyway -- fun times, fun times.

op: 

:cheers:


----------



## FJAG (30 Aug 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> *Bachmann: God 'raised up' Trump to be GOP nominee*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Does this mean that if God raises up Clinton as president then Bachmann will support Clinton?  

Or is she just a big hypocrite?  ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## cavalryman (30 Aug 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/michele-bachmann-god-trump-nominee-227556
> 
> 
> Does this mean that if God raises up Clinton as president then Bachmann will support Clinton?
> ...


German soldiers wore "Gott mit uns" on their belt buckles until 1945.  Didn't do them much good, as I recall.  >


----------



## CougarKing (30 Aug 2016)

This won't look good for Trump if he's seen as making a last-ditch, desperate effort to get Peña Nietos' endorsement, especially since the Mexican President's predecessor Vicente Fox essentially called Trump a buffoon several months ago, when talk of making Mexico pay for a border wall was still fresh.

Washington Post



> *Trump weighs meeting in Mexico with the country’s president*
> 
> By Robert Costa and Karen DeYoung August 30 at 9:32 PM
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (30 Aug 2016)

Rumour is that someone tipped him off that Mexico has electoral college votes.  ;D


----------



## cupper (30 Aug 2016)

Interesting discussion on why Trump may want to rethink his decision to run.

*7 Reasons Why Trump Would Hate Being President
He couldn’t fire people every day—and he’d actually have to master the details. Boring!*

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/7-reasons-why-trump-would-hate-being-president-214192



> The growing conventional wisdom about Donald Trump and his flailing campaign is that the candidate is sabotaging his own bid for the White House. As outlandish as that may seem on its face, there are reasons that it may very well be true. Should he win, Trump will loathe the next 1,460 days of his life.
> 
> As someone who has never worked in Washington, never obtained a security clearance, never received an ethics briefing, and never assembled a team of experienced policy aides, Donald Trump will be in for the shock of his life when he realizes starting January 20, 2017 just how much harder – and different – running a government is from running a private business. The Republican nominee will hate the presidency, so much so that even if he won the White House, he would be sorely tempted to quit before his term even ends.
> Story Continued Below
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (31 Aug 2016)

Obama seems to be making a move to take away control of elections from the states,under the guise of national security.This would be unconstitutional and if attempted would really stir the hornets nest.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/homeland-eyes-special-declaration-to-take-charge-of-elections/article/2600592


----------



## cupper (31 Aug 2016)

Well, it's official, Trump is going to Mexico tomorrow.


----------



## cavalryman (31 Aug 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Well, it's official, Trump is going to Mexico tomorrow.


Nixon went to China.   :nod:


----------



## cupper (31 Aug 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Nixon went to China.   :nod:



True, but he also had Kissenger to advise him.

Trump? Not so much.


----------



## CougarKing (31 Aug 2016)

Oh well...

New York Daily News



> *Models at Trump's agency worked in U.S. illegally*
> 
> New York Daily News
> ADAM EDELMAN
> ...


----------



## cupper (31 Aug 2016)

Listening to his Immigration Policy speech.

Donald Trump makes my ears hurt.

I never realized that the US right now, this very moment is a post apocalyptic world. 

How could I have missed that?  :facepalm:


----------



## cupper (1 Sep 2016)

Julian Assange seems to not understand that under a Trump presidency his ass would be in solitary in some backwater US prison for the rest of his natural life. And then some. Hiding in the Ecuadoran embassy would not protect him, since Trump would either bully Ecuador into handing him over, or negotiate like nobody's business for him to be handed over. 

*Julian Assange: American press supports ‘demon’ Hillary Clinton*

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/08/julian-assange-american-press-supports-demon-hillary-clinton-227597



> In an interview with New York Times investigative reporter Jo Becker on Wednesday, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange accused the press of supporting Hillary Clinton, whom he likened to a “demon.”
> 
> “The American liberal press, in falling over themselves to defend Hillary Clinton, are erecting a demon that is going to put nooses around everyone’s necks as soon as she wins the election, which is almost certainly what she’s going to do,” Assange said in the interview, which was broadcast live Wednesday on Facebook.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Sep 2016)

A quick cartoon break ...


----------



## Remius (1 Sep 2016)

While I do believe that there is some blatant media bias in this election, the right wing media much like the Republicans seems to have imploded as well.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/31/media/conservative-media-limbaugh-beck-hannity-trump/index.html


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Sep 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> While I do believe that there is some blatant media bias in this election, the right wing media much like the Republicans seems to have imploded as well.
> 
> http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/31/media/conservative-media-limbaugh-beck-hannity-trump/index.html



That article is from CNN. CNN has been proven to be a Clinton public relations firm. They have lost all respect amongst news agencies in the last few weeks. It would appear to me that they are trying to deflect their own demise by striking out at the right. The same as they've always done.

CNN is in it's death throws and wants to take as much of the right down with it as it can.

After their proven bias, they can't be trusted as a news source. They are more akin to TMZ now.


----------



## CougarKing (1 Sep 2016)

As expected: Pena Nietos should have been the last person Trump needed to meet.

Reuters



> *Mexico president blasts Trump's policies as 'huge threat' after meeting*
> By: Dave Graham, Reuters
> September 1, 2016 8:42 PM
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (1 Sep 2016)

:rofl:

*OBAMA PAYS MEXICO FIVE BILLION DOLLARS TO KEEP DONALD TRUMP*

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/obama-pays-mexico-five-billion-dollars-to-keep-donald-trump



> WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—President Barack Obama defended his decision on Wednesday to issue a payment of five billion dollars to Mexico to compel that nation to retain custody of Donald J. Trump.
> 
> The payment, which will be delivered to the Mexican government in hard American currency by Wednesday afternoon, will insure that Trump will remain in Mexico for the rest of his natural life.
> 
> ...



*MEXICAN PRESIDENT SAYS HE MADE TRUMP PAY FOR LUNCH*

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/mexican-president-says-he-made-trump-pay-for-lunch



> MEXICO CITY (The Borowitz Report)—The war of words between Donald J. Trump and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto continued on Thursday as Peña Nieto vehemently asserted that he made the Republican Presidential nominee pay for lunch during his visit to Mexico City.
> 
> “As soon as we sat down to order, I made it very clear that I had no intention of paying for lunch,” Peña Nieto said. “And when the check arrived, I made absolutely no move to pick it up.”
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (2 Sep 2016)

Interesting analysis of the whole "vast right-wing conspiracy" conspiracy and how Hillary Clinton really carries a lot of the responsibility for what has ultimately become a 25 year long witch hunt which both Clintons have been feeding through their own stupidity, poor judgement and need to shade the truth.

PART 1

*How Hillary Clinton helped create what she later called the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/hillary-clinton-was-right-about-the-vast-right-wing-conspiracy-heres-why-it-exists/2016/09/02/4a5e0fba-6879-11e6-99bf-f0cf3a6449a6_story.html



> The epic battles between the Clintons and their tormentors on the right have shaped American politics for nearly a quarter century.
> 
> But there was a moment early on when the toxic course of that history might have been changed, had it not been for Hillary Clinton’s impulses toward secrecy.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (2 Sep 2016)

PART 2



> Trump has labeled Clinton “crooked Hillary” and says she may be “the most corrupt person ever to seek the presidency.”
> 
> The couple had a reputation for shading the truth that began even before they reached the White House. Bill Clinton was known as “Slick Willie” back in Arkansas, and the nickname seemed to fit as he glided through political eruptions over his actions.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (2 Sep 2016)

*Trump just hired the Captain Ahab of Clinton haters*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-just-hired-the-captain-ahab-of-clinton-haters/2016/09/02/2b5f45b0-713f-11e6-8365-b19e428a975e_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-f%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.cc0148116839



> Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas, the old saying goes. If so, Donald Trump should be awfully itchy.
> 
> Trump has just augmented his ever-changing cast of mostly second-string campaign operatives with a new deputy campaign manager, conservative activist David Bossie. “A friend of mine for many years,” Trump told my Post colleague Robert Costa. “Solid. Smart. Loves politics, knows how to win.”
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (2 Sep 2016)

Still not entirely sure why he supported him in the first place, especially after the "He was captured, He's not a hero" BS.

*John McCain wins his primary, promptly gives up on Donald Trump*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/02/john-mccain-wins-his-primary-promptly-gives-up-on-donald-trump/?hpid=hp_special-topic-chain_mccaintrump-fix-815am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory



> Literally one day after winning his primary, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) gave up on Donald Trump. In fact, McCain now sounds a bit like he's betting on Trump losing — or, at least, looking like a loser for the rest of the campaign season — to help him win a sixth term in the Senate.
> 
> In a gauzy, five-minute YouTube video released Wednesday, McCain looks directly at the camera and says: "My opponent, Representative Ann Kirkpatrick, is a good person. But if Hillary Clinton is elected president, Arizona will need a senator who will act as a check — not a rubber stamp — for the White House."
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (2 Sep 2016)

:rofl:

For those of you who don't know the background:

*#MemeOfTheWeek: Taco Trucks On Every Corner*

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/02/492390405/-memeoftheweek-taco-trucks-on-every-corner?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20160902



> Thursday night in an appearance on MSNBC, Donald Trump surrogate Marco Gutierrez warned of impending taco overlords if immigration continues unchecked.
> 
> Gutierrez, who was born in Mexico and is co-founder of Latinos for Trump, said to MSNBC, "My culture is a very dominant culture. It is imposing and it's causing problems."
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Sep 2016)

It is amazing how power and privilege lets Clinton get away with so much.....Multiple links:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/242912



> TOO DUMB TO BE PRESIDENT? Clinton told FBI she didn’t understand classified intel.
> 
> Related: FBI Data Dump Shows Clinton is Criminal and Clueless: Hillary is either dishonest or dumb—there is no third choice. By giving her the Comey get-out-of-jail-free card in spite of this — and by scheduling this release for the Friday before Labor Day Weekend — the FBI has demonstrated that it doesn’t deserve its position either.
> 
> Plus: Clinton, aides told FBI conflicting stories about email use.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Sep 2016)

There must be two Hillary Clintons.  One is as advertised by her supporters - a first-class brain, a policy wonk, extensive experience in government, qualified for the office of president by virtue of her deep knowledge of policy, governance, and the workings of the US government.

The other one - some sort of doppelganger - is apparently too stupid to master basic information security, despite time on the Senate Armed Services Committee and as Secretary of State, and is therefore to be excused for all lapses and deliberate evasions of policy and regulations.  Nevertheless, this one is also, apparently, eminently qualified to be US president.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Sep 2016)

How's that election thingy going in the US?  Have they had their vote yet?


----------



## cupper (3 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> How's that election thingy going in the US?  Have they had their vote yet?



Yep. They decided that it was too risky to go with the candidates so we now have the first three term president since FDR. ;D


----------



## mariomike (3 Sep 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> They decided that it was too risky to go with the candidates so we now have the first three term president since FDR. ;D



Pretty sad state of affairs when the IAFF refuses to endorse either one of them.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Sep 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Yep. They decided that it was too risky to go with the candidates so we now have the first three term president since FDR. ;D



Right about now I figure they must be about ready to turn the whole decision over to Simon Cowell....


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Sep 2016)

Maybe one day,say in a year we can compare the chief executives of the US and Canada.My money is on Trump.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Sep 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Maybe one day,say in a year we can compare the chief executives of the US and Canada.My money is on Trump.



Aw, C'mon! Now you're not playing fair!   ;D


----------



## FJAG (3 Sep 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> There must be two Hillary Clintons.  One is as advertised by her supporters - a first-class brain, a policy wonk, extensive experience in government, qualified for the office of president by virtue of her deep knowledge of policy, governance, and the workings of the US government.
> 
> The other one - some sort of doppelganger - is apparently too stupid to master basic information security, despite time on the Senate Armed Services Committee and as Secretary of State, and is therefore to be excused for all lapses and deliberate evasions of policy and regulations.  Nevertheless, this one is also, apparently, eminently qualified to be US president.



Again, I don't want to sound like a Hillary apologist but I can see how she got where she did with this server stuff.

In my last job before I retired I was on a three year class B to build a new Information Management system for the JAG. Part of that was a records management system. In order to do that I had to get myself completely up on the Archives Act and all of the various government and DND requirements for records management; review how it was currently being dealt with in JAG, produce a technological solution and produce a business transformation plan to implement it.

Long story short the record management processes that existed and the existing expertise in using it was very often sub standard to the point of being contrary to many of the laws and regulations. When you consider that the typical JAG users were all well educated officers and support staff it would not be surprising that in other branches of DND the records management system is being even less well implemented.

As an example, not every scrap of paper or email has to be retained. Transitory records can be destroyed when no longer of use and even corporate records can and should be destroyed in accordance with record destruction authorities such as the DSCDS. Very few people that I have come in contact with have any proper understanding of records management and especially records destruction. Of those that do, few have a complete understanding (This is primarily because the DSCDS itself is a piece of crap and secondly because we have almost completely destroyed the records management trade field in the military. As a result a very large percentage of the records submitted for archiving should have been destroyed long ago (That's mostly because none of us have the time to strip and cross strip files properly before closing them).

I doubt if anyone at the minister level in our government (which is a political and not public service appointment) has any understanding of the details respecting records management. They look to their subordinates to create and manage a workable and legal system. All too often, at that level, things work too loosely in order to meet the job requirements.

In the end, hindsight is 20/20. The whole thing with Hillary should have worked better than it did and the right advice was either absent or not forcefully advocated.

Again, not an apology but an attempt at understanding.  op:

 :cheers:


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Sep 2016)

You did all that on government systems, yes? There's a complete difference between running afoul of the Archives Act on a DND system, than having Confidential emails delivered to a private email server running on your basement.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Sep 2016)

If the issue was ignorance of the fine points of information management in the computer age, I'd cut her some slack.

She claims ignorance of the basic principles of security classifications - stuff that can be taught in one 40-minute lecture.


----------



## FJAG (3 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You did all that on government systems, yes? There's a complete difference between running afoul of the Archives Act on a DND system, than having Confidential emails delivered to a private email server running on your basement.



True enough. The trouble with JAG was that there were only two systems available at the time which was the basic Protected A system and the very restricted user Classified  system (up to Secret Tempest). Most of JAG's work is Protected B Solicitor Client Privilege and we needed to and did build a Protected B system that had ADM(IM) certification and which ran on the back of the DWAN.

It is not, and was not then, impossible to build a system that can handle classified material. In 2008 we had and did used USB sticks rated to Secret (but which we were only authorised to use to Protected B.)  

My point is that there are two issues being touted: destruction of emails; and some emails sent containing information that may or was classified. 

My point really addressed the first issue where I understand by far most of the material that she sent through her "personal" system ended up with recipients who's emails were being retained in other government systems and thus were duplicates of otherwise maintained corporate records or basically transitory records.

As to the second issue I agree with you. Under the then existing systems, classified data ought not to have gone through her "personal" system albeit my understanding is that she believed she was not transmitting classified data. The FBI report states out of some 30,000 emails there were 110 emails in 52 email chains that included classified information. By that it appears to me that she may not have been the originator of the classified information but merely a recipient along the chain. (A further 2000 or so which were sent or received as unclassified were later up-classified as Confidential)

Obviously even one is too many but I maintain my position that the issue here is a failing within the Dept of State. The office of the Secretary is run as a separate entity within the Dept of State but nonetheless it should be up to the Department to ensure that the Secretary has a compliant system. Hillary wasn't the first Secretary of State just the first to make significant use of email. Email wasn't born the day that Clinton took office. State should have had a well functioning system long before that.

I do agree with the principle of ministerial responsibility but there's a limit when the failure is one where the minister inherits a faulty system and isn't advised on how to fix it. My guess is that if you went through the email systems of the Republican senators and congressmen who have no launched the upteenth investigation and are calling for the FBI director's head for not charging her then you would find a cornucopia of misuse even more egregious then hers.

One needs to keep some perspective when one looks at these things.

 :cheers:


----------



## FJAG (3 Sep 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If the issue was ignorance of the fine points of information management in the computer age, I'd cut her some slack.
> 
> She claims ignorance of the basic principles of security classifications - stuff that can be taught in one 40-minute lecture.



I'll make it even faster. These are the meanings of the various classifications:

Protected - Unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause injury to a non-national interest; that is, an individual interest such as a person or an organization.

Protected A - Injury to an individual, organization or government.

Protected B - Serious injury to an individual, organization or government.

Protected C - Extremely grave injury to an individual, organization or government.

Classified - Unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause injury to the national interest – defence and maintenance of the social, political and economic stability of Canada.

Confidential - Injury to the national interest.

Secret - Serious injury to the national interest

Top Secret - Exceptionally grave injury to the national interest

Easy words to say; very difficult words to apply and interpret in the circumstances. There have been volumes of law books written trying to parse the precise meaning behind such subjective terms as "serious injury" and "exceptionally grave injury" and "gross negligence" etc etc. On top of that all too often information is overclassified simply based on a principle of risk aversion. 

Like I said before, I don't want to be a Clinton apologist but I've seen thousands of email strings that went through my system to which I paid little attention as they involved me only peripherally. I doubt whether I would have noticed if anything was misclassified amongst the info. I try, whenever possible, not to rush to judgement especially when I see others making, what appear to me to be, mountains out of molehills. If that isn't enough of an allegory/parable then take this one: Let him who is without sin cast the first stone -- not so fast Trump!!!  ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## a_majoor (3 Sep 2016)

So what is the Clinton Foundation, exactly?

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/08/the-clinton-foundations-problems-are-deeper-than



> THE CLINTON FOUNDATION’S PROBLEMS ARE DEEPER THAN YOU THINK
> Critical scrutiny has focused on the Foundation’s fundraising. But there are equally troubling questions about its actual work.
> by NATHAN J. ROBINSON
> 
> ...


----------



## FJAG (4 Sep 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So what is the Clinton Foundation, exactly?
> 
> https://www.currentaffairs.org/2016/08/the-clinton-foundations-problems-are-deeper-than



Actually this article had me asking who in the hell is Nathan J. Robinson and quite honestly after some research I'm not much smarter.

It appears that last year he was a PhD student at Harvard and was crowd-sourcing money to start "Current Affairs" which at his website is described in part as:



> a beautiful full-color edition full of elegant design, sophisticated prose, and satirical advertisements. Experience our dazzling illustrations and amass our collectible covers. Much of our content is exclusive to the magazine, so subscribing is the only way to truly experience Current Affairs in all its brilliant vibrance. Each issue has puzzles, cut-outs, quizzes, and other endless surprises that will keep you reading it for weeks and weeks.



On top of that he has written what appear to be either anarchistic or socialist political science books for children like "The Day That The Crayons Organized an Autonomous Workers' Collective: A Parody" and "The Mayor of New Orleans Gets Her Way" (Although in fairness this may just be weird political satire in the guise of a children's book and I'm too thick to see through the simplistic humour although I do see it in "Blueprints for a Sparkling Tomorrow: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream" [I especially like the lecture "On Carnivorous Plants] and therefore am led to the conclusion that he's a satirist).



> In this book of utopian prophecies, the problems of contemporary human society are theorized and textually rectified. The authors expose the dysfunctions embedded in modern life, from shoddy architecture to the existence of police. Featuring over 125 chapters, countless footnotes, an extended bibliography, four appendices, and a full index, this revised and expanded edition of Blueprints for a Sparkling Tomorrow promises to restore the prospects for a civilization gone mad.



 Oh Yeah and an anti-Bill Clinton Book: "Superpredator: Bill Clinton's Use and Abuse of Black America."
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=Nathan+J.+Robinson

If anyone can find a better biography and let me know what this guy is all about, I'd appreciate it. 

 :cheers:


----------



## CougarKing (4 Sep 2016)

First there's a Russian connection (a campaign staff member who worked before for the exiled pro-Russia ex-President of Ukraine), now there's a Saudi one:

New York Daily News



> *EXCLUSIVE: Donald Trump made millions from Saudi government *
> New York Daily News
> 
> STEPHEN REX BROWN
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Sep 2016)

Man what a scoop! A real estate mogul sold expensive apartments to someone who could afford them! Its like there's a difference between selling something to someone, and taking a large donation....


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Man what a scoop! A real estate mogul sold expensive apartments to someone who could afford them! Its like there's a difference between selling something to someone, and taking a large donation....



One's a better salesman.  One had to supply a useful good.  The other ......

Edit:  Oh damme!  I promised myself I was going to leave this thread alone.   ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Sep 2016)

On the other hand - there are Brit political charities as well



> Keith Vaz to be probed over allegations of 'charity payments' to prostitutes











> Keith Vaz's charity links to rent boy scandal



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/04/keith-vaz-to-be-probed-over-charity-payments-to-prostitutes-alle/


What a great time to be alive, I tell you.


----------



## cupper (4 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> One's a better salesman.  One had to supply a useful good.  The other ......
> 
> Edit:  Oh damme!  I promised myself I was going to leave this thread alone.   ;D



Its like a trainwreck. You just can't help yourself.


----------



## observor 69 (5 Sep 2016)

Charity watch gives Clinton Foundation an "A" rating.

https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> On the other hand - there are Brit political charities as well
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Every culture has something to share with the world.

However, Man Love Thursdays is not one of them.

That one, they can keep at home.


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Sep 2016)

>I do agree with the principle of ministerial responsibility but there's a limit when the failure is one where the minister inherits a faulty system and isn't advised on how to fix it.

In this case, the minister didn't inherit a faulty system - the minister directed that a system be set up, and didn't tear it down after being informed that it was against policy and regulations.


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Sep 2016)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Charity watch gives Clinton Foundation an "A" rating.
> 
> https://www.charitywatch.org/ratings-and-metrics/bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-foundation/478



I dont see how the Clinton Foundation will keep its tax exempt status since it clearly benefits the Clintons directly.

Amend 6 years of tax returns.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-foundation-tax-forms_us_564ae72be4b08cda348a6239

Congressional concerns.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2016/07/29/irs-will-look-into-congressional-concerns-involving-clinton-foundation/#75bd7524bf19


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Sep 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Every culture has something to share with the world.
> 
> However, Man Love Thursdays is not one of them.
> 
> That one, they can keep at home.



This politician in the photo is under fire for hiring male prostitutes.  Apparently he likes, Thursdays...  >

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3775190/You-ve-got-time-Vaz-No-confidence-vote-looms-disgraced-MP-tries-cling-job.html


----------



## cupper (6 Sep 2016)

[


----------



## FJAG (6 Sep 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> [



:rofl: 

:cheers:


----------



## a_majoor (7 Sep 2016)

An interesting book at how Trump can win the election. This is also unusual in looking at how the Libertarians and Greens are potentially affecting the election. Maps on link:

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/2016/09/07/wargaming-the-electoral-college-41/?singlepage=true



> *Wargaming the Electoral College*
> BY STEPHEN GREEN SEPTEMBER 7, 2016 CHAT 11 COMMENTS
> 
> You've probably seen the above map already, or ones very much like it, showing Hillary Clinton's prohibitive lead in the Electoral College. In my previous Wargaming column from four weeks ago, Clinton's worst-case scenario gave her a squeaker 273-265. And that, I must reiterate, was her worst-case outcome as of just four weeks ago.
> ...



Of course reading tea leaves like this is always problematic, but it is refreshing to see some analysis from outside the Legacy Media bubble.


----------



## Remius (7 Sep 2016)

What I find interesting is how much of a lead Trump has with independents.  And it seems more republicans support Trump than democrats support Clinton.  

Still, I'm not sure he'll win the electoral college vote.  Those are the numbers that will really matter.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Sep 2016)

If he wins the popular vote but loses on the Electoral College, I _think_ you'll see a big move to reform how the US votes.

It's amazing the amount of people in the US that don't realize their vote really doesn't mean anything, in the big scheme of things. If the Electoral College goes against the population, it'll only be about a week before everyone, in the US, finds this out and starts making noise.

Besides, we'll have to get ready for the inevitable recounts. The charges of voter fraud and the investigations that'll be started after Nov 15.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (7 Sep 2016)

Why?

They hardly bated an eye the year Bush Jr. lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College.


----------



## Remius (7 Sep 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Why?
> 
> They hardly bated an eye the year Bush Jr. lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College.



Yep.  And a few times before that too.

This educational resource actually explains the electoral vote vs popular vote, the many times they conflicted and how someone's vote counts in the system.  Apparently Alsakans have the more powerful vote. 

http://www.learnnc.org/lp/media/lessons/davidwalbert7232004-02/electoralcollege.html

Interesting stuff.  The simple explanations is that you aren't voting for a president nationally, you are voting for a president by state.  Which is why the polls may not reflect how the electoral college will go.


----------



## muskrat89 (7 Sep 2016)

> Why?
> 
> They hardly bated an eye the year Bush Jr. lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College.



Because maybe if it keeps happening, they will get fed up...


----------



## cupper (7 Sep 2016)

The author overlooks one BIG point in the data coming out of the NBC / Survey Monkey poll is that states that are typically strong Republican states in past elections are now toss-up states (specifically Texas, Mississippi, Georgia and North Carolina). Texas hasn't voted a Democrat for President since 1968 when Humphrey won Texas, but Nixon won the election.

http://texasalmanac.com/topics/elections/presidential-elections-and-primaries-texas-1848-2012

I also take exception with "putting his thumb on the scale" and giving Trump 3 points across the board. Clinton leads in that survey in Texas by 1 percentage point. Giving Trump 3 points only results in him being up by 2 points, which still falls within the margin of error.

But the downside for Clinton from this data, as well as some of the other polls coming out is that she is losing ground, but the votes are not going to Trump. Trump isn't making any significant gains in most of the recent polls (as has been the case since the convention if you look back that far). But if you look at the same polls taken in July, they show that Clinton's votes are either going to 3rd party candidates or are now undecided.

You can really only take away 3 things form this poll:

1) It's currently Clinton's game to lose, and she needs to make sure the drop in numbers doesn't carry through to Nov. 8th.

2) Trump has an almost impossible task if he wants to get elected, and if he wants to win, he needs to start making gains in numbers outside his base.

3) This year cannot be considered normal or typical by any stretch of the imagination, and the board is getting turned upside down.


----------



## cupper (7 Sep 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Interesting stuff.  The simple explanations is that you aren't voting for a president nationally, you are voting for a president by state.  Which is why the polls may not reflect how the electoral college will go.



That's not exactly true. You are casting a vote for the state _Electors_ who then in turn cast votes to select the Vice President and then the President. Some states bind the electors to the winner of the state's popular vote in the general election, others distribute the electors proportionally according to the states results in the general election. Some states don't bind their electors to the results, which means they could vote contrary to the will of the voters.

And even then, if the electoral college vote results in a tie, then it goes to the House of Representatives to decide who becomes President and the Senate to decide who becomes Vice President.

But having said all that, the state level polls when analyzed in combination more accurately reflect the electoral college than national level polls which reflect the popular vote (or supposedly do).


----------



## cupper (7 Sep 2016)

:rofl:


----------



## cupper (7 Sep 2016)

I watched the Commander-In-Chief Forum tonight, and really didn't come away with a warm fuzzy for either candidate. Clinton tried to deal with the e-mail issue and again failed, falling back to the usual lawyer speak and technicalities. Trump just reinforced that he really hasn't got a clue, and you need to hope that if he is elected that his advisors are competent and solid, not just yes men.

*Trump suggests he’ll fire the generals*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-suggests-fire-the-generals-227862



> Donald Trump tread into highly sensitive territory Wednesday night when he suggested that if elected he might fire some of the top generals now running the military.
> 
> As the Republican presidential nominee slammed the foreign policy of President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, he also targeted the top officers who have served under them, who are not political appointees and have defined terms of appointment.
> 
> ...



T6, correct me if I'm wrong, but since the senior command posts are congressional appointments, can the President even move to fire them?


----------



## mariomike (7 Sep 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> *Trump suggests he’ll fire the generals*
> 
> 
> T6, correct me if I'm wrong, but since the senior command posts are congressional appointments, can the President even move to fire them?



Didn't President Truman fire General MacArthur?


----------



## cupper (7 Sep 2016)

And I'm sorry, but Matt Lauer sucks at being a moderator. As I said in my previous post I didn't come away with the warm fuzzys for either of them.

*NBC's Lauer puts Clinton, Trump on defensive in Commander-in-Chief Forum*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/clinton-trump-commander-forum-227860



> NEW YORK — Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump each immediately found themselves on the defensive as they faced off at the general election's first candidate forum Wednesday night, as the former secretary of state was forced to justify her private email arrangement at the State Department and her vote to authorize the war in Iraq — while the businessman was confronted with his qualifications for the White House, his past controversial statements about the military, and his apparent ties to Russian president Vladimir Putin.
> 
> “I have a lot of experience dealing with classified material,” Clinton said at the Commander-in-Chief Forum in response to a question about her email arrangement and her handling of secret information.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (7 Sep 2016)

*Trump turns defense hawk
For months, Donald Trump has blasted Congress for excessive defense spending. Not anymore.*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-turns-defense-hawk-227855



> For months, Donald Trump has blasted Congress for excessive defense spending, calling for buying fewer of the newest fighter jets and scaling back weapons purchases pushed by “special interests."
> 
> But on Wednesday, he was singing from the traditional GOP national security hymnal, calling for billions of additional dollars for a bigger Army and Marine Corps, missile defense systems and more ships and fighter jets. He also advocated an end to mandatory budget caps — the same ones he used to criticize as too loose.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (7 Sep 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Didn't President Truman fire General MacArthur?



Apparently so. I may stand corrected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_Truman%27s_relief_of_General_Douglas_MacArthur



> On 11 April 1951, U.S. President Harry S. Truman relieved General of the Army Douglas MacArthur of his commands after MacArthur made public statements which contradicted the administration's policies. MacArthur was a popular hero of World War II who was then the commander of United Nations forces fighting in the Korean War, and his relief remains a controversial topic in the field of civil-military relations....
> 
> The Senate Armed Services Committee and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held a joint inquiry into the military situation and the circumstances surrounding MacArthur's relief, and concluded that "the removal of General MacArthur was within the constitutional powers of the President but the circumstances were a shock to national pride."



Truman's orders to MacArthur which were issued under Gen Bradley's signature:



> I deeply regret that it becomes my duty as President and Commander-in-Chief of the United States military forces to replace you as Supreme Commander, Allied Powers; Commander-in-Chief, United Nations Command; Commander-in-Chief, Far East; and Commanding General, U.S. Army, Far East.
> 
> You will turn over your commands, effective at once, to Lt. Gen. Matthew B. Ridgway. You are authorized to have issued such orders as are necessary to complete desired travel to such place as you select.
> 
> My reasons for your replacement, will be made public concurrently with the delivery to you of the foregoing order, and are contained in the next following message.



Best quote by Truman:



> I fired him because he wouldn't respect the authority of the President. I didn't fire him because he was a dumb son of a bitch, although he was, but that's not against the law for generals. If it was, half to three-quarters of them would be in jail.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Sep 2016)

I found that Trump was respectful of Lauer, whereas Clinton decided it was her program and Lauer was only there to introduce the audience participants. Lauer had one request for HIS program, that she not resort to personal attacks. She wasn't even half way done before she went full personal agenda. Trump definitely came off as more personable and professional.

 :2c:


----------



## cupper (7 Sep 2016)

*Mexican Finance Minister Resigns; Apparent Casualty Of Trump Visit*

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/07/493031472/mexican-finance-minister-resigns-apparent-casualty-of-trump-visit



> Luis Videgaray, Mexico's M.I.T.-educated minister of finance and confidant of President Enrique Peña Nieto, has resigned in a move widely seen as fallout from Donald Trump's visit to that country last week.
> 
> Peña Nieto made the announcement in Mexico City, but he gave no reason for the change, nor did he say whether Videgaray, a key aide since 2005, would receive a new post.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (7 Sep 2016)

;D


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Sep 2016)

>They hardly bated an eye the year Bush Jr. lost the popular vote but won the Electoral College.

That may not be entirely accurate.  Enough people care for this to be in progress:

National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (wikipedia)

"As of 2016, it has been joined by ten states and the District of Columbia; their 165 combined electoral votes amount to 30.7% of the total Electoral College vote, and 61.1% of the 270 votes needed for it to have legal force."


----------



## a_majoor (8 Sep 2016)

Evidently these people are historical illiterates who have no idea why the Founders chose an electoral college system for the {Presidential election (as opposed to a popular vote for the House and State Legislatures to appoint members of the Senate).

On a different note, Hillary Clinton is apparently hoping the power of Big Data will save her campaign, considering that Big Money evidently isn't doing the trick (so far she has outspent Trump by a ratio of 5:1. The hurt faces on the CNN hosts as they announced Trump now having a slight lead was rather priceless). I suspect the very randomness of the Trump campaign is degrading the analytical model  being described here, but at this point, who knows?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-data-campaign-elan-kriegel-214215



> *Hillary Clinton’s ‘Invisible Guiding Hand’*
> Meet the little-known statistician behind the Democratic nominee's most important strategic decisions.
> By Shane Goldmacher
> September 07, 2016
> ...


----------



## mariomike (11 Sep 2016)

Good grief.  This is NOT a drill.

Check out Hillary today,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3784098/Hillary-Clinton-rushed-9-11-memorial-service-following-medical-episode.html


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Sep 2016)

American Politics - A Constant Source of Amusement With Many WTF Moments


Maybe a good title for a book.... ;D


----------



## mariomike (11 Sep 2016)

The Secret Service must have considered it a medical emergency because they broke protocol by propping her up at the curb while they brought the limos up. Normally, the cars are ready and waiting.

Here's another look:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8q1Kekoj5k

I'm not a doctor, but she should go get checked out by one.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Sep 2016)

I've had pneumonia and she hasn't looked, or acted, at all like I would expect if that were the problem with her.


----------



## mariomike (11 Sep 2016)

"Cruel Bill forces her  to stay on campaign trail."


----------



## FJAG (11 Sep 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I've had pneumonia and she hasn't looked, or acted, at all like I would expect if that were the problem with her.



You're now a doctor who can do a diagnosis from a YouTube video?  There's got to be good money in that.

 ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Sep 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> "Cruel Bill forces her  to stay on campaign trail."



You know, not saying that is the case here, but recently the National Enquirer has actually broken news the MSM would not touch.

 :dunno:


----------



## mariomike (11 Sep 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> You know, not saying that is the case here, but recently the National Enquirer has actually broken news the MSM would not touch.
> 
> :dunno:


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Sep 2016)

The internet never disappoints:







With that out of the way, I checked the temps in New York and it was 29C at 1700 today. That's a pretty hot day, with a lot of people hanging around, for someone who's apparently sick and is getting up there in age. Definitely can see people taking a knee in that weather.


----------



## tomahawk6 (11 Sep 2016)

My diagnosis is cancer.With good care she should be able to campaign until she drops from exhaustion. :camo:


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Sep 2016)

My diagnosis is stress.  One or more of her statements made to a federal investigator was false, and she's sweating it.


----------



## cupper (11 Sep 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> You're now a doctor who can do a diagnosis from a YouTube video?  There's got to be good money in that.
> 
> ;D



The market appears to be oversaturated in that respect. [


----------



## mariomike (11 Sep 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> The internet never disappoints:



Hillary Clinton 9/11 Medical Episode: ‘Hillary Health’ Internet Memes
http://heavy.com/news/2016/09/hillary-clinton-medical-episode-911-health-collapse-memorial-left-early-memes-twitter-internet/4/


----------



## cupper (11 Sep 2016)

From The Canada Party:



> TODAY: Offensive comments about Clinton's illness.
> TONIGHT: Internet pile-on.
> TOMORROW. GOP says it's proof they care about womens health.


----------



## mariomike (12 Sep 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> From The Canada Party:



She - and Trump - has access to the best medical care in America. All the personal support staff one could ever need.

Are the voters not entitled to a clean bill of health from people - male or female - who are running for President?

Didn't they learn anything after FDR died in office? Who would have voted for him in the 1944 election if the truth about his health had been known?

Memo from 1944 Warned FDR Would Likely Die in Office
http://www.history.com/news/memo-from-1944-warned-that-fdr-would-likely-die-in-office


----------



## tomahawk6 (12 Sep 2016)

In the case of FDR I dont think it would have mattered.He was popular no matter his health.

http://www.270towin.com/1944_Election/


----------



## mariomike (12 Sep 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> In the case of FDR I dont think it would have mattered.He was popular no matter his health.
> 
> http://www.270towin.com/1944_Election/



I recently read a book - audiobook actually - about the 1944 election. As you say, he was indeed popular. But, Hillary? She's not in the same league as FDR.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Sep 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> You're now a doctor who can do a diagnosis from a YouTube video?  There's got to be good money in that.
> 
> ;D



I know we don't see things the same, but in your haste to slag me, you missed the part where I simply speculated, not offering a diagnoses. I simply said it was not any symtoms that I was personally familiar with.

However, with all your legalise I'm sure you can spin anything to prosecute someone else's opinion. It's what lawyers do.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Sep 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> The market appears to be oversaturated in that respect. [



See above.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Sep 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> In the case of FDR I dont think it would have mattered.He was popular no matter his health.
> 
> http://www.270towin.com/1944_Election/



It also took place at a time that was so different, it might as well happened on another planet.


----------



## cupper (12 Sep 2016)

Also, as the article points out, there was a conerted effort to hide the extent of the effects of polio which he suffered in His late 30's before he entered the national political scene.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Sep 2016)

How far they have fallen:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/243617/



> HMM: “The media elites are in a panic. They witnessed the meltdown of their candidate in broad daylight and can feel that shiver up their spine…”
> 
> Whether Trump wins or loses, his candidacy so far has revealed deep failures within the Republican Party, the media, and American politics in general. There are important lessons to be learned here, and important people who will be careful not to learn them.
> 
> ...



America needs the same sort of shakeup that Europe is getting from their nativist parties, or the UK got from the Brexit. This is the reaction to what was described as "The Revolt of the Elites", and it is only going to get messier.

and a twofer today:

http://atimes.com/2016/09/deplorably-trump-is-going-to-win/



> *Deplorably, Trump is going to win*
> BY DAVID P. GOLDMAN on SEPTEMBER 11, 2016 in AT TOP WRITERS, DAVID P. GOLDMAN, SPANGLIER
> 
> The presidential election was over the moment the word “deplorable” made its run out of Hillary Clinton’s unguarded mouth. As the whole world now knows, Clinton told a Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender fundraiser Sept. 10, “You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of Trump’s supporters into what I call the ‘basket of deplorables.’ Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it. And unfortunately, there are people like that, and he has lifted them up.”
> ...


----------



## mariomike (12 Sep 2016)

Loved this line, “A Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.”

I once read that five out of six people enjoy playing Russian Roulette.  

Out of morbid curiosity, I checked out the Celebrity Death Pool. 
Although hardly scientific, it ranked Mr. Trump at #7. Right behind President George H. W. Bush, age 91.
Mrs. Clinton ranked at #42 right behind comedian Jackie Mason, age 84. Although after yesterday's "medical event", I suspect she may rise up in rank.
http://www.ranker.com/list/celebrity-death-pool-2016/celebrity-events?&var=9


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Sep 2016)

Well, Trump ranks that high on the list probably because they factor in the real possibility of an assassination attempt.  :nod:

If the secret service does its job right, he should be OK.


----------



## mariomike (12 Sep 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, Trump ranks that high on the list probably because they factor in the real possibility of an assassination attempt.  :nod:
> 
> If the secret service does its job right, he should be OK.



I read that guarding Mrs. Clinton is the most loathed detail in the Service. 

Not sure I'd want to take a bullet for either one of them. In the leg, maybe.  

Also read a non-medical opinion that presidents age at roughly twice the normal age while they occupy the Oval Office.


----------



## FJAG (12 Sep 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> . . .
> Out of morbid curiosity, I checked out the Celebrity Death Pool.
> Although hardly scientific, it ranked Mr. Trump at #7. Right behind President George H. W. Bush, age 91.
> Mrs. Clinton ranked at #42 right behind comedian Jackie Mason, age 84. Although after yesterday's "medical event", I suspect she may rise up in rank.
> http://www.ranker.com/list/celebrity-death-pool-2016/celebrity-events?&var=9



 :rofl:

That is one nasty web site. Never heard of it before. Thanks for the link.

 :cheers:


----------



## FJAG (12 Sep 2016)

An interesting opinion piece IMHO



> Is America at risk of following the path of failing nation-states?
> 
> By Jim Sciutto, Chief National Security Correspondent
> Updated 1:51 PM ET, Mon September 12, 2016
> ...



http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/12/opinions/us-following-path-of-unstable-countries-sciutto/index.html

 :cheers:


----------



## cupper (12 Sep 2016)

More from The Canada Party:



> Remember when Gen Petraeus fainted in front of Congress? Of course not, because he's not a woman and CNN didn't show it 40 times in 10 mins.



And for context:

https://youtu.be/Cigr7b1B1cg


----------



## cupper (12 Sep 2016)

;D


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Sep 2016)




----------



## mariomike (13 Sep 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> That is one nasty web site. Never heard of it before. Thanks for the link.
> 
> :cheers:



Update after the 9/11 "medical event",

Mrs. Clinton #30 is now directly behind Judge Wapner #29. The judge is 96. 

Not sure if he is a real judge, or just plays one on TV. Have to look that up!


----------



## FJAG (13 Sep 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Update after the 9/11 "medical event",
> 
> Mrs. Clinton #30 is now directly behind Judge Wapner #29. The judge is 96.
> 
> Not sure if he is a real judge, or just plays one on TV. Have to look that up!



Was a real judge for some twenty years. Retired and headed up _The Peoples Court_ on TV

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

 :cheers:


----------



## mariomike (13 Sep 2016)

Finest TV judge, in my opinion, was Judge Wachtel.

"Give you a good dose of Mace right now!"  

I hope Mrs. Clinton gets well soon.

Hillary body double?


----------



## cupper (13 Sep 2016)

;D


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Sep 2016)

>Is America at risk of following the path of failing nation-states?

Output legitimacy matters.

And as with ethics, propriety isn't enough - there must also be no appearance of impropriety.


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Sep 2016)

The DNC has been considering its replacement options and one that has surfaced is Michelle O.Together with the latest email dump showing Mrs Clintons disdain for the President.Maybe he will stop campaigning for her.The problem that I see is that its too late to amend the ballot.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Sep 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The DNC has been considering its replacement options and one that has surfaced is Michelle O.Together with the latest email dump showing Mrs Clintons disdain for the President.Maybe he will stop campaigning for her.The problem that I see is that its too late to amend the ballot.



Naaah. There's no class system in America! 

Righhhht.


----------



## mariomike (14 Sep 2016)

Sep 12, 2016

ABC Nightly News ( prematurely ) Reports Mrs. Clinton's death
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNBRZX-f9MQ

LEAVE HILLARY ALONE! 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58Quv42iE68


----------



## a_majoor (15 Sep 2016)

Latest campaign song:

Here are the words of the new version of Nat King Cole's classic "Unforgettable" thanks to Hillary. Enjoy:

You’re Deplorable, that's what you are
Irredeemable, though near or far
Like a xenophobe that clings to me
Just the thought of you does things to me

Never before has someone been more
Homophobic always, every day
And forever more, that's how you'll stay
That's why, bigot, it's supposititious 

That someone so sexist and racist
Thinks that I am so deplorable too
Intolerant always, every day
And forever more, that's how you'll stay

You Islamphobe, it's incredible
That someone so unforgettable
Really thinks that I am – so forgettable too


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> > RealClearPolitics Election 2016
> >
> > Election 2016   Clinton   Trump   Spread
> > RCP Poll Average   46.8   41.5   Clinton +5.3
> ...





> RCP Poll Average	45.7	44.2	Clinton +1.5Trending Down
> 4-Way RCP Average	41.9	40.8	Clinton +1.1Trending Down
> Favorability Ratings	-13.3	-20.2	Clinton +6.9
> Betting Odds	66.0	34.0



Odds are now 2:1 and shortening.

Meanwhile - in the electoral college - Clinton continues to lose ground

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Sep 2016)

> Hillary should have paid attention to Britain’s referendum
> Calling Trump’s supporters a bunch of deplorables will fuel resentment against the establishment and drive voters into his arms
> Alexander Chancellor



http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/hillary-should-have-paid-attention-to-britains-referendum/



> Saturday, September 17
> As Race Tightens, Clinton Supporters' Anxiety Grows Matt Flegenheimer, NY Times
> Dems Should Panic...Only If Polls Still Look Like This in a Week Nate Silver, 538
> CNN Anchors Revolt Over Trump's Lies Jonathan Cohn, Huffington Post
> ...



http://www.realclearpolitics.com/


I was looking over RCP's headlines just after finishing Chancellor's piece.

I was struck be the increasing vehemence of much of the press,  people that are used to be listened to.

I get the sense of a group of people shouting louder and louder as it starts to dawn on them that they are fading in the rear view mirror as the bus pulls away.


----------



## CougarKing (17 Sep 2016)

Seems the media has already given him enough "scrutiny" that it's kind of hard to escape no matter which news channel you go to:

Canadian Press



> *As Trump rises in polls, his foes say it's time he got properly scrutinized*
> [The Canadian Press]
> September 15, 2016
> 
> ...



Not sure if there's any truth behind this allegation, but it certainly caused some people at the comments section in the article link below to endlessly flame each other about whether Jeffrey Epstein was connected to Trump or to Hillary's husband Bill.  :facepalm:

Mammamia



> *We need to talk about the child rape lawsuit filed against Donald Trump. *
> Mamamia
> 
> Joanna Robin
> ...


----------



## mariomike (17 Sep 2016)

September 16, 2016

Washington Post

Trump admits Obama was born in U.S., but falsely blames Clinton for starting rumors
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/16/trump-admits-obama-was-born-in-u-s-but-falsely-blames-clinton-for-starting-rumors/
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump on Friday acknowledged for the first time that President Obama was born in the United States, ending his long history of stoking unfounded doubts about the nation’s first African-American president but also seeking to falsely blame Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for starting the rumors.


----------



## muskrat89 (17 Sep 2016)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/race-tightens-projected-u-electoral-college-vote-reuters-114535676.html



> NEW YORK (Reuters) - An election analysis conducted in the Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation project shows that the race has tightened considerably over the past few weeks, with Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump projected to win Florida, an essential battleground state, if the election were held today.
> 
> The project, which is based on a weekly tracking poll of more than 15,000 Americans, shows that the 2016 presidential race could end in a photo finish on Nov. 8, with the major-party candidates running nearly even in the Electoral College, the body that ultimately selects the president.


----------



## muskrat89 (17 Sep 2016)

> but also seeking to falsely blame Democratic rival Hillary Clinton for starting the rumors.



www.politico.com/story/2008/02/obama-slams-smear-photo-008667

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/09/16/hillary-clinton-campaign-manager-admits-birtherism-started/

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/7-news-stories-2008-prove-hillary-started-obama-birtherism/



> In 2008, Maggie Williams, Clinton’s campaign manager at the time, had to issue a statement regarding allegations that a staffer had circulated a picture of Senator Obama wearing traditional ‘Somali garb.’
> 
> Notably, Williams did not refute the claim, and instead argued that the photo was not controversial in any way.
> 
> “If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed,” she stated.



http://truthfeed.com/video-more-proof-that-hillary-clinton-started-the-obama-birther-movement/23950/

I'm not sure I believe any of that, but its not quite so cut and dried, is it?


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Sep 2016)

I have referenced the Alinsky effect in American politics a few times.   I have not been alone in that nor original.

This article on Clinton and Alinsky is interesting on a number of levels: for what it says about Clinton; for what it says about Obama; for what it says about American politics and; for what it says about the politics of disruption.  

Alinsky is appropriate for all occasions.  As the article notes - it is all about power.  Politics is power and everything is political.

In my view though the award for best American Alinskyite of 2016 needs to be given to Donald Trump.  The international award goes to Vladimir Putin.



http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/want-to-understand-hillary-clinton-read-saul-alinsky/article/2602071



> Want to understand Hillary Clinton? Read Saul Alinsky
> 
> By ROGER KIMBALL • 9/18/16 12:01 AM
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (18 Sep 2016)

Have Donald Trump's views changed over the last 30 years? Interesting video clips here (also notice that the usual suspects who are foaming at the mouth were quite content to treat Mr Trump and his views with respect in the past, even though his saying the same thing today evokes a quite different response): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OCabT_O0YSM

And Trump playing the Media and performing an amazing Aikido move on them, making them come and listen to 30 minutes of American generals, Medal of Honour winners and other American heroes before making the "Obama was born in America" statement. No winder the CNN commentators seemed so angry and butthurt the other day.

And lastly: "Les Deplorables" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rayCtT27Kwc (the first minute of the video) Heh!


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Sep 2016)

Reddit I think may have blown up Sec Clinton's lost email lie.Paul Combetta was granted immunity by the FBI.The firestorm is just gaining legs.Of course the MSM may try to tamp this down.

https://www.reddit.com/r/HillaryForPrison/comments/53gac1/citizen_journalist_sleuthed_up_key_bleachbit/


----------



## cupper (19 Sep 2016)

Interesting perspective by Jane Goodall on why Trump has gotten as far as he has. 

Although I would say that Trump is more Orangutan than Chimp. :nod:

*When Donald Meets Hillary
Who will win the debates? Trump’s approach was an important part of his strength in the primaries. But will it work when he faces Clinton onstage?*

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/who-will-win/497561/



> In many ways the performances of Donald Trump remind me of male chimpanzees and their dominance rituals,” Jane Goodall, the anthropologist, told me shortly before Trump won the GOP nomination. “In order to impress rivals, males seeking to rise in the dominance hierarchy perform spectacular displays: stamping, slapping the ground, dragging branches, throwing rocks. The more vigorous and imaginative the display, the faster the individual is likely to rise in the hierarchy, and the longer he is likely to maintain that position.”
> 
> In her book My Life With the Chimpanzees, Goodall told the story of “Mike,” a chimp who maintained his dominance by kicking a series of kerosene cans ahead of him as he moved down a road, creating confusion and noise that made his rivals flee and cower. She told me she would be thinking of Mike as she watched the upcoming debates.
> 
> “Vigorous and imaginative” displays on Trump’s part and steady error avoidance on Clinton’s are the stories of their progress through the primary-cycle debates. Clinton is her party’s nominee independent of anything that happened in the 10 Democratic debates and town halls, and with minimal effect from them on her financial, endorsement, and name-recognition advantages. Trump is his party’s nominee largely because of the Republicans’ 20-some debates, town halls, forums, and other live-television displays.


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Sep 2016)

I dont see Hillary as being well enough to debate.In fact with this new information about her ordering the emails to be deleted I wouldnt be surprised if Obama and the DNC try to replace her at the 11th hour.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Sep 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I dont see Hillary as being well enough to debate.In fact with this new information about her ordering the emails to be deleted I wouldnt be surprised if Obama and the DNC try to replace her at the 11th hour.



How can they replace her?


----------



## Loachman (20 Sep 2016)

There are claims of body doubles. Check some of the clips on YouTube.


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Sep 2016)

I dont know what the DNC rules are pertaining to this potential situation.I just have seen articles discussing the possibilities.If she got elected then the Constitution dictates that procedure so her VP would take office.All the polls right now show Trump surging and top Democrats are worried.The name being floated is Michelle Obama which in effect would give President Obama a 4th term.Sanders would be the best replacement IMO for the Democrats if it came to that.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/sep/13/could-democrats-replace-hillary-clinton-ballot/


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (20 Sep 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> There are claims of body doubles. Check some of the clips on YouTube.



Too bad it's not Sarah Palin we are talking about: We would know exactly who to hire as "body double"  ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCQ1jr1Mm8E


----------



## Loachman (20 Sep 2016)

Mr Trump is even more likely to win now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7b3OIgCsVQ

I still hope that one of his first acts is to fire Trudeau.


----------



## Lightguns (20 Sep 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Mr Trump is even more likely to win now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7b3OIgCsVQ
> 
> I still hope that one of his first acts is to fire Trudeau.



Many of my Alberta friends and relations are hoping his first act is an Annexation of Alberta.  Some want the Maritimes turned into a nuclear waste dump as well but they are considering that a gravy option.


----------



## Halifax Tar (20 Sep 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Many of my Alberta friends and relations are hoping his first act is an Annexation of Alberta.  Some want the Maritimes turned into a nuclear waste dump as well but they are considering that a gravy option.



Why ?


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Sep 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Many of my Alberta friends and relations are hoping his first act is an Annexation of Alberta.  Some want the Maritimes turned into a nuclear waste dump as well but they are considering that a gravy option.



Don't know who your friends are mate, but apparently they aren't mine.  I can't say that I have heard much of that talk myself.


----------



## Lumber (20 Sep 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Mr Trump is even more likely to win now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7b3OIgCsVQ
> 
> I still hope that one of his first acts is to fire Trudeau.



You'd rather have an American running our country, instead of a Canadian? Even if that Canadian is Justin Trudeau <coughsayitaintsocough>?


----------



## Lightguns (20 Sep 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Why ?



Those "Easterner BastarBs" context.  All our hard earned money goes to, etc, etc.  The usual Westerner argument on why Canada does not work for them.  Seems to me I just read an article about this specific thing too, National Post likely.


----------



## mariomike (20 Sep 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> That is one nasty web site. Never heard of it before. Thanks for the link.
> 
> :cheers:



Yes it is.  

Checked it today.

Mrs. Clinton ranked #74, behind Glen Campbell #73.

Mr. Trump ranked #7. Only ones ahead of him were, Kirk Douglas, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Billy Graham, President Bush ( senior ), Fidel Castro, and David Rockefeller.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Sep 2016)

Back on topic...

Hillary may have a problem 







Gallup per Paul Kirby per Asa Bennet in the Telegraph

And I don't think rounding up more members of the Establishment - even Republicans - is likely to change her trajectory.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/exclusive-george-hw-bush-to-vote-for-hillary-228395

A song from John Lennon


----------



## mariomike (20 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Back on topic...



I thought my post was on topic. It's a death pool that included Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Sep 2016)

Sorry MM-

You were on topic.  I was typing about the same time you were posting.

That's what happens when I talk over the top of others - according to my wife I do it regularly.  

Cheers.


----------



## CougarKing (20 Sep 2016)

The maker of Skittles isn't too happy:

newsy video



> *Skittles Responded To Trump Jr.'s Argument Against Syrian Refugees*
> Duration: 01:14 3 hrs ago
> 
> Donald Trump Jr. tweeted, "If I had a bowl of Skittles and told you just three would kill you. Would you take a handful?"


----------



## mariomike (20 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Sorry MM-
> 
> You were on topic.  I was typing about the same time you were posting.
> 
> ...





Chris, I don't think anyone takes that pool too seriously. 

 :cheers:

Trump Jr. tweets,


----------



## muskrat89 (22 Sep 2016)

So other than the fact that the Skittles company didn't like it, maybe one of my learned associates can tell me what exactly is wrong with the Skittles analogy? Down here amongst the unwashed, we kind of liked it. The guvmint hasn't actually given us much confidence in their vetting mechanisms...


----------



## FJAG (22 Sep 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> So other than the fact that the Skittles company didn't like it, maybe one of my learned associates can tell me what exactly is wrong with the Skittles analogy? Down here amongst the unwashed, we kind of liked it. The guvmint hasn't actually given us much confidence in their vetting mechanisms...



You mean other than the fact that it's a gross insult to people and highly inaccurate?

This article sums up both positions:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/19/donald-trump-jr-inadvertantly-encourages-america-to-scoop-up-refugees-by-the-handful/

1 chance in 3.64 billion of being killed by a foreign born refugee.

On the other hand 23 people were killed last year by toddlers (1-3 year olds) shooting people with loose guns which is roughly 1 in 1.5 million. See here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/05/01/toddlers-have-shot-at-least-23-people-this-year/

So the logical conclusion is that toddlers are a much, much greater risk to Americans and therefore they should all be banned.

Put that in Trump Jr's simplistic and ignorant Skittles bowl.

 :cheers:


----------



## cupper (22 Sep 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> So the logical conclusion is that toddlers are a much, much greater risk to Americans and therefore they should all be banned.
> Put that in Trump Jr's simplistic and ignorant Skittles bowl.
> :cheers:



Not to mention toddlers are healthier for you to eat than Skittles.  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar (22 Sep 2016)

More tender too, just like veal... So they say.


----------



## muskrat89 (22 Sep 2016)

> You mean other than the fact that it's a gross insult to people and highly inaccurate?



I'm "people", and it doesn't insult me. Does that mean your statement is also highly inaccurate?

Look at you quoting articles n stuff. wow...


http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/23/germany-registers-surge-crimes-right-wing-radicals/



> And of migrant crimes specifically, Syrians top the list of migrant crimes that are not related to border controls, with a total of 10,348 individual offences in 2015. They also led assault cases among migrants, with 3,186 offences in 2015.



Quoting statistics on child deaths by firearms is very clever and all, but they are citing immigrant crime rates from 75 through 2015. The "Syrian refugee crisis" is current, not 20 years old, and the influx hasn't reached projected levels  

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/15/politifact-says-trump-right-criticism-hillary-clintons-support-500-percent-increase-syrian-refugees/

Anyway, enjoy winning arguments on the internet - I'm sure its very rewarding..

For me, I have loftier ambitions so I shall leave you guys to it.

Cheers!


----------



## QV (23 Sep 2016)

You can probably measure a campaign's desperation by the amount of screeching they attribute to things of no importance.  The skittles analogy, oh the horror!  Meanwhile a public official somehow went from broke as a joke to being worth hundreds of millions all the while living off a government salary.  Speaking fees, donations, and meetings with the secretary, wow.  I'm sure it's all on the up & up... 🤔

The horrible optics alone should disqualify Clinton from any significant position in government.  Now add the email scandal.   In all the population of the USA they couldn't find a better candidate?


----------



## cupper (23 Sep 2016)

Same applies to Trump. And up until his statement on birtherism last Friday he was getting a bit of a pass from the media. They have held Clinton to a higher standard than Trump. Judging Trump on a curve.


----------



## FJAG (23 Sep 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I'm "people", and it doesn't insult me. Does that mean your statement is also highly inaccurate?
> . . .
> http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/23/germany-registers-surge-crimes-right-wing-radicals/
> 
> ...



Thanks for saying I'm winning but if in fact I was then you wouldn't be quoting those Breitbart articles in your response.

Breitbart is pointing out that Germany has a refugee problem based on crime statistics. If you look at those statistics you would see that they are based on the fact that Germany has taken in an extraordinary amount of economic refugees from various countries compounded by the fact that an extraordinary amount of non-German economic immigration has taken place with migration from poor EU contries. Any time that you increase your population by millions of people from the lowest economic order of society, you can expect that economic related crimes will increase. That will decrease with time as the refugees are assimilated. On the other hand the right wing backlash through violence increase--and the concern most worrying the German government--won't.

The problem with Trump Jr and Breitbart is that they are citing the German situation as a fear factor in the US. This is in fact comparing apples to oranges. Since 2007 Germany has accepted roughly 3.1 refugees (from all countries) per 1,000 citizens (as well as millions of internal EU populations) while the US has accepted just 0.84. Moreover, Germany's refugee population consists predominantly of unemployed youth while those in the US are predominantly family groups.

The right-wing refugee/illegal immigrant backlash that has arisen in Germany is unjustifiable but, perhaps, understandable. The one being sponsored by the Trumpites is simple opportunism that is neither justifiable nor understandable once you strip away the misstatements, outright lies and jingoist rhetoric. 

 :cheers:


----------



## muskrat89 (23 Sep 2016)

> This is in fact comparing apples to oranges



Comparing EU Syrian Crime Statistics to (potential) United States refugee crime statistics is apples to oranges, but comparing crime statistics to accidental, firearm related deaths in children is masterful to you.

Your double standards are astounding (ok, not really)


----------



## mariomike (23 Sep 2016)

Reply #1759 
If you don't mind me asking, who are you quoting?



			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Anyway, enjoy winning arguments on the internet - I'm sure its very rewarding..
> 
> For me, I have loftier ambitions so I shall leave you guys to it.



Welcome back!


----------



## FJAG (23 Sep 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Comparing EU Syrian Crime Statistics to (potential) United States refugee crime statistics is apples to oranges, but comparing crime statistics to accidental, firearm related deaths in children is masterful to you.
> 
> Your double standards are astounding (ok, not really)



It's not a double standard to compare an idiotic analogy about Skittles made by a moron with an extreme example that shows that in the US you are more likely to be killed by a toddler than a Syrian refugee. What it is, is :sarcasm:

Have a good one, keep your perspective and welcome back as well.

 :cheers:


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Sep 2016)

So it's "bowl of skittles" vs "basket of deplorables".  The only difference is that one slags a much larger group of people.

(NB. Interesting - I did a Google search to verify whether the word Hillary used was "basket", and despite being a recently-coined and widely-repeated phrase, it didn't make it into the short list of suggestions - at all.)


----------



## cupper (24 Sep 2016)

;D


*TRUMP WARNS THAT CLINTON WILL RIG DEBATE BY USING FACTS*

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/trump-warns-that-clinton-will-rig-debate-by-using-facts



> TOLEDO (The Borowitz Report)—At a campaign rally on Friday, Donald Trump warned that Hillary Clinton is scheming to “rig the debate by using facts” in their first televised face-off, on Monday.
> 
> “You just watch, folks,” Trump told supporters in Toledo, Ohio. “Crooked Hillary is going to slip in little facts all night long, and that’s how she’s going to try to rig the thing.”
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Sep 2016)

From Atlantic Monthly; a look at Trump the man. Rather surprising that they said this much given the heavily left leaning of the Atlantic's editorial position and reporting (but they also publish people like Mark Bowden and Robert Kaplan, so there is some balance)

Strange how this sort of profile isn't on offer from major media outlets (makes you wonder just what sort of "facts" they are reporting), but this is hardly new or even confined to the United States. I have had the opportunity to see both Prime Minister Harper and the current Prime Minister in small settings, and the actual person is 1800 from the media portrayal in each case. In Mr Trudeau's case, since he was speaking at a university for his then $20,000 fee, you would expect something exciting, rather than a telephoned in script full of very tired old cliches about Capitalism, along with no attempt to "work" the room, while Mr Harper was quite warm and spontaneous in person at his event.

As a twofer, I am adding a link I found to a YouTube video, which shows interviews with Trump dating back to the 1980's, and it is remarkable to see how consistent his positions actually are:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/trump-makes-his-case-in-pittsburgh/501335/



> *Taking Trump Seriously, Not Literally*
> The Republican candidate took his case to a shale-industry gathering, and found a welcoming crowd.
> SALENA ZITO  SEP 23, 2016   POLITICS
> Subscribe to The Atlantic’s Politics & Policy Daily, a roundup of ideas and events in American politics.
> ...



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFMRjSE496c


----------



## George Wallace (25 Sep 2016)

Joke section or here?

Here, I guess:


----------



## a_majoor (25 Sep 2016)

One wonders just how many nails it will take to close the coffin on Hillary Clinton (and the Clinton's in general). This latest revelation is just more proof of how closed the political class really is. I expect Donald Trump to be all over this either in the debaters or in ads and speeches in the home leg of the election race (or both):

http://observer.com/2016/09/the-fbi-investigation-of-emailgate-was-a-sham/



> *The FBI Investigation of EmailGate Was a Sham*
> NSA Analyst: We now have incontrovertible proof the Bureau never had any intention of prosecuting Hillary Clinton
> By John R. Schindler • 09/25/16 8:30am
> 
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (26 Sep 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> One wonders just how many nails it will take to close the coffin on Hillary Clinton (and the Clinton's in general).



Probably the same number as Trump;  they're both abysmal political candidates.


> *Donald Trump said 52 false things last week*
> WASHINGTON—The Los Angeles Times put an unprecedented headline in big type at the top of its front page on Sunday: “Scope of Trump’s lies unmatched.”
> 
> Link if anyone _needs_  more hand-wringing.


----------



## McG (26 Sep 2016)

Which candidate will give electrolytes to the crops? It's what plants crave!


----------



## George Wallace (26 Sep 2016)

Well...The countdown has begun for this evenings "debate".  I wonder what kind of circus it may turn into.  That may be the only thing that draws viewers.  






How times have changed in the last three decades.


----------



## FJAG (26 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well...The countdown has begun for this evenings "debate".  I wonder what kind of circus it may turn into.  That may be the only thing that draws viewers.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It's been four decades so one can understand how you might have forgotten that those eighteen minutes of tape were in fact only a very small part of a much larger series of illegal activities initiated by Nixon. For a reminder see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal and here:

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

Sorry. I shouldn't let facts get in the way of a witty joke.

 :cheers:


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Sep 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Sorry. I shouldn't let facts get in the way of a witty joke.



You mean like letting the facts get in the way of the FBI letting Clinton off the hook for the emails? If you or I did that, at very least our career would be over, and very likely a lengthy jail sentence.


----------



## Remius (27 Sep 2016)

Pretty quite today despite the gong show that was last night's debate. 

Well, I think that Trump lost that one.  He did get some good jabs in, particularly when he called her on her stand on trade and the economy.  I also liked how he called her out when she mentioned Obama.  

But he took the bait and acted out too much.  He just about admitted paying no taxes among other missteps.  

2 more debates to go.  I doubt things will change much but I count this as Hillary 1.  Donald 0.   But winning debates doesn't mean winning an election. 

One thing though was her creepy smile and grating personality...she seems like a wholly unpleasant person.


----------



## mariomike (27 Sep 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> One thing though was her creepy smile and grating personality...she seems like a wholly unpleasant person.



From what I have read, Mrs. Clinton does not seem very popular with the Secret Service. Mr. Trump doesn't look like much fun to be around either.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Sep 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> From what I have read, Mrs. Clinton does not seem very popular with the Secret Service. Mr. Trump doesn't look like much fun to be around either.



Well.....From what I have read: she is a B@#ch towards her agents; and he is under death threats.  In one case the Secret Service are working in a toxic workplace; in the other they are more than actively doing their jobs to protect a candidate.


----------



## George Wallace (27 Sep 2016)

With the bias shown by the moderator, one has to wonder how many of the "Public" will be "coached" in asking their questions in the next Debate, which is to be along the "town-hall" style with an open floor?

The Second Presidential Debate Will Try Something New


----------



## mariomike (27 Sep 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Well.....From what I have read: she is a B@#ch towards her agents; and he is under death threats.  In one case the Secret Service are working in a toxic workplace; in the other they are more than actively doing their jobs to protect a candidate.



I can't see taking a bullet for either one of them. In the leg maybe.  

This looked like a fun guy to work for,

"The real Trinity of Camelot was Look Good, Kick Ass, Get Laid. Jack Kennedy was the mythological front man for a particularly juicy slice of our history. He called a slick line and wore a world-class haircut. He was Bill Clinton minus pervasive media scrutiny and a few rolls of flab.
Jack got whacked at the optimum moment to assure his sainthood."


----------



## a_majoor (27 Sep 2016)

This should puncture the triumphalist narrative the media is singing about who won the debate:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/244948/



> TRUMP WINS MOST IMMEDIATE POLLS: “The newspaper collected screen shots of 19 ‘snap’ polls conducted immediately after the debate, and in 17 of them, most respondents said Trump won the debate, often by a wide margin. It isn’t just Drudge and Breitbart; Trump also got more votes than Clinton in instant polls at Time, Slate, Variety and other liberal outlets. I can’t explain it, other than to say that perhaps it tells us more about how people view Hillary Clinton than about how Donald Trump actually performed.”
> 
> Well, certainly one explanation is a repeat of the “Ron Paul Revolution” days of early 2008 – but as with Paul’s quixotic presidential bid, having a large enough group of dedicated zealots to tilt Internet polls does not necessarily translate into sufficient votes at the ballot box where it counts.
> 
> It seems safe to say that Trump’s core followers are much more passionate than Hillary’s. We’ll know soon enough if there are a majority of them.


----------



## Lumber (27 Sep 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This should puncture the triumphalist narrative the media is singing about who won the debate:
> 
> https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/244948/



Normally I'm a huge proponent of polling. However, this is one case where I have to say to hell with the polls. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence who watched the debate would have seen that el' douche Drumpf's performed poorly compared to Boogeywoman Hillary Clinton. His performance was full of falsehoods and blabbering bafoonery.

Mind you, HRC has been in politics for years and has ample practice with these type of performances. So, for the anti-establishment crowd, HRC's performance could be taken as just another aspect of what is wrong with the establishment (heaven forbid we use facts and clear concrete plans!). 

As far as the polls go, I would bet the incongruity between the polls and the debate is the result of:
A. Diehard Drumpf fans more passionately representing themselves;
B. Those same fans responding to the poll not based on their actual assessment of how Drumpf performed, but simply saying Drumpf performed better _because_; and
C. Sean Hannity.


----------



## Scott (27 Sep 2016)

His obfuscation was at near epic levels and he let her off easy on the emails.

She looked far less polished and smooth than he did, decidedly less confident (to me)

I'd hate to have to make the choice between either.

FWIW


----------



## tomahawk6 (27 Sep 2016)

Lester Holt was a shill for the DNC who asked the hard questions of the Donald but not Hillary.On top of it he interrupted Trump 41 times hoping to make lose his composure.On the flip side it looked like Trump didnt bother to practice for the debate.I bet you will see a better performance next time.


----------



## QV (27 Sep 2016)

Those polls probably represent the average everyday lay person who sees HRC as a crooked establishment hack vs The Donald as a passionate businessman who doesn't always say the right thing but honestly wants to do good for America.  There are no FBI investigations or congressional hearings about Trumps activities.  There is an IRS audit, but hell there was a congressional hearing into the IRS under Obama targeting conservatives, and nobody down there likes the IRS anyway.  HRC is tainted to say the least. 

I don't think Trump did very well in the debate and I thought he missed many opportunities, but for a first timer he didn't completely self destruct.  In fact I believe he will get a small bump on this.  But that greasy smirk HRC couldn't hide will probably do her damage.  No matter what she says or does nobody will believe her, she won't overcome that.  Trump can improve.  HRC has nowhere to go but down.


----------



## cupper (27 Sep 2016)

Hell, Trump can't even stay on his own message. Last night after the debate he was asked if he thought the debate was fair and he said yes, it was fair, and Lester Holt did a great job.

12 hours later, he's bitching about his mic being faulty, Holt was very unfair to him.

So what happened in the intervening 12 hours? I suspect that his team sat him down and showed him just what a crap job he did, and in true Trump fashion decided to blame everyone but himself.

*Trump Starts Well, Fades*

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/440455/trump-starts-well-fades



> In the first half-hour of the debate, after a sleepy start, it seemed that Donald Trump was taking it to Hillary Clinton in a way that has never happened to her before in a public setting. While I will never be an avid Trump fan, my NeverHillary heart confesses to a momentary frisson.  But he really flagged as the night went on, and she seemed to get stronger simply by staying on an even keel – and by exhibiting stamina and sharpness that may allay fears about her health.
> 
> It is fair enough to say that she got a lot of help from Lester Holt – more in the selection of topics than in intrusiveness during the proceedings (lots of tax returns and birtherism; no Clinton scandals (which Trump had to bring up), irredeemable basket of deplorables, Benghazi, immigration, Obamacare, etc.). But the post-debate “bash Lester Holt” gambit is not going to fly: Speaking for the Trump campaign, Kellyanne Conway weirdly said Holt did a great job. More importantly, media bias on behalf of the Democrats is baked in the cake, so it is Trump’s task to be ready for it and to raise the matters Hillary and her media friends would prefer to bury. Trump was not prepared to do that last night. And when he tried to do it, he rambled in half-sentences and self-interruptions that made what he was saying hard to follow.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (27 Sep 2016)

Even the conservative National Review thinks Trump is not fit for office.

*Last Night, Trump Showed Why He's Dangerous*

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/440458/donald-trump-debate-foreign-policy-nato-allies-treaties-vladimir-putin



> Last night, it became crystal clear. The GOP nominated a dangerous, unfit man to be president of the United States. When it came to foreign affairs, where the president’s power is at its peak, Trump is showing himself to be ignorant, unprepared, and impulsive. Indeed, it’s hard to think of three worse qualities in a potential commander-in-chief.
> 
> In presidential elections, Americans understandably tend to focus on domestic policy. It has a more immediate effect on their lives, and the issues are far more familiar. Yet domestic policy is precisely the arena where the president faces his or her most profound limits. For all his undeniable expansion of presidential power, not even Barack Obama at his “pen and phone” worst has been able to implement vast segments of his domestic agenda. He’s ending two terms without cap and trade, without comprehensive immigration reform, and without new gun-control measures. His worst bureaucratic initiatives can be undone by any subsequent president.
> 
> ...


----------



## QV (28 Sep 2016)

The MSM is in large part against a Trump presidency.  Instead of being the unbiased check and balance on the government they have shown who's pocket they are in.  It reminds me of the CBC during our last federal election.  I suppose when one guy slashes your budget and another guy promised to restore almost 3/4 of a billion in funding, well I guess it was tempting to put ethics aside for the moment and shrill for Mr Money.  I'm sure that would be considered great politics for team red.  The media however remains tainted.  Youtube has many examples of where average everyday people have outed inaccurate or inappropriately edited media reports with footage of their own.  

People are more distrustful than ever of the MSM and the articles that cupper posts won't resonate much.  This election is about the political elite vs everyone else.  So long as Trump doesn't do or be caught up in anything completely crazy between now and Election Day, I believe he will win by a large margin.


----------



## cupper (28 Sep 2016)

QV said:
			
		

> People are more distrustful than ever of the MSM and the articles that cupper posts won't resonate much.  This election is about the political elite vs everyone else.  So long as Trump doesn't do or be caught up in anything completely crazy between now and Election Day, I believe he will win by a large margin.



Wouldn't exactly call The National Review mainstream. In fact they are most assuredly pro rebulican, conservative, and staunchly anti Trump. 

This election is more a backlash against the lack of effectiveness in both the legislative and executive branch. And unfortunately the two choices will not make it better, and realisticly will make things far worse than it has been the last 8 years.

Even the polls say this will be a tight race, not a blow out for either side. Clinton has 216 electoral college votes locked up in strongly democratic states. She only needs to pick up 54 more votes to win. Trump only has 160 electoral votes in heavily republican states. He needs to pick up 110 more votes. And he has very few options to get them. Clinton has many more. And Trumps numbers among various voting demographics are significantly lower than where both McCain and Romney were at this point in their races. And they lost.


----------



## cupper (28 Sep 2016)

For those that have every thing.

I give you Chia Hillary, Chia Trump, Chia Bernie and Chia Obama.

http://youtu.be/e8h1Bvv_Qac


----------



## Remius (28 Sep 2016)

QV said:
			
		

> The MSM is in large part against a Trump presidency.  Instead of being the unbiased check and balance on the government they have shown who's pocket they are in.  It reminds me of the CBC during our last federal election.  I suppose when one guy slashes your budget and another guy promised to restore almost 3/4 of a billion in funding, well I guess it was tempting to put ethics aside for the moment and shrill for Mr Money.  I'm sure that would be considered great politics for team red.  The media however remains tainted.  Youtube has many examples of where average everyday people have outed inaccurate or inappropriately edited media reports with footage of their own.
> 
> People are more distrustful than ever of the MSM and the articles that cupper posts won't resonate much.  This election is about the political elite vs everyone else.  So long as Trump doesn't do or be caught up in anything completely crazy between now and Election Day, I believe he will win by a large margin.



this line of thinking puzzles me a bit.  while I agree that some MSM outlets are anti trump, I find it odd that Fox News which is as MSM as it comes given that it is the most watched news in the US, is suddenly not MSM?  Would you say that Fox News has given him a raw deal in their coverage?


----------



## Remius (28 Sep 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This should puncture the triumphalist narrative the media is singing about who won the debate:
> 
> https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/244948/



Except that...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-uselection-debate-polls-1.3782098


----------



## FJAG (28 Sep 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> this line of thinking puzzles me a bit.  while I agree that some MSM outlets are anti trump, I find it odd that Fox News which is as MSM as it comes given that it is the most watched news in the US, is suddenly not MSM?  Would you say that Fox News has given him a raw deal in their coverage?



This used to give me some concern until I found out that Fox's viewership only runs around an average of two million and that the median age of it's viewers is 65+ (I've seen some stats that say the low 70s). That raises a worrying concern that if only 2 mil old codgers watch Fox and it's the most watched then where does the average American get his/her information from?

 :cheers:


----------



## Lumber (28 Sep 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> That raises a worrying concern that if only 2 mil old codgers watch Fox and it's the most watched then where does the average American get his/her information from?



Facebook, and cellphone News apps.


----------



## mariomike (28 Sep 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> This used to give me some concern until I found out that Fox's viewership only runs around an average of two million and that the median age of it's viewers is 65+ (I've seen some stats that say the low 70s).



More on that,

Fox News Is Literally Dying Of Old Age 
https://www.google.ca/search?q=fox+news+average+age&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=gQjsV_nWMcqC8Qeu2ofABA&gws_rd=ssl


----------



## FJAG (28 Sep 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Except that...
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-uselection-debate-polls-1.3782098



I'm with you and the CBC article on that. The online polls are not statistically significant because of the data collection techniques.

That said, I watched the debate and read the CBC article and one wonders why Clinton's lead is so low?

While I know there are Clinton detractors on this site and I'm not a fan of her either, the delta between her abilities and performance to those of Trump are truly self evident. The man is a clear and present danger.

I think the best explanation that I saw about this continuing support from millions of voters came from an interview on the Daily Show last night of a women from Columbus Ohio who said: "I'm voting for the conservative party and if this jackass just happens to be leading the mule train; so be it."

My hope is that at the last moment conservative Americans will come to realize that they are cutting off their collective noses to spite their collective faces.

op:

 :cheers:


----------



## FJAG (28 Sep 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> ... Fox's viewership only runs around an average of two million and that the median age of it's viewers is 65+ (I've seen some stats that say the low 70s). That raises a worrying concern that if only 2 mil old codgers watch Fox and it's the most watched then where does the average American get his/her information from?
> 
> :cheers:



I know I could have edited my own post but thought this should have it's own.

Just checked the average viewership for Keeping up with the Kardashians and last season it was 3.3 million with 2.2 million of those in the lucrative 18-49 demographic. Voters all.   :brickwall:

 :cheers:


----------



## Blackadder1916 (28 Sep 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> This used to give me some concern until I found out that Fox's viewership only runs around an average of two million and that the median age of it's viewers is 65+ (I've seen some stats that say the low 70s). That raises a worrying concern that if only 2 mil old codgers watch Fox and it's the most watched then where does the average American get his/her information from?
> 
> :cheers:




I think the confusion rests with terminology.  A quick look at a few reports about viewership shows that Fox News Channel is the most viewed "cable" news channel.  That would put it in the same category as CNN, MSNBC et al (the all news, all the time guys - or at least an endless repeat of the same drivel).  The traditional "networks" (ABC, CBS, NBC), while their signals may make it to most homes via a cable are not in the same category.  Their news programmes may have a larger viewership.

Evening News Ratings: Week of Sept. 19


----------



## a_majoor (28 Sep 2016)

More on the reporting which no longer follows the narrative. At this point, what is really going on is anyone's guess:

http://americanlookout.com/yuge-new-tracking-poll-puts-trump-over-the-top-with-electoral-college-votes/



> *YUGE! New Tracking Poll Puts Trump Over The Top With Electoral College Votes*
> 
> In order for Trump to win, he needs a minimum of 270 votes in the electoral college. According to a new tracking poll from UPI, Trump is now at 292 electoral votes.
> 
> ...



And:

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-florida-black-voters-228822



> *Clinton campaign in ‘panic mode’ over Florida black voters*
> Democrats are sweating over turnout in one of the most important states on the electoral map.
> By MARC CAPUTO and DANIEL DUCASSI 09/28/16 05:05 AM EDT
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (28 Sep 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> More on the reporting which no longer follows the narrative. At this point, what is really going on is anyone's guess:
> http://americanlookout.com/yuge-new-tracking-poll-puts-trump-over-the-top-with-electoral-college-votes/
> And:
> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/hillary-clinton-florida-black-voters-228822



Gotta say that the poll quoted has got to have some seriously bad data. Most of the polls are actually calling most of those states toss-up because results are still within the margin of error, with Pennsylvania and Virginia showing Clinton has enough of a lead to fall outside the margin of error. I will allow that Clinton's overall lead has shrunk, but Trump is not making the equivalent gains, most of Clinton's support is shifting to Gary Johnson or undecided. Trump seems to have a problem of breaking through the 40% to 45% ceiling and getting new supporters outside his base.

It will be interesting to see how much of an effect the first debate has on the polls.


----------



## FJAG (28 Sep 2016)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> I think the confusion rests with terminology.  A quick look at a few reports about viewership shows that Fox News Channel is the most viewed "cable" news channel.  That would put it in the same category as CNN, MSNBC et al (the all news, all the time guys - or at least an endless repeat of the same drivel).  The traditional "networks" (ABC, CBS, NBC), while their signals may make it to most homes via a cable are not in the same category.  Their news programmes may have a larger viewership.
> 
> Evening News Ratings: Week of Sept. 19



Thanks for that. Couldn't find a smiley with a light bulb going on over its head so this one will have to do.  

Just for info sake, here's an article on the demographic distribution of how adults get their news:

http://www.journalism.org/2016/07/07/pathways-to-news/

 :cheers:


----------



## cupper (28 Sep 2016)

So, since I transitioned into a new age demographic yesterday, does that mean I now have to change my preferred means of news delivery.

Please don't tell me I have to start taking in news from more conservative sources as I get older.   ;D


----------



## FJAG (28 Sep 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> So, since I transitioned into a new age demographic yesterday, does that mean I now have to change my preferred means of news delivery.
> 
> Please don't tell me I have to start taking in news from more conservative sources as I get older.   ;D



 ;D

I think this is one of those things were the distribution will be changed by technological advances as all the years go by. Those that grew up with computers will stay with them rather than turning to TV.

When I was younger I watched about an hour of network news every night while now that I'm in the generation that should be watching Fox, I find I watch very little news on television at all. Instead I now review about 12 to 15 newspaper/television internet sites from around the world daily (and yes, Fox is one of them although it's more for entertainment value).

I guess I'm regressing age wise.

 :cheers:


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Sep 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This should puncture the triumphalist narrative the media is singing about who won the debate:
> 
> https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/244948/


I heard he did quite well in the CBCS poll ...


----------



## cupper (28 Sep 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I heard he did quite well in the CBC poll ...



Everyone knows that we Canadians love to pull stunts like this. ;D


----------



## cupper (28 Sep 2016)

Apparently Newsweek will be publishing an investigative report as a cover piece tomorrow that shows Donald Trump violated the prohibition on companies doing business with Cuba under the embargo. His casino business had dealings in Cuba which were hidden by passing through a front company that would make it appear legal, as long as it was portrayed as a charitable venture.

And to add injury to insult, about 7 months after this violation took place, he made a campaign speech in his 2000 bid under the Reform Party banner to Cuban expats in Miami where he stated he would never do business while Castro was in charge.

If this is indeed true, this will have a huge impact on the race, up to and including possible criminal charges.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Sep 2016)

Doing something illegal...

Where have I heard that before?


----------



## cupper (28 Sep 2016)

;D


----------



## cupper (28 Sep 2016)

;D


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Sep 2016)

FJAG and cupper:

My sense of it is, the short form is, it just doesn't matter.  Nobody believes nuffink not no how no more.  All trust has been lost.

If an official organ utters the information, or if the press utters the information, for many folks that is enough believe that the truth must be the opposite.

Consequently - the more the press beats up on Trump, (or le Pen, or Boris Johnson or Beppe Grillo) the more people are inclined to support him.

If they're agin him, I'm fer 'im.

And I say that with the conviction bred of centuries of dour Scots contrariness.  

 :cheers:


----------



## cupper (29 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> FJAG and cupper:
> 
> My sense of it is, the short form is, it just doesn't matter.  Nobody believes nuffink not no how no more.  All trust has been lost.
> 
> ...



True that.


----------



## cupper (29 Sep 2016)

[


----------



## FJAG (29 Sep 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> FJAG and cupper:
> 
> My sense of it is, the short form is, it just doesn't matter.  Nobody believes nuffink not no how no more.  All trust has been lost.
> 
> ...



Agreed. 

I do wonder how we got here because things don't happen in isolation. When I look back in history I can see there were periods of time when the press was horribly slanted (vis newspapers during the US civil war and even further back [I recently read "Alexander Hamilton"]) But there was a long stretch there in the post WWII era when the press was a respected institution (the days of Cronkite et al).

I think very much that the US went trough a phase of liberalism in the last half of the 20th Century that saw a slow but steady acceptance of people who were different from the "normal" component of society - whether for people of colour or sexual orientation or religion or women's equality or abortion etc and the press generally reported that favourably and criticised those who opposed it. That was followed by a growing movement of a fundamentalist Christian backlash which manifested itself into a very strong political movement. (prior to this the Christian right had generally rejected politics as unseemly. Afterwards politics became one of their prime tools to advance their cause of a social conservative agenda). See eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_right

Again in my opinion (and I have not done any research to back it up) there is a link between those who accept religious "facts" on pure faith and those who reject any opposing viewpoints out of hand regardless as to actual evidence that support them (and by that much of what the so-called MSM reports). That's basically where I have parted ways with my earlier republican fiscally conservative roots. When fiscal conservatism turned more into social conservatism, I got off the mule train. I haven't jumped onto the Liberal one because I still reject "tax and spend" as a way of life.

As a practical German, I very much appreciate dour Scots contrariness. Healthy scepticism is a good thing but it has to cut both ways and not blindly follow just one path irrationally.

op:

 :cheers:


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Sep 2016)

With respect to the press and respecting the press - in the US there has been a mythology promulgated by the press that they are democracy.  They wrote the Constitution after all.

In Britain there is no such tradition.  The tabloids in Britain are the true inheritors of the British press freedom.  The British press has always been dominated by scurrilous pamphleteers who make a penny peddling influence and scandal.

The US press has usurped the pulpit. It usurped the pulpit in Britain as well, much to the chagrin of both Protestant and Catholic establishments.

The difference between the two countries is that despite the attempts of the establishment to manage quality debates my countrymen in Britain have never been much inclined to give the emperor credit for his new clothes.  They prefer their football and beer.  And they may give an Empress a look if she shows up on Page 3.

The biggest single divide that I find between my British mob and the Europeans, a division that spans the Atlantic and crosses to Australia, is that in Europe people will, without any sense of irony, describe themselves as an intellectual.  No self-respecting Brit, except for the occasional Guardianista, would ever contemplate that. They would be laughed right out of their pub.

The Brit's lack of regard for intellectuals, experts, the elite, professionals, is of longstanding and cuts across all class lines and all regions.

Lawyers and accountants are not highly regarded.  And politicians are nothing more than another species of London lawyer - hired to argue cases at Westminster instead of down the road at the Old Bailey.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Sep 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Everyone knows that we Canadians love to pull stunts like this. ;D


What a difference a letter makes  :facepalm: to me

Meanwhile ...


----------



## McG (1 Oct 2016)

Oh good!  Rex Murphy promises that the election entertainment will not end with the November election.
Snowbirds, consider staying north this winter.


> *Think the U.S. election campaign has been bad so far? Things will get worse after the vote*
> Rex Murphy
> National Post
> 30 Sep 2016
> ...


http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-think-the-u-s-election-campaign-has-been-bad-so-far-things-will-get-worse-the-morning-after-the-vote


----------



## FJAG (1 Oct 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> Oh good!  Rex Murphy promises that the election entertainment will not end with the November election.
> Snowbirds, consider staying north this winter.http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-think-the-u-s-election-campaign-has-been-bad-so-far-things-will-get-worse-the-morning-after-the-vote



No. No. I quite like the States and Americans in general. The funny thing is that when you deal with them as individuals on a day to day basis, most of them can be quite charming. The extremes that you see on TV simply aren't there overtly. Hell, I even eat at Chik-fil-a (except on Sundays of course) Besides, I still have a lot of my Disney World and Sea World annual passes to use.

On top of that, one should never underestimate the lethargy of the civil service and their ability to slow down the implementation of either good or bad policy initiatives. My guess is that it would be years before we see any changes which would impact us Snowbirds.

 :cheers:


----------



## CougarKing (2 Oct 2016)

It was inevitable Trump would go after Bill on the home/final stretch of the election:

Canadian Press



> *Dismissing risks, Trump goes all-in on Bill Clinton's past*
> [The Canadian Press]
> September 30, 2016
> 
> ...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Oct 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> No. No. I quite like the States and Americans in general. The funny thing is that when you deal with them as individuals on a day to day basis, most of them can be quite charming. The extremes that you see on TV simply aren't there overtly. Hell, I even eat at Chik-fil-a (except on Sundays of course) Besides, I still have a lot of my Disney World and Sea World annual passes to use.
> 
> On top of that, one should never underestimate the lethargy of the civil service and their ability to slow down the implementation of either good or bad policy initiatives. My guess is that it would be years before we see any changes which would impact us Snowbirds.
> 
> :cheers:



As I have explained to my American co-workers, Canada has a reputation as being nice, and in the aggregate, we are,  As individuals though, we can be assholes.  America is the opposite.  As individuals they are very nice, but as a country they are assholes...


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Oct 2016)

The US is a two-party nation federally, with the population divided close to 50/50 on most major issues and along the general progressive/conservative fault line.

When the minority party in the Senate blocks legislative change or contentious appointments which must be confirmed by the Senate, or the majority party in the House or Senate declines to co-operate with the wishes of a president of the opposing party, that is a reflection of the divide.  Contrary to the opinions of those who think it some sort of moral failing if Red Team refuses to move along Blue Team's vector or vice versa, at this time it is appropriate for status quo to be maintained.  If there is no popular concensus for major change, there should be none.

If a party finds the means to effect major change against the wishes of roughly half the population (I would put the threshold for concensus for major change at about 70%), increased social and political tension should be the expected result.

The Democrats have found the means: own the presidency, and refuse to challenge the president from Congress - and work to prevent Republicans from effectively doing so - when the president oversteps his powers.

To own the presidency for more than two terms generates a requirement to buck strong historical trends, foremost among which is the general desire of the people to switch teams every couple of terms.  Increasing desperation should be expected to lead to increasing resort to outright disinformation/propaganda and vote fraud.

The media no longer enjoy the privilege of deciding what gets widespread public attention and what does not.  Information that they would prefer to suppress slips out; people read it (or digests of it, which need not necessarily be entirely accurate), ask why it didn't get major coverage, and conclude the establishment media are not to be trusted.  The pamphleteering model of information control and distribution does not work in the internet age.

Similarly, politicians should not expect to be able to modify a position or embellish an untruth or partial truth successfully.  The entire trail is preserved online, where it is also helpfully summarized in single articles for the convenience of readers who need not search the web to piece together the evolution of a lie.  People conclude the politicians who attempt such revisionism are not to be trusted.

An additional term of the Democratic experiment with executive authority will further increase tension and frustration.  This should be expected to promote more extreme attitudes.  So many people thought it impossible for Trump to advance as far as he has.  What grounds are there to conclude that caution-to-the-winds, throw-the-establishment-bastards-out attitudes can only support a populist this far and no further?

Trump is not the risk.  The risk is the next more extreme candidate after Trump, combined with a greater number of people motivated by fear, frustration, anger, rumour, ignorance - deride them using any adjectives you please; they must nevertheless be dealt with.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Oct 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The US is a two-party nation federally, with the population divided close to 50/50 on most major issues and along the general progressive/conservative fault line.
> 
> When the minority party in the Senate blocks legislative change or contentious appointments which must be confirmed by the Senate, or the majority party in the House or Senate declines to co-operate with the wishes of a president of the opposing party, that is a reflection of the divide.  Contrary to the opinions of those who think it some sort of moral failing if Red Team refuses to move along Blue Team's vector or vice versa, at this time it is appropriate for status quo to be maintained.  If there is no popular concensus for major change, there should be none.
> 
> ...




Brad, 

The only quibble I would have with your post is in the first line - "...with the (voting) population divided....."

I continue to believe that the rise of Trump is connected to the continued decrease in the voting population and the re-engagement of those many who had become frustrated with the sterile debates of the Clinton-Kennedy faction and the Bush family.  I believe they are becoming re-engaged in large part because they feel they can no longer leave their lives to the vagaries of people who argue loudly about nothing for the sole purpose of controlling contracts.


----------



## mariomike (2 Oct 2016)

I should take these people more seriously, but I just can't...  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2neyQA5TDo


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Oct 2016)

I don't see Trumph winning. The US is a business built on exporting war. Trump seems to head strong to do what he's told when other kingpins are making money. Clinton seems like she knows enough to not get in the way of business. Trump is too much of a business man to be a business man who masquerades as a politician.


----------



## McG (3 Oct 2016)

Scientific American grades the presidential candidates on their answers to twenty questions. 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/grading-the-presidential-candidates-on-science/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_POLE_NEWS


----------



## Lightguns (3 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I don't see Trumph winning. The US is a business built on exporting war. Trump seems to head strong to do what he's told when other kingpins are making money. Clinton seems like she knows enough to not get in the way of business. Trump is too much of a business man to be a business man who masquerades as a politician.



I really do not think this one can be called.  Visiting my wife's American relatives this weekend in Maine; the Republicans are voting Democrat, the Democrats are voting Republican and the gun owners of both parties are buying tons of extra ammo.  This is going to be meade show regardless of who wins.


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Oct 2016)

300 + million and this is the best they have?

 :facepalm:


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Oct 2016)

Trump "suggests" that vets with PTSD are not strong.  What a fucking dick.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/trump-suggests-vets-with-ptsd-aren%E2%80%99t-%E2%80%98strong%E2%80%99/ar-BBwXoXg?li=AAadgLE&ocid=spartandhp


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Oct 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> Scientific American grades the presidential candidates on their answers to twenty questions.
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/grading-the-presidential-candidates-on-science/?WT.mc_id=SA_FB_POLE_NEWS



2 dozen responses to their poll is hardly definitive. Given that scientists are 'usually' liberal or democrat. I don't see anything in this poll that would make a difference either way or that it should be taken as anything like substantive truth.

Just sayin'


----------



## CountDC (3 Oct 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Trump "suggests" that vets with PTSD are not strong.  What a ******* dick.
> 
> http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/trump-suggests-vets-with-ptsd-aren%E2%80%99t-%E2%80%98strong%E2%80%99/ar-BBwXoXg?li=AAadgLE&ocid=spartandhp



Sorry but reading his comments instead of the reporters cherry picking of words I don't see the problem with his comment. A lot of people can't handle it, thus suicides, medical releases, family break ups, drug/alcohol abuse, etc happen.  He was attacking the process there that takes too long for people needing help because they can't handle it to get the help they need.  Seems to be a common complaint here too - if only the military had done something earlier to help...


----------



## McG (3 Oct 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> 2 dozen responses to their poll is hardly definitive.


Did you read the whole thing, or only far enough to find something you could quibble about?
Read the whole thing.  It was not a poll.  It was an assessment of twenty responses from each candidate, and you can also read the entirety of each candidates response to each question if you so choose.  Everything is there to make your own informed conclusions.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Given that scientists are 'usually' liberal or democrat.


I don't think that is something that can be taken as a given.  Do you have a reference to support this contention?  Is the same statement true of engineers, who also composed part of the reviewing audience?


----------



## jollyjacktar (3 Oct 2016)

CountDC said:
			
		

> Sorry but reading his comments instead of the reporters cherry picking of words I don't see the problem with his comment. A lot of people can't handle it, thus suicides, medical releases, family break ups, drug/alcohol abuse, etc happen.  He was attacking the process there that takes too long for people needing help because they can't handle it to get the help they need.  Seems to be a common complaint here too - if only the military had done something earlier to help...



Fair enough, perhaps I got caught by the demonizing of a particular journalist.  If he's slagging the lack of coverage and delays in getting them treatment, OK, otherwise no...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Oct 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> Did you read the whole thing, or only far enough to find something you could quibble about?
> Read the whole thing.  It was not a poll.  It was an assessment of twenty responses from each candidate, and you can also read the entirety of each candidates response to each question if you so choose.  Everything is there to make your own informed conclusions.
> I don't think that is something that can be taken as a given.  Do you have a reference to support this contention?  Is the same statement true of engineers, who also composed part of the reviewing audience?



I read most of it, then got bored with the auto slamming.

Same as here.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Oct 2016)

The walking dead as a documentary? Who knew?

Remember, voer fraud is a myth....nothing to see.....move along......

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/10/01/young-virginia-democrat-admits-to-registering-19-dead-people-to-vote/?singlepage=true



> *Young Virginia Democrat Admits to Registering 19 Dead People to Vote*
> BY RICK MORAN OCTOBER 1, 2016
> 
> The kid will probably get some kind of award from the DNC.
> ...



Indeed. If several thousand "smart young men" did this without detection then tens of thousands of fraudulent votes could be cast and counted. Other vote rigging schemes are already out in the open, California intends to let jailed felons vote, and as the election comes closer, look for stories of election officials ordering many more ballots than actual voters in certain cities. Courts denying jurisdictions the ability to "purge" voter roles of outdated and inaccurate information to bring them up to date is another clear problem.

Ironically, a US citizen often needs more ID to register their child in a local little league than they need to go to the polls. The spectacle of voter "activists" who flew to Washington DC to testify before congress about how voter ID is (pick your pejorative) is only more ironic when you consider how much ID the activists needed to show to get on the plane in the first place.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Oct 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Trump "suggests" that vets with PTSD are not strong.  What a fucking dick.
> 
> http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/trump-suggests-vets-with-ptsd-aren%E2%80%99t-%E2%80%98strong%E2%80%99/ar-BBwXoXg?li=AAadgLE&ocid=spartandhp



Ah!  A General George Patton moment.


----------



## mariomike (3 Oct 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Ah!  A General George Patton moment.



Or Don Corleone.


----------



## cupper (3 Oct 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The walking dead as a documentary? Who knew?
> 
> Remember, voer fraud is a myth....nothing to see.....move along......
> 
> ...



Ah yes, in person voter fraud. 

The Loch Ness Monster of electoral politics.

Everyone has heard of it, Some have claimed to have seen it, We have blurry, grainy, questionable bits of "evidence" that it might exist, No one has actually had a confirmed sighting of it.

Or to use a more literary example, the white whale to the right's Ahab.

Or if you prefer, the supposed extra key to the food locker to the right's Captain Queeg.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Oct 2016)

I'm far from a Trump fan, but here's the rest of the quote to provide a bit more context than a headline can, from a _Military Times_ reporter ...





Source


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Oct 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I'm far from a Trump fan, but here's the rest of the quote to provide a bit more context than a headline can, from a _Military Times_ reporter ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Tanks! Milnews.

However, the Clinton supporters here will say it's bullshit and stay on their 'Trump is Evil' mantra. Willing to accept whatever lie rolls out of the Killary Camp, without checking, because they don't like Trump.


----------



## George Wallace (4 Oct 2016)

That just proves Trump's claims that the MSM is against him; he is not being a "conspiracy theorist" after all.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Oct 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Fair enough, perhaps I got caught by the demonizing of a particular journalist.  If he's slagging the lack of coverage and delays in getting them treatment, OK, otherwise no...



He's saying the same thing he's been saying all along. We need to help our Vets. They've suffered and been horrendously mistreated by the Democrats, to the point of criminality. Trump is the only one raising the issue and he is the only one that's willing to tackle the problem. Slick Hillie's chimps are anti military and would only do something if they could get a kickback at the Veteran's expense, IMO. You certainly can't trust them to have your six. Ask the (remaining) crew from Benghazi.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Oct 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> That just proves Trump's claims that the MSM is against him; he is not being a "conspiracy theorist" after all.



The proof has always been there. This, simply adds to prove the truth, that everyone has known all along.


----------



## FJAG (4 Oct 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Tanks! Milnews.
> 
> However, the Clinton supporters here will say it's bullshit and stay on their 'Trump is Evil mantra. Willing to accept whatever lie rolls out of the Killary Camp, without checking, because they don't like Trump.



Again, not a Clinton supporter but parse the language carefully.

The question addresses 1) a "holistic" approach to solve the problem with veteran suicide; and 2) restoration of the " historic role of our chaplains and the importance of spiritual fitness programs"

Holistic in effect means treating the whole person and taking into consideration mental and social factors when treating the physical aspects of disease or injury. When one talks about treating PTSD one is already dealing with the mental and social aspects of the problem. I expect that all the treatment going on is already "holistic" by the very nature being dealt with. Trump isn't adding anything new other than a vague low level promise to "Support and fund" which pretty much everyone pretty much agrees to publicly.

The issue of "restoration" of chaplains' historic roles and "spiritual fitness" should be a red flag to everyone that there is a backhanded attempt to return to proselytising in the military something curtailed by the Constitution which guarantees religious freedom and more importantly the right to be free from religion. Chaplains still exist in the military and do good work when their help is sought out by those who want it. We should be very concerned whenever there is a movement afoot to "push spiritual fitness" or restore "historical roles".

 :cheers:


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Oct 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Tanks! Milnews.
> 
> However, the Clinton supporters here will say it's bullshit and stay on their 'Trump is Evil' mantra. Willing to accept whatever lie rolls out of the Killary Camp, without checking, because they don't like Trump.


Haters gonna hate, indeed ...


----------



## FJAG (4 Oct 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> He's saying the same thing he's been saying all along. We need to help our Vets. They've suffered and been horrendously mistreated by the Democrats, to the point of criminality. Trump is the only one raising the issue and he is the only one that's willing to tackle the problem. Slick Hillie's chimps are anti military and would only do something if they could get a kickback at the Veteran's expense, IMO. You certainly can't trust them to have your six. Ask the (remaining) crew from Benghazi.



They've been equally mistreated by all parties. Remember that the last four years have been with a Republican House which has not been any more supportive of the vets with money or programs than anyone else (Don't get me started on the 9/11 firefighters legislation)

The biggest problem that US vets have was being dragged into an illegal war in Iraq by the Bush Republicans. But for that bulls**t there would now be tens of thousands less vets requiring treatment.

 :cheers:


----------



## mariomike (4 Oct 2016)

I find this a handy reference, and amusing! ( Regardless, I think some people will believe, and expect others to believe, what they want you to believe.  )

Hillary Clinton 
http://www.snopes.com/tag/hillary-clinton/

Donald Trump
http://www.snopes.com/tag/donald-trump/

For a 74-page thread, I wonder how many of us are even eligible to vote in their election?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Oct 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The biggest problem that US vets have was being dragged into an illegal war in Iraq by the Bush Republicans. But for that bulls**t there would now be tens of thousands less vets requiring treatment.
> 
> :cheers:



Nice try. The US is in a constant flux of military intervention throughout the world. They will always have tens of thousands of Vets requiring help.

 :cheers:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Oct 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I find this a handy reference, and amusing! ( Regardless, I think some people will believe, and expect others to believe, what they want you to believe.  )
> 
> Hillary Clinton
> http://www.snopes.com/tag/hillary-clinton/
> ...



Don't know where I saw it, but I believe there was and article or two about how Snopes was shilling for Killary.  How does one fact check Snopes?


----------



## mariomike (4 Oct 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> How does one fact check Snopes?



I don't think you can. It's political entertainment.


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Oct 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> He's saying the same thing he's been saying all along. We need to help our Vets. They've suffered and been horrendously mistreated by the Democrats, to the point of criminality. Trump is the only one raising the issue and he is the only one that's willing to tackle the problem. Slick Hillie's chimps are anti military and would only do something if they could get a kickback at the Veteran's expense, IMO. You certainly can't trust them to have your six. Ask the (remaining) crew from Benghazi.



Yup, the MSM got me going there, should have known better to look deeper into it.  The left are always setting traps for the unwary.  More's the fool me.


----------



## Brad Sallows (4 Oct 2016)

>illegal war in Iraq

Still a matter of debate whether the termination of the ceasefire (it was not a "new" war) was "just" in view of violation of ceasefire terms.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Oct 2016)

Seems like there's a lot of stories of people wearing trump hats,  clothing or brandishing stickers being physically attacked.  Men seem to take no issue with attacking women either.  Nice.


----------



## cupper (4 Oct 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> For a 74-page thread, I wonder how many of us are even eligible to vote in their election?



Not very many. If I were to hazard a guess, maybe 2.  And I'm not one of them. But I do have skin in the game, being a legal resident.


----------



## cupper (4 Oct 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> However, the Clinton supporters here will say it's bullshit and stay on their 'Trump is Evil' mantra. Willing to accept whatever lie rolls out of the Killary Camp, without checking, because they don't like Trump.



The same applies to the Trump campaign as well.


----------



## tomahawk6 (4 Oct 2016)

Guccifer dropped his bombshell today.The democrats funneled taxpayer money from TARP to their PAC's.I sure alot of people go to jail.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/breaking-guccifer-2-0-releases-clinton-foundation-documents/


----------



## cavalryman (5 Oct 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Guccifer dropped his bombshell today.The democrats funneled taxpayer money from TARP to their PAC's.I sure alot of people go to jail.
> 
> http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/breaking-guccifer-2-0-releases-clinton-foundation-documents/


Silly rabbit.  Democrats don't go to jail.  They get high office in Washington DC.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Oct 2016)

They're too busy comparing 2016 to 1936.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Oct 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> For a 74-page thread, I wonder how many of us are even eligible to vote in their election?





			
				cupper said:
			
		

> Not very many. If I were to hazard a guess, maybe 2.  And I'm not one of them. But I do have skin in the game, being a legal resident.



Our largest trade partner and neighbour. They don't roll over in bed without it affecting us.

We all have skin in this game, on both sides of the border, legal resident or not.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Seems like there's a lot of stories of people wearing trump hats,  clothing or brandishing stickers being physically attacked.  Men seem to take no issue with attacking women either.  Nice.



Gotten a few looks. I just give uglier looks back. Haven't been attacked yet.  I live withing two minutes of the border. I have a vested interest about what happens there. The majority of those I've run into, of all races, religions and colour are far more in the Trump camp than Clinton's.


----------



## Loachman (5 Oct 2016)

My "Hillary for Prison 2016" T-shirt should arrive any day.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Oct 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Gotten a few looks. I just give uglier looks back. Haven't been attacked yet.  I live withing two minutes of the border. I have a vested interest about what happens there. The majority of those I've run into, of all races, religions and colour are far more in the Trump camp than Clinton's.



Last month I drove from NOVA (Northern Virginia) to Ottawa (and back).  Along the route were countless TRUMP/PENCE signs.  Not a single Hillary sign (not even "Hillary for Prison").  

Recently, however, I did spot a Johnson/Weld sign and then, finally, a Hillary/Kaine sign.  This was all here in NOVA.


----------



## Loachman (5 Oct 2016)

I've been watching Bill Still https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycsFGthkVbk every day since I discovered him a couple of weeks ago.

There are several Youtube clips that compare the sizes of Mr Trump's rally crowds to those of Hillary.

I am a big fan of Trey Gowdy, as well. There are lots of clips of him that are well worth watching.


----------



## QV (5 Oct 2016)

Trey Gowdy should be the AG.  He is a true patriot.  If only there could be a Canadian version.  I will have to check out Bill Still.


----------



## cupper (5 Oct 2016)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Last month I drove from NOVA (Northern Virginia) to Ottawa (and back).  Along the route were countless TRUMP/PENCE signs.  Not a single Hillary sign (not even "Hillary for Prison").
> 
> Recently, however, I did spot a Johnson/Weld sign and then, finally, a Hillary/Kaine sign.  This was all here in NOVA.



One thing I noticed this year is that the medians and blvd's have no campaign signs. It used to be like a weird garden of hundreds of signs. VDOT came down in the last midterm and said no one is allowed to post signs within the right of way.

So now you can only see them on someone's lawn.


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Oct 2016)

Even the dead are being reregistered to vote by at least one Democrat. 

http://dcgazette.com/2016/democrat-caught-registering-dead-to-vote/


----------



## a_majoor (7 Oct 2016)

More on the Great White Whale.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/245709/



> STRANGERS IN OUR OWN LAND: The non-citizen voter fraud disaster.
> 
> Daniel Horowitz writes:
> 
> ...



and two other headlines:

UNPOSSIBLE! I’VE BEEN ASSURED THAT VOTER FRAUD IS A MYTH. Indiana State Police said on Thursday that they have expanded an investigation of possible voter registration fraud to 57 of the state’s 92 counties.

UPDATE: Report: Democrats And Unions Paying People To Vote In Illinois.

Funny how you get reporting like this from so many different places yet voter fraud is still somehow a myth...The only thing which is really true is voter fraud is rarely prosecuted, which raises another set of questions.


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Oct 2016)

"Vote fraud is a myth" is just a political posture.  It should not be difficult to understand why it's attractive to the people who bleat it, but it's naive.  It is simply the belief that absence of convictions is proof of absence of wrongdoing.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Oct 2016)

Voter Fraud a Myth?

I don't think so. http://americanmilitarynews.com/2014/09/breaking-connecticut-democratic-lawmaker-arrested-for-voting-19-times/  : 

Results - http://m.ctpost.com/news/article/Ayala-gets-suspended-sentence-for-election-fraud-6529496.php


----------



## mariomike (8 Oct 2016)

Robert DeNiro on the election,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFpFDyKeqyA


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Oct 2016)

Interesting article.  If even have these accusations are accurate then the next us president is going to be a real psychopath. 

http://ramrants.com/2016/10/yesterday-reason-can-no-longer-support-donald-trump/


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Interesting article.  If even have these accusations are accurate then the next us president is going to be a real psychopath.
> 
> http://ramrants.com/2016/10/yesterday-reason-can-no-longer-support-donald-trump/



People see and hear this type of thing  and yet are outraged when a high profile person says it,albeit 11 years earlier.Bill Clinton did that and worse but there is no outcry from the left and #nevertrumpers.In Hillaries emails she denigrated monorities and even Sanders supporters.Frankly he could run around the White House naked and I will still vote for him.


----------



## mariomike (8 Oct 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Frankly he could run around the White House naked and I will still vote for him.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Oct 2016)

Trump supporter declares the reason is he doesn't want to be played anymore. Frankly, this attitude ties back to the impulse which brought Trump to the nomination, Bernie Sanders to be such a strong contender in the Dem primaries, the Brexit and the rise of Nationalist parties in Europe: a huge middle finger to the establishment which seeks to run our lives, makes us pay for their obsessions (and mistakes) but lives insulated from the effects of their policies:

http://datechguyblog.com/2016/10/08/i-double-down-and-re-endorse-donald-trump-for-president-of-the-united-states/



> *I double down and re-endorse Donald Trump for President of the United States! SEVERAL UPDATES*
> October 8, 2016 Datechguy
> 
> Mr. Grenville: There is a small matter of you misinforming her in regard to your intellectual aptitude it might better for Miss Romana (I) to be appraised as to the extent of your family’s property before she learned of the deception.
> ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Oct 2016)

The media is pulling out all the stops to derail Trump.They illegally posted his tax returns.Now they somehow got video of a groping incident 11 years agn the flip side Assange is releasing hacked Hillary emails that are pretty damaging,except the media is ignoring them or at least trying to.I suspect tonights debate will be a lively affair that will be short on civility.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Oct 2016)

Even without the recent leaks,  I expect the debate wouldn't be civil for long.


----------



## QV (9 Oct 2016)

Trump the womanizer vs crooked Clinton.  The worst of Trump is far less than the worst of Clinton.  Clinton was government when she did all those corrupt and illegal things.

Easy choice.  Probably be a yuge win too.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Oct 2016)

Interesting how they can find a phone conversation between two guys about a vagina 10 years ago but not 33'000 deleted emails with government information or trillions of missing dollars.  Canada should be fortifying the border to the south. 

*spelling


----------



## Jed (9 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Interesting how they can find a phone conversation between two guys about a vagina 10 years ago but not 33'000 deleted emails with government information or trillions of missiong dollars.  Canada should be fortifying the boarder to the south.



Atrocious spelling, but yeah, very interesting.  I can't see any of the paid off Mainstream media point this fact out though.


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Oct 2016)

From Facebook... but hey:


----------



## George Wallace (9 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Interesting how they can find a phone conversation between two guys about a vagina 10 years ago but not 33'000 deleted emails with government information or trillions of missing dollars.  Canada should be fortifying the border to the south.
> 
> *spelling



Yup.  Trump caught talking about it.  Bill caught doing it.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (9 Oct 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> From Facebook... but hey:



The fucking difference is consent.  Ferchrissakes.


----------



## TCM621 (9 Oct 2016)

QV said:
			
		

> Trump the womanizer vs crooked Clinton.  The worst of Trump is far less than the worst of Clinton.  Clinton was government when she did all those corrupt and illegal things.
> 
> Easy choice.  Probably be a yuge win too.


It isn't like he would be the first president  who acted like this. A least he wouldn't be preaching family values while he did it.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Oct 2016)

We elected Sir John A. with a whisky glass in his hand on a regular basis.
The Yanks elected Ulysses S. Grant who was also partial to his tipple.
King Edward VII, besotted with actresses and shooting parties, was one of the most popular royals ever.

Hard to account for tastes.

By the way, the Brits also preferred King Charles and his mistresses over Cromwell and his puritans.


----------



## Loachman (9 Oct 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The fucking difference is consent.  Ferchrissakes.



Did Bill get consent every time before he actually committed his acts? Did Hillary get consent from his prey before doing her level best to shut them up and ruin them?

Mr Trump merely engaged in crude speech, as far as we can tell.

Any crimes that he may or may not have committed - and the Democrats seem pretty desperate by their lame attempts to pin something, anything on him - pale in comparison to what those two have perpetrated over many years.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Oct 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Did Bill get consent every time before he actually committed his acts? Did Hillary get consent from his prey before doing her level best to shut them up and ruin them?
> 
> Mr Trump merely engaged in crude speech, as far as we can tell.
> 
> Any crimes that he may or may not have committed - and the Democrats seem pretty desperate by their lame attempts to pin something, anything on him - pale in comparison to what those two have perpetrated over many years.



That's exactly what I was thinking.  

Hell you have Clinton laughing about murdering Gaddafi,  non-chalantly asking if assassinating julian assange with a drone strike was possible,  but dirty language? Pretty weak Hill to fight  in.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Oct 2016)

A little history lesson: If you don't know the answer make your best guess Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it? 

1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." 

A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above 

2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." 

A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above 

3) "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." 

A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Josef Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above 

4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground." 

A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D None of the above 

5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed." 

A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above 

6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." 

A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above 

Answers: 

(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Oct 2016)

Hillary’s actual words, with source information by Christina Plantz‎



1) “Where is the God damn flag? I want the God damn fucking flag up every morning at fucking sunrise”. Hillary to staff at the Arkansas Governor’s mansion on Labor Day 1991. From the book “Inside the White House” by Ronald Kessler, p. 244

(2) “Fuck off! It’s enough I have to see you shit-kickers every day! I’m not going to talk to you, too! Just do your Goddamn job and keep your mouth shut.” Hillary to her State Trooper bodyguards after one of them greeted her with “Good Morning.” From the book “America Evita” by Christopher Anderson, p.90



(3) “If you want to remain on this detail, get your fucking ass over here and grab those bags!” Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident. From the book “The First Partner” p. 25

(4) “Stay the fuck back, stay the fuck back away from me! Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else! Just fucking do as I say, Okay!!?” Hillary screaming at her Secret Service detail. From the book “Unlimited Access” by Clinton ‘s FBI Agent-in-Charge, Gary Aldridge, p.139

(5) “Where’s the miserable cock sucker?” (otherwise known as “Bill Clinton”) Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer. From the book “The Truth about Hillary” by Edward Klein, p. 5

(6) “You fucking idiot” Hillary to a State Trooper who was driving her to an event. From the book “Crossfire” ~pg. 84

(7) “Put this on the ground! I left my sunglasses in the limo. I need those fucking sunglasses! We need to go back!” Hillary to Marine One helicopter pilot to turn back while in route to Air Force One. From the book ” Dereliction of Duty” p. 71-72

(8) “Come on Bill, put your dick up! You can’t fuck her here!!” Hillary to Gov. Bill Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female. From the book “Inside the White House” by Ronald Kessler, p. 243

There it is ……..book, chapter and page…….the real Hillary Rotten Clinton!

Additionally, when she walked around the White House, NO ONE was permitted to look her in the eye, they all had to lower their heads with their eyes towards the ground whenever she walked by. Clearly she is a class act!

This ill-tempered, violent, loud-mouth, hateful and abusive woman wants to be your next President, and have total control as Commander-in-Chief of our Military, the very Military for which she has shown incredible disdain throughout her public life .

Remember her most vile comment about Benghazi: “What difference at this point does it make?”

Now it will be clear why the crew of “Marine One” helicopter nick-named the craft, “Broomstick ONE ”


----------



## PPCLI Guy (9 Oct 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Did Bill get consent every time before he actually committed his acts? Did Hillary get consent from his prey before doing her level best to shut them up and ruin them?
> 
> Mr Trump merely engaged in crude speech, as far as we can tell.
> 
> Any crimes that he may or may not have committed - and the Democrats seem pretty desperate by their lame attempts to pin something, anything on him - pale in comparison to what those two have perpetrated over many years.



I never mentioned Bill Clinton, and nor should I.  Believe it or not, everything is not about the ludicrous right vs left false dichotomy that is being "discussed" here.

This is about a basic understanding of humanity.  To suggest that there is a correlation between women reading erotic literature of their own volition and being sexually assaulted is offensive and disgusting.  It is beneath contempt, and beneath this website.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Oct 2016)

WND EXCLUSIVE
HILLARY HORROR! 'GET THOSE F-ING RETARDS OUT OF HERE'
Shocking insider account details explosive fits of rage
Published: 05/15/2016 at 2:16 PM



image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/05/Hillary-TW.jpg

Hillary Clinton
“When are they going to get those f—ing ree-tards out of here?!”

Those are said to be the infamous words of Hillary Clinton – also known as Arkansas’ “Mother of the Year” in 1984 – when Hillary reportedly grew frustrated that handicapped children weren’t collecting their Easter eggs quickly enough on the lawn of the Arkansas governor’s mansion.

“The children were having a wonderful time. But they were having a v-e-r-y, v-e-r-y, v-e-r-y s-l-o-w time of finding and picking up the Easter eggs,” wrote Dolly Kyle – a childhood sweetheart of Bill Clinton who had a 33-year relationship with him – in her new book, “Hillary the Other Woman: A Political Memoir.”

Kyle recounted the story as told to her by Arkansas State Police troopers and Louise, a mutual friend of both Kyle and the Clintons and a longtime advocate of what was then the Arkansas Association for Retarded Citizens.

“Hillary had enough. She stomped up the grass to the shaded veranda on the back of the mansion … and accosted one of the troopers,” Kyle wrote. “At this point the story diverges a bit. Some people say there was an open microphone; others said that Hillary could be heard across the yard because she was yelling. … At any rate, the frustrated Me-First Lady demanded, ‘When are they going to get those f—ing ree-tards out of here?'”

But that’s just the beginning of Kyle’s behind-the-scenes peek at the temperament of the woman who could be elected America’s 45th president by the end of this year.

In yet another revelation, Kyle says Hillary – whom she nicknamed “Chilly” – used the terms “stupid kike” and “f—ing Jew bastard” before “condemning all Southerners for racism.”

WND requested comment on Kyle’s allegations from the Hillary Clinton campaign but hadn’t received a response at the time of this report.

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/05/Bill-Hillary-Arkansas.jpg

‘Blood all over the president’

Kyle isn’t the first to give detailed accounts of these episodes. Other Clinton acquaintances, reporters and staffers through the years have also claimed Hillary has an explosive temper.

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/05/Hillary-Bill-Clinton-Inaugural-Ball-National-Archives2.jpg

After learning of Bill’s affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky in 1998, Hillary is said to have handled the situation by bloodying her husband’s head.

“There was blood all over the president and first lady’s bed,” wrote former White House reporter Kate Anderson Brower in yet another book, “The Residence: Inside the Private World of the White House.” “A member of the residence staff got a frantic call from the maid who found the mess. Someone needed to come quickly and inspect the damage. The blood was Clinton’s. The president had to get several stitches in his head.”

Brower said White House staffers believe Hillary walloped her husband over the head with one of the books she kept on her bedside table.

“[Bill] insisted that he’d hurt himself running into the bathroom door in the middle of the night,” Brower wrote. “But not everyone was convinced. ‘We’re pretty sure she clocked him with a book,’ one worker said. … the incident came shortly after the president’s affair with a White House intern became public knowledge. … And there were at least twenty books on the bedside table … including the Bible.”

Another staffer, White House florist Ronn Payne, also recalled a heated argument between Bill and Hillary.

“He was coming up the service elevator … as the Clintons argued viciously with each other. … [H]e heard the first lady bellow ‘goddamn bastard!’ at the president – and then he heard someone throw a heavy object across the room,” Brower wrote. “The rumor among the staff was that she threw a lamp. The butlers, Payne said, were told to clean up the mess. In an interview with Barbara Walters, Mrs. Clinton made light of the story … ‘I have a pretty good arm … If I’d thrown a lamp at somebody, I think you would have known about it.’”

Payne also recalled, “You heard so much foul language” in the Clinton White House.

Another alleged mistress of Bill’s, Sally Miller, claimed Bill told her Hillary has snorted cocaine, but he tolerated it because “without it, Hillary’s a raving maniac.”

“My God, we’ve had to borrow money to replace lamps, chairs, all kinds of valuable s–t in the governor’s mansion because of Hillary’s temper,” Miller said Bill once told her. “I’ve had to take Chelsea outside many times to keep her out of Hillary’s ‘line of fire.'”

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/05/Clinton-Lewinsky.jpg

In 1998, then-President Bill Clinton tells America, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. These allegations are false”

Bill’s ‘sexcapades’ and Hillary’s ‘vexcapades’

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/05/Clintons-1973-Clinton-Library.jpg

Hillary has a unique and co-dependent relationship with Bill, Kyle contends. Her early role in the Clinton marriage was to pay the bills and provide financial security for the couple while Bill ascended the political ranks, moving from Arkansas attorney general to governor and, ultimately, president of the United States.

Then, according to the plan, it would be Hillary’s turn to occupy the Oval Office.

“Ideology, integrity, and love of country were never involved in the ‘Billary’ quest for the White House,” Kyle contends. “It was always a co-dependent, co-conspiratorial grab for money and power and more money and more power.”

But there was one hitch in the power couple’s plan: Bill had trouble keeping his pants on – and Kyle says his sex addiction threatened to derail the Clintons’ plans to conquer the White House.

Since Hillary couldn’t stop her husband’s philandering, Kyle says, she turned to private investigators and others to intimidate them into silence.

“Sending others to do her dirty work of breaking and entering and destroying property and threatening people and doing whatever it took to cover those tracks became Hillary’s modus operandi in Arkansas … and beyond,” she wrote.

Bill seemed to have little problem laying on the charm and making friends.

But Hillary? Not so much.

“When the professionals who post the guard have a choice between protecting Billy’s secret life (enabling him) and ratting on him to Hillary, there’s no contest,” Kyle writes of Bill’s security team. “Billy has gotten where he is by being charming and charismatic. Hillary is not charming, nor is she charismatic, although she can fake it for very short periods of time. Usually, however, she doesn’t even try.”

She continued, “Because Hillary did not have people who liked her, she did not have friends who would tell her the truth about her wandering husband. Therefore, she had to hire private investigators to track Billy and to target the women he was dating – or attacking.”

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/05/Clintons-blair.jpg

Kyle said Hillary’s painstaking efforts to keep tabs on her husband led to Bill’s endearing nickname for his wife: “The Warden.”

“Billy called her ‘the warden,’ but inside the gates at his prison compound/mansion, all the guards were definitely on his side,” she wrote, adding that the troopers who worked for the governor enjoyed using the term for Hillary as well.

And when Bill was caught, Kyle says, it wasn’t pretty.

“[M]any people gloss over the reports about what I call Hillary’s vexcapades, her screaming, cursing, and throwing fits usually as a result of Billy’s sexcapades,” she writes. ” Ordinary folks can easily understand how she would be upset with him for having sex with untold numbers of other women while ‘married’ to Hillary. Many people think that her behavior was justified by his provocations, no matter what she said or did. …

“I’ve heard troopers telling funny stories about Hillary that really weren’t funny, such as slamming kitchen cabinets so hard that the doors came off the hinges, and throwing glassware across the room. … Hillary could get away with it as long as she didn’t do it in public. If anyone ever reported her behavior, then that person was swiftly condemned in public as a liar. … Hillary’s contemptuous, uncontrolled outbursts are so extreme that most people cannot wrap their minds around the possibility that a First Lady could act like that.”

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/05/Ark-gov-mansion.jpg

Mama Hillary and unemployed Bill

After the Clintons had Chelsea, Bill fell madly in love with his little daughter.

But Hillary couldn’t bear remaining at home with her new child, Kyle wrote. She wanted to return to work.

“[Hillary] could not wait to get out of the house and back to work where she could feel important,” she recalled. “My older friend Louise stopped by the governor’s mansion to deliver a gift. … Hillary confided to Louise that she had no idea she would feel so trapped by being at home with a baby. ‘How long do I have to stay at home with this kid?’ Hillary asked Louise. ‘What would look right to people around here? … Louise told her that she should not go back to work for at least three months. Hillary was not pleased with that suggestion, but started counting the days.”

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/05/Bill-Hillary-Clinton.jpg

In fact, Hillary couldn’t wait to leave Arkansas, because, Kyle writes, she “looked down her Yankee nose at Arkansans” and really had her mind set on “moving on up to the White House.”

“People all over Arkansas talk to each other. A lot. Call it gossip, if you wish,” she states. “Word about Hillary’s far-left political views and her unhinged anger tirades spread like wildfire. Everyone knew that Hillary would throw dishes at Billy in the kitchen and that she even broke a door off a kitchen cabinet during one of her hissy fits. This did not sit well with anyone in Arkansas, and no one seemed to understand why Billy would put up with it.”

The truth is even worse than you thought. Discover the explosive secret history of Bill and Hillary Clinton in the new blockbuster book, “Hillary the Other Woman,” available right now from Amazon as an e-book, or as an autographed hardcover from the WND Superstore!

In any case, Hillary was reportedly livid when Bill lost his race for Arkansas governor after only one term from 1979-1981.

“Hillary Rodham was furious! … Hillary took no responsibility for her part in their stunning defeat. She blamed Billy for every lost vote,” Kyle writes. “Hillary Rodham was furious because she was no longer the first lady of Arkansas! Although she had hated the social requirements and the dressing-up-like-a-lady parts of the role, she was furious to have it snatched from her. Hillary Rodham was furious that she had to move from the governor’s mansion! To add insult to injury, the defeated political couple had to move into the tiny house in a less-than-stellar location that she could afford to buy on her salary. Hillary Rodham was furious that Billy was unemployed!

“Hillary Rodham was furious that Billy did not want to accept the position of chairman of the National Democratic Party! She saw that career move as her only hope of recovering from Billy’s defeat as governor. Hillary Rodham was furious that Billy wanted to stay home and spend time with baby Chelsea! Since Hillary apparently lacked whatever maternal instinct drives most women to want to spend time with their babies, she had no idea why Billy wanted to be a stay-at-home daddy to their infant daughter. How do I know all this about Hillary Rodham? Billy Clinton told me.”

In fact, Kyle says, she believes it was the only time that the Clinton marriage was in real jeopardy.

But Bill relished his ability to spend more time with little Chelsea.

“Hillary never took Chelsea to school,” Kyle writes. “Billy enjoyed spending time with his daughter in the mornings and taking her to school. I heard that directly from Billy, and I also heard it from various state troopers who drove them in the Lincoln Town Car. Billy’s devotion to little Chelsea was one more reason the troopers liked Billy. Hillary’s lack of devotion to Chelsea was one more reason that the troopers didn’t like (or respect) her.”

Clintons return to the White House? 

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/05/Bill-Hillary-Presidential-Library.jpg

Kyle says she has spent a lot of time with Bill, members of his family, Arkansas State Police troopers, and law enforcement personnel across the state who observed Bill and Hillary through the years.

But she doesn’t expect Arkansas law enforcement personnel to go public with their observations about the Clintons at the moment, because “that’s still a good way to lose a job in Arkansas, or be demoted or reassigned.” And Kyle won’t name names, but she says she’s heard their many stories.

“[A]fter all these years, some of the most fascinating and revealing comments are the unreported ones – fearfully told in quiet whispers behind Hillary’s back,” Kyle writes.

“Even people who carry guns for a living are afraid to let it be known what they know and what they really think about Hillary Clinton, as if she were the ruthless wife of a merciless dictator in a Third World country. They have all seen the ‘Clinton Death List’ that is still circulating on the Internet, and they take it more seriously than most higher-up law enforcement officials seem to do.”

Kyle said she believes a good portion of the Clinton death list is “unsubstantiated baloney” and includes accidental deaths of people whose names have been added to the list by conspiracy theorists.

“On the other hand, there are many ridiculously explained deaths in Arkansas (and beyond!) that would make spectacular topics for episodes of ‘Cold Case Files,'” she wrote. “Clinton operatives, knowing that the Death List is exaggerated, used it to intimidate people anyway. Linda Tripp comes to mind, as well as Monica Lewinsky. Both were threatened with that scary list.”

Ultimately, America deserves better than another Clinton presidency, Kyle warns.

“Billy and Hillary Clinton continue to be lying, cheating, manipulative, scratching, clawing, ruthlessly aggressive, insatiably ambitious politicians who are giving public service a bad name – and nothing about them has changed in the past forty-plus years, except that they have deluded more and more people,” she writes.

“Bless their hearts, some people still believe the earth is flat, and some people still believe the lies of the Clintons.”


Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/hillary-horror-get-those-f-ing-retards-out-of-here/#hjhPd3LL2uw6ajg8.99


----------



## Loachman (9 Oct 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> To suggest that there is a correlation between women reading erotic literature of their own volition and being sexually assaulted is offensive and disgusting.  It is beneath contempt, and beneath this website.



No contest.

The illustration in ModlrMike's post was not comparing erotic literature to sexual assault, though, it was comparing Mr Trump's WORDS to erotic literature.

My point is that, in Mr Trump's case, it is words only. In the case of the Clintons, who are currently pointing their fingers, it is ACTUAL sexual harassment and assault, cover-up, and applying further pressure to shut the victims up and/or publicly discredit them. Both Mr and Mrs Clinton were abusing these women.

Mr Trump's words, as unpalatable as they were, do not come close to the Clintons' DEEDS in that one area alone - and they have a mountain of other sins demanding atonement which will not come.

Mr Trump at least apologized, which is far more than they will ever do.

And he remains the lesser of the evils, by far.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Oct 2016)

Despite his own claims to the contrary, Donald Trump does not always have the “best words.” Irrespective of his words and/or how the media loves to distort them, Trump’s language doesn’t hold a candle to Hillary Clinton’s evil deeds, a contrast recently highlighted by Meghan McCain, of all people, who stated: “When Donald Trump says things, it offends people sometimes and it can be controversial, but when Hillary makes mistakes, people die.”

Exactly.

Yet the media, the Democratic Party (one in the same entity) and far too many Republicans (shame on them all!) are obsessed with Trump’s occasionally careless language while ignoring Hillary’s hand in bloody outcomes.

What’s up with that?

Priorities please!

And while on the subject of Trump’s language, I had occasion to come across an article by Rich Lowry published at Real Clear Politics that past May where he wrote: “Donald Trump’s philosophy is never to use a scalpel when a meat ax is available…”

I chuckled when I read it, thinking it was clever and accurate.

But then I got to thinking that perhaps a meat ax is needed right now. Sure I’d love it if Trump were more articulate and would fine-tune some of his ideas. But this nation is in crisis. The upcoming presidential election is about our very survival. You could call it an emergency. And because it is, action must be taken apropos to an emergency.

So while I believe Trump’s style of discourse is his own and not something calculated based on the dire straits we’re in, perhaps an ax, and not a scalpel, is just what the doctor ordered at this critical junction in time.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/08/trumps_words_vs_hillarys_deeds.html#ixzz4Mcs1JUqH 
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Oct 2016)

.


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Oct 2016)

Too late.


----------



## RocketRichard (9 Oct 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Too late.


Well, that's a terrible comparison. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Oct 2016)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> Well, that's a terrible comparison.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



True.  Trump has way more leadership experience than Trudeau.  Well,  like most of the membership here too I guess


----------



## PuckChaser (9 Oct 2016)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> Well, that's a terrible comparison.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk



You're right, Trudeau's not offensive and arrogant, he's entitled and run by pollsters like Clinton.


----------



## RocketRichard (9 Oct 2016)

Well,  like most of the membership here too I guess
[/quote]
Odd comment...


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Oct 2016)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> Well,  like most of the membership here too I guess
> 
> Odd comment...
> 
> ...



Not as odd as having someone with less leadership experience then a corporal leading Canada but that's getting off topic eh. 

US military seems very anti-Clinton.  I wonder if they'll make any sort of disturbance when she wins.


----------



## RocketRichard (9 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Not as odd as having someone with less leadership experience then a corporal leading Canada but that's getting off topic eh.
> 
> US military seems very anti-Clinton.  I wonder if they'll make any sort of disturbance when she wins.


Curious, haven't heard that about our comrades in arms regarding Clinton. We shall see eh?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## cavalryman (9 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Not as odd as having someone with less leadership experience then a corporal leading Canada but that's getting off topic eh.
> 
> US military seems very anti-Clinton.  I wonder if they'll make any sort of disturbance when she wins.


You mean something like this?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_in_May


----------



## RocketRichard (9 Oct 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> You mean something like this?
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Days_in_May


Ha ha. A bit before my time. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Remius (9 Oct 2016)

Sorry guys.  Anyone defending what he said or trying to minimize it by pointing to the other guy needs a head check. 

Politics aside, it goes beyond just crude language.  It's wrong.  Plain and simple.  

I'm not saying one choice is better than another, but try looking at this in a vacuum rather than along ideological lines.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (9 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> True.  Trump has way more leadership experience than Trudeau.  Well,  like most of the membership here too I guess



Wrong... Trudeau has 341 days more experience at running a country than anyone on here or Trump.


----------



## Remius (9 Oct 2016)

Just finished watching the debate.  Lots to analyze but I'd say Trump did a better job than his first run at it.  I think Clinton was better policy wise but she was rattled at times and he landed some good jabs at her.

I think, he takes the win but just barely due to his landing some good pushed but that may be more me having lowered expectations going into it. 

I will say this though, the moderators definitely had their biases...


----------



## FJAG (9 Oct 2016)

It seems I'm going to be in the States on election day.  anic:

Maybe I can register to vote.  ;D

 :cheers:


----------



## Remius (9 Oct 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> It seems I'm going to be in the States on election day.  anic:
> 
> Maybe I can register to vote.  ;D
> 
> :cheers:



That might actually be a fascinating experience.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (9 Oct 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> It seems I'm going to be in the States on election day.  anic:
> 
> Maybe I can register to vote.  ;D
> 
> :cheers:



See, we have the proof, there is an international conspiracy to commit voter fraud!


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Oct 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Wrong... Trudeau has 341 days more experience at running a country than anyone on here or Trump.



Well he has experience now running a country(and we're doing great aren't we)  but I would argue running a country is damn near the same as running a business which Trump obviously has more experience. 

Still with the leadership I've seen from Trudeau I stand  by my original statement that your average corporal has  more/better leadership than JT.  


The amount of shit Clinton has against her is just incredible.  I wonder what country she'll kill first.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Oct 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Sorry guys.  Anyone defending what he said or trying to minimize it by pointing to the other guy needs a head check.



That is exactly what their election has come down to.  Tit for tat.  He said she said.   It's a battle for the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (10 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Well he has experience now running a country(and we're doing great aren't we)  but I would argue running a country is damn near the same as running a business which Trump obviously has more experience.
> 
> Still with the leadership I've seen from Trudeau I stand  by my original statement that your average corporal has  more/better leadership than JT.
> 
> ...



Trump's experience in business is also less than stunning considering he was left a fortune. Running a country is the job he is applying for, and he has no experience. Trudeau now has experience. If Trudeau, without experience, is doing so poor why would Americans want the same situation?

Trump is a loudmouth with no sensible ideas and less ability to explain those terrible ideas to anyone. Build a wall to Mexico? Great idea! 

The problem is that Trump is a loser and Clinton isn't much better. Both refuse to talk about policy or anything that actually matters. That's why the decision between the debate and the Blue Jays game wasn't a tough one.

edited- was supposed to read "isn't much better" not "is much better"


----------



## Loachman (10 Oct 2016)

"We are 'Terrified' of Hillary - Paula Jones, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvoRcPXURwg


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Oct 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> If Trudeau, without experience, is doing so poor why would Americans want the same situation?


Funny how a lot of folks saying Trudeau doesn't have experience, so he sucks, also say Trump has no government experience, so he's da bomb, no?



			
				Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> See, we have the proof, there is an international conspiracy to commit voter fraud!


He called it:  _*"Trump says illegal immigrants pouring across the border to vote"*_  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (10 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> That is exactly what their election has come down to.  Tit for tat.  He said she said.   It's a battle for the lesser of two evils.



Actually Remius, I would go on to say that there is quite a difference here.  One is a case of someone talking and caught on tap a decade ago, and the other is two cases of someone actually committing acts and their partner covering up the facts.  You can talk about robbing a bank and you can actually rob a bank; but which is the criminal act?


----------



## George Wallace (10 Oct 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Wrong... Trudeau has 341 days more experience at running a country than anyone on here or Trump.



 ???

Trump is not in office.  What are you getting at?  Trudeau had absolutely no experience 341 days ago.  I would argue that he still doesn't, but that will tell next election for us.

I can see North America being quite a mess politically for the next four to eight years.  Choices have not been good.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Oct 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Funny how a lot of folks saying Trudeau doesn't have experience, so he sucks, also say Trump has no government experience, so he's da bomb, no?


     >



> "Trump says illegal immigrants pouring across the border to vote"[/b][/i][/url]  ;D


He's also said several times that the only way he could lose is if the election is rigged, setting conditions for rioting in the streets  anic:  ..... if the unthinkable happens, and he somehow comes second.
     op:


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Oct 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> >
> He's also said several times that the only way he could lose is if the election is rigged, setting conditions for rioting in the streets  anic:  ..... if the unthinkable happens, and he somehow comes second.
> op:


Funny that ... #InfluenceOps101?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (10 Oct 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> ???
> 
> Trump is not in office.  What are you getting at?  Trudeau had absolutely no experience 341 days ago.  I would argue that he still doesn't, but that will tell next election for us.
> 
> I can see North America being quite a mess politically for the next four to eight years.  Choices have not been good.



The comment was that Trump had more leadership experience than Trudeau. That's wrong, since Trudeau has been a  head of state for 341 more days than Trump has (or ever will).

North America will continue on as it has for the past 100 years since Hillary and Trudeau will get along well. You guys can keep on trying to convince yourselves that Trump has a shot if you want.


----------



## George Wallace (10 Oct 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The comment was that Trump had more leadership experience than Trudeau. That's wrong, since Trudeau has been a  head of state for 341 more days than Trump has (or ever will).
> 
> North America will continue on as it has for the past 100 years since Hillary and Trudeau will get along well. You guys can keep on trying to convince yourselves that Trump has a shot if you want.



So?  Is that not a RED HERRING?  Trudeau was a part-time Drama Teacher prior to entering politics where he was elected because of his pedigree.  Trump has been a businessman, successful at times, not at others; yet much more experienced in that sense than Trudeau.  Just because he has not been President elect on the same day that Trudeau became Prime Minister, does not in anyway prove that he has less leadership experience than Trudeau.  That is farcical.  I could argue that prior to both these elections, Trump had far more leadership experience than Trudeau, in running his businesses and his various "media shows".  What experience did Trudeau have, other than as Drama teacher and Snow Board Instructor?  Far less, I would say.


----------



## Loachman (10 Oct 2016)

Still Report 1253 - Donald Trump Tromps Crooked Clinton in Debate - up in Polls https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AqDY7Lrbeeg

Judge Jeanine Pirro Reacts to Second Trump-Clinton Debate - 10/9/16 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXWRzNJRFMY


----------



## mariomike (10 Oct 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> 15 Aug 2016
> 
> IAFF refuses to endorse either candidate.
> Starts 43:05
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUr2DYoNBIg



However,

However, the Fraternal Order of Police ( FOP ) supports Mr. Trump,

09/16/16 

Trump wins endorsement from Fraternal Order of Police
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-fraternal-order-of-police-endorsement-228296
The Fraternal Order of Police endorsed Donald Trump for president on Friday, praising the Republican nominee’s “real commitment to law enforcement.”

The IAFF has a membership of 300,000 Firefighters and Paramedics in the U.S. and Canada.

The FOP has a membership of 325,000 sworn Law Enforcement Officers * in the U.S.. 

I always considered it to our advantage when the Emergency Services stick together. If we don't watch our backs, who will?

Perhaps American IAFF members will take their cue from the FOP?

* Definition of LEO for those of us ( myself included ) who are unsure,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_officer



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> What experience did Trudeau have, other than as Drama teacher and Snow Board Instructor?


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Oct 2016)

PM Trudeau has 341 days of experience running a government? Do YOU really think he is running the Canadian government and making all or some of the final decisions?


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Oct 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The comment was that Trump had more leadership experience than Trudeau. That's wrong, since Trudeau has been a  head of state for 341 more days than Trump has (or ever will).
> 
> North America will continue on as it has for the past 100 years since Hillary and Trudeau will get along well. You guys can keep on trying to convince yourselves that Trump has a shot if you want.



Trump still has more leadership experience.  Perhaps not as a head of state where he's being cuckolded but as a business leader.  Trudeau got voted in because if his daddy,  his name and a staged picture of a dead little boy.  In hindsight however I shouldn't have brought Trudeau into a thread about us politics. 

I do  think you're right Trump  has no chance of winning.  Clinton and the government  are too corrupt to let an outsider like Trump win.   Still it was pretty funny  seeing him telling Hillary she should be in jail,  because she should.


----------



## McG (10 Oct 2016)

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


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Oct 2016)

CNN reports that Clinton won the 2nd debate too:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/presidential-debate-poll-winner-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-a7353391.html

I haven't been impressed with either candidate, in any context. But it's been fun to watch from north of the 49th! 

"Hell is empty and the Devils are here"  - Shakespeare


----------



## mariomike (10 Oct 2016)

I guess not many here are old enough to remember Daisy Girl, but I do. 
I was 9 or 10 years old when I watched her on the Buffalo channels in the pre-cable era. 
For some reason I remembered it today,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDTBnsqxZ3k


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (10 Oct 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So?  Is that not a RED HERRING?  Trudeau was a part-time Drama Teacher prior to entering politics where he was elected because of his pedigree.  Trump has been a businessman, successful at times, not at others; yet much more experienced in that sense than Trudeau.  Just because he has not been President elect on the same day that Trudeau became Prime Minister, does not in anyway prove that he has less leadership experience than Trudeau.  That is farcical.  I could argue that prior to both these elections, Trump had far more leadership experience than Trudeau, in running his businesses and his various "media shows".  What experience did Trudeau have, other than as Drama teacher and Snow Board Instructor?  Far less, I would say.



I disagree.... and to be perfectly honest, from what I've seen of Trump, I wouldn't trust him to run a platoon let alone a country. What has he done or said that show that he has any leadership ability whatsoever? Randomly attacking people? Being unable to articulate himself? Blaming everyone but himself (the media, the "elites", etc) for his own errors and things he's said? Openly discussing sexual assault? 

Trump is a joke. And not a very funny joke at that. If he had any ideas to actually make things better than I'd have some time for him. However, he's the political equivalent of the 2Lt who thinks himself to be the next Rommel but can't do a proper arty recce, than blames the instructors and his coursemates for his failures. Time for the Republicans to PRB this waste of time and find someone who can maybe beat Clinton in 4 years. The sooner Trump is in the wastebin of history the better. (Clinton too, but her time will maybe come in 4 years).


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Oct 2016)

[quote author=Bird_Gunner45] and find someone who can maybe beat Clinton in 4 years. 
[/quote]

One can hope.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Oct 2016)

Remember when you read this that the media and political establishment went into a frenzy over Donald Trump saying a few rude things. Funny how _these_ leaked items don't get anywhere the same amount of 24hr repetition for days:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-10/leaked-email-reveals-potential-collusion-between-state-department-and-clinton-campai



> *Smoking Gun? Leaked Email Reveals Potential Collusion Between State Department And Clinton Campaign*
> by Tyler Durden
> Oct 10, 2016 1:20 PM
> 
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Oct 2016)

At the risk of adding nothing to the discussion, I find myself of thinking of Mister Trump as "El Supremo." This brief account may help you get the connection:

http://hornblower.wikia.com/wiki/El_Supremo

I wish it was otherwise. Mrs Clinton's major qualification for the office is that she is not Donald Trump.


----------



## mariomike (10 Oct 2016)

What about the First Lady ( wife #? ) or First Dude.

Bill back to chasing shirt around the office?  

Does this election make anyone nostalgic for the days when America's greatest concern seemed to be about a guy getting a BJ?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (10 Oct 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Remember when you read this that the media and political establishment went into a frenzy over Donald Trump saying a few rude things. Funny how _these_ leaked items don't get anywhere the same amount of 24hr repetition for days:
> 
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-10/leaked-email-reveals-potential-collusion-between-state-department-and-clinton-campai



So your source is a blog written by "Tyler Durden", the character from Fight Club? Sounds legit


----------



## Loachman (10 Oct 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I wish it was otherwise. Mrs Clinton's major qualification for the office is that she is not Donald Trump.



And her major disqualification is that she is Hillary Clinton, with a lengthy crooked and corrupt past.


----------



## QV (10 Oct 2016)

It sure is troubling when there are folks willing to overlook corrupt and criminal behaviour by a person in office because the other one made rude statements.  

However I don't think the majority thinks that way.  Trump will win by a landslide.


----------



## Altair (10 Oct 2016)

QV said:
			
		

> It sure is troubling when there are folks willing to overlook corrupt and criminal behaviour by a person in office because the other one made rude statements.
> 
> However I don't think the majority thinks that way.  Trump will win by a landslide.


I don't care who wins seeing as how I support the libertarians, but do you just flat out ignore the polling?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Oct 2016)

Published on October 10, 2016
DEAR ‘MEDIA’: Guess Who Called A Person A ‘Miserable C*CK SUCKER’ – Trump Or Hillary?

Are we starting to keep score with abrasive words used, now? Are we using them to indicate what someone’s attitude toward others is? Because if we are, there are some stories the media may have missed.

(Heads up: In quoting what was said, it is unavoidable that there will be rough language in the following text.)

Let’s look at how Hillary talks about people.



The folks at 100% Fed Up posted a few of their favorites:

“Where is the G-damn f**king flag? I want the G-damn f**king flag up every f**king morning at f**king sunrise.”
(From the book “Inside The White House” by Ronald Kessler, p. 244 – Hillary to the staff at the Arkansas Governor’s mansion on Labor Day, 1991)

“Son of a b*tch!”
(From the book “American Evita” by Christopher Anderson, p. 259 – Hillary’s opinion of President George W. Bush when she found out he secretly visited Iraq on Thanksgiving just days before her highly publicized trip.)
“If you want to remain on this detail, get your f**king ass over here and grab those bags!”
(From the book “The First Partner” p. 259 – Hillary to a Secret Service Agent who was reluctant to carry her luggage because he wanted to keep his hands free in case of an incident.)

“Where’s the miserable c*ck sucker?”
(From the book “The Truth About Hillary” by Edward Klein, p. 5 – Hillary shouting at a Secret Service officer)

“Come on Bill, put your dick up! You can’t f**k her here!!”
(From the book “Inside The White House” by Ronald Kessler, p. 243 – Hillary to Gov. Clinton when she spots him talking with an attractive female at an Arkansas political rally)

And DailyMail puts forward another colorful collection:

Hillary was heard calling mentally challenged children ‘f*****g ree-tards’ and caught on record blurting out the terms ‘stupid k**e and ‘f***ing Jew b*****d’, while Bill called the Reverend Jesse Jackson a ‘G**damned n****r’.
Put this together with slut-shaming rape victims, describing a ‘basket of deplorables’ the bucket of losers, the ‘basement dwellers’ the ‘functional illiterates’ and other such snappy phrases, and it seems she thinks the entire COUNTRY is beneath her.

No wonder she cares so little for preserving the things that made it great in the first place.

THIS is the woman who says Trump is too horrible to be President? And yet she thinks she should be their leader?

Sure, keep telling yourself that, Hillary.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Oct 2016)

There probably is no better book to read about the Clintons (primarily Bill, but Hillary is deeply involved) than No One Left to Lie To by Christopher Hitchens.

Locker room talk isn't in the same tier as probable rape and subsequent defamation of victims, or "maintaining a semi-official staff for the defamation and bullying of inconvenient but truthful former girlfriends." ("...in the 1992 Clinton campaign, there was an entire operation funded with over $100,000 of campaign money, which included federal matching funds, to hire private detectives to go into the personal lives of women who were alleged to have had sex with Bill Clinton.")

Lots of respect for women there, but it might be hard to explain to all the daughters who need to be protected from Trump's frat-boy bullshitting.  I wonder how many of the people who prefer Clinton over Trump have a coherent enough grasp of what Hillary has actually participated in and done to at least make a meaningful utilitarian calculation of the lesser evil?


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (10 Oct 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> And her major disqualification is that she is Hillary Clinton, with a lengthy crooked and corrupt past.



Sadly she is a far superior option to the angry creamsicle. 

Trump has a crooked and corrupt past also, but has policy ideas that are flat out stupid (yup, the wall with Mexico will fix everything) and comes off like a moron. Add in little to no leadership ability and less tact and people skills and bam, you have Donald Trump.

I get you guys hate Hillary, but that doesn't mean Trump isn't a buffoon.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (10 Oct 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Published on October 10, 2016
> DEAR ‘MEDIA’: Guess Who Called A Person A ‘Miserable C*CK SUCKER’ – Trump Or Hillary?
> 
> Are we starting to keep score with abrasive words used, now? Are we using them to indicate what someone’s attitude toward others is? Because if we are, there are some stories the media may have missed.
> ...



Perhaps instead of posting the same Hillary bashing comments you could debate some sort of policy position that demonstrates that Trump is a better option than her? All you're proving is that they're both terrible people.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Oct 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Perhaps instead of posting the same Hillary bashing comments you could debate some sort of policy position that demonstrates that Trump is a better option than her? All you're proving is that they're both terrible people.



As far as being a POS goes,  who do you think is worse,  Clinton or Trump?  I can't help but get the feeling you  feel they're  on the same page.  Maybe I'm wrong though? 

Secondly who do you think would be a better president out of the two?


----------



## FJAG (10 Oct 2016)

> For the first time since I became a citizen in 1983, I will not vote for the Republican candidate for President
> 
> Like many Americans, I’ve been conflicted by this election – I still haven’t made up my mind about how exactly I will vote next month.”“I have been a proud Republican since I moved to America in 1968 and I heard Nixon’s words about getting the government off our backs, free trade, and defending our liberty with a strong military. That day I joined the party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan.
> 
> ...



http://people.com/politics/arnold-schwarzenegger-will-not-be-voting-for-donald-trump-choose-your-country-over-your-party/

 :cheers:


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Oct 2016)

Jerry Falwell Jr weighs in on the so called sex tape.He thinks its the work of the #neverTrumpers.Personally I have wondered about this possibility.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/bombshell-jerry-falwell-jr-says-gop-elites-may-leaked-trump-sex-talk-tape/


----------



## vonGarvin (10 Oct 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Jerry Falwell Jr weighs in on the so called sex tape.He thinks its the work of the #neverTrumpers.Personally I have wondered about this possibility.
> 
> http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/10/bombshell-jerry-falwell-jr-says-gop-elites-may-leaked-trump-sex-talk-tape/



Michael Savage had a theory that it could have been the Bush family that put it out.  After all, Jeb lost out to "that man".

The DNC and GOP elites don't get it; people are sick of the status quo.  This is why Mr Sanders and Mr Trump got so much support.  Arguably, Mr Sanders could have won the DNC nomination if the DNC didn't have the super delegates going for Mrs Clinton from the get-go, nor actively work against him.

I suspect that just as the polls were wrong for the so-called "Brexit" vote in the UK, I also suspect the same here.  Mr Trump has electrified the US GOP base while Mrs Clinton is seen (by many) as same old/same old.  She will get votes because of her genetics (XX Chromosomes and all).  She will get other votes because of her nuptials.  But she has yet to win over the majority of voters who came out to support Mr Sanders.

But in the end, I suspect the Clinton Dynasty may have ended last night.


----------



## QV (10 Oct 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> I don't care who wins seeing as how I support the libertarians, but do you just flat out ignore the polling?



I don't believe the pollsters.


----------



## QV (10 Oct 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Sadly she is a far superior option to the angry creamsicle.
> 
> Trump has a crooked and corrupt past also, but has policy ideas that are flat out stupid (yup, the wall with Mexico will fix everything) and comes off like a moron. Add in little to no leadership ability and less tact and people skills and bam, you have Donald Trump.
> 
> I get you guys hate Hillary, but that doesn't mean Trump isn't a buffoon.



BG45,

I have not seen or heard of any evidence of Trump being crooked or corrupt.  There very might well be, and if so I'm sure the DNC is working feverishly to uncover it.  But if the best they have are some lude remarks they are in trouble.  The guy established a multi billion dollar company which would be a clue he has both leadership and people skills in abundance.  If all you hear is "build the wall" then you are not listening as the policy point to that is getting control of illegal immigration.  

Clinton is a disaster.  If you have payed any attention to the congressional hearings involving everything from IRS, Benghazi, whatever, you should be horrified at the level of corruption in many of the American institutions most importantly the FBI and DOJ.  If I were American I would take my chances with Trump because the corruption goes so far the only way to fix it is to vote them out.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (10 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> As far as being a POS goes,  who do you think is worse,  Clinton or Trump?  I can't help but get the feeling you  feel they're  on the same page.  Maybe I'm wrong though?
> 
> Secondly who do you think would be a better president out of the two?



1. I think Trump is a bigger POS. He has zero actual ideas that are worth wasting any intellectual efforts on. He's horribly out of his depth and has continually proven himself to be a walking piece of fecal matter. Hillary is bad, but Trump is far far worse. 

2. Clinton, hands down. Trump wouldn't make a good president because he doesn't offer any policy positions that add anything to the national or international discussions, has the mental capacity of a 5 year old, and doesn't have an ounce of diplomacy in him.

America is the greatest power in the history of the world. They haven't achieved this by accident but rather by the work of strong internationalists (even in their isolation days, which tbh weren't all that isolated) and economic experts who were able to work the system to America's advantage.  Brilliant statesmen drove America to it's current position. Thinking of a walking, talking, piece of human excrement like Trump follow in those, far far far superior to his, footsteps is almost depressing.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Oct 2016)

I'm really blown away by your answer and perspective BG but appreciate you answering thanks.

QV


> I have not seen or heard of any evidence of Trump being crooked or corrupt.  There very might well be, and if so I'm sure the DNC is working feverishly to uncover it.  But if the best they have are some lude remarks they are in trouble.  The guy established a multi billion dollar company which would be a clue he has both leadership and people skills in abundance.  If all you hear is "build the wall" then you are not listening as the policy point to that is getting control of illegal immigration.
> 
> Clinton is a disaster.  If you have payed any attention to the congressional hearings involving everything from IRS, Benghazi, whatever, you should be horrified at the level of corruption in many of the American institutions most importantly the FBI and DOJ.  If I were American I would take my chances with Trump because the corruption goes so far the only way to fix it is to vote them out.



Couldn't agree more. The laundry list of movie villain level shit Clinton has done and got away with in which people seem so oblivious to is just wild.

The US really is a reality TV show.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (10 Oct 2016)

QV said:
			
		

> BG45,
> 
> I have not seen or heard of any evidence of Trump being crooked or corrupt.  There very might well be, and if so I'm sure the DNC is working feverishly to uncover it.  But if the best they have are some lude remarks they are in trouble.  The guy established a multi billion dollar company which would be a clue he has both leadership and people skills in abundance.  If all you hear is "build the wall" then you are not listening as the policy point to that is getting control of illegal immigration.
> 
> Clinton is a disaster.  If you have payed any attention to the congressional hearings involving everything from IRS, Benghazi, whatever, you should be horrified at the level of corruption in many of the American institutions most importantly the FBI and DOJ.  If I were American I would take my chances with Trump because the corruption goes so far the only way to fix it is to vote them out.



Here's a link to a video for you to watch. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1Lfd1aB9YI

Trump's plan wont bring illegal immigration under control. All his wall does is waste money. 

I feel Trump is a disaster. I wouldn't trust him to walk a dog let alone run a country. Clinton isn't much better, but she's better. Trump would be the worst thing to happen to the US and would easily be one of their worst presidents. Luckily he's not going to win, so no need to worry about it. Trump will soon be a footnote and a case study for university Poli-sci classes. Perhaps his ridiculous "Make America Great Again" hats can make a nice exhibit for those classes. The possibilities!!!


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (10 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm really blown away by your answer and perspective BG but appreciate you answering thanks.
> 
> QV
> Couldn't agree more. The laundry list of movie villain level crap Clinton has done and got away with in which people seem so oblivious to is just wild.
> ...



Sorry that myself, 47% of Americans, and the majority of Canadians don't agree with your position. 

Did you actually watch the video? I doubt it, and if you did I'm sure it's media bias and the establishment lying. 

Both aren't good people. Clinton's political positions make more sense and are based in rational thought. Trump's positions generally are just whatever pops into his brain that day. INtellectually there's no challenge. Trump is a fool


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Oct 2016)

Some criminal activity comparisons. 

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/joyoverbeck/2016/07/10/clinton-crimes-vs-trump-crimes-n2190401


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Oct 2016)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> ... The DNC and GOP elites don't get it; people are sick of the status quo.  This is why Mr Sanders and Mr Trump got so much support.  Arguably, Mr Sanders could have won the DNC nomination if the DNC didn't have the super delegates going for Mrs Clinton from the get-go, nor actively work against him ...


 :nod:  Which is also the system that helped Trump, going into the nomination in the lead, magnify his lead - that, and none of the other candidates being willing to say, "hey, I'll back any other decent runner for the good of the party, and will stop my own climb up the greasy pole."


----------



## mariomike (10 Oct 2016)

No wonder the IAFF refuses to endorse him,

Donald Trump says he knows ‘fire & fire marshals’ as he returns to familiar theme 
http://www.statter911.com/2016/10/10/donald-trump-says-he-knows-fire-fire-marshals-as-he-returns-to-familiar-theme/


----------



## cupper (10 Oct 2016)

To say that Trump has leadership experience because he runs a multi billion dollar enterprise (and I'd like to see proof of the actual value) is at best an over estimation of his skill at running a corporate enterprise.

First, Trump is the sole owner and stock holder. He issues edicts to his employees, and if they disagree, they get the boot. He is only beholden to one person, himself. He sets the worst example for his underlings, by stiffing contractors, after lowballing them into a zero margin price. He uses intimidation when they won't buy in to getting ripped off.

At best Trump's leadership style can be considered autocratic. In my opinion it is more like tyrannical dictatorship.

Now if you feel that his leadership experience makes him a better candidate than Clinton, I don't want to live in your world.

The man has no understanding of foreign policy, no understanding of how goverment actually works. No understanding of how the military functions and the roles it plays. No understanding of how immigration policy works. No understanding of how the US justice system works. The tax system. How the three parts of the government function and interplay.

The man thinks that as president he can issue a decree, snap his fingers and it will be carried out with no questionor push back. The first time he butts head with congress will be a disaster. The first time he gets overruled by the Supreme court will be catastrophic.

The dark post apocalyptic world he says currently exists in the big citys will come to pass if the man is elected.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (10 Oct 2016)

QV said:
			
		

> BG45,
> 
> I have not seen or heard of any evidence of Trump being crooked or corrupt.  There very might well be, and if so I'm sure the DNC is working feverishly to uncover it.  But if the best they have are some lude remarks they are in trouble.  The guy established a multi billion dollar company which would be a clue he has both leadership and people skills in abundance.  If all you hear is "build the wall" then you are not listening as the policy point to that is getting control of illegal immigration.
> 
> Clinton is a disaster.  If you have payed any attention to the congressional hearings involving everything from IRS, Benghazi, whatever, you should be horrified at the level of corruption in many of the American institutions most importantly the FBI and DOJ.  If I were American I would take my chances with Trump because the corruption goes so far the only way to fix it is to vote them out.



Just because you haven't seen or heard it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, same as when it snows outside your window doesn't mean that global warming isnt happening.


----------



## Remius (10 Oct 2016)

QV said:
			
		

> It sure is troubling when there are folks willing to overlook corrupt and criminal behaviour by a person in office because the other one made rude statements.
> 
> However I don't think the majority thinks that way.  Trump will win by a landslide.



Sadly Donald Trump has given everyone other things to talk about.  Anyone else should be wiping the floor with her but he's the gift that keeps giving.  We can all claim media bias, establishment bias, rigged elections and any one of a dozen conspiracies.  He's become ten author of his own demise.  Some people refuse to believe it.  Fine.  He's going to lose.  That still won't stop the anti establishment folks who refuse to see what he really is.  He had a chance to capitalize on that sentiment and completely imploded.  Independents are starting to move towards Clinton, not because they like her. But because they FEAR Trump.  trump may only be words right now but they fear that.  The republicans seem to have conceded now and they are moving to protect what they have left to counter Clinton.  It will likely be a landslide but it will not go the way you think.  He will not get the college votes he needs and I suspect that some may even vote against the will of some states to prevent him from winning.  

You can keep believing that that the majority is behind him but I suspect that they aren't. Not even close anymore.  Those that are are deluding themselves at this point.  A stronger anti establishment candidate would have done well this time but unfortunately the best they came up with was Trump.  You won't see something like this again for generations.  TRump has buried that chance as no one will take that chance again.

I don't like Clinton.  I believe she's corrupt. I don't want to see her as the leader of the free world.  But there is no viable alternative.  Donald Trump is the reason she will win.  I would stay home and hope someone, anyone can beat her in four years from now because no one will beat her this time around.


----------



## Loachman (11 Oct 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> that doesn't mean Trump isn't a buffoon.



Nobody is claiming otherwise.

He has yet, though, to leave four good men to die needlessly in Benghazi and lie about it to bereaved families and the general public.

He has yet, though, to mishandle classified information and go to extreme lengths to cover that up, including wiping out evidence sought in a Congressional subpoena. Any ordinary person would, rightfully, spend decades in jail for doing a fraction of this.

He has yet, though, to personally enrich himself through a personal foundation that received huge donations from foreign interests who, in return, received direct access to Hillary Clinton. Anybody else accepting such "donations" would, rightfully, be up on charges for accepting bribery and would have another few decades added to their sentence.

He has yet, though, to drive vicious attacks on the victims of his spouse's sexual depravities.

He is, by far, the lesser of the evils.

And he is not as stupid as many people think.

Neither was Ronald Reagan, who was also prematurely under-estimated.

And, if he follows though on his promises to clean out Obama/Clintonesque corruption and end illegal immigration - if that is all that he does - then he will have done some real good.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Trump wouldn't make a good president because he doesn't offer any policy positions that add anything



And Hillary's wonderful policy positions would be?

Even one of Mr Trump's promises - to appoint a special prosecutor to finally bring the Clintons to justice - is superior to anything that Hillary would do.

And Hillary's number one policy position would be to further enrich herself at the expense of the American people.

At the very best, she will continue to run up the national debt (and Obama has managed to more than double it in a mere eight years), further weaken the US economy, further divide the US on racial lines, further weaken the US Armed forces, fail to stand up to real and credible threats, drive even deeper corruption in federal agencies like the FBI, Department of Justice, and Internal Revenue and further turn them into personal tools to use against her opposition.

There are reasons why Mr Trump is packing rallies while Hillary's are poorly attended. People are fed up with a self-serving political elite - Republican and Democrat - that has benefitted its members to their detriment and they see a chance to correct that.



			
				Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Thinking of a walking, talking, piece of human excrement like Trump follow in those, far far far superior to his, footsteps is almost depressing.



Thinking of a walking, talking, piece of human excrement like Hillary follow in those, far far far superior to hers, footsteps is really, really, really depressing.

And the only cure for that is an orange jumpsuit in her size.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Oct 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> ... Even one of Mr Trump's promises - to appoint a special prosecutor to finally bring the Clintons to justice - is superior to anything that Hillary would do ...


And it would be efficient, too - he's already declared the findings by saying she'd be in jail if he was president.


----------



## tomahawk6 (11 Oct 2016)

It turns out that Speaker Ryan had the audio of Trump leaked via his chief of staff.If Trump wins one of the first casualties may be Speaker Ryan who could be replaced by the Republican caucus,that is if they retain the majority.


----------



## Loachman (11 Oct 2016)

Still Report 1254 Gingrich - Clinton Totally Rattled by Having the 4 Women There https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaXboZpUZok

Still Report 1255 Rudy Giuliani - I Could Convict Crooked Hillary on 26 Counts  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdKkHTxy2lQ

Still Report 1256 Frank Luntz - Debate Dials Thru the Roof for Donald Trump https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cSuY-p2Jh4

Undecided voters for Donald J. Trump! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDAaf-HQ75A


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Just because you haven't seen or heard it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, same as when it snows outside your window doesn't mean that global warming isnt happening.



Do you apply this same logic towards the Clinton's?


----------



## cupper (11 Oct 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> He has yet, though, to personally enrich himself through a personal foundation



I'm pretty sure that the Trump Foundation was set up as and is currently b eing used as a slush fund for him to tap into when he needs liquidity.

The IRS has found several examples of Foundation funds being misused, like paying out settlements for cases against his corporate entities. Purchasing personal items that are then claimed to stored for the foundation in prominant display at various Trump properties. He takes a salary from the foundation. 

And since 2008 it has been other people's money that has gone into the foundation coffers, and not his own.

And this is only the stuff we know about.


And as for all the other stuff, give him a chance. He hasn't been elected yet.


----------



## cupper (11 Oct 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Neither was Ronald Reagan, who was also prematurely under-estimated.



At least Regan had experience in government before he was elected to the White House.

Trump.... not so much.


----------



## mariomike (11 Oct 2016)

I read a lot on here about leadership. But, in politics, candidates get voted - not promoted.

That takes Likeability. 

As The Washington Post put it, "If Mrs. Clinton has a likeability problem, Mr. Trump has a likeability epidemic."


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Oct 2016)

[quote author=cupper]

First, Trump is the sole owner and stock holder. He issues edicts to his employees, and if they disagree, they get the boot. He is only beholden to one person, himself. He sets the worst example for his underlings, by stiffing contractors, after lowballing them into a zero margin price. He uses intimidation when they won't buy in to getting ripped off.[/quote]

I heard Trump kills their family and erases all evidence of their existence including having local phone books burned where he secretly slides in a Koran here and there. It's true.



> Now if you feel that his leadership experience makes him a better candidate than Clinton, I don't want to live in your world.


If your world involves ignoring the world-level illegal activity done by the Clinton empire I'd like wise take a big pass on that.

I wonder what atrocities Hillary would have to commit before her fans would question their loyalty. Maybe if the drone strike she suggested for Assange would inadvertently take out their families too that might sway them? We're ignoring the whole Uranium thing right?




> The dark post apocalyptic world he says currently exists in the big citys will come to pass if the man is elected.


Because places like Chicago and Detroit don't look like something from the Purge already?


----------



## mariomike (11 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Because places like Chicago and Detroit don't look like something from the Purge already?



Chicago, as of yesterday,

Shot & Killed: 524 (+45%)
Shot & Wounded: 2,865 (+42%)
Total Shot: 3,389 (+42%)
Total Homicides: 585 (+42%)

Toronto is bigger than Chicago. If you wish to compare,
http://www.torontopolice.on.ca/statistics/ytd_stats.php


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Oct 2016)

Sounds like a lovely place. They probably just need some more stricter gun control.  That or for Clinton to hurry up and  issue her version of  Order 66  ;D


----------



## mariomike (11 Oct 2016)

Yesterday, "The Chicago Police Department is sorry that you were robbed at gunpoint in your home. All officers are busy now. Please hold."
https://twitter.com/CWBChicago/status/785602747571679233

As far as Detroit goes, ( from 2009 ),

Murder rate down... There's nobody left to kill.
http://onlinetradersforum.com/threads/murder-rate-down-theres-nobody-left-to-kill.101155/


----------



## Lightguns (11 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I wonder what atrocities Hillary would have to commit before her fans would question their loyalty. Maybe if the drone strike she suggested for Assange would inadvertently take out their families too that might sway them? We're ignoring the whole Uranium thing right?



Interestingly, I have read articles from left wing organs that praised Assange when he revealed Bush Admin secrets now calling for his arrest and a conviction as an agent of Putin.  Funny perspective can change once their guy (gal) is in the noose.


----------



## cupper (11 Oct 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> It turns out that Speaker Ryan had the audio of Trump leaked via his chief of staff.If Trump wins one of the first casualties may be Speaker Ryan who could be replaced by the Republican caucus,that is if they retain the majority.



You have a reference for that. I haven't seen anything on any news feeds about this.


----------



## Loachman (11 Oct 2016)

There are various theories going around regarding the origin of the leak, including Mr Trump himself in order to bait Hillary.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Oct 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> :nod:  Which is also the system that helped Trump, going into the nomination in the lead, magnify his lead - that, and none of the other candidates being willing to say, "hey, I'll back any other decent runner for the good of the party, and will stop my own climb up the greasy pole."



Not quite.  The GOP doesn't have the "Super Delegates", which they put up after the people nominated Jimmy Carter.  After that, they wanted the appearance of choice to remain, but left it to the Super Delegates to anoint the chosen one.  The Donald probably won because the GOP base was sick and tired of the establishment republicans who did nothing (in their opinion) to counter the president once they had firm control of both houses. Also, it didn't help that from the get-go, there were...how many in the running?  (Speaks directly to your point about none of the others backing someone else, e.g. Marco Rubio backing ie Ted Cruz.)


----------



## cupper (11 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I heard Trump kills their family and erases all evidence of their existence including having local phone books burned where he secretly slides in a Koran here and there. It's true.



Now I understand. You are confused as to who's who. That's Clinton, not Trump. Get your conspiracies straight. [


----------



## cavalryman (11 Oct 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> There are various theories going around regarding the origin of the leak, including Mr Trump himself in order to bait Hillary.


Perhaps.  After all, he is a master baiter  >


----------



## mariomike (11 Oct 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> After all, he is a master baiter  >


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (11 Oct 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Do you apply this same logic towards the Clinton's?



Yes. I dont view the world in black and white as most of the people here do. I've never suggested that the clinton's were perfect, or even good. I just think Trump is the least qualified, least intelligent, and least desirable presidential candidate in my lifetime. That Clinton is better than Trump is hardly a glowing recommendation. I would expect better from a grade 8 school president candidate.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Oct 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Now I understand. You are confused as to who's who. That's Clinton, not Trump. Get your conspiracies straight. [



Don't make me get started on the pentagon being hit by a cruise missile.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Oct 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> Yes. I dont view the world in black and white as most of the people here do. I've never suggested that the clinton's were perfect, or even good. I just think Trump is the least qualified, least intelligent, and least desirable presidential candidate in my lifetime. That Clinton is better than Trump is hardly a glowing recommendation. I would expect better from a grade 8 school president candidate.



So you are saying that those of us who think that Clinton is morally and ethically less credible than Trump, as well as being criminal, at the very least 'corrupt', are viewing the world in Black and White?  

OK.  If that is your argument, so be it.  We are a bunch of close minded "everything is black and white" crowd.   :-\

Sorry that we all don't agree with you, that Clinton is the better of two evils.

But this is what this whole discussion is about....so we have to cover all the bases.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Oct 2016)

>Trump wouldn't make a good president because he doesn't offer any policy positions that add anything

The country is roughly divided 50/50 on pretty well all major issues; now would be an excellent time for a "caretaker" president who doesn't want to "add anything".

I think Hillary should win, because part of her solution for the humanitarian crisis in Syria is to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria.  We don't see US and Russian [force]s shoot at each other often enough.  It promises to be very entertaining.


----------



## vonGarvin (11 Oct 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I think Hillary should win, because part of her solution for the humanitarian crisis in Syria is to enforce a no-fly zone in Syria.  We don't see US and Russian [force]s shoot at each other often enough.  It promises to be very entertaining.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Oct 2016)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Not quite.  The GOP doesn't have the "Super Delegates", which they put up after the people nominated Jimmy Carter.  After that, they wanted the appearance of choice to remain, but left it to the Super Delegates to anoint the chosen one.


Ahhhh -- thanks for that ....



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> The Donald probably won because the GOP base was sick and tired of the establishment republicans who did nothing (in their opinion) to counter the president once they had firm control of both houses. Also, it didn't help that from the get-go, there were...how many in the running?  (Speaks directly to your point about none of the others backing someone else, e.g. Marco Rubio backing ie Ted Cruz.)


 :nod: &  :nod:


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Oct 2016)

"A nation that produced world renowned leaders like Washington, Lincoln, The Roosevelts and Eisenhower, it is a sad state of affairs to see what the USA has put forward for election in 2016 - a pair of scoundrels who would look better in jail than in the White House."

Jim Seggie

You all can borrow that quote but give me credit.  Thanks!!


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (12 Oct 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> So you are saying that those of us who think that Clinton is morally and ethically less credible than Trump, as well as being criminal, at the very least 'corrupt', are viewing the world in Black and White?
> 
> OK.  If that is your argument, so be it.  We are a bunch of close minded "everything is black and white" crowd.   :-\
> 
> ...



This is basically 70+ pages of black and white character assassinations. I simply said that I dont view the world in black and white- both are bad, Trump is just worse. If you check the polls you'll find it's not an unusual stance. Whether you live in a black and white world is up to you. It certainly seems like there are many on here who are unwilling to even reason and think Clinton is evil and Trump is good.  

No need to feel sorry... I dont care if you agree with me or not. Once Trump loses and becomes a university case study the world will be a better place.


----------



## Jed (12 Oct 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> This is basically 70+ pages of black and white character assassinations. I simply said that I dont view the world in black and white- both are bad, Trump is just worse. If you check the polls you'll find it's not an unusual stance. Whether you live in a black and white world is up to you. It certainly seems like there are many on here who are unwilling to even reason and think Clinton is evil and Trump is good.
> 
> No need to feel sorry... I dont care if you agree with me or not. Once Trump loses and becomes a university case study the world will be a better place.



I'm sorry buddy, you are the one that sees things in black and white.  And like you profess, I don't care whether you agree with me or not.  Your nose in the air, morally superior attitude, is quite a put down to those who you do not agree with. In many common places in the world such an attitude would result in a bloody nose.

Mr. Trump is deplorable, Mrs. Clinton has been proven to be worse.  A paid off Media does a great job of covering for her.


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Oct 2016)




----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Oct 2016)

:rofl:   Did I just hear the Slick Hillie fanboys saying this thread is dominated by Trump  supporters? ???  :

I see their illness is much deeper than the initial amorous desire for Clinton. 

Oh wait.... :rofl:


----------



## Remius (12 Oct 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> :rofl:   Did I just hear the Slick Hillie fanboys saying this thread is dominated by Trump  supporters? ???  :
> 
> I see their illness is much deeper than the initial amorous desire for Clinton.
> 
> Oh wait.... :rofl:



Not dominated by them.  They just happen to be louder. Which explains why south of the border they think they are winning.


----------



## Journeyman (12 Oct 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Not dominated by them.  They just happen to be louder.


The volume just _seems_  loud in here because no one is listening;  *both* sides are just shouting accusations, innuendo, and name-calling back and forth.
        :deadhorse:


27 more days until Armageddon and/or paradise.


----------



## mariomike (12 Oct 2016)

80 pages for an election that very few of us will be allowed to vote in.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Oct 2016)

Seems to me that this is the Election 2016 dilemma for the Americans:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4PzpxOj5Cc


----------



## Lumber (12 Oct 2016)

Are all the Clinton haters on here really anti-Hilary, or anti-establishment in general? I don't care either way, I'm just curious if it is the Clintons themselves, and their specific crimes, that have many of you seething at the thought of her winning the election, or is it a greater disdain for the system of politics and politicians that they embody? Would those of you I'm referring to be so supportive of Trump if Bernie Sanders was the nominee? What if it was Joe Biden?

I'm very much pro-establishment. The larger the country (in both population and economy) the larger and more complicated the political landscape. In my opinion, those with "established" political circles are the best qualified to run the executive branch and navigate the complicated world of international politics.

Trudeau, for example, is well connected and supported by the Laurentian elites. Sure, you might not like the decisions they are making, but they know how to do their jobs.

So, we're I a US citizen, I would most definitely vote Clinton. 

Out of two unsavoury characters, I'm not even going to try to compare which one is more evil than the other. As far as I'm concerned, they've both crossed the Rubicon, and I really don't care how far they've gone past it.

So I'd go with the one who knows how to do the job they're applying for.

 :2c:


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Oct 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> :rofl:   Did I just hear the Slick Hillie fanboys saying this thread is dominated by Trump  supporters? ???  :
> 
> I see their illness is much deeper than the initial amorous desire for Clinton.
> 
> Oh wait.... :rofl:



Clinton could summon a Greater Demon to a kids birthday party and people would still ignore it because Trump is so polarizing. It's amazing the level of corruption and illegal activity people seem to be willing to overlook.


----------



## mariomike (12 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It's amazing the level of corruption and illegal activity people seem to be willing to overlook.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Oct 2016)

Ya what a dummy. He's not some punk with a pistol, as a politician he should be talking about Droning people lol


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Oct 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> 80 pages for an election that very few of us will be allowed to vote in.



That will impact us as much as our own election. You can't discount what's happening just because you can't vote.


----------



## mariomike (12 Oct 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You can't discount what's happening just because you can't vote.



I said nothing about discounting, just impressed it is up to 80 pages.


----------



## cupper (12 Oct 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I said nothing about discounting, just impressed it is up to 80 pages.



I hold Mr. Campbell responsible for this. Starting this the same week as the 2012 election.

Thank god they haven't started speculating about 2020.

Oh, wait. Mike Pence is setting the scene for his run in 4 years.


----------



## Remius (12 Oct 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> That will impact us as much as our own election. You can't discount what's happening just because you can't vote.



Absolutely true.  Which administration do people think that would get along with our current government?  Personally I can't see a Trudeau Government be anything except maybe polite with a Trump presidency.  I doubt that they would be cozy.  I can see a working relationship with Clinton. 

But given that the CPC is more in line with the Democrats on the political spectrum I doubt that Stephen Harper would have gotten on well with Trump either.  

I suspect that he would be more discreet in his opinions than Trudeau might be though.


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Oct 2016)

I'm monumentally disinterested in Trudeau's relationship with the future POTUS; I'm terrified by the prospect of a Clinton presidency.  The media are in her hip pocket (see Wikileaks) and her failed foreign policy is criminal in its inept execution under her auspices. 
She would be confounded and confronted and brutalized by Putin.  At least The Donald would seek to work with him.
And lets face it: nobody cares about Canada in the world, except Canadians.


----------



## mariomike (12 Oct 2016)

I understand the only poll that counts is the one on election day, but for anyone interested,

Updated 49 minutes ago,
http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Oct 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Which administration do people think that would get along with our current government?



I'm more worried which administration would get me killed overseas or start WW3.


----------



## mariomike (12 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm more worried which administration would get me killed overseas or start WW3.



That's an interesting question. After Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt had some time to think. President Kennedy had less time during the Cuban Missile Crisis. 

How much time do they have now?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLSy8Tl2bjs

Considering their ages, how fast are their reactions going to be when the tones go off, ( or Red Phone rings or however presidents get notified of an emergency call ) at 0400?


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Oct 2016)

IIRC Americans can write in a candidate not on the ballot.

If I were an American I'd write in Kanye West. With Kim K as his  VP.


----------



## mariomike (12 Oct 2016)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> IIRC Americans can write in a candidate not on the ballot.
> 
> If I were an American I'd write in Kanye West. With Kim K as his  VP.



Living or dead? If it doesn't matter, I would probably have to go with Henry Fonda, "Moscow's been destroyed. Drop your bombs according to plan."


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Oct 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> That's an interesting question. After Pearl Harbor, President Roosevelt had some time to think. President Kennedy had less time during the Cuban Missile Crisis.


JFK made some good calls though during that crisis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods


> Operation Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation against the Cuban government, that originated within the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) of the United States government in 1962. The proposals called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other U.S. government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba. The proposals were rejected by the Kennedy administration.[2]


----------



## mariomike (12 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> JFK made some good calls though during that crisis.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods



DEFCON 2 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ynY5NvYsZY
"Noo-ku-lar Combat toe to toe with the Rooskies."


----------



## tomahawk6 (12 Oct 2016)

Trump is going to win - BIG.Once you understand that the media is an arm of the democrat party you will take with a grain of salt their polling data and the anti-Trump 24/7 barrage designed to discourage turnout.Of course the dem's run the risk of doing the same to their base.A democrat voter might suppose that they dont need to vote because Hillary has it sown up.


----------



## Altair (12 Oct 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Trump is going to win - BIG.Once you understand that the media is an arm of the democrat party you will take with a grain of salt their polling data and the anti-Trump 24/7 barrage designed to discourage turnout.Of course the dem's run the risk of doing the same to their base.A democrat voter might suppose that they dont need to vote because Hillary has it sown up.


Even internal Republican polls are showing big trouble ahead.


----------



## mariomike (12 Oct 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Trump is going to win - BIG.



I don't know if you are a betting man, but if you are, get to a bookmaker ASAP! Because you could win - BIG!

Last updated: 7:29PM EDT on Oct 12, 2016
https://electionbettingodds.com/


----------



## Lumber (13 Oct 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Trump is going to win - BIG.Once you understand that the media is an arm of the democrat party you will take with a grain of salt their polling data and the anti-Trump 24/7 barrage designed to discourage turnout.Of course the dem's run the risk of doing the same to their base.A democrat voter might suppose that they dont need to vote because Hillary has it sown up.




No. Even if I did believe (which I kind of do, to a degree) that the media is being deliberately and fraudulently deceitful, that would not cause me to take polling data with a grain of salt. Unless you believe in a vast and complicated network of conspiracy, whereby the various polls are "making up" their results at the bequest of the media, then the media can't make up the individual responses to the many, many the polls that show that Trump is loosing this race: http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo


----------



## cavalryman (13 Oct 2016)

Make of this what you will

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct13



> The full results from Sunday night’s debate are in, and Donald Trump has come from behind to take the lead over Hillary Clinton.
> 
> The latest Rasmussen Reports White House Watch national telephone and online survey shows Trump with 43% support among Likely U.S. Voters to Clinton’s 41%. Yesterday, Clinton still held a four-point 43% to 39% lead over Trump, but  that was down from five points on Tuesday and her biggest lead ever of seven points on Monday.


----------



## Remius (13 Oct 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Make of this what you will
> 
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct13



Maybe take that particular polling company with a grain of salt.  They are a known conservative leaning polling group with questionable polling tactics. five thirty eight is a much better source.  Or just watch what the peso is doing  [


----------



## Lumber (13 Oct 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Make of this what you will
> 
> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct13





> "After the 2010 midterm elections, Silver [of fivethirtyeight.com] concluded that Rasmussen's polls were the least accurate of the major pollsters in 2010, having an average error of 5.8 points and a pro-Republican bias of 3.9 points according to Silver's model."



http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/rasmussen-polls-were-biased-and-inaccurate-quinnipiac-surveyusa-performed-strongly/?_r=0


That all being said, his polling is certainly more accurate than online polls, and while there may be elements of bias, he's certainly following the scientific polling method, which is why Nate Silver continues to include him in his polling data. He's even spoken favourably about it after certain elections.



> Journalist Mickey Kaus said, "If you have a choice between Rasmussen and, say, the prestigious New York Times, go with Rasmussen."


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Oct 2016)

>So I'd go with the one who knows how to do the job they're applying for.

Well, it's a decidedly executive position, so I suppose that means going with the one with a lifetime of executive experience vice staff.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Oct 2016)

Can't make this s**t up ...

RUS Foreign Minister on the whole "pussy" thing on CNN:


> AMANPOUR: Can I just try one last question? One last question. A bit cheeky but I'm going to ask you. Russia had its own Pussy Riot moment. What do you think of Donald Trump’s pussy riot moment?
> 
> LAVROV: Well, I don't know what this would… English is not my mother tongue, I don't know if I would sound decent. *There are so many pussies around the presidential campaign on both sides that I prefer not to comment on this.*


 :rofl:


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Oct 2016)

Russia for the win!


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Oct 2016)

Hillary says she will obliterate Iran if she's elected president. 

https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=OWBE2dXCT64

Good, ISIL is proving to be too much of a push over.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Oct 2016)

More "Voter Fraud is a Myth"

http://clashdaily.com/2016/10/disgusting-watch-two-democratic-hags-stuff-ballot-box-viral-video/


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Oct 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Can't make this s**t up ...
> 
> RUS Foreign Minister on the whole "pussy" thing on CNN: :rofl:


And it's not official without a meme ...


----------



## Remius (14 Oct 2016)

This isn't a bad breakdown about why Trump may not have the ability to win 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/14/politics/battleground-map-2016-election-hillary-clinton-donald-trump/index.html

Yes, yes media bias and what not blah blah, th epoint is that the argument being made is fairly solid.  Remember, it isn't the popular vote that will win the election, it's the College Votes.  And he seems to be losing those...


----------



## Remius (14 Oct 2016)

And on another note, if anyone is offended by how Donald Trump has portrayed or treated women, one would hope that they would be equally offended by Hillary Clinton's playbook in dealing with her Husband's actions...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/14/emails-reveal-clinton-teams-early-plan-for-handling-bill-sex-scandals.html


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Oct 2016)

Sounds like more and more of Clintons emails are being released. Some pretty good zingers so far. Apparently Saudi Arabia is discreetly funding ISIS, good thing we haven't made any arms deals with SA.

I've read someone plans to release all 33'000 deleted emails too.


----------



## muskrat89 (14 Oct 2016)

> Trump is going to win - BIG.



Ive done pretty well staying away, but I wanted to interject.....

I personally dont think Trump will win, BUT - on 5 or 6 different occasions this week I have talked to people (not close friends or colleagues - had no idea regarding their political leanings) who were absolutely voting for Trump but were not saying anything on Social Media or even in mixed company and family gatherings - for fear of being mocked, called names and shouted down (their words, not mine). I wonder how widespread that phenomenon is....?

I will now return to the shadows leaving you all with more energy to the tit for tat


----------



## cupper (14 Oct 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I personally dont think Trump will win, BUT - on 5 or 6 different occasions this week I have talked to people (not close friends or colleagues - had no idea regarding their political leanings) who were absolutely voting for Trump but were not saying anything on Social Media or even in mixed company and family gatherings - for fear of being mocked, called names and shouted down (their words, not mine). I wonder how widespread that phenomenon is....?



I just listened to a discussion on this very question. The person being interviewed was a pollster who was asked if there really was a so called silent Trump majority that is throwing the polls off, and would show up on November 8th. He explained that there isn't evidence that these types of people are a real thing that will ultimately tip the election in Trump's favour.

His rationale for this is that if there really was a sizable group of silent Trump supporters that were embarrased or not willing to disclose their view, there would be a discrepancy in poll numbers between those that are based on person to person interviews, and the automated phone systems and legitimate online polling systems where there is no interaction beteen the interviewee and another person. And the poll numbers aren't showing a significant difference between the two types of polling methods.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (14 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Hillary says she will obliterate Iran if she's elected president.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=OWBE2dXCT64
> 
> Good, ISIL is proving to be too much of a push over.



Right.  

So the context is that this was in response to a question if the US would respond to an Iranian attack against Israel.

She did say that.....in 2008

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-politics-iran-idUSN2224332720080422


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Oct 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Right.
> 
> So the context is that this was in response to a question if the US would respond to an Iranian attack against Israel.
> 
> ...


There you go getting all context-y again ...


----------



## mariomike (14 Oct 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> The person being interviewed was a pollster who was asked if there really was a so called silent Trump majority that is throwing the polls off, and would show up on November 8th.



Looks like Mr. Trump really has a sort of Silent Majority,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump+silent+majority&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnmerlg9vPAhUs6YMKHRepBXgQ_AUICSgC&biw=1536&bih=770#

Good grief,
Donald Trump braced for ‘at least two more megabombs’ as Clinton ally offers ‘$5m fee’ for rumoured ‘n-word’ 
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1952306/more-damaging-footage-looming-as-clinton-ally-offers-5million-fee-for-rumoured-donald-trump-n-word-apprentice-tape/


----------



## cupper (14 Oct 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Looks like Mr. Trump really has a sort of Silent Majority,
> https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump+silent+majority&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjnmerlg9vPAhUs6YMKHRepBXgQ_AUICSgC&biw=1536&bih=770#



That's the problem with silent majorities... they don't seem to understand the meaning of the word silent.  ;D

si·lent
ˈsīlənt/
adjective
not making or accompanied by any sound.
"the woods were still and silent"
synonyms:	completely quiet, still, hushed, inaudible, noiseless, soundless

"the night was silent"
(of a person) not speaking.
"she fell silent for a moment"
synonyms:	speechless, quiet, unspeaking, dumb, mute, taciturn, uncommunicative, tight-lipped; informal mum
"the right to remain silent"

not expressed aloud.
"a silent prayer"
synonyms:	unspoken, wordless, unsaid, unexpressed, unvoiced, tacit, implicit, understood
"silent thanks"


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Oct 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Right.
> 
> So the context is that this was in response to a question if the US would respond to an Iranian attack against Israel.
> 
> ...



Of course. And now Iran backed rebels are attacking US warships. Seems like Iran is just begging to be attacked.  

I don't think the WW3 hand-wringers are that out to lunch anymore.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Oct 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Right.
> 
> So the context is that this was in response to a question if the US would respond to an Iranian attack against Israel.
> 
> ...



Grab them by the pussy. He did say that..............in 2005.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Oct 2016)

Good for the goose and all that. https://youtu.be/-NTq1tlBwqI


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Oct 2016)

Hypocrisy, thy name is Hillary. https://www.facebook.com/shad0wsquad/videos/928530567290772/


----------



## cupper (14 Oct 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Good for the goose and all that. https://youtu.be/-NTq1tlBwqI



Because we all know that James O'Keefe is a shining star of journalistic integrity.  :facepalm:


----------



## a_majoor (14 Oct 2016)

Because we all know Legacy Media Journ-O-Lists don't collude with the DNC or their candidates. There are plenty of emails which tell us so......

Seen on Facebook is perhaps the most convincing explanation of the last two decades:



> Wretchard T. Cat
> 14 hrs ·
> 
> The Saudis and Russians made a big discovery after the fall of the Soviet Union: that you couldn't beat the United States the country, but you could corrupt American politicians for what amounted, in their world, to chump change. You could spent a billion dollars on some useless piece of Soviet military junk, or you could spend on a junket. The junket was more effective.
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Oct 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Because we all know that James O'Keefe is a shining star of journalistic integrity.  :facepalm:



Now you're trying to deflect. Refute what happened in the video, don't shoot the messenger. The video point is the democrats and their voter fraud, not an attack on the author. The double standard with Clinton supporters and campaign workers talking about grabbing ass and then vilifying Trump for the same thing. :


"I'm more concerned with Clinton's criminal acts and bullying her husband's rape victims than I am about what Trump says."


----------



## cavalryman (15 Oct 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Because we all know that James O'Keefe is a shining star of journalistic integrity.  :facepalm:


Which, at worst, does not make him any more evil than the DNC operatives with bylines pretending to be journalists for such fine Democrat propaganda mouthpieces media outlets as CNN, MSNBC, the NYT, the WaPo, etc.  Glass houses, and all that  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Oct 2016)




----------



## cupper (15 Oct 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Now you're trying to deflect. Refute what happened in the video, don't shoot the messenger. The video point is the democrats and their voter fraud, not an attack on the author. The double standard with Clinton supporters and campaign workers talking about grabbing ass and then vilifying Trump for the same thing. :
> 
> 
> "I'm more concerned with Clinton's criminal acts and bullying her husband's rape victims than I am about what Trump says."



My point is that there is enough true BS circulating in this election that we don't need to add in items of questionable verasity.

O'Keefe has a known history of:

1) leading the interviews in directions where he can later selectively edit the video to completely change the narritive.

2) commit illegal acts to gain information or influence a subject into a compromising position

3) destroying innocent peoples lives by taking the context of a hidden camera or audio interview and completely changing the narritive into something that fits his agenda, that doesn't reflectwhat actually took place in the interview.

In another example of similar attempts to smear, some of the Wikileaks material material has been shown to be fake. A Podesta e-mail that supposedly proves shenannigans were going on in the campaign were actually quotes from an article by a Newsweek reporter, and inserted into a fake e-mail as Podesta's own words.

So if I am sceptical about certain sources of information or claims of wrong doing, this is why.


----------



## dimsum (15 Oct 2016)

Canada Just Wants To #TellAmericaItsGreat



> While we've been slogging through what feels like the most contentious presidential election in decades, Canada seems to have been dancing on air, still caught up in the glow of a relatively new prime minister who has been compared to a Disney prince.
> 
> We on the other hand, are living through a point in the campaign where cable news might have to be censored for small children.
> 
> Enter Canada, with a small, yet poignant show of support during our year of discontent. A Toronto-based creative agency called The Garden has created the "Tell America It's Great" campaign, complete with a hashtag and a video.



http://www.npr.org/2016/10/14/497986850/canada-just-wants-to-tellamericaitsgreat?live=1&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=2040

Video:  

http://www.npr.org/2016/10/14/497986850/canada-just-wants-to-tellamericaitsgreat?live=1&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=2040


----------



## George Wallace (15 Oct 2016)

If only....


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Oct 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> If only....


 :nod:


----------



## mariomike (15 Oct 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> I personally dont think Trump will win, BUT < snip >



Sorry to hear that.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Oct 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> My point is that there is enough true BS circulating in this election that we don't need to add in items of questionable verasity.
> 
> O'Keefe has a known history of:
> 
> ...



On tape, right in front of you. Democrats breaking voting laws and you still have that overwhelming need to defend them. :facepalm:

Of course Slick Hillie's campaign workers and sources are above reproach, aren't they? Only Republicans play dirty and all of that jazz. :


----------



## cupper (15 Oct 2016)

What flavor of Koolaid are they serving over in Trumpland?

Hillary is serving up grape.   ;D


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Oct 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Hillary is serving up grape.   ;D



Is it sour?


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Oct 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Is it sour?


----------



## George Wallace (15 Oct 2016)

And out of the woodwork comes:

RUPAUL CLAIMS TRUMP TOUCHED HIM INAPPROPRIATELY IN THE 1990S


Will the mudslinging not stop?

[edit:  Even Fake News Sites can have influence.]


----------



## a_majoor (15 Oct 2016)

Finally Hillary's carefully hidden speeches to Goldman Sachs have been leaked. Why it was so important to hide the transcripts (and why the media was so curiously uninterested in what sort of speeches are worth more than half a million dollars) hasn't been explained, but perhaps the clues are in the full transcripts. Follow the link for the full transcripts:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-15/here-are-hillary-clintons-three-speeches-goldman-sachs-which-she-was-paid-675000
(Part 1)


> *Here Are Hillary Clinton's Three Speeches To Goldman Sachs For Which She Was Paid $675,000*
> by Tyler Durden
> Oct 15, 2016 1:07 PM
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (15 Oct 2016)

(Part 2)



> Here is Hillary opining on Wikileaks and Edward Snowden:
> 
> MR. BLANKFEIN: I'll discuss that after I leave here. Let me ask you another question because this is also a topical question. Let's say, hypothetically, that one country was eavesdropping on another country.
> (Laughter.)
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (15 Oct 2016)

Who do you want to believe?


----------



## mariomike (15 Oct 2016)

Give him a break, he was only 59!


----------



## a_majoor (15 Oct 2016)

WSJ on the media. What I find puzzling is given the extreme contempt the Dems have for the press (locking a reporter in a closet at a Biden event, corralling reporters to physically separate them from an event, blasting the assembled press corps with a white noise generator at a Clinton event, among other things), they simply can't do enough boot licking. If Hillary wins they and the Troll army infesting the internet to influence public opinion will be tossed like yesterday's trash:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-press-buries-hillary-clintons-sins-1476401308



> *The Press Buries Hillary Clinton’s Sins*
> As reporters focus on Trump, they miss new details on Clinton’s rotten record.
> By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
> Oct. 13, 2016 7:28 p.m. ET
> ...


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (16 Oct 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> I'm sorry buddy, you are the one that sees things in black and white.  And like you profess, I don't care whether you agree with me or not.  Your nose in the air, morally superior attitude, is quite a put down to those who you do not agree with. In many common places in the world such an attitude would result in a bloody nose.
> 
> Mr. Trump is deplorable, Mrs. Clinton has been proven to be worse.  A paid off Media does a great job of covering for her.



How am I black and white? I've stated repeatedly that neither candidate is good... Clinton is just the lesser of two evils. I then was asked if I thought Trump was worse than Clinton and I said I do. I dont think Trump has the intellectual capability of a turnip. That said, I wasn't asked to comment on Clinton. To that end, she should likely be looking at jail time. The other things lodged against her, particuarly Benghazi, or reaching (in my opinion) and more evidence of the "attack the person" vice "attack the policy" notion in politics.

If thinking that a racist, intellectually deficient, orange rage ball who openly talks about sexually assaulting women is a POS, than you're right, I'll take the morally superior road.

As for the bloody nose comment, grow up Peter Pan.


----------



## mariomike (16 Oct 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> In many common places in the world such an attitude would result in a bloody nose.



I was watching some Fight Club  government brawls on You-tube. 

We're not there yet, but I wonder if American - and dare I say Canadian - politics are headed in that direction?


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Oct 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I was watching some Fight Club  government brawls on You-tube.
> 
> We're not there yet, but I wonder if American - and dare I say Canadian - politics are headed in that direction?



A friend of mine wore a _Make American Great again_ hat to the mall in Calgary.  She was called a slut, a racist and spit on.
A student at the University of Calgary was allegedly strangled for wearing the same hat a few days ago.
I think we're there.


----------



## mariomike (16 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I think we're there.



Sorry to hear about your friend. 

This is just from the past week,

"Trump election violence"
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Trump+election+violence&biw=1536&bih=770&source=lnms&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjGxN2xyt_PAhUi2oMKHcsfC_gQ_AUIBSgA&dpr=1.25#q=Trump+election+violence&tbs=qdr:w

or

"Clinton election violence"
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Trump+violence&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=ZZMDWOKZHIGN8Qe53ZfYDg&gws_rd=ssl#tbs=qdr:w&q=Clinton+election+violence

On the lighter side ( if there is one in this election? )

Trumpkins


----------



## George Wallace (16 Oct 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I was watching some Fight Club  government brawls on You-tube.
> 
> We're not there yet, but I wonder if American - and dare I say Canadian - politics are headed in that direction?



I thought that our past two elections showed a distinct move in that direction.....It is not a matter of will it happen, but how much worse will it get.


----------



## mariomike (16 Oct 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I thought that our past two elections showed a distinct move in that direction.....It is not a matter of will it happen, but how much worse will it get.



You mean anger and hate?

Whichever one of them gets in, it's difficult to imagine the passing of either one of them inspiring the genuine outpouring of grief that President Roosevelt did.
https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/150330-warm-springs-fdr.jpg?quality=85&w=1680


----------



## Jed (16 Oct 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> How am I black and white? I've stated repeatedly that neither candidate is good... Clinton is just the lesser of two evils. I then was asked if I thought Trump was worse than Clinton and I said I do. I dont think Trump has the intellectual capability of a turnip. That said, I wasn't asked to comment on Clinton. To that end, she should likely be looking at jail time. The other things lodged against her, particuarly Benghazi, or reaching (in my opinion) and more evidence of the "attack the person" vice "attack the policy" notion in politics.
> 
> If thinking that a racist, intellectually deficient, orange rage ball who openly talks about sexually assaulting women is a POS, than you're right, I'll take the morally superior road.
> 
> As for the bloody nose comment, grow up Peter Pan.



Just sayin' Other people have different opinions. You grow up. I wasn't calling you any names.Pretty sensitive, aren't we I do not think you are taking the morally superior road just because you do.


----------



## mariomike (16 Oct 2016)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> As for the bloody nose comment, grow up Peter Pan.





			
				Jed said:
			
		

> You grow up.


----------



## Remius (16 Oct 2016)

If anyone believes that Trump has a chance at this stage, this is not a bad assessment of the situation.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/gop-strategists-clinton-may-be-headed-for-victory-1.3117438

I think a lot of voters are in the same boat I would be in.  I can't for the life of me support Clinton and what she represents.  Not because I identify with her opponents, I don't but because she represents everything I hate in a politician.  But she's a career politician.  It's almost expected that she would be corrupt and crooked. But she knows the system and knows how to temper her words.

TRump is an outsider that people would hope could rise to the call.  He hasn't. He won't. He never will.  It is a failed opportunity that he was propelled into.  His party is as divided as ever and he hasn't done anything to unite it.  Meaning he will never get anything done since he'll be facing opposition in the senate and congress regardless of who is there.  And while people can stomach a corrupt politician, they have a harder time with an employer who is possibly a sexual aggressor.  He will never be able to temper his words.  In world diplomacy and more importantly world economics the words of a POTUS have effect.  He hasn't listened to his advisers now, I doubt he if he became president. 

Is suspect more republicans than democrats will stay home instead of voting.  I would.


----------



## mariomike (16 Oct 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> If anyone believes that Trump has a chance at this stage, this is not a bad assessment of the situation.



Things can change before Election Day. Hope is always last to die.


----------



## Remius (16 Oct 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Things can change before Election Day. Hope is always last to die.



Hope is also the first step to disappointment.    :blotto:


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Oct 2016)

I believe that Trump will win.Why do I think that ? The media is 24/7 negative on Trump coming out with bogus groper victims,among other lies.The public is fed up and will vote accordingly.


----------



## FJAG (17 Oct 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I believe that Trump will win.Why do I think that ? The media is 24/7 negative on Trump coming out with bogus groper victims,among other lies.The public is fed up and will vote accordingly.



Notwithstanding all the Republican conspiracy theories :Tin-Foil-Hat: don't you think it's a possibility that the media is down on Trump because it has good reason to be?

I don't put much store on the sexual harassment disclosures. Long before they started Trump had--out of his own mouth--declared himself to be a narcissistic predator. The recent stuff is icing on the cake. The press is an entertainment medium fuelled by the need for entertaining/scandalous events.  Trump's peccadilloes are much more relateable to the public than the vague email issues that the Republicans have hung their hat on. So the press goes with that. I find it interesting that many stalwart Republican newspapers are endorsing Clinton. That's not a conspiracy. That's a revolt.

I think what every American voter will have to face on election day is the issue of whether to vote for a flawed, yet competent and experienced politician who has the ability to make government function, or an emperor who has no clothes. Trump quite simply has displayed, and continues to display, that he has neither the knowledge, skill, judgement nor temperament to run the US.

I think that more and more the US electorate is coming to that realisation.

 :2c:

 :cheers:


----------



## Remius (17 Oct 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I believe that Trump will win.Why do I think that ? The media is 24/7 negative on Trump coming out with bogus groper victims,among other lies.The public is fed up and will vote accordingly.



https://www.kent.edu/comm/news/media-really-biased-or-does-it-depend-your-political-identity-and-choice-media-platform

From what I've seen, this seems to be the case.  As FJAG has stated, Donald Trump keep pouring oil over his own fire.  So yeah, the media will jump on that.


----------



## Remius (17 Oct 2016)

Here is a pretty good article that goes into Trump's assertion that the election is rigged and touches on the media bias and the true architect of it all. 

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/trumps-rigged-game/504299/

Valid points on all counts.


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Oct 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I believe that Trump will win.Why do I think that ? The media is 24/7 negative on Trump coming out with bogus groper victims,among other lies.The public is fed up and will vote accordingly.


2 weeks before the 1980 election, Carter was well ahead of Reagan.

Now, neither Trump nor Clinton are on par with either of those two from 1980, but....

This poll did well in 2004 and 2008, but was off in 2012 (but ahead of gallup).  And for what it's worth, Rasmussen had Clinton up by 7 points a week ago.  Now Trump is ahead.


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Oct 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Notwithstanding all the Republican conspiracy theories :Tin-Foil-Hat: don't you think it's a possibility that the media is down on Trump because it has good reason to be?
> temperament to run the US.



Yes, they do have a very good reason to be: they are in bed with the DNC.  CNN was caught on tape coaching an "independent" focus group during Debate II seen here

Wikileaks also shows that much of the media is complicit as well.  And where are the stories on Wikileaks?  They are everywhere.  Except on the MSM, the same ones who tell us that we ought not look at them, but just trust the media (who are apparently allowed to look at them, or something) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE

"Everything you learn about this you learn from _us_..."  Yeah, right.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Oct 2016)

Funny how all kinds of folks are keen on Wikileaks material when they release stuff they like to see, but not so much when they release stuff they don't want to see, even though the caveat in both cases is the same:  we know _what_ was released, but we don't know 1)  what WASN'T, and 2)  why/why not.

Although in Assange's case, we know he's not a Hillary fan from a while back - and I guess we're still waiting for those Russian and Chinese leaks, eh?

Meanwhile ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Oct 2016)

They were in the middle of leaking the Podesta emails when they lost their internet connection. >


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (17 Oct 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> Just sayin' Other people have different opinions. You grow up. I wasn't calling you any names.Pretty sensitive, aren't we I do not think you are taking the morally superior road just because you do.



Yes, and I gave mine of Trump. I stand by it and look forward to him becoming a historical footnote. Perhaps in 4 years the Republicans can find someone to bring their party back from the damage Trump has done. After 4 years of Clinton the US will need it.


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Oct 2016)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Now Trump is ahead.


And today Clinton is up, 43 to 41.


----------



## ModlrMike (17 Oct 2016)

Something to make fence sitters go one way or another?

Trump blames firebombed Republican office on 'animals representing Hillary Clinton'

Of course the headline could have told the same story with somewhat different wording...  :facepalm:


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Oct 2016)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Yes, they do have a very good reason to be: they are in bed with the DNC.  CNN was caught on tape coaching an "independent" focus group during Debate II seen here
> 
> Wikileaks also shows that much of the media is complicit as well.  And where are the stories on Wikileaks?  They are everywhere.  Except on the MSM, the same ones who tell us that we ought not look at them, but just trust the media (who are apparently allowed to look at them, or something) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE
> 
> "Everything you learn about this you learn from _us_..."  Yeah, right.



I think a lot of people overlook or ignore how persuasive media bias can be.  There's a lot of people who read a headline and react (often it seems with virtol) without bothering to read the whole story.  SM is full of people spazing out about new 5 year old stories, they don't even bother to read the date.

It should worry people that the MSM is blatantly and unethically playing favorites.


----------



## FJAG (17 Oct 2016)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Yes, they do have a very good reason to be: they are in bed with the DNC.  CNN was caught on tape coaching an "independent" focus group during Debate II seen here
> 
> Wikileaks also shows that much of the media is complicit as well.  And where are the stories on Wikileaks?  They are everywhere.  Except on the MSM, the same ones who tell us that we ought not look at them, but just trust the media (who are apparently allowed to look at them, or something) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X16_KzX1vE
> 
> "Everything you learn about this you learn from _us_..."  Yeah, right.



Have you ever given thought to the fact that the very term "Main Stream Media" implies the suggestion that it is reflective of the opinion and values of "Main Stream America". 



> Mainstream is current thought that is widespread. It includes all popular culture and media culture, typically disseminated by mass media. It is to be distinguished from subcultures and countercultures, and at the opposite extreme are cult followings and fringe theories.



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

The article about the MSM cited by Remius's above (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/trumps-rigged-game/504299/) is a good one as to explaining the fallacy behind the Trumpian "MSM conspiracy" to rig the election.

If there is a fire in a city and all the press in the city reports that there is a fire then it doesn't mean that there was a press conspiracy to support fires. "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." (Sigmund Freud)

 :cheers:


----------



## Lumber (17 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I think a lot of people overlook or ignore how persuasive media bias can be.  There's a lot of people who read a headline and react (often it seems with virtol) without bothering to read the whole story.  SM is full of people spazing out about new 5 year old stories, they don't even bother to read the date.
> 
> It should worry people that the MSM is blatantly and unethically playing favorites.



The "MSM" hasn't been avoiding topics that shed a negative light on Hilary Clinton. I've read highly critical articles on CNN or MSNBC about Clinton's health, time as Secretary of State and "Pay to Play", the Clinton Foundation, the Email scandal, etc. etc.

If it seems like they are providing more "negative" articles about Trump than Hilary, it's simply because Trump himself keeps providing them with stories to write about!

It's not the Liberal Main Stream Media's fault that he doesn't have a brain-mouth filter.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Oct 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> It's not the Liberal Main Stream Media's fault that he doesn't have a brain-mouth filter.


Which makes it kind of odd hearing pro-Trump folk saying, "we want to discuss the issues" when it's the candidate who tends to discuss whatever he wants.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Oct 2016)

But to be fair, FJAG, the press have for the longest time now ceased to be a neutral party to what they're reporting on.  They have instead in many cases become the newsmakers and have their respective agendas they wish to push.  Look at Hurst Newspapers and the Spanish American war at the turn of the last century.


----------



## mariomike (17 Oct 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." (Sigmund Freud)



Sometimes, a cigar is more than just a cigar, ( Monica Lewinsky )

"At one point, the President inserted a cigar into Ms. Lewinsky's vaxxxx, then put the cigar in his mouth and said: "It tastes good."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/6narritiii.htm


----------



## Lumber (17 Oct 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> But to be fair, FJAG, the press have for the longest time now ceased to be a neutral party to what they're reporting on.  They have instead in many cases become the newsmakers and have their respective agendas they wish to push.  Look at Hurst Newspapers and the Spanish American war at the turn of the last century.



The big difference between now and then is that, while the Media has always had the ability to be biased, we have a many tools at our own disposal to assess the veracity of their stories. 

You can't say that the MSM is making things up when they are providing verifiable videos, audio recording and transcripts of things El Drumpf has actually said.

The main stream media aren't being biased; they are just being themselves. They ceased being solely focused on news a long time ago, and are more about entertainment. Clinton's health and getting paid millions for speaking events isn't as entertaining as, well, just about everything Trump says.


----------



## mariomike (17 Oct 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Look at Hurst Newspapers and the Spanish American war at the turn of the last century.



Hearst.

And the role Herbert Bayard Swope played in the only execution ever of an American Police Officer. 

"Don't forget that the only two things people read in a story are the first and last sentences. Give them blood in the eye on the first one."
Herbert Bayard Swope



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." (Sigmund Freud)



Sometimes, a cigar is more than just a cigar, ( Monica Lewinsky )  

"At one point, the President inserted a cigar into Ms. Lewinsky's vaxxxx, then put the cigar in his mouth and said: "It tastes good."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/6narritiii.htm

With all the media attention, the job is probably not as much fun as it was back in JFK's day,

Look good, kick ass, get laid.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Oct 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> The "MSM" hasn't been avoiding topics that shed a negative light on Hilary Clinton. I've read highly critical articles on CNN or MSNBC about Clinton's health, time as Secretary of State and "Pay to Play", the Clinton Foundation, the Email scandal, etc. etc.


Uh huh? 
I googled Clinton's health CNN and randomly picked this link. 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/11/opinions/hillary-clinton-health-vox/

How scathing of CNN.   Maybe I'll randomly check the other examples you gave me but I suspect it will be more of the same.


----------



## FJAG (17 Oct 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> But to be fair, FJAG, the press have for the longest time now ceased to be a neutral party to what they're reporting on.  They have instead in many cases become the newsmakers and have their respective agendas they wish to push.  Look at Hurst Newspapers and the Spanish American war at the turn of the last century.



Absolutely correct. I read extensively in history and it seems that in the US, the press has been slanted and biased ever since the First amendment was passed. One only needs to look at some of the broadsides published in the early days of the union and then those during the Civil War. There never has been a single news source that has been truly neutral. The point is it that across the board the press generally has proponents reporting either side of an issue so that if you read broadly, you will receive a more balanced view.

The trouble in my mind is that too often we confuse "opinion" writers with "news" reporters. A simple example exists within Fox news: Shep Smith and Chris Wallace are generally fairly decent and level news reporters while folks such as Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are the mouthpieces for a niche segment of American society for whom facts are an inconvenience to be ignored.

There can never be such a thing as a completely fair and unbiased press as long as it is run by people each of whom comes with their own viewpoints and prejudices. At best you can have some loose journalistic standards to govern their behaviour in general and keep outright libel and overt falsehoods off the page.

I don't doubt that there are many journalists who are deeply offended by the troll who is now running on the Republican ticket and therefore take every opportunity to point out his shortcomings to the public. To say, however, that there is a great conspiracy by the "MSM" to get Clinton elected is a massive stretch by those people who don't really understand how fragmented and disconnected the press is from each other. The press couldn't organize a one man rush on a urinal.

Those folks who wonder why the "MSM" doesn't report on the issues put forward by Trump should remind themselves that so far Trump hasn't said much except generalities. I've been to Trump's campaign website and pretty much everything that he says there I've seen reported in the "MSM". (Betcha he won't allow open carry in the lobby of Trump Towers). But there are few details; just vague generalities supported by so called facts which have been debunked numerous times.

One thing that the press hasn't reported very well is that Trump intends to replace Obamacare with Health Savings Accounts. These will let individuals make tax deductible contributions into an account that they maintain to use in the event of a health care expense. In the US even relatively minor procedures can run into the tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars. To leave the extreme costs of medical events to a privately run "savings account" is the height of inhumanity to your fellow man.  :2c:

 :cheers:


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Oct 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Hearst.



Thanks for the correction.


----------



## Remius (17 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Uh huh?
> I googled Clinton's health CNN and randomly picked this link.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/11/opinions/hillary-clinton-health-vox/
> ...



How about Fox News.  Mainstream enough or is it fringe reporting?  Lead story is the emails.


----------



## Lumber (17 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Uh huh?
> I googled Clinton's health CNN and randomly picked this link.
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/11/opinions/hillary-clinton-health-vox/
> ...



I never said scathing, I said critical. 

But, I didn't mean "disparaging", I meant "thorough and analytical", meaning they are covering all the topics, including everything to do about Hilary. I apologize for my choice of words. I simply meant to highlight that CNN/MSNBC are covering every story there is about Hilary as they are about Trump; there are just a ton more about Trump.


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Oct 2016)

[quote author=Lumber] I simply meant to highlight that CNN/MSNBC are covering every story there is about Hilary as they are about Trump; there are just a ton more about Trump.
[/quote]

That's fair. I'm guilty of being naive, not accepting how the world really works and thinking that dealing and consorting with our enemy (or our enemies allies) is worse than being a loud mouth douchbag.

What kind of violations will Hillary commit when she's the president? Knowing that she basically got away with murder. Is there a point where we'll say enough is enough or will we (the west) keep up supplying rebels then justify fighting them?

I need to grow up  ;D  [but I'm still curious if Canada will continue to supply armored vehicles to Saudi Arabia now that there is proof of Saudi Arabia funding ISIL]


----------



## Jarnhamar (17 Oct 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> How about Fox News.  Mainstream enough or is it fringe reporting?  Lead story is the emails.



Fringe reporting,  comic relief and crazy far right.  I gotta admit Ive only seen fox news a few time and it seemed  as authentic as the onion.


----------



## cupper (17 Oct 2016)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> 2 weeks before the 1980 election, Carter was well ahead of Reagan.



A couple of articles I read quite a while ago said that the pole for weeks before the election were too close to call, then on election day Reagan proved everyone wrong by winning by a large margin.

http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/31/remembering-1980-are-the-polls-missing-something/



> For weeks before the presidential election, the gurus of public opinion polling were nearly unanimous in their findings. In survey after survey, they agreed that the coming choice between President Jimmy Carter and Challenger Ronald Reagan was “too close to call.” A few points at most, they said, separated the two major contenders.
> 
> But when the votes were counted, the former California Governor had defeated Carter by a margin of 51% to 41% in the popular vote–a rout for a U.S. presidential race. In the electoral college, the Reagan victory was a 10-to-1 avalanche that left the President holding only six states and the District of Columbia.
> 
> ...



Carter had to deal with a down economy and carry the blame for the Iranian Hostage Crisis. Particularly after the failed rescue attempt in April '80. So it would make more sense that the polls were too close to call or slightly in Reagan's favor.


----------



## cupper (17 Oct 2016)

Something else to consider is that Trump seems to have impecable timing when it comes to news cycles.

Every time a significant story about Clinton comes out, Trump invariably steps all over it with either a scandle of his own, or spewing vitriol at everyone who doesn't fall in line, or some faux pas big enough to take the spot light away from Clinton.

If I believed in conspiracies, I'd say he was doing it deliberately to blow the election.


----------



## mariomike (17 Oct 2016)

What's the world coming to? Even his own VP!

Pence clashes with Trump over attacks on women, ‘rigged’ election
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/10/16/pence-clashes-with-trump-over-attacks-on-women-rigged-election.html

“We will absolutely accept the result of the election," Indiana Gov. Mike Pence said on NBC's Meet the Press. 

Indiana Gov. Mike Pence delicately broke with Donald Trump on a range of topics Sunday, including his running mate’s personal attacks against women who have accused him of sexual assault and on whether Russian hackers are responsible for leaking Democratic Party emails.


----------



## Remius (17 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Fringe reporting,  comic relief and crazy far right.  I gotta admit Ive only seen fox news a few time and it seemed  as authentic as the onion.




Still MSM though and very pro trump.  They have the 3rd largest market share of the Big 6.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Oct 2016)

Well, for me personally, it doesn't matter how you spin it or who wins for that matter.  It's a shit show and my sympathies go out to the American citizens at large and the world in general as which ever fuckstick wins, all of of us will have to pay for the next four years, plus how ever many years it will take to undo the damage that's coming to us all.


----------



## mariomike (17 Oct 2016)




----------



## George Wallace (17 Oct 2016)

Worth the listen to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZnlz-b2NnY&feature=player_embedded


----------



## muskrat89 (17 Oct 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> The trouble in my mind is that too often we confuse "opinion" writers with "news" reporters. A simple example exists within Fox news: Shep Smith and Chris Wallace are generally fairly decent and level news reporters while folks such as Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly are the mouthpieces for a *niche segment of American society* for whom facts are an inconvenience to be ignored.
> 
> ...



God, you really do fancy yourself an expert on everything dont you?

1) I guess I'm a niche segment, along with 30-49% of Americans. Elitist much? How about Chris Matthews out MSNBC? Is he a "mouthpiece for a niche segment" too?

2) Vague generalities? 

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/healthcare-reform

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/trade/

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/tax-plan/

It's easy to figure out that you don't agree with him, but he has about 14-15 position statements on his website, the one that youve visited, supposedly. Here is Hillary's tax plan, for comparison. If anything, it's a little shorter than Trump's. But his is "vague"  lol

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/a-fair-tax-system/

3) HSA's - is one part of about 7 statements he makes regarding his healthcare plan. HSA's are one. By the way, they've been around for years. Every employer I have worked for in the past dozen years or so has offered that as an option. He absolutely does not "simply suggest replacing Obamacare with HSA's. What you stated/inferred is not accurate.

Here's a comparison from that niche mouthpiece, Forbes magazine:  http://www.forbes.com/sites/nextavenue/2016/08/12/where-trump-and-clinton-stand-on-health-care-and-medicare/#766173731eb0


Full disclosure, Trump was not my first choice, nor my second or third. I don't even consider myself a supporter. It's your smug, condescending tone that gets my goat quite honestly. Of course, you know more what is best for the US, from your armchair, than people who live here

Oh - and while you're slagging the unwashed masses with your passive-aggressive style - the little clinking beer mugs doesn't change our opinion much


----------



## a_majoor (17 Oct 2016)

Since it has worked so well in the US, I'm sure Canadian "Progressives" will be importing these sorts of techniques to the Great White North soon enough. The clear theme throughout this piece is that the law is simply an impediment which gets in the way, and manipulating media imagery provides the ability to set the "narrative" This is "Dezinformatsiya" and "Maskirovka" on a grand scale:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/10/17/exclusive-okeefe-video-sting-exposes-bird-dogging-democrats-effort-to-incite-violence-at-trump-rallies/



> *Exclusive: O’Keefe Video Sting Exposes ‘Bird-Dogging’ — Democrats’ Effort to Incite Violence at Trump Rallies*
> by JOEL B. POLLAK17 Oct 2016
> 
> Democrats have used trained provocateurs to instigate violence at Republican events nationwide throughout the 2016 election cycle, including at several Donald Trump rallies, using a tactic called “bird-dogging,” according to a new video investigation released Monday by James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas.
> ...



and

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/246645/



> NOTHING TO SEE HERE, IT’S OLD NEWS ANYWAY, LET’S MOVE ON.
> 
> #PodestaEmails10
> OH CHUCKY TODD: Clinton campaign set the terms of how much NBC could cover the Clinton Foundation. https://t.co/tqVDjpnyPR pic.twitter.com/qWi4D1V1Eo
> ...


----------



## muskrat89 (18 Oct 2016)

> FOVAL: We train up our people, wherever they are, to — and I work with a network of groups, we train them up on how to get themselves into a situation on tape, on camera, that we can use later.



I was working with a UAPD Detective today (Liberian Vice President visiting campus - go figure..) who worked a Trump rally in Tucson. Some guy got the snot knocked out of him after antagonizing a rally-goer until the dude lost it (Black Trump supporter, ironically). Anyway, the police asked the guy if he wanted to press charges and he said "Nope, I just wanted to get a reaction, and I got it"


----------



## FJAG (18 Oct 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> God, you really do fancy yourself an expert on everything dont you?
> 
> 1) I guess I'm a niche segment, along with 30-49% of Americans. Elitist much? How about Chris Matthews out MSNBC? Is he a "mouthpiece for a niche segment" too?
> 
> ...



Thanks for not making it personal. 

 :cheers:


----------



## muskrat89 (18 Oct 2016)

*Thanks for not making it personal. 
*

 :

niche segment of American society for whom facts are an inconvenience to be ignored

dragged into an illegal war in Iraq by the Bush Republicans

there is a link between those who accept religious "facts"

to compare an idiotic analogy about Skittles made by a moron

The one being sponsored by the Trumpites is simple opportunism that is neither justifiable nor understandable once you strip away the misstatements, outright lies and jingoist rhetoric.

 :cheers:

You are probably a nice guy, who I would enjoy having a beer with, in any other context. I didn't attack you as a person, nor your position. I find your tone condescending and your online demeanor, in this discussion, comes across to me - personally - as arrogant. I have not marginalized you as a person, (niche segment), and I haven't called you a moron, or classified your opinion as idiotic. I did state that you fancy yourself an expert - I suppose that was a bit personal and uncalled for.


----------



## FJAG (18 Oct 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> *Thanks for not making it personal.
> *
> 
> :
> ...



There's no sense in keeping this up in this thread. I'll PM you in due course.

 :cheers:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Oct 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> God, you really do fancy yourself an expert on everything dont you?
> 
> 1) I guess I'm a niche segment, along with 30-49% of Americans. Elitist much? How about Chris Matthews out MSNBC? Is he a "mouthpiece for a niche segment" too?
> 
> ...


 :goodpost: There it is. That's what I've been waiting for. 

Muskrat, you're right.


----------



## mariomike (18 Oct 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Some guy got the snot knocked out of him after antagonizing a rally-goer until the dude lost it (Black Trump supporter, ironically).



Reading that made me curious about the demographics of Mr. Trump's supporters,
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/09/dissecting-donald-trumps-support/499739/
( That's from Sep 14, 2016. Not sure if his demographics have changed since then? ) 

One can only guess what the demographics are in internet forums.

Whoever gets in, I hope the losers will be satisfied with taking out their frustrations on their keyboards.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Oct 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> _Whoever gets in_,  I hope the losers will be satisfied with taking out their frustrations on their keyboards how democracy functions in that particular country, and move on with their lives.


I hold no great hope of that happening.


----------



## mariomike (18 Oct 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I hold no great hope of that happening.



Wishful thinking on my part. I suspect emergency services are preparing for the worst, and hoping for the best.

This is just from the past week,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=election+violence&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=Zx4GWJeSA6iC8QffrLQw&gws_rd=ssl#tbs=qdr:w&q=presidential+election+violence


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Oct 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> and hoping for the best.



So, riots with lots of over time?


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Oct 2016)

The problem is that, when a candidate harps on nothing else than the fact that the election he is running in is rigged and therefore the only possible conclusion should he lose is that it was from an unbelievable level of fraud, not from a majority of people rejecting his candidacy, then the followers of this person can only see the election of another person as illegitimate. And countries where the government is considered illegitimate often face revolts and other forms of violence in the wake of elections.

Would it not have been much better to run a positive campaign on how the system doesn't work by claiming to want to fix it?

Imagine if the candidate ran on a platform such as: "If I am elected, this is going to be the last presidential election that will be held using Great Electors. If elected, I will begin the constitutional amendment process so that in the next election, the president will be elected by direct vote of the citizens, truly a one person - one vote system, with as many candidates as decide to run on the ticket and with a run off election if none of the candidates get a majority of votes on the first ballot"

Know what, I would have voted for someone proposing such a change.

(See how I nicely managed to propose this whole post without mentioning names   )


----------



## mariomike (18 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So, riots with lots of over time?



Triple time if they riot on a Stat. Holiday.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Oct 2016)

And I was referring only to this site.
I've absolutely zero doubt that the Clinton and Trump camps' extreme :tempertantrum: crowd  will be out and at their juvenile worst following the election, regardless of winner.  :


----------



## Lumber (18 Oct 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> And I was referring only to this site.
> I've absolutely zero doubt that the Clinton and Trump camps' extreme :tempertantrum: crowd  will be out and at their juvenile worst following the election, regardless of winner.  :



The scary thing is that, given how polarized these camps are, just how bad is their "worst"?

Imagine that after losing the election, Trump were to proclaim that the election was fraudulent, and that his supporters should not consider the new administration to be legitimate. Imagine then that Trump decided to stand-up his own shadow-government, because the current establishment and MSM had failed the American People. Not a new government based on geographical boundaries like the north-south union/confed, but one that could be stood up with establishments intermixed throughout the country. If he cried out for his followers to ignore the rules and directives and laws of the old establishment run by crooked Hilary Clinton, and told them only listen to the enlightened wisdom of his government and his laws... how many do you think would follow him?


----------



## Journeyman (18 Oct 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> ... how many do you think would follow him?


Not my fortune to tell.

I'd typed more, but it will add nothing to this "discussion," so I'll STFU again.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Oct 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> ... how many do you think would follow him?


On *either* side, it only takes a few (sometimes, very few) idiots to make life miserable for everyone.


----------



## mariomike (18 Oct 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> On *either* side, it only takes a few (sometimes, very few) idiots to make life miserable for everyone.



Like a bowl of Skittles!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/09/20/trump-skittles-2-large_trans++qVzuuqpFlyLIwiB6NTmJwfSVWeZ_vEN7c6bHu2jJnT8.jpg


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Oct 2016)

At the end of the day, the candidate that wins is less important than who gets to select the next 12-20years of Supreme Court Judges. That is the key issue. As for the "rigged" statement, Trump is preparing his ground for a loss in which he is not to blame, therefore his image as a winner stays intact, at least for himself. Trump will move on if he does not win, into some other venture.


----------



## Lightguns (18 Oct 2016)

Concur, this has been about Trump and only Trump.  That people can no longer see that is telling of how much reality TV has had on the American Psyche.  I try to avoid picks in other nations elections, but this is getting way out of hand on both sides.  Neither candidate is worthy of their party, their people or the US constitution.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Oct 2016)

Another issue which is coming to bite any candidate in the future (very near future). Increasing taxes and regulation will simply strangle any prospective growth, much less prevent the rosy 7% compounded returns the pension funds are projecting. Dem voters who believe they are ever going to get these pension payouts are in for a huge shock, unless they have been paying attention:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/10/17/another-way-pension-liabilities-are-mismeasured/



> *Another Way Pension Liabilities Are Mismeasured*
> 
> Regular readers of this blog know that a pension meteor is headed for state and local governments, and that deceptive accounting practices obscure the likely scope of the destruction. The biggest source of confusion has to do with rates of return: Most pension funds assume that their assets will grow at rates of seven to eight percent per year indefinitely, a virtual impossibility in this age of low interest rates and sluggish growth.
> 
> ...



Another issue which is ignored by all and sundry in this campaign.


----------



## muskrat89 (18 Oct 2016)

> At the end of the day, the candidate that wins is less important than who gets to select the next 12-20 years of Supreme Court Judges.



This. Many people who will vote for Trump, will vote for this reason. The next administration will likely make 2 or 3 Supreme Court nominations..


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Oct 2016)

In Canada Make America Great hats are hate language personified.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exSD86pAYH0
Trump wants to make America all for white people.
_His wife is an immigrant._
That doesn't mean anything!

Maybe we should be worried about violence from Canadian universities of Trump wins.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Oct 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> C.......  That people can no longer see that is telling of how much reality TV has had on the American Psyche.



Not just the American Psyche; but young Canadians as well.  Seems that many Millennials are importing American problems, real and fictional, into our society.  For example, the racial problems exploding in the US since the Obama Administration took office are not prevalent in Canada, yet Millennials seem to be embracing the BLM movement and condemning something that is not here.  Seems they have a hard time differentiating between reality and fiction.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Oct 2016)

A video of Gary Burns Secret Service Agent for the Clintons in which he tells of his eight years in the White House under the Clintons.  Gary Burns has written a book on his time under them.


----------



## Altair (18 Oct 2016)

Honestly most boring election ever. 

 When was the last time a election was wrapped up in early October?

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/uspolltracker/

 Just playing around with this to see if there was any chance trump could get to 270 and the only way I see it is if he wins NC(trailing) Ohio(trailing) Florida (trailing) Nevada(Trailing) and Virginia(Trailing)

 That gets him to 272.

 Never mind if he loses a Arizona, a Utah, god forbid Texas.

 Yawn.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Oct 2016)

>The scary thing is that, given how polarized these camps are, just how bad is their "worst"?

That's a high bar to get over.  For example, they'll have to do worse than the personal attacks against Palin and her family.


----------



## Jed (18 Oct 2016)

Altair said:
			
		

> Honestly most boring election ever.
> 
> When was the last time a election was wrapped up in early October?
> 
> ...



Now that surprises me.  This election may be imbalanced, extremely infuriating, very salacious, but not boring.  

Whatever way this goes it is my opinion that it is not just going to fade away as it did the last Presidential Election.  Abrupt change will result and I foresee troubled times ahead for North America every bit as bad or worse than the fallout as the Vietnam War period that resulted in civil unrest and poor economic conditions for many segments of the population.


----------



## mariomike (18 Oct 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> A video of Gary Burns Secret Service Agent for the Clintons in which he tells of his eight years in the White House under the Clintons.  Gary Burns has written a book on his time under them.



I love reading about the Secret Service. Apparently, Hillary is not a lot of fun to work for. And Bill and those interns! They say Chelsea is nice.

But, apparently, "Byrne was a uniformed officer in Bill Clinton's White House." 

I don't believe the  uniformed officers are in very close contact with the First Family compared to the guys in suits and other civilian clothes.


----------



## Altair (18 Oct 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> Now that surprises me.  This election may be imbalanced, extremely infuriating, very salacious, but not boring.
> 
> Whatever way this goes it is my opinion that it is not just going to fade away as it did the last Presidential Election.  Abrupt change will result and I foresee troubled times ahead for North America every bit as bad or worse than the fallout as the Vietnam War period that resulted in civil unrest and poor economic conditions for many segments of the population.


Its akin to watching a 7-1 hockey game.

And filtering out all of trumps crazy comments, and Clintons scandals the actual election day is going to be a blowout.


----------



## cupper (18 Oct 2016)

Not so much concerned with what happens after the election as what goes on on election day, with supporters on both sides disrupting the voting process by challenging eligibility, imtimidation, and generally slowing the process to the point that regular voters get pissed off and go home without casting their vote.

If Clinton gets in, I believe that the Senate will move to approve the appointment of Merrick Garland rather than risk giving her the ability of stacking the court with liberal justices. With Ginsberg appoaching the point where she either retires or succomes to illness, having two possible Clinton nominees will ensure that the court shift left for a significant span of time.


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Oct 2016)

See here some very interesting videos that have already resulted in some at the DNC to resign/be fired.  Also, combined with the podesta release of emails, it shows nothing but a shit-storm of corruption from the DNC, from Hillary on down.  I found the timing impeccable today; POTUS calling Trump a whiner for claiming that there is election fraud, followed by a video of DNC hacks saying exactly how they commit mass voter fraud, how they create havoc and violence at Trump rallies, etc.

Also are some indications that the MSM are skewing polls in favour of the DNC in order to make those supportive of Trump despondent and then stay home, giving the election away.  I don't think that will happen this time.

Rasmussen, for what it's worth, has it 42 Clinton 41 Trump as of today.


op:


----------



## mariomike (18 Oct 2016)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> POTUS calling Trump a whiner < snip >



Even Bill O’Reilly from Fox News! What's the world coming to?!
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/barack-obama-and-bill-oreilly-tell-trump-to-stop-whining.html


----------



## FJAG (18 Oct 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Even Bill O’Reilly from Fox News! What's the world coming to?!
> http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/10/barack-obama-and-bill-oreilly-tell-trump-to-stop-whining.html



op: Indeed.

 :cheers:


----------



## QV (18 Oct 2016)

Hmm, this poll has Trump ahead.  

https://pressroom.usc.edu/usc-dornsifela-times-presidential-election-daybreak-poll/


----------



## dapaterson (18 Oct 2016)

QV said:
			
		

> Hmm, this poll has Trump ahead.
> 
> https://pressroom.usc.edu/usc-dornsifela-times-presidential-election-daybreak-poll/



Last updated 25 July.  There's been a slight bit of activity since then.


----------



## QV (19 Oct 2016)

Trump is leading as of two days ago in the USC Daybreak poll.  Look it up.


----------



## McG (19 Oct 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Last updated 25 July.  There's been a slight bit of activity since then.


The social media generation won't look at dates on news articles if the information enables a confirmation bias at the time the information is viewed.  Maybe the same is true for polls.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Oct 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> The social media generation won't look at dates on news articles if the information enables a confirmation bias at the time the information is viewed.


That's not a fault restricted JUST to the social media generation ...


----------



## McG (19 Oct 2016)

True.


----------



## Lumber (19 Oct 2016)

Did we just witness confirmation bias in the discussion of confirmation bias?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Oct 2016)

Yes.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Oct 2016)

QV said:
			
		

> Trump is leading as of two days ago in the USC Daybreak poll.  Look it up.



It's here: http://cesrusc.org/election/

If you click on the "Respondents' Predicted Winner" tab, you'll see that the forecast is heavily predicting a Clinton victory (56.8% vs 37.8%).


----------



## Lightguns (19 Oct 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> It's here: http://cesrusc.org/election/
> 
> If you click on the "Respondents' Predicted Winner" tab, you'll see that the forecast is heavily predicting a Clinton victory (56.8% vs 37.8%).



That is the respondents view of the outcome not their voting intention.  The non-party registered non-partisan Americans are deciding this election.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Oct 2016)

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/301009-is-there-actual-fire-in-the-smoke-of-trumps-media-criticism


Thought these were interesting numbers about the fake media bias.



> In viewing recordings by The Hill of each major network's evening newscasts, which are watched by an average total of 22 million to 24 million people nightly, *the newest batch of WikiLeaks revelations was covered for a combined 57 seconds out of 66 minutes of total air time on ABC, NBC and CBS.
> 
> Those leaked emails include derogatory comments about Catholics by senior Clinton campaign officials and more disturbing examples of collusion between the media and her campaign It's newsworthy stuff
> 
> ...


* 




			Somewhere around 23 million people absorbed Trump getting pulverized for 23 minutes across the Big Three broadcast network evening newscasts. 

Less than a minute combined was devoted to damaging documents pertaining to Clinton.
		
Click to expand...


*


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/media/301009-is-there-actual-fire-in-the-smoke-of-trumps-media-criticism
> 
> 
> Thought these were interesting numbers about the fake media bias.



I know you're being sarcastic, but this is a real problem. The media is just not providing the coverage required for people to make informed decisions. There has been more written and exposed, this election, about the dirty tricks, lies, deceit, cheating and unmitigated criminal acts of the democrats and their party, yet the MSM is silent. Co-conspirators in order to shut Trump out. 

For that reason alone, Trump should win. If only to prove that the democrats and their upper echelon need to be challenged in court for their lawbreaking.


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Oct 2016)

If you read the internals of recent polls,you will find a larger democrat sample which skews the result,which is why I dont pay attention to the media right now.Of course the media hasnt reported the conspiracy between Obama,the DNC and Clinton campaign with paid thugs to cause trouble at Trump rallies.Its right out of the communist playbook.


----------



## FJAG (19 Oct 2016)

1:10 minutes to showtime!

op:

 :cheers:


----------



## Lumber (20 Oct 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I know you're being sarcastic, but this is a real problem. The media is just not providing the coverage required for people to make informed decisions. There has been more written and exposed, this election, about the dirty tricks, lies, deceit, cheating and unmitigated criminal acts of the democrats and their party, yet the MSM is silent. Co-conspirators in order to shut Trump out.
> 
> For that reason alone, Trump should win. If only to prove that the democrats and their upper echelon need to be challenged in court for their lawbreaking.



You're right; the democrats do need to be challenged in court for their law-breaking.

But I still like them and their policies more than el Drumpf and the GOP.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Oct 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> You're right; the democrats do need to be challenged in court for their law-breaking.
> 
> But I still like them and their policies more than el Drumpf and the GOP.



So Killery is the better choice?  Hmmmm?    :-\


----------



## Remius (20 Oct 2016)

Winner?  Loser? 

Both are losers.  Hillary comes out ahead after last night I think.  trump couldn't capitalise on her weaknesses and kept taking bait and couldn't land any solid punches.  

Chris Wallace is the clear winner.


----------



## observor 69 (20 Oct 2016)

"President Hilary Clinton.  President Hilary Clinton"

Just practising.  [


----------



## Remius (20 Oct 2016)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> "President Hilary Clinton.  President Hilary Clinton"
> 
> Just practising.  [



First Gentleman Bill Clinton.  First Gentleman Bill Clinton.

Do it right.  Practice like you fight.


----------



## mariomike (20 Oct 2016)

"Trump was asked by moderator Chris Wallace whether this meant the New York businessman would not commit to a peaceful transition of power."

"What I'm saying is that I will tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense. Ok?" Trump replied.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-refuses-to-guarantee-he-ll-accept-election-results-in-final-debate-1.3797493

I suspect that forced emergency services election night planning and scheduling into high gear.

Not to suggest he will not get in, but in case he does not, hopefully there will be no violence and his followers will be satisfied with venting their frustrations into their keyboards.


----------



## Lumber (20 Oct 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> "Trump was asked by moderator Chris Wallace whether this meant the New York businessman would not commit to a peaceful transition of power."
> 
> "What I'm saying is that I will tell you at the time. I'll keep you in suspense. Ok?" Trump replied.
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/trump-refuses-to-guarantee-he-ll-accept-election-results-in-final-debate-1.3797493
> ...



I just realised (honestly, I just did) that I will be vacationing in the Northwest US on election night... I think I mighttake the ferry to Victoria for the night....



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> So Killery is the better choice?  Hmmmm?    :-\



Yes. Next question, please.


----------



## George Wallace (20 Oct 2016)

Just wonder how this will sit, if they return to the White House:







"Get out of Jail" card played.


----------



## Remius (20 Oct 2016)

well here is how I see this playing out.

Clinton wins.  Trump makes a vague reference to rigging then ninja bombs out.  Trump supporters are pissed and someone on the GOP side will adopt a populist agenda to court their support.  Clinton's four years will be dogged by questions and wikileaks stuff and other things we'll only find out about later.  The press will turn on her because no one else will be ripe enough for the taking.  Republicans will be in full on damage control mode and may actually see a full party split.  Clinton will be lucky to make it through 4 years without calls to impeach her over something. 

Good luck America, the rollercoaster you are on has no harness...


----------



## FJAG (20 Oct 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Just wonder how this will sit, if they return to the White House:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Let us also remind those that can't remember that in the Senate (based largely on a party line vote): "The perjury charge failed with 45 senators voting "guilty" and 55 senators voting "not guilty". The obstruction of justice charge failed with 50 senators voting "guilty" and 50 senators voting "not guilty". In both cases, a two-thirds majority of 67 senators would have been required for conviction."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton#Acquittal_by_the_Senate

On a different topic, I thought Chris Wallace did a very good job moderating this debate.

 :cheers:


----------



## FJAG (20 Oct 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> well here is how I see this playing out.
> 
> Clinton wins.  Trump makes a vague reference to rigging then ninja bombs out.  Trump supporters are pissed and someone on the GOP side will adopt a populist agenda to court their support.  Clinton's four years will be dogged by questions and wikileaks stuff and other things we'll only find out about later.  The press will turn on her because no one else will be ripe enough for the taking.  Republicans will be in full on damage control mode and may actually see a full party split.  Clinton will be lucky to make it through 4 years without calls to impeach her over something.
> 
> Good luck America, the rollercoaster you are on has no harness...



You've left out the answer to a very important question: How will the congressional elections play out on election day? While ordinarily one would have predicted that the Republicans would have retained both houses, the Trump factor has made this more of a toss-up then one would have thought earlier.

 :cheers:


----------



## George Wallace (20 Oct 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> .....  Clinton will be lucky to make it through 4 years without calls to impeach her over something.



Now that would make 'history';.....a new record.     >


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Oct 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Let us also remind those that can't remember that in the Senate (based largely on a party line vote): "The perjury charge failed with 45 senators voting "guilty" and 55 senators voting "not guilty". The obstruction of justice charge failed with 50 senators voting "guilty" and 50 senators voting "not guilty". In both cases, a two-thirds majority of 67 senators would have been required for conviction."
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_of_Bill_Clinton#Acquittal_by_the_Senate


There you go being all facty-nuance-y again  ;D


----------



## Remius (20 Oct 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> You've left out the answer to a very important question: How will the congressional elections play out on election day? While ordinarily one would have predicted that the Republicans would have retained both houses, the Trump factor has made this more of a toss-up then one would have thought earlier.
> 
> :cheers:



Yeah, that's the one factor I can't prognosticate on.  Depends on how much bleeding the GOP can stop.


----------



## tomahawk6 (20 Oct 2016)

As we near the election more polls should follow this trend.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watch_oct20

It’s too early to measure the impact of last night’s final presidential debate, but Republican Donald Trump now has a three-point lead nationally on Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online White House Watch survey finds Trump with 43% support among Likely U.S. Voters to Clinton’s 40%. Six percent (6%) still prefer Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, and three percent (3%) favor Green Party nominee Jill Stein. Another three percent (3%) like some other candidate, and six percent (6%) are undecided.


----------



## mariomike (20 Oct 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I just realised (honestly, I just did) that I will be vacationing in the Northwest US on election night... I think I mighttake the ferry to Victoria for the night....



Might not be a bad idea.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Oct 2016)

Rasmussen traditionally leans Republican in their findings; in the last presidential election, for example "For the second consecutive election — the same was true in 2010 — Rasmussen Reports polls had a statistical bias toward Republicans, overestimating Mr. Romney’s performance by about four percentage points, on average" (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/10/which-polls-fared-best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/?_r=0)


----------



## Lumber (20 Oct 2016)

Why look at the results of just one poll, when you can look at all the polls combined scientifically:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-probably-finished-off-trump-last-night/



> The other possibility is a massive polling failure. There aren’t really any direct precedents for a candidate coming back from this far down to win an American presidential election, although you can make a few loose analogies.


----------



## Altair (20 Oct 2016)

Speaking of polling, in a interesting tidbit, MacMullin is leading in Utah.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/independent-presidential-candidate-evan-mcmullin-leads-in-utah--new-poll.html



> Independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin topped both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in a new Utah poll released Wednesday.
> 
> 
> 
> The survey, from Emerson College, showed that McMullin had 31 percent of support — while Trump had 27 percent and Clinton had 24 percent in the state. The margin of error for the poll was 3.6 percent, according to a release detailing the results.


----------



## observor 69 (20 Oct 2016)

A poll with a Methodology that appears to be generally accurate in results:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/politics/

Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight uses statistical analysis — hard numbers — to tell compelling stories ... By Nate Silver ... Never miss the best of FiveThirtyEight.


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Oct 2016)

People need to be realistic.  Nate Silver's team is the gold standard for prognosticators.  Yes, they could get it wrong, but it isn't the way to bet.

Way early, the most common predictions were that it was highly unlikely the House would flip, and that the Democrats were favoured with a slightly better than 50% chance of taking the Senate.  If the House stays Republican with a few seats lost and the Democrats narrowly take the Senate, no-one should be surprised.  If the Republicans gain seats in the House or hold the Senate, an eyebrow or two may be raised.  If Republicans make gains in the Senate, those of you so inclined may begin preparations for End Times.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Oct 2016)

More on the voter fraud. Trump was right when he said he wouldn't commit to a smooth transition immediately. Let's get real. You can't trust Clinton. Who would buy a pig in a polk? If there is nothing untoward in the actual election, he goes with it. If there is something wrong, a la voter fraud, (more here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs ) then he has the option for recounts, etc. Just like Al Gore did and just like Clinton will if she loses. Does anyone think she'll concede and go for a smooth transition if Trump beats her? Or Obama? He won't help with that transition.

He's not being un-American or coy. He's not criticizing democracy or the rule of law. He's not going to trust Clinton, quite deservedly and he's just acting like the smart businessman he is.

I don't think the dems new thing to pounce on was given much thought. The sex stuff has been put to bed (for now) and Clinton doesn't really have a way to damage him at the moment, except with more lies and that's starting to resonate with voters, who aren't liking it.


----------



## cupper (20 Oct 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> More on the voter fraud. Trump was right when he said he wouldn't commit to a smooth transition immediately. Let's get real. You can't trust Clinton. Who would buy a pig in a polk? If there is nothing untoward in the actual election, he goes with it. If there is something wrong, a la voter fraud, (more here - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDc8PVCvfKs ) then he has the option for recounts, etc. Just like Al Gore did and just like Clinton will if she loses. Does anyone think she'll concede and go for a smooth transition if Trump beats her? Or Obama? He won't help with that transition.
> 
> He's not being un-American or coy. He's not criticizing democracy or the rule of law. He's not going to trust Clinton, quite deservedly and he's just acting like the smart businessman he is.
> 
> I don't think the dems new thing to pounce on was given much thought. The sex stuff has been put to bed (for now) and Clinton doesn't really have a way to damage him at the moment, except with more lies and that's starting to resonate with voters, who aren't liking it.



Let's not overlook the fact that the recount in 2000 was automatically triggered by state law because the vote difference was well below the threshold where a recount is automatic regardless of what the candidates wanted. It didn't matter if Gore wanted one or not. 

And there was ample justification for a claim of that result being rigged, considering the fact that the Florida Secretary of State oversees the election, and the woman filling that position was a very partisan Republican, and made no qualms about trying to cut off the recount before it was complete. Add to that the Governor at that time was the brother of the Republican candidate.

But through all that Gore was gracious in defeat. I highly doubt that Trump will quietly fade back into being the nice upstanding sucessful business man he has shown himself to be.


----------



## mariomike (20 Oct 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> But through all that Gore was gracious in defeat.



Yes. He was,

''Partisan feeling must yield to patriotism. I'm with you, Mr. President, and God bless you.''


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Oct 2016)

Ah yes, Al Gore, inventor of global warming  and the internet . :nana:


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Oct 2016)




----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Oct 2016)

The FL recount went south because people wanted to change the rules and process after the fact.

With respect to "vote fraud", I can understand why people believe two different things (fraud is a problem; fraud is a myth).  The potential opportunities for vote fraud are massive, and Democrats and progressives in general work very hard to expand those opportunities; but the number of actual convictions is very small (and Democrats and progressives in general also work very hard to make it difficult to sanction people).

Obviously it's a self-reinforcing point if you exert yourself to ignore the problem and to prevent anyone else from doing anything about it, and then point to "absence of convictions (evidence)" as "evidence of absence".


----------



## George Wallace (21 Oct 2016)

Hollywood is producing many actors against Trump videos.  Not all actors are against Trump.  John Voight has endorsed Trump with this video:

https://www.facebook.com/ThePPLSPress/posts/1079443068759485


----------



## Remius (21 Oct 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Hollywood is producing many actors against Trump videos.  Not all actors are against Trump.  John Voight has endorsed Trump with this video:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/ThePPLSPress/posts/1079443068759485



Don't forget Scott Baio!   [


----------



## cupper (21 Oct 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Ah yes, Al Gore, inventor of global warming  and the internet . :nana:



Hey, I never said Gore knew what he was talking about. After all he did marry the woman who was responsible for the warnings on record albums about explicit lyrics.  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (21 Oct 2016)

Patrick Buchanan on the fear of the elites. "From Household to Nation" was the warning more than 20 years ago, now the end that Buchanan may have dimly sensed at that time is playing out in front of us. Incidentally, this was also the theme of "The Revolt of the Elites", published in 1994. The seeds were planted a long time ago, and have had decades to take root and grow.Now the fruit is ready to harvest:

http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/an-establishment-in-panic-2/



> *AN ESTABLISHMENT IN PANIC*
> Pat Buchanan: Ruling class fears the people won't accept its political legitimacy
> 
> Pressed by moderator Chris Wallace as to whether he would accept defeat should Hillary Clinton win the election, Donald Trump replied, “I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense.”
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Oct 2016)

No worries about rigging, folks ...

_*"Russia offers to send monitors to US polling stations"*_
_*"Three U.S. states say they denied Russia request to monitor election"*_


----------



## FJAG (22 Oct 2016)

A thoughtful article from the Globe and Mail:



> Election-rigging rhetoric hints at Trump's post-election plans
> JOANNA SLATER AND AFFAN CHOWDHRY
> LAS VEGAS — The Globe and Mail
> Published Friday, Oct. 21, 2016 1:32PM EDT
> ...



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/donald-trumps-campaign-is-a-stress-test-for-american-democracy/article32470901/

 :cheers:


----------



## QV (22 Oct 2016)

> By making claims that the election system is beset by fraud, without any evidence



There has been plenty of evidence of voter fraud by democrats.  The reason why it is not getting hair on fire media attention is further evidence big media is in Clinton's pocket.  Why aren't the wikileaks revelations blowing up the headlines?  Because big media is distracting everyone.  

Voters must not condone this corrupt establishment any longer.  I look forward to a yuge Trump win.


----------



## George Wallace (22 Oct 2016)

QV said:
			
		

> There has been plenty of evidence of voter fraud by democrats.  The reason why it is not getting hair on fire media attention is further evidence big media is in Clinton's pocket.  Why aren't the wikileaks revelations blowing up the headlines?  Because big media is distracting everyone.
> 
> Voters must not condone this corrupt establishment any longer.  I look forward to a yuge Trump win.


----------



## QV (22 Oct 2016)

Trump just announced he would approve Keystone XL pipeline at a rally outlining his plans for the first 100 days as president.


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2016)

QV said:
			
		

> There has been plenty of evidence of voter fraud by democrats.  The reason why it is not getting hair on fire media attention is further evidence big media is in Clinton's pocket.  Why aren't the wikileaks revelations blowing up the headlines?  Because big media is distracting everyone.


Maybe "big media" is not distracting from or hiding the Clinton leaks.  Maybe the US public is just choosing to click on and share the stories about Trump.  Maybe Canadian media is part of conspiracy, but here is one take from this side of the border:


> *What the WikiLeaks emails show, and why they haven't sunk Clinton*
> Contents range from embarrassing to mundane to potentially politically harmful
> By Matt Kwong, CBC News
> 22 Oct 16
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/what-wikileaks-shows-hillary-clinton-emails-1.3816876


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Oct 2016)

I notice the latest "pooh, pooh" talking point about vote fraud is that it would be impossible on a large scale.

Of course it would be.  But that's beside the point - the EC outcome is decided by a handful of states.  The Democrats did the math and applied it in the last two presidential elections: you just need to get a large turnout of your votes in a few districts of a few states to swing a result.

Vote fraud doesn't have to be conducted on a national scale.


----------



## cupper (22 Oct 2016)

:facepalm:


----------



## McG (22 Oct 2016)

:Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## mariomike (22 Oct 2016)




----------



## cavalryman (23 Oct 2016)

>


----------



## larry Strong (23 Oct 2016)

[


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Oct 2016)

op:


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Oct 2016)

:facepalm:


----------



## a_majoor (24 Oct 2016)

My question is how much of this applies here (and if you think it isn't happening in Canada, I have some bridges I'd like to sell you...) Some large JPGs at the site, so follow the link:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples



> *New Podesta Email Exposes Playbook For Rigging Polls Through "Oversamples"*
> by Tyler Durden
> Oct 23, 2016 11:50 PM
> 
> ...



and

http://www.infowars.com/professor-who-predicted-last-five-elections-says-trump-has-87-chance-of-winning/



> *PROFESSOR WHO PREDICTED LAST FIVE ELECTIONS SAYS TRUMP HAS 87% CHANCE OF WINNING*
> Helmut Norpoth still confident despite polls showing Hillary ahead
> Paul Joseph Watson - OCTOBER 24, 2016
> 
> ...



Considering that Western societies have been largely successful because they are (or were) "High Trust" societies, using _dezinformatsiya_ on a large scale can only cause greater breakages in the bonds of trust that allow society to function on the scale and scope of Western cultures. Even the legitimacy of governments and institutions can and will be called into question if what we are being told diverges from an ever wider margin from what we actually see in front of us.


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Oct 2016)

Thucydides:  I can't comment on your other sources, but on these, here's some other scoops from the same sites:


			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> My question is how much of this applies here (and if you think it isn't happening in Canada, I have some bridges I'd like to sell you...) Some large JPGs at the site, so follow the link:
> 
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples



_*"Paris Attacks: Another False Flag? Sifting Through The Evidence"*_
_*""Why I Will Not Submit To Medical Martial Law" ... I can think of no rationale for government involvement in the treatment of an Ebola outbreak. If it is not pure incompetence on their part that has exacerbated the threat, then even worse, it is a deliberate program of genocide. In either case, no military or CDC “strike teams” should be allowed free reign in our neighborhoods, towns, counties, or states. DHS and FEMA Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) are also a no go, given FEMA's track record of dismal disaster response. They CANNOT be allowed to take control of our communities ..."*_



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> http://www.infowars.com/professor-who-predicted-last-five-elections-says-trump-has-87-chance-of-winning/



_*"New Vaccines Will Permanently Alter Human DNA -- Why is the government so maniacal about injecting vaccines?"*_
_*"Nearly two dozen medical studies prove that vaccines can cause autism"*_
_*"9/11: CIA Likely Built Remote-Controlled Commercial Jets in Aircraft Boneyard -- This would explain how 9/11 hijackers were able to "fly" commercial jets with little experience"*_
_*"Report: Brussels Attacks Are False Flags -- Governments of Europe brought in terror cells, protected them and let them attack"*_



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Considering that Western societies have been largely successful because they are (or were) "High Trust" societies, *using dezinformatsiya on a large scale* can only cause greater breakages in the bonds of trust that allow society to function on the scale and scope of Western cultures ...


Unlike _these_ sources, right?

I know MSM doesn't get everything right, and even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but really? Really?!? Can't we do better than this?

*#CaveatLector*


----------



## Remius (24 Oct 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> My question is how much of this applies here (and if you think it isn't happening in Canada, I have some bridges I'd like to sell you...)



Well I don't know for sure but here is some data here that might help.  The last general election is Canada was more or less well predicted in the polls leading into the election.

https://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/polls.html

And for 2000-2008.

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/poll-results.html

The first link also offers some insight into bias corrections and the evolution of party support.  Not a bad resource.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Oct 2016)

I guess we'll find out in three weeks.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Oct 2016)

I doubt polls are being rigged overmuch; pollsters only stay in business if people commission their polls (and whatever other output is produced), and inaccurate pollsters will not be much sought and will be increasingly ignored as their predictions fall into disrepute.  There might be methodological problems, but those don't require bad intentions to have effects.

The national polls (vote share) are not much use predicting what might happen with the Electoral College.  As I noted earlier, the Democrats and some of their affiliates have some very sophisticated information gathering and analysis teams and use those tools very effectively - a particular example is the 2012 presidential election - to identify pockets of overwhelmingly Democratic voters in selected districts of decisive states.  Then they follow up with a corresponding well-staffed "ground game" in those districts - maximizing "bang for buck" (focusing resources where they will have the most impact) - to help/motivate those voters to get to polls (or otherwise cast their votes).  There is no mystery or conspiracy - just effective number-crunching and allocation of people.  If they claim their polls are telling them they are going to win, that is probably the way to bet.

That it works effectively for the presidential contest but not other contests should be no surprise - although they might have the information, it is much harder to mobilize volunteers in the huge numbers that would be needed to effectively leverage the data in every House and Senate contest.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Oct 2016)

http://nypost.com/2016/10/24/clinton-ally-gave-500k-to-wife-of-fbi-agent-on-email-probe/



> Virginia Gov. Terry McAuliffe, a longtime Clinton confidant,* helped steer $675,000 to the election campaign of the wife of an FBI official who went on to lead the probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email system*, according to a report



Purely coincidence, nothing to see here move along lol


----------



## cupper (24 Oct 2016)

So, here is a question for y'all.

Which is the larger, more dangerous problem for the US electoral system: voter fraud, voter supression, partisan control of the state election board or commission, or gerrymandering. 

The last two could be combined, since most state legislatures have redistricting committees which are partisan.


----------



## FJAG (24 Oct 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> So, here is a question for y'all.
> 
> Which is the larger, more dangerous problem for the US electoral system: voter fraud, voter supression, partisan control of the state election board or commission, or gerrymandering.
> 
> The last two could be combined, since most state legislatures have redistricting committees which are partisan.



In my view its the last two because they are real and not imagined. Gerrymandering comes out of partisan control of the redistricting process and results in voter suppression because it packs "contrary" voters into one specific district (seat) etc thereby conceding that one seat but simultaneously it allows "favourable" votes to gain a majority in several nearby districts (seats) and thereby providing for a numerical seat advantage in respective houses or senates.

Buzzfeed shows a few good examples (I picked this because it had the best graphics):

https://www.buzzfeed.com/qsahmed/the-10-most-gerrymandered-districts-in-america-dh45?utm_term=.wsR6rggdo#.xt4D077Q3

This is truly an equal opportunity process because Democrats and Republicans are equally adept at it.

 :cheers:


----------



## cupper (25 Oct 2016)

The GOP enguaged in gerrymandering after the 2008 election to ensure that they achieved and maintained a "permanent" majority in the House. Known as REDMAP, they used the 2010 Census, voter data and the GOP controlled legislatures to achieve this goal.

http://www.redistrictingmajorityproject.com/

This has no real effect on the Senate elections as they simply become a popular vote campaign, and appears to have no effect on the Presidential race as the 2012 election results show.


----------



## McG (25 Oct 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> My question is how much of this applies here (and if you think it isn't happening in Canada, I have some bridges I'd like to sell you...) Some large JPGs at the site, so follow the link:
> 
> http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-23/new-podesta-email-exposes-dem-playbook-rigging-polls-through-oversamples
> 
> ...


Proper polling is done by random sampling of the population as a whole; it is not done by targeted sampling within demographic groups.  With a large enough random sample, the poll usually takes the characteristics of the population from which it was taken.  But, I have not been wearing my tinfoil hat and so maybe the government has told me to believe this.  Help me out.

How do you suppose this targeted polling occurs?  Do the polling companies have massive database that links phone numbers to known demographic groups so that the company can focus calls to the demographic targeted for over sampling?  Or do the polling companies throw away replies that don't match the desired demographic?

What is the goal?  I assume it is to create the illusion that the supported candidate is winning, but why?  Would this not encourage the opponent's supporters to come out to the vote while allowing the supported candidate's backers to become complacent?  There must be some good reason that companies would sacrifice their best practices and reputation to the Great Democrat Conspiracy.  What is the Great Democrat Conspiracy getting from this?


----------



## Old Sweat (25 Oct 2016)

Further to MCG's post, I am in the database of a major polling firm and am asked to participate in on line polls several times a year. How many others fit my group (retired senior citizen, married and relatively affluent with no debt, living in a rural area) I don't know and I don't know if my data are used all the time, if at all.


----------



## daftandbarmy (25 Oct 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Further to MCG's post, I am in the database of a major polling firm and am asked to participate in on line polls several times a year. How many others fit my group (retired senior citizen, married and relatively affluent with no debt, living in a rural area) I don't know and I don't know if my data are used all the time, if at all.



Apart from the 'rural' qualifier, I'd say that your demographic represents about 70% of the population..... 

.......that actually votes.

Young people? pfffffftttttttt ... who are they? They don't vote, so the political hacks don't care about them. True story.


----------



## FJAG (25 Oct 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> Proper polling is done by random sampling of the population as a whole; it is not done by targeted sampling within demographic groups.  With a large enough random sample, the poll usually takes the characteristics of the population from which it was taken.  But, I have not been wearing my tinfoil hat and so maybe the government has told me to believe this.  Help me out.
> 
> How do you suppose this targeted polling occurs?  Do the polling companies have massive database that links phone numbers to known demographic groups so that the company can focus calls to the demographic targeted for over sampling?  Or do the polling companies throw away replies that don't match the desired demographic?
> 
> What is the goal?  I assume it is to create the illusion that the supported candidate is winning, but why?  Would this not encourage the opponent's supporters to come out to the vote while allowing the supported candidate's backers to become complacent?  There must be some good reason that companies would sacrifice their best practices and reputation to the Great Democrat Conspiracy.  What is the Great Democrat Conspiracy getting from this?



Many years ago when I was more actively involved in politics, I saw the inner workings of the process. 

All riding associations keep fairly meticulous data about their riding's population gathered during many hours of telephone and door to door canvassing. The aim is always to tell who is voting for your party so that on election day you can make sure that each and every one of your voters has gone to vote (party scrutineers check those people off at the polls and then telephone contact is made to laggards and rides are offered where necessary) 

On top of that you get return lists from each each poll after the count to let you know exactly the number of votes that each party received and that gives you a very accurate micro distribution of votes throughout the riding's geographic area. On top of that a riding can be broken down by demographics through the data that Stats Canada issues.

In the end you have a very comprehensive contact list of all your core supporters. 

I must admit I have never seen the lists used to "rig" polls to make it look like you are winning and am not so sure that one would. As you pointed out, the last thing that you want is to leave the impression that you are winning by a landslide and thereby have some voters think it's unnecessary to go vote. You always want the impression that every vote counts and to get every last one of your people out. Good riding "machines" can win elections.

 :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson (25 Oct 2016)

Or you can avoid all those problems by fighting redistricting that might put seats into play that were otherwise yellow dog ridings.


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Oct 2016)

Its possible to win or lose the popular vote but lose the electoral college.Each state receives electors based on population.This is what the election boils down to.Trump needs all the normal red states plus some of the larger blue states to win.


http://www.270towin.com


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Oct 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Its possible to win or lose the popular vote but lose the electoral college.Each state receives electors based on population.This is what the election boils down to.Trump needs all the normal red states plus some of the larger blue states to win.
> 
> http://www.270towin.com


T6/any other American voter here:  Do I understand it right that each state has its own voter registration/polling/ballot system as well?  If so, that has to make it more complicated as well.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Oct 2016)

http://blog.dilbert.com/

Caveat, I am not American and cannot vote in a US election.

Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, has come out fore square in favour of Trump as a reaction to what deems as systematic and organized harassment and bullying campaign from the DNC and Clinton supporters against his website and him personally.

Make of it what you will....


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Oct 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> http://blog.dilbert.com/
> 
> Caveat, I am not American and cannot vote in a US election.
> 
> ...



I've read that the Clinton camp approached a bunch of YouTube personalities/channels and offered to pay them to support her.  Pretty clever move.


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Oct 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> http://blog.dilbert.com/
> 
> Caveat, I am not American and cannot vote in a US election.
> 
> ...



Ah the new way of campaigning....harassment, outright lies and bullying. Seems like it hasn't changed much.


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Oct 2016)

I think what's changed is the need to absolutely incinerate those you disagree with. It's not enough to say I disagree, and here's why. We have folks being fired from work just for supporting one or the other candidates. People mount social media campaigns to turn others into pariahs in their own communities.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Oct 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I think what's changed is the need to absolutely incinerate those you disagree with.


That.  Right.  There.


----------



## ArmedAndUseless (25 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I've read that the Clinton camp approached a bunch of YouTube personalities/channels and offered to pay them to support her.  Pretty clever move.


Do you have a source for that? That'd be an interesting read. My search was inconclusive, so if you had an article you could link I'd love to take a look.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Oct 2016)

ArmedAndUseless said:
			
		

> Do you have a source for that? That'd be an interesting read. My search was inconclusive, so if you had an article you could link I'd love to take a look.



Sure thing. 
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=55682


----------



## FJAG (25 Oct 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I think what's changed is the need to absolutely incinerate those you disagree with. It's not enough to say I disagree, and here's why. We have folks being fired from work just for supporting one or the other candidates. People mount social media campaigns to turn others into pariahs in their own communities.



This is why I no longer put a sign on my lawn. Secret ballot means "Secret".

 :cheers:


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Sure thing.
> http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=55682


Interesting site (at least they don't say Sandy Hook didn't _really_ happen - even if they still offer up links to sites that do) - thanks for sharing.


----------



## Brad Sallows (25 Oct 2016)

>Which is the larger, more dangerous problem for the US electoral system: voter fraud, voter supression, partisan control of the state election board or commission, or gerrymandering. 

None of the above.  Gerrymandering, while being bipartisan, also has some sources of support (eg. to create majority black districts).  To criticize partisanship in the boards presupposes that they could be made non-partisan, an assumption which is voided by the recent rot in the IRS - the aspiration of an apolitical civil service is being set aside for political expediency (and not just in the US).  "Voter suppression" is a spin phrase for "electoral integrity" among those who wish for there to be less of the latter.  And actual voter fraud is scattershot - only occasionally do some of the forms of fraud raise much of a stir.

The most dangerous problem for the US - or any - electoral system is the loss of perception of fairness.  The most dangerous problem for the US is the insufficient commitment of the Democratic party to maintaining the appearance of propriety and minimizing the opportunities in which fraud might be possible.

What people refer to as "democracy" is really a bunch of institutions and practices which must credibly hold public trust (faith).  When the belief that those operate fairly corrodes and credibility is lost, it becomes increasingly difficult to effectively combat genuine rumours and imaginings, or to restore civil and productive discourse.  The shit is hard to put back into the horse.

"Your denial of the importance of objectivity amounts to announcing your intention to lie to us. No-one should believe anything you say." - John McCarthy


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Oct 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Interesting site (at least they don't say Sandy Hook didn't _really_ happen - even if they still offer up links to sites that do) - thanks for sharing.


For more of your reading pleasure.
https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet/status/787414809264398336
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsk3j2gKu6s
http://rightedition.com/2016/10/17/philip-defranco-top-youtubers-offered-money-endorse-hillary-clinton/


----------



## cupper (25 Oct 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> T6/any other American voter here:  Do I understand it right that each state has its own voter registration/polling/ballot system as well?  If so, that has to make it more complicated as well.



US elections are organized and run at the state level, which means voting regulations and rules vary from state to state.

The Federal Election Commission only oversees the campaign funding to endure that the rules are followed, and they provide public funding if a candidate so chooses to use public funding.

http://www.fec.gov/about.shtml

Most, if not all states have partisan elections boards or commissions, which is overseen by the state Secretary of State who is an elected  official, who typically is a member of the party in power in the state legislature. Add to that there are also local election boards that report to the state boards.

So having a nation wide conspiracy to steal an election by manipulating the vote is an almost impossible prospect. The shear numbers of people that would have to be involved would preclude it being viable or remain secret.


----------



## cavalryman (25 Oct 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> So having a nation wide conspiracy to steal an election by manipulating the vote is an almost impossible prospect. The shear numbers of people that would have to be involved would preclude it being viable or remain secret.


Just to be the guy who questions everything  ;D, considering that a few and in my understanding that would be very few battleground states can swing the election, you wouldn't need a nation wide conspiracy.  You'd just need to make sure those few places come up with the right results.  That would be a lot more manageable, and easier to keep under the radar, especially if the MSM is... how shall I put this... disinterested in pursuing matters...


----------



## FJAG (25 Oct 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> US elections are organized and run at the state level, which means voting regulations and rules vary from state to state.
> 
> The Federal Election Commission only oversees the campaign funding to endure that the rules are followed, and they provide public funding if a candidate so chooses to use public funding.
> 
> ...



I think in about three quarters of the states (35)  they are directly elected while in the remainder they are appointed by either the governor (9) or the legislature (3). (3 states don't have one)

The numbers currently favour the Republicans.(27 to 20)

https://ballotpedia.org/Secretary_of_State_(state_executive_office)

 :cheers:


----------



## tomahawk6 (25 Oct 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> US elections are organized and run at the state level, which means voting regulations and rules vary from state to state.
> 
> The Federal Election Commission only oversees the campaign funding to endure that the rules are followed, and they provide public funding if a candidate so chooses to use public funding.
> 
> ...



Each state has an official responsible for elections - the Secretary of State.The voting requirements are the same for each state.Many states require a picture ID to vote,curiously the democrats have opposed this as being racist.However,to cash a check you have to have your drivers license.


----------



## cupper (26 Oct 2016)

Voting requirements are the same, but the actual means and methods of voting (paper ballot and optical scanner, computer voting machine, punch card ballot, etc), voting times and locations, and so on differ state by state.

The recent court decision on rules set out in North Carolina showed definitively that there was an active campaign to surpress minority votes by setting rules that would result in just that. Republican lawmakers requested voter data based on racial demographics to develop the package of legislation involving voter ID, ammendments to early voting and other changes to the voting rules that dispropotionately effected African Americans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/29/the-smoking-gun-proving-north-carolina-republicans-tried-to-disenfranchise-black-voters/?tid=a_inl

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/appeals-court-strikes-down-north-carolinas-voter-id-law/2016/07/29/810b5844-4f72-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html


----------



## tomahawk6 (26 Oct 2016)

To avoid fraud you have to prove who you are.This gets in the way of democrat efforts to gin up voter fraud.These court battles are designed to undermine voter registration and identification.I walk into my polling place,show my drivers license and the poll worker finds my name on the roll and then I get to cast my vote.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Oct 2016)

>So having a nation wide conspiracy to steal an election by manipulating the vote is an almost impossible prospect. 

Which is why it's meaningless to raise it as either a boogeyman, or to dismiss fears of vote fraud ("successful national vote fraud is impossible; therefore, all successful vote fraud is impossible").  But wherever an election might be decided by a few hundred votes (eg. FL, 2000), productive vote fraud - before or after polls close - is viable.  And note that it's the viability that matters most - not whether anyone actually capitalizes on it.

And even if you dismiss the viability of productive/successful vote fraud, there is still the incontrovertible taint of any fraud, regardless of its effect.

When someone raises concerns about electoral integrity, neither "we've studied it, and found nothing significant" nor "it doesn't exist, we assure you" is an acceptable response.  The only acceptable response is "we'll button that down right now".

All that is required is one day on which polls are open for a reasonable length of time - say, 12 hours - with an opportunity for advance/absentee voting only for people who can prove they will be unable to vote in person at their designated polling station on voting day.  Voting rolls should be regularly and frequently cleansed.  Proof of identity should be required (and the allowable identity should not be difficult to obtain - if necessary, picture voter ID registration cards should be provided at public expense).


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Oct 2016)

Interesting piece in Maclean's today:

*
The not-so-crazy case against Hillary Clinton*

The U.S. needs someone who can be trusted to bring the country together and then forward. Hillary Clinton is not that person.


----------



## Jed (26 Oct 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Interesting piece in Maclean's today:
> 
> *
> The not-so-crazy case against Hillary Clinton*
> ...




I totally agree with this assessment. The problem is Mr. Trump is not proven to be but is 'most likely' not that person either.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Oct 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> I totally agree with this assessment. The problem is Mr. Trump is not proven to be but is 'most likely' not that person either.


Zackly - as it says @ the end ...


> ... What the country needs is an outsider, a centrist, someone who can be trusted by both the red states and the blue to bring the country together and then forward. Hillary Clinton is not that person.
> 
> But, as it happens, Clinton’s rival, the other hog in the pen, has set the fair on fire and is currently chewing off his own foot.


----------



## FJAG (26 Oct 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >So having a nation wide conspiracy to steal an election by manipulating the vote is an almost impossible prospect.
> 
> Which is why it's meaningless to raise it as either a boogeyman, or to dismiss fears of vote fraud ("successful national vote fraud is impossible; therefore, all successful vote fraud is impossible").  But wherever an election might be decided by a few hundred votes (eg. FL, 2000), productive vote fraud - before or after polls close - is viable.  And note that it's the viability that matters most - not whether anyone actually capitalizes on it.
> 
> ...



Keeping track of people is akin to herding cats. There will always be individuals who aren't up to date on the voters' lists but here in Canada we have reasonable ways of dealing with that so that a person who wants to vote can do so.

http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=vot&dir=ids&document=index&lang=e

These are in some cases onerous on certain people but not incapable of being done. (when a letter from a soup kitchen or shelter can be used then the system is certainly catering to fairly extreme circumstances).

The trouble down under, from what I understand, is that identification rules, advance voting rules and even the number of polling stations, and poll opening timings in "unfriendly" territories are curtailed or restricted in such a way as to discourage "unfriendly" voters from even bothering to show up to vote. That's a systemic fault which could easily be fixed IF there was a will to do so.

Long story short; the US needs an Elections Canada type system. Regrettably they most likely won't and therefore will continue to be subject to valid claims that the system is difficult for certain classes of voters to use and hysterical claims that the entire system is rigged through massive fraud.

 :cheers:


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Oct 2016)

As neither of the two candidates are really what is needed in the next POTUS, perhaps some twist of fate will remove them from office to make way for a better person to step into the void left behind.  With any luck any damage they may cause will be short lived and little felt by everyone else.


----------



## cupper (26 Oct 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> To avoid fraud you have to prove who you are.This gets in the way of democrat efforts to gin up voter fraud.These court battles are designed to undermine voter registration and identification.I walk into my polling place,show my drivers license and the poll worker finds my name on the roll and then I get to cast my vote.



I don't disagree with respect to voter ID requirements, as long as they make it easily obtainable. But there have been situations where some of the state issued forms of approved voter ID's were only available from the DMV and the state shut down mainly rural offices or cut back on hours, which made it more difficult. The courts have ruled that states can require ID to vote, but the state cannot put an undue burden on the voter's ability to obtain an acceptable form of ID.

But in the cases I cited, the voter ID requirements were not at issue, but limiting the ability to obtaining one was, as in the NC case. But additionally, there were other aspects not related to ID rules that were found to be an infringement on the right to vote, and in the NC case, proof that the steps taken were deliberately aimed against minorities.


----------



## cupper (26 Oct 2016)

Voter fraud is not a significant issue undermining the integrity of the electoral system. However control of the electoral system at the state level by the party that controls the state legislative body has done more to undermind the integrity of the system. And this goes back years, but has come to the forefront over the last decade.

As FJAG states in this post, they need to set up independant electoral boards to keep the partisan politics out of the system, perhaps in the same vein as our national and provincial elections bodys. This would go far to restoring the integrity and trust in the system. But I would steer away from the FEC's make up of equal numbers of members from each party, as this has proven to be easily forced to ineffectiveness by delaying appointments to empty seats by both sides as part of the recent obstructionism we have seen over the last 8 years.


----------



## QV (26 Oct 2016)

The yuge Trump win will be glorious.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Oct 2016)

Independent electoral boards would not remain independent, for the reason I noted earlier.  The more powerful the presidency becomes with each passing term, the greater the need to control it.  There are too many strong incentives involved for anyone to pretend that non-partisan independence can be achieved.

Regardless, the boards should remain at the state level.  The last thing needed is for Congress or any federal agency to control the apportionment of districts.


----------



## cupper (26 Oct 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Independent electoral boards would not remain independent, for the reason I noted earlier.  The more powerful the presidency becomes with each passing term, the greater the need to control it.  There are too many strong incentives involved for anyone to pretend that non-partisan independence can be achieved.
> 
> Regardless, the boards should remain at the state level.  The last thing needed is for Congress or any federal agency to control the apportionment of districts.



I agree with leaving it at the state level, only because the current system is based on the states electing senators and congressmen, and the electoral college is state derived.

But I don't see how the presidency is becoming more powerful with each term, particularly with what has been going on for the past 6 terms (3 Presidents). Congress can subvert the desires of the White House, with little recourse for work arounds (Dick Cheney being an execption during Bush's first term). Obama's two terms show how extreme this can be.


----------



## cupper (26 Oct 2016)

Donald Trumps line of BS about the election being rigged and calling on supporters to "watch" at the polling stations to make sure no one votes who shouldn't has finally landed the RNC in a big stinking pile.

The RNC has been under a concent decree since 1987 for a stunt pulled in New Jersey which targeted polls in largely minority populated districts.

http://www.brennancenter.org/legal-work/dnc-v-rnc-consent-decree
https://fellowshipofminds.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/rnc-v-dnc.pdf

The decree has been extended a couple times over the past 29 years, but is set to expire in 2017. However if the courts determine that the RNC has violated the terms of the decree, it can be extended for another 8 years.

http://time.com/4540955/donald-trump-ballot-watching/

Tonight the DNC filed papers requesting that the decree be extedned to 2025, based on Trumps call for poll watchers, law enforcement and others to go out to polling places, specifically in large minority districts. 

https://www.yahoo.com/news/democrats-ask-judge-sanction-republicans-over-trump-001534936.html?ref=gs


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Oct 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Interesting piece in Maclean's today:
> 
> *
> The not-so-crazy case against Hillary Clinton*
> ...



That's a great explanation for the US presidency race.

In light of everything that has came to light about Hilary and continues to do so is it any stretch of the imagination that she would sanction voter fraud? No not at all.  Thing is even if she gets caught tomorrow making a youtube video on how to commit voter fraud she'll get barely any airtime or mention because the media will be flushing out the latest Trump disaster; like calling a girl fat


----------



## FJAG (26 Oct 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Independent electoral boards would not remain independent, for the reason I noted earlier.  The more powerful the presidency becomes with each passing term, the greater the need to control it.  There are too many strong incentives involved for anyone to pretend that non-partisan independence can be achieved.
> 
> Regardless, the boards should remain at the state level.  The last thing needed is for Congress or any federal agency to control the apportionment of districts.



While I suggested that what the US needs, is a Canada Elections-like agency, its undoubtedly impossible to achieve. This is primarily due to the differences in our respective constitutional allocation of powers. Canada has residual powers allocated at the federal level due to the "peace, order and good government" provisions of s 91 of our constitution. In the US, the Tenth Amendment states that any power not expressly delegated to the federal government is reserved to the states.

I'm sure that there are more specific provisions in the US that provide for the way they run elections (such as Article 2 of the Constitution vis a vis the presidency), but in general, the various states in the US have much more autonomy than our Canadian provinces both in law and in the points of view of their legislatures and their populations. When you start the with legal position that federal powers are limited to specific enumerated ones, it's easy to see why states jealously guard their powers from any interference by the federal government.

 :cheers:


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Oct 2016)

>But I don't see how the presidency is becoming more powerful 

The president executes in accordance with legislation (in theory).  Legislation accumulates (grows) with a close approximation to a monotonically increasing function.  Increasingly, Congress produces legislation which delegates authority to make regulations to the executive branch (agencies).  Increasingly, the president exercises authority which is clearly outside his constitution lane; however, the only corrective mechanism is for Congress to reassert its powers, and congressional Democrats are disinclined to limit the president to his constitutional authority.

When Congress exerts its authority to restrain the president or simply chooses not to comply with the president's wishes, nothing is being subverted.  The structure of the US government is designed to make major change impossible without broad concensus.  When the president doesn't get his way, it isn't because the other party in Congress is being obstructionist - it's because the president isn't offering up anything worth a deal (something equally transformational, if the president is seeking transformational change), and the system is working exactly as designed.

One of Obama's most irritating qualities is his arrogant and childish notion that he should get what he wants on his terms, without offering up anything to make a deal.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Oct 2016)

>Tonight the DNC filed papers requesting that the decree be extedned to 2025, based on Trumps call for poll watchers, law enforcement and others to go out to polling places, specifically in large minority districts. 

If Trump isn't calling for RNC involvement, it's hard to see why it should be extended.


----------



## Remius (27 Oct 2016)

Eric Grenier and a good analysis of why the National Polls may be off and that people should be looking at the state polls instead.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-uselection-tracking-polls-1.3818965


----------



## RangerRay (27 Oct 2016)

Usually I observe US elections as a bemused outsider.  The fact that Trump gets his news and views from Alex Jones and InfoWars actually scares the bejeezus out of me.  

I hope that Clinton wins, gets impeached, then the two parties can find suitable candidates for 2020.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Oct 2016)

If your best-case scenario involves impeachment, best that Trump wins.  Bipartisan support for impeachment and conviction of Trump is possible; Democrats will not impeach one of their own.


----------



## Remius (28 Oct 2016)

Well things might just get more interesting...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/fbi-reviewing-new-emails-in-clinton-probe-director-tells-senate-judiciary-committee/index.html?adkey=bn

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/28/fbi-reopens-investigation-into-clinton-email-use.html


----------



## a_majoor (28 Oct 2016)

Memenic warfare taken to 11:

And while the Dems though they were so clever with _their_ "October surprise", it looks like they never saw Anthony Weiner coming from left field. The fact it is an "Own Goal" makes it all the more delicious...


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Oct 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Memenic warfare taken to 11:


Yeah, it sucks when they don't keep it classy ...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (28 Oct 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Memenic warfare taken to 11:
> 
> And while the Dems though they were so clever with _their_ "October surprise", it looks like they never saw Anthony Weiner coming from left field. The fact it is an "Own Goal" makes it all the more delicious...



Hmmm...from the same source as your pic.



> But many on the Internet responded that this merely proves Clinton's desire to start World War III. Here are 21 of the most hilarious #DraftOurDaughters fake Hillary Clinton campaign ads featuring the female draft.



What the exactly fuck point are you trying to make?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Oct 2016)

I am not certain in what Universe it is ok for either Democrats or Republicans to use uniformed members of the US Military as part of their electioneering ads...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Oct 2016)

I'm sure after the fallout after the election will continue for years to come:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/441517/clinton-foundation-scandal-wikileaks-discredit-hillary-presidency



> *WikiLeaks Dumps Mean Hillary’s Presidency Would Be Tainted from Day One*
> by JOHN FUND
> October 27, 2016 4:37 PM @JOHNFUND
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Oct 2016)

Having read a few political bios, I noted that whenever leaders were under distracting stress (eg. PET when Margaret got a wild hair up her ass), the business of the country suffered.  (Obviously the business of the country is stressful, but the focus is maintained.)

The real problem with electing Hillary Clinton is the risk that her administration is going to be dancing to others' tunes, at the times of their choosing, whenever information that was not properly secured is served out.  Four years of drip, drip, drip.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Oct 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Well things might just get more interesting...
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/fbi-reviewing-new-emails-in-clinton-probe-director-tells-senate-judiciary-committee/index.html?adkey=bn
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/28/fbi-reopens-investigation-into-clinton-email-use.html



1. FBI thinks Trump is going to win and want to be in good with the new Boss.
2. FBI thinks/knows their investigation wasn't on the up and up and want to save face.
3. FBI thinks Hillary is going to win so is re-investigating Hillary only to not charge her with anything again thus strengthening her.


Seems like the Media is covering Clintons emails a bit more too, I wonder if they're getting nervous as well.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Oct 2016)

https://ca.video.search.yahoo.com/search/video;_ylt=AwrBTvcMDxVY97QAEXHrFAx.;_ylu=X3oDMTB0N2Noc21lBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNwaXZz?p=haitian+condemns+Clinton+foundation&fr=mcafee&fr2=piv-web#id=1&vid=26759d1fc3006c3c04e7711ccf9420ba&action=view

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/03/clinton_foundations_chickens_coming_home_to_roost_in_haiti.html

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/04/24/video-pay-for-play-at-clinton-foundation-for-haiti-relief/

http://www.wnd.com/2016/10/haitians-fear-clintons-will-scam-them-again/

 :cheers:


----------



## a_majoor (29 Oct 2016)

The cutting observations of Camille Puglia. Always worth looking at, even of you don't agree with her views:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/the-woman-is-a-disaster-camille-paglia-on-hillary-clinton/

{quote]
‘The woman is a disaster!’: Camille Paglia on Hillary Clinton
A wide-ranging interview with the iconoclastic professor
Emily Hill
29 October 2016
9:00 AM

Talking to Camille Paglia is like approaching a machine gun: madness to stick your head up and ask a question, unless you want your brain blown apart by the answer, but a visceral delight to watch as she obliterates every subject in sight. Most of the time she does this for kicks. It’s only on turning to Hillary Clinton that she perpetrates an actual murder: of Clinton II’s most cherished claim, that her becoming 45th president of the United States would represent a feminist triumph.

‘In order to run for president of the United States, you have to spend two or three years of your life out on the road constantly asking for money and most women find that life too harsh, too draining,’ Paglia argues. ‘That is why we haven’t had a woman president in the United States — not because we haven’t been ready for one, for heaven’s sakes, for a very long time…’

Hillary hasn’t suffered — Paglia continues — because she is a woman. She has shamelessly exploited the fact: ‘It’s an outrage how she’s played the gender card. She is a woman without accomplishment. “I sponsored or co-sponsored 400 bills.” Oh really? These were bills to rename bridges and so forth. And the things she has accomplished have been like the destabilisation of North Africa, causing refugees to flood into Italy… The woman is a disaster!’

Not that Paglia was always opposed to the Clintons. She voted for Bill Clinton twice before becoming revolted by the treatment meted out to Monica Lewinsky: ‘One of the very first interviews I did here — the headline was “Kind of a bitch — why I like Hillary Clinton”. My jaundiced view of her is entirely the result of observing her behaviour. And last election, I voted for Jill Stein’s Green party. So I have already voted for a woman president.’

As far as most feminists are concerned, such a view is unconscionable. Gloria Steinem and Madeleine Albright made it their business to castigate American girls who wanted Bernie Sanders, while Madonna has promised a blowjob for every Clinton vote. Professor Paglia does not seem to mind much if she makes herself violently unpopular with her contemporaries — she’s an expert at it. Currently professor of the humanities at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia, she first shot to fame in 1990 with the publication of Sexual Personae — a manuscript turned down by seven publishers before it became a bestseller.

Paglia’s feminism has always been concerned with issues far beyond her own navel and the Hillary verdict is typical of her attitude — which is more in touch with women in the real world than most feminists’ (a majority of Americans, for example, have an ‘unfavourable view of Hillary Clinton’ according to recent polling).

‘My philosophy of feminism,’ the New York-born 69-year-old explains, ‘I call street-smart Amazon feminism. I’m from an immigrant family. The way I was brought up was: the world is a dangerous place; you must learn to defend yourself. You can’t be a fool. You have to stay alert.’ Today, she suggests, middle-class girls are being reared in a precisely contrary fashion: cosseted, indulged and protected from every evil, they become helpless victims when confronted by adversity. ‘We are rocketing backwards here to the Victorian period with this belief that women are not capable of making decisions on their own. This is not feminism — which is to achieve independent thought and action. There will never be equality of the sexes if we think that women are so handicapped they can’t look after themselves.’

Paglia traces the roots of this belief system to American campus culture and the cult of women’s studies. This ‘poison’ — as she calls it — has spread worldwide. ‘In London, you now have this plague of female journalists… who don’t seem to have made a deep study of anything…’

Paglia does not sleep with men — but she is, very refreshingly, in favour of them. She never moans about ‘the patriarchy’ but freely asserts that manmade capitalism has enabled her to write her books.

As for male/female relations, she says that they are far more complex than most feminists insist. ‘I wrote a date-rape essay in 1991 in which I called for women to stand up for themselves and learn how to handle men. But now you have this shibboleth, “No means no.” Well, no. Sometimes “No” means “Not yet”. Sometimes “No” means “Too soon”. Sometimes “No” means “Keep trying and maybe yes”. You can see it with the pigeons on the grass. The male pursues the female and she turns away, and turns away, and he looks a fool but he keeps on pursuing her. And maybe she’s testing his persistence; the strength of his genes… It’s a pattern in the animal kingdom — a courtship pattern…’ But for pointing such things out, Paglia adds, she has been ‘defamed, attacked and viciously maligned’ — so, no, she is not in the least surprised that wolf-whistling has now been designated a hate crime in Birmingham.

Girls would be far better advised to revert to the brave feminist approach of her generation — when women were encouraged to fight all their battles by themselves, and win. ‘Germaine Greer was once in this famous debate with Norman Mailer at Town Hall. Mailer was formidable, enormously famous — powerful. And she just laid into him: “I was expecting a hard, nuggety sort of man and he was positively blousy…” Now that shows a power of speech that cuts men up. And this is the way women should be dealing with men — finding their weaknesses and susceptibilities… not bringing in an army of pseudo, proxy parents to put them down for you so you can preserve your perfect girliness.’

In an hour’s non-stop talking, Professor Paglia is only lost when asked which younger feminists she would pass the baton to. ‘I would love to inspire dissident young feminists to realise that this brand of feminism is not all feminism…’ she says, before citing Germaine Greer as the woman she admires most alive, and Amelia Earhart and Katharine Hepburn as heroines alas dead.

As with Greer, it is Paglia’s power of speech that utterly devastates. Her collected works read like a dictionary of vicious quotations. (Leaving sex to the feminists? ‘Like letting your dog vacation at the taxidermist.’ Lena Dunham? ‘She’s a big pile of pudding.’) Paglia is pro-liberty, pro–pornography, pro-prostitutes and anti- any and all special treatment when it comes to women in power: ‘I do not believe in quotas of any kind. Scandinavian countries are going in that direction and it’s an insult to women — the idea that you need a quota.’ Which brings us back to Hillary and the so-called victory her re-entering the White House would represent: ‘If Hillary wins, nothing will change. She knows the bureaucracy, all the offices of government and that’s what she likes to do, sit behind the scenes and manipulate the levers of power.’

Paglia says she has absolutely no idea how the election will go: ‘But people want change and they’re sick of the establishment — so you get this great popular surge, like you had one as well… This idea that Trump represents such a threat to western civilisation — it’s often predicted about presidents and nothing ever happens — yet if Trump wins it will be an amazing moment of change because it would destroy the power structure of the Republican party, the power structure of the Democratic party and destroy the power of the media. It would be an incredible release of energy… at a moment of international tension and crisis.’

All of a sudden, the professor seems excited. Perhaps, like all radicals in pursuit of the truth, Paglia is still hoping the revolution will come.
[/quote]


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Oct 2016)

There is a whole series of similar ads as this out in the land of the meme-ridden internet:







They are not so much advocating votes for The Trumpkin:






They instead call to light her foreign policy, which they see as failed.  Agree with their premise or not, these are rather clever.


This is the first one I think I saw:


----------



## a_majoor (29 Oct 2016)

And voter fraud in Minnesota. In this case, the fish is rotting from the head:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/10/voter-fraud-in-minnesota.php



> POSTED ON OCTOBER 29, 2016 BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN VOTER FRAUD
> *VOTER FRAUD IN MINNESOTA*
> That’s a big topic, as Minnesota’s same-day registration scheme is notoriously subject to–in fact, invites–abuse. But a group called Minnesota Voters Alliance has brought to light another problem: substantial numbers of felons, among others, are illegally being allowed to vote, because Minnesota’s Secretary of State refuses to follow the law. Yesterday, lawsuits were commenced by three election judges:
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Oct 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> 1. FBI thinks Trump is going to win and want to be in good with the new Boss.
> 2. FBI thinks/knows their investigation wasn't on the up and up and want to save face.
> 3. FBI thinks Hillary is going to win so is re-investigating Hillary only to not charge her with anything again thus strengthening her.


4.  FBI finds more stuff to look into, so it looks into it because that's what cops do.

Although the announcement this close to election day is, at best, a bad judgement call.


----------



## QV (29 Oct 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> 4.  FBI finds more stuff to look into, so it looks into it because that's what cops do.
> 
> Although the announcement this close to election day is, at best, a bad judgement call.



Hmm, interesting perspective.  I suggest the bad judgement remains with Clinton et al.


----------



## vonGarvin (29 Oct 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Although the announcement this close to election day is, at best, a bad judgement call.



I'm not so sure.  Given the timing, I can only assume that there is some pretty damning stuff there.  Maybe some of the 33,000 emails that were BleachBitted into oblivion?  We'll see.


----------



## FJAG (29 Oct 2016)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure.  Given the timing, I can only assume that there is some pretty damning stuff there.  Maybe some of the 33,000 emails that were BleachBitted into oblivion?  We'll see.



That's the big problem: everyone is assuming or, even worse, jumping to conclusions. 

The way I understand it is that the FBI investigation relates to Anthony Weiner (re scandalous photos to a minor) and Weiner and his wife Huma Abadin (who works for Clinton) shared a laptop which contains email from both of them. At this point in time, there is absolutely no knowledge as to whether the emails that Abadin had included any new emails from Clinton that have not already been disclosed or whether in fact any of them include any issue of wrongdoing. Makes me wonder if the FBI's was even legally entitled to look at Abadin's information on the laptop much less disclose information about it.

The only thing that appears clear is that the FBI director's letter, contrary to the usual practice in keeping information about investigations confidential until complete, has created an issue which may not even exist and has done so at a very critical time in the election.

 :cheers:


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Oct 2016)

There may be another issue at work. Apparently Ms Abadin assured the FBI that she had surrendered all devices with emails from Mrs Clinton. That may no longer be the case. I think this is the angle that the FBI used to launch another Clinton investigation.


----------



## cavalryman (30 Oct 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The only thing that appears clear is that the FBI director's letter, contrary to the usual practice in keeping information about investigations confidential until complete, has created an issue which may not even exist and has done so at a very critical time in the election.
> 
> :cheers:


And that begs the question _cui bono_?  :nod:


----------



## FJAG (30 Oct 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> And that's begs the question _cui bono_?  :nod:



Exactly! _cui_ indeed?

 :cheers:


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Oct 2016)

Great math there, Obama Haters ...


----------



## George Wallace (30 Oct 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> There may be another issue at work. Apparently Ms Abadin assured the FBI that she had surrendered all devices with emails from Mrs Clinton. That may no longer be the case. I think this is the angle that the FBI used to launch another Clinton investigation.



The New York Times provide video and article, by Adam Golman and Alan Rappeport, OCT. 28, 2016, Emails in Anthony Weiner Inquiry Jolt Hillary Clinton’s Campaign



> WASHINGTON — The presidential campaign was rocked on Friday after federal law enforcement officials said that emails pertinent to the closed investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server were discovered on a computer belonging to Anthony D. Weiner, the estranged husband of a top Clinton aide.
> 
> In a letter to Congress, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said the emails had surfaced in an unrelated case, which law enforcement officials said was an F.B.I. investigation into illicit text messages from Mr. Weiner to a 15-year-old girl in North Carolina. Mr. Weiner, a former Democratic congressman from New York, is married to Huma Abedin, the top aide.
> 
> ...




Remainder of article on LINK, including a selection of videos related to the campaign.


And I thought our last election was the worse.  Times sure are a changing.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Oct 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The only thing that appears clear is that the FBI director's letter, contrary to the usual practice in keeping information about investigations confidential until complete, has created an issue which may not even exist and has done so at a very critical time in the election.
> :cheers:



My own, completely uninformed wild guess is that he did so in spite of the timing because there is something huge in there.


----------



## GR66 (30 Oct 2016)

There may or there may not be anything damaging in there.  By coming out and saying that they are re-opening the investigation due to _potentially _finding additional emails to review the FBI is being accused of unfairly impacting the election.  

Imagine however if they instead kept quiet and the then announced AFTER the election that they did find emails indicating security breaches from Clinton's server?  Would that not open up the FBI to accusations that they interfered with the election by protecting Clinton from potentially damaging information prior to the vote?

It's really a no win situation for the FBI.  I think they really have likely done the only thing they can do as an impartial agency.  Act on the information that they find in a way that ignores the fact that there is an election going on.  Their role is not to be involved in politics.  If there was no election and they found information potentially related to a closed case they would re-open that case and check the information.  They shouldn't act any differently just because there is an election going on.  

As to how they announced it, I don't know what their usual procedure is so I can't comment on that.  My understanding is that they previously informed Congress that the investigation was closed.  Due to this new information that is no longer true so they informed Congress of that change in fact.  Seems reasonable to me.

It's quite possible that there is nothing on those emails to warrant any different end result from the original FBI investigation.  Clinton may take a hit just before the election as a result regardless.  That being said, if she didn't show the poor judgement of insisting on having her own private email server in the first place then this issue wouldn't exist.  I can't really find myself feeling terribly sorry for her on this issue.


----------



## jollyjacktar (30 Oct 2016)

:goodpost:


----------



## cupper (30 Oct 2016)

Even the FBI doesn't know what is in the e-mails. They have no idea if they are duplicates of e-mails they already have, if it is new material not yet discovered, or if it even has any significant relevance. And to accomplish a comprehensive review of the information would take until after the election was over.

Comey went against the advice and rules of the Justice Department to not compromise a current investigation, and to not interfere with any election. However there was an issue that if they didn't notify Congress about this until after they concluded their review, then he would be accused of holding back information to help Clinton's cause. So he decides to implement CYA. Unfortunately by being so vague in the letter to Congress, if backfired and stirred up a hornets nest. He was damned if he did it, and damned if he didn't. By being forthcoming, and if nothing was found that changed the situation (for example if these e-mails turned out to be all duplicates to the e-mails they already have) then an argument could be made that he unduly interfered with, and potentially gave Trump enough to stumble past 270.


----------



## cupper (30 Oct 2016)

Yep, voter fraud is definitely a thing, and it shows that this election is rigged. Actually it shows that some fraction of Trumps supporters a) just accept anything that Trump says, b) believe in conspiracy theories regardless of how many times they are debunked, and c) are willing to commit illegal acts to ensure he wins.

*Trump supporter charged with voting twice in Iowa*

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/29/trump-supporter-charged-with-voting-twice-in-iowa/?utm_term=.d3c1978ae4c8



> A woman in Iowa was arrested this week on suspicion of voting twice in the general election, court and police records show.
> 
> Terri Lynn Rote, a 55-year-old Des Moines resident, was booked Thursday on a first-degree charge of election misconduct, according to Polk County Jail records. The charge is considered a Class D felony under Iowa state law.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Oct 2016)

Lies beget lies. If Comey had done the right thing in the first place, instead of giving Clinton a freebie, he wouldn't have found himself in this position. His own fault. Anything the Clintons *may have* promised is gone. Now he's in survival mode.

Perhaps there's a strange accident in his future. He should take a page from the Clinton Foundation CEO that took off and hid in Russia so Killary wouldn't involve him in an 'accident'.

 :cheers:

Ah yes, the Washington Post. I wonder if the other two that were caught were democrats? Otherwise the byline would have read Three Trump Supporters......

Not biased at all.

 :cheers:


----------



## cupper (30 Oct 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Lies beget lies. If Comey had done the right thing in the first place, instead of giving Clinton a freebie, he wouldn't have found himself in this position. His own fault. Anything the Clintons *may have* promised is gone. Now he's in survival mode.
> 
> Perhaps there's a strange accident in his future. He should take a page from the Clinton Foundation CEO that took off and hid in Russia so Killary wouldn't involve him in an 'accident'.
> 
> ...



 :bravo:

As an update to the FBI investigation:

*Exclusive: FBI still does not have warrant to review new Abedin emails linked to Clinton probe*

https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wrote-bombshell-letter-to-congress-before-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html



> When FBI Director James Comey wrote his bombshell letter to Congress on Friday about newly discovered emails that were potentially “pertinent” to the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email server, agents had not been able to review any of the material, because the bureau had not yet gotten a search warrant to read them, three government officials who have been briefed on the probe told Yahoo News.
> 
> At the time Comey wrote the letter, “he had no idea what was in the content of the emails,” one of the officials said, referring to recently discovered emails that were found on the laptop of disgraced ex-Rep. Anthony Weiner, the estranged husband of top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. Weiner is under investigation for allegedly sending illicit text messages to a 15-year-old girl.
> 
> ...



op:


----------



## cupper (30 Oct 2016)

This election has beed excellent fodder for Andy Borowitz of The New Yorker.

http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report

*QUEEN OFFERS TO RESTORE BRITISH RULE OVER UNITED STATES*



> LONDON (The Borowitz Report)—In an unexpected televised address on Saturday, Queen Elizabeth II offered to restore British rule over the United States of America.
> 
> Addressing the American people from her office in Buckingham Palace, the Queen said that she was making the offer “in recognition of the desperate situation you now find yourselves in.”
> 
> ...



*COMEY PRAISES BRAVE F.B.I. AGENTS WHO HAD TO TOUCH ANTHONY WEINER’S COMPUTER*



> WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—James Comey, the embattled director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, presided over a special ceremony on Friday evening to commend the brave F.B.I. agents who had to touch Anthony Weiner’s computer.
> 
> In awarding the commendations to the agents, whom Comey called “the bravest men and women this country has to offer,” the F.B.I. director criticized the political uproar that he said had overshadowed “their selfless acts of heroism.”
> 
> ...



*NATION FEARS DRUG TEST WOULD REVEAL TRUMP NOT ON DRUGS*



> NEW YORK (The Borowitz Report)—Donald J. Trump’s suggestion that both Presidential candidates submit to a drug test has sparked fears that such a test would reveal that he is not on drugs.
> 
> In interviews conducted across the country, voters said that they would be “alarmed” and “distressed” to learn that the billionaire’s statements and actions were the product of a mind unaltered in any way by a controlled substance.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (30 Oct 2016)

I'm seriously thinking  :endnigh: when one of the loudest shrillest voices on the Fox Right comes out with a statement like this.

*Jeanine Pirro defends Clinton on FBI review announcement*

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/jeanine-pirro-defends-clinton-on-fbi-review-announcement-230506



> One of Hillary Clinton's harsher critics, Fox News' Jeanine Pirro, came to her defense Saturday.
> 
> In an opening statement on her show "Justice with Judge Jeanine," Pirro said the announcement Friday by FBI Director James Comey that the bureau will review newly found emails in connection with Clinton's private email server "disgraces and politicizes the FBI and is symptomatic of all that is wrong in Washington."
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 Oct 2016)

The DoJ isn't a politically neutral organization.

If they hadn't put their thumb on the scales in the first place by perverting the investigation, the FBI would not have been placed in an untenable situation.  It's too late for the DoJ or Hillary's willing apologists to try to pound the table about irregular procedure.  The investigation has been a series of irregular procedures.


----------



## ModlrMike (31 Oct 2016)

Very odd how "extremely careless" with classified material =/= committed an offence.

I wonder how that would work for anyone else.


----------



## Lightguns (31 Oct 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Very odd how "extremely careless" with classified material =/= committed an offence.
> 
> I wonder how that would work for anyone else.



AintHell.us has been keeping track of every US military member convicted of similar offences.


----------



## QV (31 Oct 2016)

Listening to the Clinton campaign demand the FBI release details of an open investigation is annoying.  The FBI can't do that... But Clinton and Huma who would have knowledge of and could comment publicly, if they dared, about the likely content of all those emails are not saying anything other than trying to shift blame.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Oct 2016)

Interesting ...


> _*"Doomsday Prepper Supply Companies Are the Real Winners of the 2016 Election"*_
> 
> When doomsday “preppers” start stockpiling emergency food, it’s usually because of a typhoon, a terrorist attack or some event that signals that the end times is near. This month, the horrifying event du jour is the U.S. presidential election.
> 
> “We’re hearing from people in our call center,” said Keith Bansemer, the vice president of marketing at MyPatriotSupply.com, which sells emergency rations. “People feel like they’ve lost control of the election process. So they’re taking matters into their own hands — those things they can control. I think there is apprehension with both top candidates.” ...


----------



## a_majoor (31 Oct 2016)

Humour moment:


----------



## cupper (31 Oct 2016)

More from The Canada Party.

https://youtu.be/Hv4gCJ6nVy8?list=PL7C2F7E71AA017D80


----------



## a_majoor (31 Oct 2016)

And _another_ (and totally separate) FBI investigation:





> *The FBI’s Clinton Foundation Probe*
> by RICH LOWRY
> October 30, 2016 11:18 PM @RICHLOWRY This Wall Street Journal story is such a blockbuster in every way that arguably the most significant news comes in the 14th (!) paragraph:
> 
> ...



and:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/laptop-may-include-thousands-of-emails-linked-to-hillary-clintons-private-server-1477854957


----------



## FJAG (31 Oct 2016)

Considering how extremely opposing the views of Republicans and Democrats are in general, is it surprising that there are advocates for each of those sides within the FBI and DoJ? And is it surprising that they are leaking opposing viewpoints through the press?

Personally I'll turn off the TV and wait to see what the outcome of this escapade is until the next day.

 [cheers]


----------



## cupper (31 Oct 2016)

It's not surprising the latest polls show that the latest e-mail grenade has made little to no difference in how people are going to vote. Clintonites are still going to vote for her, Trumpets are still voting for Trump.

The other thing to consider is that a significant number of votes were already cast (some 2 or 3 times) before Comey dropped his big smelly pile. Absentee ballots have been coming in for a while, and most states that have early voting have been in progress for 1 or 2 weeks.

UPDATE: So far 23 million votes have been cast.

It will be interesting to see how the FBI and the Clinton White House get along, since Comey's term doesn't end until 2023. 

*AWKWARD!!!*


----------



## a_majoor (31 Oct 2016)

So the question on everyone's minds: who does Putin favour?

https://pjmedia.com/michaelledeen/2016/10/30/whos-putin-for/?singlepage=true



> *Who's Putin For?*
> BY MICHAEL LEDEEN
> OCTOBER 30, 2016
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Oct 2016)

Who is Huma Abedin?

https://youtu.be/SXG_h765ZBA

 :cheers:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Oct 2016)

Huma Abedin kept emails in “Life Insurance” folder.

https://nationonenews.com/2016/10/30/huma-abedin-kepts-deleted-emails-folder-called-life-insurance/

 :cheers:


----------



## cupper (31 Oct 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Who is Huma Abedin?
> 
> https://youtu.be/SXG_h765ZBA
> 
> :cheers:





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Huma Abedin kept emails in “Life Insurance” folder.
> 
> https://nationonenews.com/2016/10/30/huma-abedin-kepts-deleted-emails-folder-called-life-insurance/
> 
> :cheers:



Got any actual proof of either of these, from credible, rational sources?


----------



## FJAG (31 Oct 2016)

Long but informative New York Times Article on Trump's taxes. The thrust is that Trump used highly questionable procedures to avoid taxes and not merely an existing loophole. Notwithstanding this, Clinton votes with congress to stop this methodology. Makes one wonder why Trump isn't in jail and makes one understand why he won't release his returns.



> Donald Trump Used Legally Dubious Method to Avoid Paying Taxes
> 
> By David Barstow, Mike Mcintire, Patricia Cohen, Susanne Craig And Russ Buettneroct. 31, 2016
> 
> ...



http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/us/politics/donald-trump-tax.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

or here: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/us-election/trump-used-legally-dubious-method-to-avoid-paying-taxes/article32609915/

 [cheers]


----------



## McG (1 Nov 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Got any actual proof of either of these, from credible, rational sources?


What?  Youtube is not credible?

... is it like anyone with a crazy idea can just post a video?

... without peer review?!

I never knew.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Nov 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> What?  Youtube is not credible?
> 
> ... is it like anyone with a crazy idea can just post a video?
> 
> ...



Don't worry.


For authoritative stuff, there's always Wikipedia.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Nov 2016)

Ahem:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/247822



> BATTLE-SPACE PREPARATION IN NORTH CAROLINA: Do You Think Elections Are Rigged?
> 
> Money quotes:
> 
> ...



It isn't that there is voter fraud, there are no prosecutions of the people who commit, aid and abet over fraud.


----------



## FJAG (1 Nov 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Ahem:
> 
> https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/247822
> 
> It isn't that there is voter fraud, there are no prosecutions of the people who commit, aid and abet over fraud.



And then there's this:



> WASHINGTON ― The North Carolina NAACP has filed a federal lawsuit to stop county election boards in the state from canceling voter registrations ― in what the group argues is an effort by the state Republican Party to suppress the black vote.
> ...



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/north-carolina-naacp-voter-suppression_us_5817634fe4b064e1b4b385df

 :duel:


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Nov 2016)

Holy shit, we are witnessing The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, v. 2.0 .


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Nov 2016)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Holy shit, we are witnessing The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, v. 2.0 .



Kinda neat, innit?   op:


----------



## Lightguns (1 Nov 2016)

Not really, it's happening here, this Roman Empire is the whole Western World.  The barbarians are already in the border states.  The whole ruling class are so decadent that they think only of themselves.  The worship of God has been replaced by worship at the alter of a pseudo-science religion, sacrificing 200 hundreds of progress to appease their Gaia God.  Science is at the service of the man with the most money.  Basic staples are becoming luxuries.  Our government says you are not going to have a good job and stability .... and too bad you serf.  New rights are more important than and overrule actual basic rights.  Peace is war and war is peace.  Progress is destruction of the economic output and Stagnation is using fossil fuels to make life better.  The nation is screwed and your grand children will be much worst off.  Lots of fun to watch.


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Nov 2016)

IF the US does fall then so will the rest of the western world.My scenario is one where the muslim refugees[invaders] takeover Europe leaving the US isolated from Europe and paralyzed by internal forces. Instead of communism the enemy in that context would be the Caliphate.There would be no compromise just submit or die.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Nov 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Not really, it's happening here, this Roman Empire is the whole Western World.  The barbarians are already in the border states.  The whole ruling class are so decadent that they think only of themselves.  The worship of God has been replaced by worship at the alter of a pseudo-science religion, sacrificing 200 hundreds of progress to appease their Gaia God.  Science is at the service of the man with the most money.  Basic staples are becoming luxuries.  Our government says you are not going to have a good job and stability .... and too bad you serf.  New rights are more important than and overrule actual basic rights.  Peace is war and war is peace.  Progress is destruction of the economic output and Stagnation is using fossil fuels to make life better.  The nation is screwed and your grand children will be much worst off.  Lots of fun to watch.



Lightguns and T6 - I agree with everything you said.

I just can't do very much about it.  So my game plan is to help my kids survive to have grandkids.



> The whole ruling class are so decadent that they think only of themselves



Actually, I think it is worse than that.  They are true believers.  They believe in the brotherhood of man and they have been conditioned to believe that they are the only people capable of managing that brotherhood.  Universities used to train priests in catechism and dogma.  They still do.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Nov 2016)

Another humour moment:



> Hillary Clinton goes to a gifted-student primary school in New York to
> talk about the world. After her talk she offers question time.
> One little boy puts up his... hand. Hillary asks him what his name is.
> "Kenneth," he says.
> ...


----------



## Jed (1 Nov 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Lightguns and T6 - I agree with everything you said.
> 
> I just can't do very much about it.  So my game plan is to help my kids survive to have grandkids.
> 
> Actually, I think it is worse than that.  They are true believers.  They believe in the brotherhood of man and they have been conditioned to believe that they are the only people capable of managing that brotherhood.  Universities used to train priests in catechism and dogma.  They still do.



The 'elephant in the room' right there. Only its not just priests getting dogma pushed through them in our Educational institutions. It appears to me that the Western World's educational systems are now ' All Left. all the time' We are creating non critically, inept thinking for all.  Mao and Stalin would be proud.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Nov 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Another humour moment:


Still beats going hunting with certain Republicans ...





P.S. - No charges against and no apology from the shooter - yet, anyway.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Nov 2016)

Jed, 

Mao and Stalin are late to the game.  The universities that produced priests also produced proud, lay seminarians.  Control over the curriculum echoes in Quebec, Manitoba, Oxford, Cambridge, Scotland, England, Jesuits and Recollets, Dominicans and Franciscans, in Rome and Athens and Jerusalem.  Not to mention the Madrassas.

Why do you think some folks pay more attention to School Boards and Teachers Unions than to Federal Elections?


----------



## Jed (1 Nov 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Jed,
> 
> Mao and Stalin are late to the game.  The universities that produced priests also produced proud, lay seminarians.  Control over the curriculum echoes in Quebec, Manitoba, Oxford, Cambridge, Scotland, England, Jesuits and Recollets, Dominicans and Franciscans, in Rome and Athens and Jerusalem.  Not to mention the Madrassas.
> 
> Why do you think some folks pay more attention to School Boards and Teachers Unions than to Federal Elections?



Seen.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (1 Nov 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Why do you think some folks pay more attention to School Boards and Teachers Unions than to Federal Elections?



Because they espouse the leftist mantra: "Think globally! Act locally!".

Easier to get elected in sufficient numbers to a local election that most people care less about , and from there start to put your hidden agenda in motion (ask any school board in Ontario)  [.

Not much different from the old Catholic church adage it inherited from that  jack**s of  a Jesuit, St-Francis Xavier: "Give me the boy, and I will deliver the man". Yeah! we know how the Catholic church "educating" boys turned out!


----------



## mariomike (1 Nov 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Another humour moment:



Hopefully the losers - whichever party that may be - will maintain their sense of humour on election night.  




			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Still beats going hunting with certain Republicans ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Nov 2016)

Since the thread appears to be headed down the road of starry-eyed optimism, here's an interesting piece from, admittedly, a source that doesn't sound all that authoritative, but if we're willing to be a bit open minded, it's a piece that appears to quote some of the right people:

_*"6 Reasons Why A New Civil War Is Possible And Terrifying"*_

From the piece:


> (...)
> 6.  The Beginning Looks A Lot Like Where We Are Right Now
> (...)
> 5.  The Violence Could Start With Farms Choking The Cities
> ...



The same source also posted this not-too-shabby summary of how ISIS/ISIL/Daesh came to be.

*** - On #4, I would have softened it to "could" instead of "will", but that's just me ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2016)

Starry eyed optimism indeed....

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/20161101_State_raids_Delco_offices__seeking_evidence_of_voter_registration_fraud.html



> *State raids Delco offices, seeking evidence of voter registration fraud*
> Updated: NOVEMBER 1, 2016 — 1:08 AM EDT
> 
> Pennsylvania state police have raided a Delaware County political field office seeking evidence of possible voter-registration fraud, according to court records.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2016)

And the UK's Daily Mail lays out the currently _known_ investigations of the Clintons and their associates. If she is actually elected, her administration will be hopelessly compromised from day one, and most likely perceived as illegitimate by a vast number of voters and foreign governments. Even a Trump administration will have a great deal of difficulty, since unravelling the web will most likely engulf many Washington insiders, senior bureaucrats and high level businessmen. Draining the swamp is likely to be a long and arduous task:
(Part one)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3889994/Influence-peddling-acting-Putin-s-ally-hiding-classified-secrets-sexting-FIVE-separate-FBI-cases-probing-virtually-one-Clinton-s-inner-circle-families.html



> *Influence peddling, acting for Putin's ally, hiding classified secrets and sexting - how FIVE separate FBI cases are probing virtually every one of Clinton's inner circle and their families*
> Scale of FBI investigations into Clinton's closest aides and friends is becoming clear
> Besides Huma Abedin,  a swathe of long-time loyalists are at the center of investigations including Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe
> John Podesta ran the Clinton Foundation which is under investigation while his brother Tony is also focus of a probe about foreign corruption
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2016)

(Part 2)



> Cheryl Mills: Woman at center of Clintonworld
> 
> Probes: Clinton Foundation; Clinton emails
> 
> ...


----------



## mariomike (2 Nov 2016)

Election Update: Yes, Donald Trump Has A Path To Victory 
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-yes-donald-trump-has-a-path-to-victory/
If the race tightens any further, Clinton’s electoral edge is fragile.

( After close to 100 pages of discussion, should we have a 2016 US election poll of our own? )


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Nov 2016)

A rally photo is manipulated to increase the crowd size.  [cheers]


----------



## CountDC (2 Nov 2016)

read an article today about an AI that has predicted the last 3 presidential elections correctly and has now picked Trump to win.  The creator claims the program has improved with every election. It also picked the winners in the primaries so has a 5 out of 5 record.  Was reading the 24hrs paper if anyone is interested.


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Nov 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> A rally photo is manipulated to increase the crowd size.  [cheers]



That's funny.  I can see the pattern.


----------



## mariomike (2 Nov 2016)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> That's funny.  I can see the pattern.



http://www.snopes.com/manipulated-photograph-of-bill-clinton-crowd/


----------



## GR66 (2 Nov 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> A rally photo is manipulated to increase the crowd size.  [cheers]



To be fair, the image wasn't manipulated by the Clinton campaign...

http://www.snopes.com/manipulated-photograph-of-bill-clinton-crowd/


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Nov 2016)

If you guys are looking for truth, you're in the wrong thread 

[cheers]


----------



## Altair (2 Nov 2016)

anyone else interested in seeing if McMullin can pull off a win in Utah?

Would make for a interesting race if nobody can get to 270.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Nov 2016)

It's kind of funny but the amount of deceit and corruption we're seeing in the US is so crazy that all the usual internet conspiracy nuts seem speechless.


They really need a new government.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Nov 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> If you guys are looking for truth, you're in the wrong thread
> 
> [cheers]


"Truthiness", at best ...  ;D


----------



## mariomike (2 Nov 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> "Truthiness", at best ...  ;D



Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's true.


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Just because it's on the internet doesn't mean it's true.



I don't believe you.


----------



## cupper (2 Nov 2016)

I'm beginning to think that all the pro Trump anti Clinton people here are like Fox Mulder tilting at aliens.   ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Nov 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> I'm beginning to think that all the pro Trump anti Clinton people here are like Fox Mulder tilting at aliens.   ;D



Just like Clinton and the anti Trump people. Except the Clinton people tend to be quite a bit more violent.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Nov 2016)

Remember, you don't have to _disprove_, you only have to introduce enough doubt among enough people not willing/able to do the detailed homework/fact checking.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Nov 2016)

Justice Dept Attorney Exposed As Mole For Clinton Campaign

http://dennismichaellynch.com/justice-dept-attorney-exposed-mole-clinton-campaign/


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Nov 2016)

Interesting system when the PARTY controls the following offices:

Executive: Federal, State, Local
Legislative: Federal, State, Local
Judicial: Federal, State, Local

And the power of appointment to the bureaucracy at the Federal, State and Local levels.

Is this what Washington and his buddies were thinking of when they envisaged their democracy?

And the PARTY is not accountable to anybody.  Certainly not the Press.

Curious.

Back to my popcorn.  op:

By the way:  The problem is not just an American one.  It is endemic.  Thus the shock of Brexit


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Nov 2016)

Pennsylvania Dem. Headquarters Just Got Raided!! More Election Fraud has been discovered.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h8vVbUsPos

Now in Indiana. Cops raid democrat run office for voter fraud. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7h8vVbUsPos

 [cheers]


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Nov 2016)

Texas Voter Fraud has Been Reported and Confirmed!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wM6gFrriJiU

This one is good.

RIGGED ELECTION PROOF!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-8g89kjxxM

 [cheers]


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Nov 2016)

Last one...................for now. 

Caught In The Act! Massive Voter Fraud For Hillary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pf2PCYSCogk

 [cheers]


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Nov 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Just like Clinton and the anti Trump people. Except the Clinton people tend to be quite a bit more violent.


Whereas the pro-Trump people can be more ... intimidating (more) - for now.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Nov 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Whereas the pro-Trump people can be more ... intimidating (more) - for now.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMux_UHmpvc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFOfmzlXLBk

I can see why Clinton supporters are intimidated when Trump supporters legally carry firearms.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Nov 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMux_UHmpvc
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFOfmzlXLBk
> 
> I can see why Clinton supporters are intimidated when Trump supporters legally carry firearms.


And I still know where I'd bet money on re:  who to worry about more when one side or the other loses.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Nov 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And I still know where I'd bet money on re:  who to worry about more when one side or the other loses.



Clinton?


----------



## cupper (2 Nov 2016)

Hell, no. They'll just go back to sipping their $20 half caf decaf lattes, and ponder how they can make more money.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Nov 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Whereas the pro-Trump people can be more ... intimidating (more) - for now.




Hmmmm. Two guys standing in the street exercising their 2nd Amendment Rights. Not heckling, not shouting, not pushing or assaulting anyone. Standing there talking between themselves. Like people do there every day.

I don't see anything intimidating about it. These kinds of people are seen on the street all the time there, doing open carry and no one complains. Give the dems something to blow out of proportion and they'll jump at the chance.

The majority of the violence has been caused by anti-Trump people. The same people paid for by George Soros who is also bankrolling Killary.

Nope. The dems can whine all they want. They set the bar, now they have play by the rules they set.

 [cheers]


----------



## Jed (2 Nov 2016)

When you poke the sleeping giant (the American People) long enough and hard enough, they wake up, and by God, they finish it.


----------



## mariomike (2 Nov 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> When you poke the sleeping giant (the American People) long enough and hard enough, they wake up, and by God, they finish it.



Judging by the age of some of his followers, I can't see them burning and looting. 
Hopefully most will be satisfied with venting their frustrations into their keyboards and calling it a night.

CBC News 
Nov 01, 2016 

'Time for revolution': Trump's Deep South diehards ready for revolt if he loses
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/revolution-alabama-trump-rigged-election-1.3828712
Alabamians for Trump hint at civil disobedience, but 'we pray that don't happen'


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Nov 2016)

Clinton is corrupt and that seemingly extends to the FBI  and DOJ.  
Her shady organization takes monetary gifts from countries hostile to America,  countries that she admits are secretly supporting ISIS. 
Clear and mounting examples of voting fraud.  One corruption after another. 

If Clinton wins it's pretty easy to believe her presidency is invalid.   Think the armed forces would side with her after all this stuff is coming to light (and continuing to do so)?    I wonder what would happen if some generals say nope,   redo the election.


----------



## mariomike (2 Nov 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I wonder what would happen if some generals say nope,   redo the election.



Best two out of three?


----------



## cupper (2 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Best two out of three?



No, this is for all the money. Best of seven. The ratings will be yuge.  ;D


----------



## cupper (2 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Judging by the age of some of his followers, I can't see them burning and looting.
> Hopefully most will be satisfied with venting their frustrations into their keyboards and calling it a night.
> 
> CBC News
> ...



I'm thinking that it won't be safe to go into a diner or coffee shop until it's past their bedtimes anywhere down here. ;D


----------



## FJAG (3 Nov 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> ...  I wonder what would happen if some generals say nope,   redo the election.



I was at Fort Bragg the night of the elections of Nov 1980 (Ronald Reagan was running against the incumbent president, Jimmy Carter) when the then commander of XVIII Airborne Corps (a very vocal Republican) gave a toast to a large group of officers at the O Club with the words - "Gentlemen, tomorrow we will have a new president or you will have a new commander of XVIII Airborne Corps". I, as well as all the assembled officers, took it quite seriously at the time that he would not serve in the military for another term under Carter.

I would certainly expect that any generals who feel unhappy with Clinton as their commander in chief would take the same course and resign. On the other hand I doubt that any of them (or maybe just a few) will resign.

 [cheers]


----------



## mariomike (3 Nov 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I would certainly expect that any generals who feel unhappy with Clinton as their commander in chief would take the same course and resign.



"If you work for a man ( or in this case a woman ), in heaven's name work for him, speak well of him, and stand by the institution he represents. Remember, an ounce of loyalty is worth a pound of cleverness. If you must growl, condemn, and eternally find fault - resign your position, and when you are outside, damn to your heart's content - but as long as you are part of the institution, do not condemn it. If you do, the first high wind that comes along will blow you away, and probably you will never know why."
Elbert Hubbard


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Nov 2016)

The US military prides itself on being non-political.When you take the oath to uphold and defend the constitution thats what you do.We dont take an oath of allegiance to any one President.They all get the best that the military can provide.A few generals have gotten in trouble because they broke that rule.


----------



## McG (3 Nov 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> I'm beginning to think that all the pro Trump anti Clinton people here are like Fox Mulder tilting at aliens.   ;D


Well, I suppose you could attribute it to too many individuals with delusion-based mental illness reinforcing their beliefs through internet based echo chambers ... but you will find some already opposed to that theory:


> *Don't blame dark voting trends on online thought bubbles*
> Doug Saunders
> The Globe and Mail
> 01 Oct 16
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/bursting-the-bubble-of-online-filter-bubbles/article32172155/

Some suggest social media and irrational bloggers are the leading catalyst for some intellectually shallow analysis of (and resultant conclusions on) the candidates:


> *Why Has the 2016 Election Been So Crazy? The Answer is Actually Fairly Obvious*
> Allen Clifton
> forwardprogressives.com
> 18 May 2016
> ...


 http://www.forwardprogressives.com/why-has-the-2016-election-seemed-to-crazy-the-answer-is-actually-fairly-obvious/


----------



## FJAG (3 Nov 2016)

On a completely unrelated matter: Yeah Cubs.  :Bday Dancer:

 [cheers]


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Nov 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I don't see anything intimidating about it. These kinds of people are seen on the street all the time there, doing open carry and no one complains. Give the dems something to blow out of proportion and they'll jump at the chance.


And I guess still haven't confirmed the motive behind this incident, right?


----------



## Lightguns (3 Nov 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And I guess still haven't confirmed the motive behind this incident, right?



Given the mantra of "innocent until proven guilty" of this site, can we really say that the arsonist is the also the spray painter?  Can we say that one or both are Trump supporters?  Given the level of email evidence on the level of organization of _*ALLEGED*_ Democrat paid vandals can you really simply lay this at the feet of the GOP and say own it?  Is it possible that the arsonist, in a area where black church burning are still routine, is just hitching a ride on Trump?


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Nov 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> Given the mantra of "innocent until proven guilty" of this site, can we really say that the arsonist is the also the spray painter?  Can we say that one or both are Trump supporters?  Given the level of email evidence on the level of organization of Democrat paid vandals can you really simply lay this at the feet of the GOP and say own it?  Is it possible that the arsonist, in a area where black church burning are still routine, is just hitching a ride on Trump?


All _possible_ ...


----------



## mariomike (3 Nov 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The US military prides itself on being non-political.When you take the oath to uphold and defend the constitution thats what you do.We dont take an oath of allegiance to any one President.They all get the best that the military can provide.A few generals have gotten in trouble because they broke that rule.



"I, (state name of enlistee), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."
http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> On a completely unrelated matter: Yeah Cubs.  :Bday Dancer:



Saw this the other day,

Chicago passes 600 murders & will have its deadliest year in 2 decades
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/11/01/chicago-surpasses-600-homicides-in-2016-and-is-on-pace-to-have-its-deadliest-year-in-two-decades/?utm_term=.305f106f1316 … but the Cubs are doing well so it's all cool.

Chicago PD Police chaplain over the radio on Halloween,
"I wanna say to all the guys working tonight, God bless ya and Go Cubs!"


FDNY Marine 1 ordered to provide protection for a Clinton victory fireworks show 30 minutes after the polls close.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3892922/Clinton-planned-fireworks-filled-victory-party-Manhattan-start-just-30-minutes-polls-close.html#ixzz4OldMglHX

The Largest Bioterrorism Attack in US History Affected At Least 751 people And Was An Attempt to Swing An Election.
http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/the-largest-bioterrorism-attack-in-us-history-was-an-at-1788407782?utm_medium=sharefromsite&utm_source=Paleofuture_twitter


----------



## Journeyman (3 Nov 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> .... intellectually shallow analysis .....


 And neither side has the market cornered on that.  :




			
				Lightguns said:
			
		

> Given the mantra of  "innocent until proven guilty" of this site.... Given the level of email evidence on the level of organization of Democrat paid vandals....


   :brickwall:


FML  Five more days (even though I know merely holding the election won't stop the rampant, finger-pointing idiocy    :not-again:  )


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Nov 2016)

My wife has been enjoying her "Soap" also known as CNN or "Breathless reporting" I would say one of the major issues with media is the 24hr newscycle, they must fill that time and they will stir the pot to do it. I actually find the blogs are doing far deeper analysis of issues than the major media, which are all former shadows of themselves without a large number of reporters or researchers and far tighter deadlines. I would say that for stories I have been involved in, they are often getting 40% of the facts right.


----------



## CountDC (3 Nov 2016)

Today the 24hrs reports the stock market is predicting a Trump win with a high accuracy rate of prediction.  If it was March I would say next will be the ground hogs. 

Also saw a report on the news (don't recall which one) where the Clinton mob is now heavily targeting to at least get a tie election as then the senate (?) picks the winner and they are banking she would be picked.  Doesn't look good if they are now planning on not getting a clear victory.

Both are scary and it is sad that they are what the country could get behind as leader but in a way I think it would be really funny if they did tie and Trump was picked.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Nov 2016)

On the subject of civil unrest, I'm much more concerned about violence and rioting in the face of a Clinton defeat than I am about a Trump defeat.


----------



## mariomike (3 Nov 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> On the subject of civil unrest, I'm much more concerned about violence and rioting in the face of a Clinton defeat than I am about a Trump defeat.



Whoever gets in, I know a pool on election night DOAs and non-fatals would be in poor taste.  

But, for anyone concerned about violence and rioting on election night,

here is the forecast over the last 24 hours,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump+clinton+election+violence&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=CGsbWN7mC8qC8QeFj4mACg&gws_rd=ssl#tbs=qdr:d&q=trump+clinton+election+violence

Hopefully there will be no violence, and those working the streets will have a safe shift!


----------



## ZeiGezunt (3 Nov 2016)

Whoever wins, my relationship with the country of my birth will likely never be the same. The increasing levels of antisemitism on both the left and the right in the USA have got me spooked.


----------



## FJAG (3 Nov 2016)

> Trump Army: Georgia militia steps up its 'combat training' as it prepares to 'fight and kill' should Hillary Clinton 'steal' the election
> - Prominent patriot militia groups are preparing for potential unrest following the elections
> - One such group is the Three Percent Security Force
> - It's name comes from the notion that no more than 3 percent of the American population fought in the Revolutionary War against Britain
> ...



Full article here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3896784/U-S-militia-girds-trouble-presidential-election-nears.html

 :facepalm:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Nov 2016)

_The Southern Poverty Law Center estimates there were 276 active militias last year, up from 42 in 2008_

Hmmm, sounds scary, let me guess guy joins Militia group, goes drinking and shooting for 1 weekend, next weekend there is no money for more beer and ammo, joins new militia, goes drinking and shooting for the weekend, next weekend no money for beer or ammo and they are all a bunch of dicks anyways, join another group.......etc, etc


----------



## Remius (3 Nov 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> _The Southern Poverty Law Center estimates there were 276 active militias last year, up from 42 in 2008_
> 
> Hmmm, sounds scary, let me guess guy joins Militia group, goes drinking and shooting for 1 weekend, next weekend there is no money for more beer and ammo, joins new militia, goes drinking and shooting for the weekend, next weekend no money for beer or ammo and they are all a bunch of dicks anyways, join another group.......etc, etc



Like these beer guzzling guys?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/15/it-will-be-a-bloodbath-inside-the-kansas-militia-plot-to-ignite-a-religious-war/


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Nov 2016)

Liberals Plan To Riot If Trump Wins!

https://ca.video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&p=trump+wins+democrats+riot#id=18&vid=a266c4baf927a280a3279d4c34d80017&action=click

AND SO IT BEGINS! Riot Cops Deployed at Anti TRUMP Rally Chaos in Anaheim & New Mexico

https://ca.video.search.yahoo.com/search/video?fr=mcafee&p=trump+wins+democrats+riot#id=27&vid=d58f3564b91eb31d72b8f61cd8537ea4&action=view

 [cheers]


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Nov 2016)

If we recall, BLM is funded by George Soros.

George Soros is also bankrolling Clinton.

'Nuff said.

TOP BLACK LIVES MATTER ACTIVIST: ‘WE WILL INCITE RIOTS EVERYWHERE IF TRUMP WINS’
"Dear white people...niggas such as myself are fully hell bent on inciting riots everywhere we go"

http://www.infowars.com/top-black-lives-matter-activist-we-will-incite-riots-everywhere-if-trump-wins/


----------



## TheHead (3 Nov 2016)

This is the depths this site thread has sunk too.  We're now citing infowars.  The soapbox of Alex Jones.  A man who denies the Sandy Hook massacre happened, propagates the 9/11 inside job lie and thinks the illuminati exists.  This is garbage that years ago would have had users banned/laughed off this site forever.  

Embarrassing.


----------



## JLB50 (3 Nov 2016)

I'm really disappointed at the amount of hate mongering I've seen here.  I'm probably older than the majority who express their opinions on this website and have seen quite a few elections in my day.  

I  was born in the U.S. and lived through the  scandals (or near-scandals) of Truman, JFK, Nixon,  and the two Bush Presidents. So what's happening now isn't totally new.  What is new, however, is the amount of intolerance being expressed.  It seemed to start with Obama being elected...he was described as having not been born in the U.S. but in Hawaii (before it was a state) or that he was instead born in Kenya. And then there were the ugly rumors about him being a Muslim.  And downright racist cartoons of him looking like a monkey. 

Now that hatred and venom is being directed at Clinton, and with a vengeance.  Political elections are always filled with winners and losers.  But even in past elections, the losers graciously accepted defeat. Remember Al Gore?  Even he accepted his defeat by George Bush,  despite voter registration irregularities in Florida, a key battleground state where other Jeb Bush was governor.

To conclude, I would have hoped that the moderators of this Forum would have done more to tone down all the hatred being expressed. Such hatred is not what I remember as being either the Canadian way or the American way.  In other words, cool it, guys.


----------



## Scott (3 Nov 2016)

JLB50 said:
			
		

> To conclude, I would have hoped that the moderators of this Forum would have done more to tone down all the hatred being expressed. Such hatred is not what I remember as being either the Canadian way or the American way.  In other words, cool it, guys.



You have to report posts and give reasons for me to look at them. Otherwise I just skim and cruise on by. I don't click too many links because, frankly, I don't care enough to.

You also have the choice not to read this thread. You too, The Head.

Scott
Staff


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Nov 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> TOP BLACK LIVES MATTER ACTIVIST: ‘WE WILL INCITE RIOTS EVERYWHERE IF TRUMP WINS’
> "Dear white people...niggas such as myself are fully hell bent on inciting riots everywhere we go"
> 
> http://www.infowars.com/top-black-lives-matter-activist-we-will-incite-riots-everywhere-if-trump-wins/


You might have been better off just quoting the individual Twitter posts from idiot boy than attributing NobodyWasKilledAtSandyHook-911'sWasAnInsideJob.com.  I've asked this before - even if a stopped clock is right twice a day, can we not do better than _this_?


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Nov 2016)

[quote author=JLB50] So what's happening now isn't totally new.  What is new, however, is the amount of intolerance being expressed. [/quote]
I don't think you appreciate the state of the world and the scope of whats happening in it. Including of course the part your birth country is playing in destabilizing it.



> Now that hatred and venom is being directed at Clinton, and with a vengeance.


Because Clinton is an innocent victim.   Poor Clinton  :



> To conclude, I would have hoped that the moderators of this Forum would have done more to tone down all the hatred being expressed.


Sorry I call BS.
You'll notice that members here who disagree with each other, even vehemently, are completely civil and cordial to each other in other threads. No one here is bashing each other, being hateful or violating forum rules.

If you want to see hatred click on the links of people getting the shit smashed out of them for expressing a political view. Or, if you're feeling adventurous , read about the track records of the countries giving the candidates money and what some of the US "allies" are doing.


----------



## McG (3 Nov 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> And neither side has the market cornered on that.  :


Its not for lack of trying on the part of either side either.  The market for stupid can expand to allow access for all who want in.


----------



## Lumber (3 Nov 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> George Soros is also bankrolling Clinton.



If we recall... no it's not.

Just because he donates money to various social welfare groups does not mean he incited these riots or supports the BLM movement.

Take the "Emerald Cities Collaborative" as an example. There mandate is "to develop new community change career pathways especially for low income communities of color." 

Does that sounds like a group that _might_ support BLM? Maybe they wouldn't actually send a bus load of their members to a riot, but what if they gave employees paid time off, or vacation days, so that _they _could go? What if they started sharing BLM posts?

My point is, do you know who funds the Emerald Cities Collaborative? The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. Should I hold tem responsible if one of the thousands of awesome charities they fund were to involve themselves in a protest?

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/19/no-george-soros-didn-t-give-33-million-to-blacklivesmatter.html



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> George Soros is also bankrolling Clinton.



So what? Individuals, even rich ones, are free to support whatever political party they wish. Some just have more push and pull than others. Welcome to our capitalist democracy. The weather sucks some times, but at least we have cake.


----------



## JLB50 (3 Nov 2016)

I suspect that some of the people here have been sniffing too much gunpowder.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Nov 2016)

JLB50 said:
			
		

> I suspect that some of the people here have been sniffing too much gunpowder.



I believe you should keep your condescending opinion of the posters here to yourself.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Nov 2016)

For all the posters here that seem so very put out by simple words, the stuff that's posted here (by me) does not necessarily mean I agree with it all.

I am simply posting what is out there.

You draw your own conclusions.

That's the way it is supposed to work. Not the couch locked spooned pablum opinions of ABC, CBS, CBC, CTV, NBC, CNN, FOX.

You get the information and YOU figure it out.

This thread has been carrying on, copacetically, for awhile. For those of you who just joined it, relax.


----------



## FJAG (3 Nov 2016)

> DONALD TRUMP’S COMPANIES DESTROYED EMAILS IN DEFIANCE OF COURT ORDERS
> 
> Over the course of decades, Donald Trump’s companies have systematically destroyed or hidden thousands of emails, digital records and paper documents demanded in official proceedings, often in defiance of court orders. ...



See article here: http://www.newsweek.com/2016/11/11/donald-trump-companies-destroyed-emails-documents-515120.html

 [cheers]


----------



## JLB50 (3 Nov 2016)

It's just that I'm finding too much intolerance that borders on paranoia.  Since taking a job here and marrying a Canadian years ago, I've worked with quite a few federal, provincial and municipal politicians , both Conservative (Progressive Conservative actually) and Liberal. Despite differences of opinion they had with one another, they still showed respect for their opponents and for the political process itself.

I just don't want to see the U.S. descend into a madness that could turn into a civil war. I also remember how my father was forced to leave his univerity position in the early years of the Joseph McCarthy witchhunt era, in which some saw communists hiding  behind every tree and under every rock. And my dad was far from being a communist.

Whether Clinton loses or Trump  loses, in another four years, an election will give the unhappy electorate the chance to get the candidate of their choice.  That's the way it's been for over 200 years.


----------



## mariomike (3 Nov 2016)

JLB50 said:
			
		

> Whether Clinton loses or Trump  loses, in another four years, an election will give the unhappy electorate the chance to get the candidate of their choice.



A Trump versus Clinton rematch in 2020 thread?


----------



## Flavus101 (3 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> A Trump versus Clinton rematch in 2020 thread?



Now that may just be too much for the US to take  ;D


----------



## Kat Stevens (3 Nov 2016)

The US needs a Governor General.


----------



## cupper (3 Nov 2016)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> The US needs a Governor General.



Actually it needs to be taken out to the woodshed. 

Or at the very least it needs adult supervision.


----------



## Remius (3 Nov 2016)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> The US needs a Governor General.



truth.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Nov 2016)

Why doesn't everyone just trust the collective US voting public to do the right thing?


----------



## GAP (3 Nov 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Why doesn't everyone just trust the collective US voting public to do the right thing?



On that basis, the collective Canadian voting public did the right thing a year ago?


----------



## George Wallace (3 Nov 2016)

GAP said:
			
		

> On that basis, the collective Canadian voting public did the right thing a year ago?



 :bravo:


----------



## cavalryman (3 Nov 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Why doesn't everyone just trust the collective US voting public to do the right thing?



 :rofl: Optimist.

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. 
-Winston Churchill


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Nov 2016)

GAP said:
			
		

> On that basis, the collective Canadian voting public did the right thing a year ago?



Whether I personally like the outcome is immaterial. A plurality of my fellow voters did. That is how these things work.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Nov 2016)

[quote author=JLB50]

Whether Clinton loses or Trump  loses, in another four years, an election will give the unhappy electorate the chance to get the candidate of their choice.  That's the way it's been for over 200 years. 
[/quote]
Have you served in the US (or any) armed forces?


----------



## Remius (3 Nov 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Whether I personally like the outcome is immaterial. A plurality of my fellow voters did. That is how these things work.



"The people are never wrong"


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Nov 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Have you served in the US (or any) armed forces?



How is that relevant?


----------



## JLB50 (3 Nov 2016)

No, Jarnhamar, I didn't serve in the military in the U.S. or Canadian military.  Back injury.  Otherwise, I would have gone into the USN, like my dad who died in a service-related accident in 1958.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Nov 2016)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> How is that relevant?


It may not be but please see below.



			
				JLB50 said:
			
		

> No, Jarnhamar, I didn't serve in the military in the U.S. or Canadian military.  Back injury.  Otherwise, I would have gone into the USN, like my dad who died in a service-related accident in 1958.


[I'm sorry to hear that he passed away JLB]

I asked that question because you  suggest whoever wins wins and there will just be another election in 4 years. Kind of no big deal. 

How I see it, the US armed forces have a pretty big stake on who wins and where they're going to get deployed stemming from that decision. For a lot of service members, depending on who wins the election, they may not get another chance to vote in four years.  

Considering Canada followed the US to Afghanistan for 10 years I would say we have a pretty big stake in who wins and where they want to go too.


----------



## mariomike (3 Nov 2016)

JLB50 said:
			
		

> No, Jarnhamar, I didn't serve in the military in the U.S. or Canadian military.



Neither did Mr. Trump.


----------



## cupper (4 Nov 2016)

;D


----------



## cupper (4 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Neither did Mr. Trump.



But he had a good excuse. Medically unfit for duty, heel spurs. So don't be so hard on the man. After all it must have been intolerably painful when he was a star athelete in high school and college. And it has got to be tough playing 18 holes suffering as he does. The pain is so bad it's made him insane. :bowing:


----------



## JLB50 (4 Nov 2016)

Jarnhamar, I agree  with much of what you say.  U.S. policy has gotten Canada and other countries, rightly or wrongly, involved in many military actions.  I believe very much in diplomacy as much as possible and using the military only as a last resort.  

Most Americans as well as Canadians have little knowledge of the fact that the seeds of discontent in, say, Iraq, weren't sown by Obama.  Nor were they created by George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush necessarily. Instead, a fair bit of the blame should be assigned to Britain and France who, following the first world war and the fall of the Ottoman Empire, created a number of middle east nations based on political expediency.  Dictators like Saddam Hussein simply held the fragile nation together through terror and force until the U.S. came along and replaced Hussein's government with its idealized version of what an Iraqi government should be like. I just don't that it's going to be easy to get the evil genie back in the bottle. And anyone who says they have an easy  answer is sadly mistaken. And Iraq is not the only country with "unnatural" borders.

I don't know what the answer is, but like you, I know that what the U.S. either does or does not do could affect the lives of our forces.  Russia has proven to be a threat, not only in the middle east but in Europe.  However, their economy is in such tatters that they may run out of money as early as mid 2017. Already, Putin is facing some severe budget cuts to his military machine. While I'm not a Ronald Reagan fan for the most part, he did sense the financial instability of the USSR and forced the Russins into an arms race they couldn't afford and ended up being a major contributor to the breakup of the Soviet Union. 

China I do see as a major future threat and sure hope that the next leader of the U.S. will be able to deal with the Chinese.  There's far more happening behind the scenes militarily and economically than most people realize.  Which reminds me of how, in 1969, the USSR and China (both Communist countries) got into a brief but intense land war over disputed territory in the far east. It involved over 100,000 troops.  There were hundreds of deaths and the Russians were terrified that China would send hundreds of thousands of soldiers across the border and cut their only major supply line...the  Trans Siberian Railway.
The Russians planned to bomb their former Chinese allies into Nuclear oblivion, but when the newly elected President Nixon got wind of it, he was worried that the nuclear fallout would endanger U.S. troops in both South Korea and South Vietnam. They U.S. then threatened tomside with the Chinese and the Russians backed down.  It also led to Nixon and Kissinger going to China, leading to the normalization of relations between the U.S. and China.  

Again, having a cool head and having a good program of diplomacy are very important for a President.  And whoever becomes President is going to need to communicate well with Congress, the American people and the leaders of other countries. 

Hope I haven't bored everyone to tears.


----------



## JLB50 (4 Nov 2016)

Sorry about the typos.  Am using a small tablet and thought the word check picked up everything


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 Nov 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> But he had a good excuse. Medically unfit for duty, heel spurs. So don't be so hard on the man. After all it must have been intolerably painful when he was a star athelete in high school and college. And it has got to be tough playing 18 holes suffering as he does. The pain is so bad it's made him insane. :bowing:



I know people that did Regimental PT every day and have been pensioned out because of heel spurs.  :waiting:
.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Nov 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I know people that did Regimental PT every day and have been pensioned out because of heel spurs.  :waiting:


Heel spurs + service + pensioned out =/= heel spurs + healing + athletics + deferring mandatory service (or not getting a chance to serve)

Also, to be fair, most of Trump's deferrments were school-related, not medical - all apparently by the rules.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Nov 2016)

And some homespun satire from a satirical (?) Putin Twitter account  ;D

_*"Trump, who has no connection to @Wikileaks knows what they'll leak tomorrow and they have no connection to leaking the stuff we hack."*_
_*"Trump is the first Republican candidate to be endorsed by Iran, North Korea, the Kremlin, @FBI & the KKK."*_
_*"Russian intel hacked the DNC @wikileaks leaked the DNC mails There's no connection between the 2"*_


----------



## Lightguns (4 Nov 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> "The people are never wrong"



There is a bunch of Alberta oil workers who voted NDP who may give you an argument, if you buy them a coffee they can no longer afford.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Nov 2016)

Wikileaks and Anonymous promise a bombshell tomorrow (05 Nov)

https://s14.postimg.org/7lkh61ze9/anon.jpg

Excerpt:



> Anonymous 11/03/16 00:09:23 No.95833740
> 
> Over the next few days many new documents will be released. The contents of these documents will contain evidence of perhaps the largest coverup in American History. Before this happens we would like to explain ourselves and answer a few questions you may have.
> 
> ...



We'll see (getting more popcorn...)


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Nov 2016)

More grist for the mill/fuel for the fire ...

_*"Sources told CBS News senior investigative producer Pat Milton that U.S. intelligence has alerted joint terrorism task forces that al Qaeda could be planning attacks in three states for Monday.  It is believed New York, Texas and Virginia are all possible targets, though no specific locations are mentioned ..."*_ (CBS)
_*"Russia is poised to mount electoral observation of the US elections, which some fear could be used as part of a campaign to discredit the US presidential elections and weaken Hillary Clinton’s position if she wins.*__  According to Bellingcat’s inquiries, Russia is planning to at least conduct a distance-monitoring mission, if not actually send a delegation to monitor the elections in person.  In the past, Bellingcat can show how personnel involved with such missions made their mind up in advance of observations, and used their reports and statements to the press to reinforce Kremlin lines and sow doubt without real evidence of electoral fraud ..." (bellingcat, anti-RUS OSINT site) -- "ROIIP (Russian Public Institute of Electoral Rights) will remotely monitor the elections in the US" (archived from RIA Novosti, RUS-state media, in Russian) -- News conference in Moscow Monday 7 Nov on U.S. election (ROIPP, in Russian)_
_
op:_


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Nov 2016)

> set of documents that would be responsible for the incarceration of Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, and 21 individuals ranging from the DNC, FBI, CIA, and Clinton foundation. These documents will show without a doubt, *evidence of Treason, Obstruction of Justice, Election Fraud/Manipulation, and Bribery.*





> The new leaks being released this week will provide documents in the form of emails, pictures, and videos. Within these will be evidence of Bill Clinton, as well as at least 6 other Government officials,* taking part in sexual acts with minors. As well as evidence of Human trafficking that also included minors.*



Sounds sorta bad I suppose, but hardly enough to sway Clinton voters  ;D


----------



## McG (4 Nov 2016)

Not sure if I am validating or skirting Goodwin's Law here, but ...

If Hitler and Stalin were resurrected from the dead in the US and they won candidacy for the Republican and Democratic parties respectively, I suspect the voters still could not put together a plurality of support behind a third party or independent candidate ... even with "birthers" arguing in the wings that resurrected in the US is not the same as born in the US.

There are at least two other candidates who have access to enough electoral college votes by virtue of the states which include them on the ballot, and more other candidates if one considers allowed write-ins who are not on the ballot.  For all the horrible things that are being presented about both Trump & Clinton, is it really possible that all the other candidates are actually worse?


----------



## mariomike (4 Nov 2016)

New York Times today,

A Militia Gets Battle Ready for a ‘Gun-Grabbing’ Clinton Presidency
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/05/us/a-militia-gets-battle-ready-for-a-gun-grabbing-clinton-presidency.html



			
				MCG said:
			
		

> For all the horrible things that are being presented about both Trump & Clinton, is it really possible that all the other candidates are actually worse?



Maybe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU


----------



## Remius (4 Nov 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> There is a bunch of Alberta oil workers who voted NDP who may give you an argument, if you buy them a coffee they can no longer afford.



I put it in quotes.  Stephen Harper actually said that when he lost the last election.

And while the people are never wrong, the people can be stupid.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Nov 2016)

Many people vote for the party their parent voted for, started out that way and then moved across the spectrum when I started to read what the parties said and saw what they did/didn’t do. Some people never question their party loyalty. It would be healthy for everyone if they did. I prefer Trump for 2 things, Supreme Court picks and that trump represents political chaos and the US political system needs a healthy dose of chaos and the tables at the political elite temple being kicked. He will drag in new insiders who will challenge the current monopoly that is to comfortable. It would be nice if someone even farther from the corridors of power got in, but the system is rigged by the vast expense required to be a contender. Reduce the costs of running and then you might see more people. However the main lesson to be learned from this election is that no normal human being has a background clean enough to survive the scrutiny being done. That will leave the field open to the politically addicted and the Puritans, which scares me.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Nov 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> ... no normal human being has a background clean enough to survive the scrutiny being done. That will leave the field open to the politically addicted and the Puritans, which scares me.



Colin - in 1660 the Brits chucked out the Bible Thumper son of Oliver Cromwell and all the Sadd Green wearing Puritans and "elected" Charles II as their King - a king with 9 mistresses, including the inimitable Nell Gwyn 



> "Pray good people be civil, I am the Protestant whore" was Nell Gwyn's cheeky retort to the masses pushing around her coach in the mistaken belief that it was that of the Duchess of Portsmouth, the Catholic Louise de Keroualle. 'Pretty, witty Nell' was perhaps the best known and remembered mistress of King Charles II.



And Samuel Pepys diary of a bureaucrat makes for some pretty racy reading by a modern.

Morality is over-rated.

By the way, the Carolinas and their culture, were founded by aristocratic supporters of Charles.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Nov 2016)

VERY interesting approach from The Donald's social media dude via Twitter ...


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Nov 2016)

From today's Telegraph:



> Democracy’s a nightmare. Let’s just put the Queen back in charge
> 
> MICHAEL DEACON
> PARLIAMENTARY SKETCHWRITER Michael Deacon 4 NOVEMBER 2016 • 4:51PM
> ...



I'm with him.  [cheers]


----------



## Jed (4 Nov 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Many people vote for the party their parent voted for, started out that way and then moved across the spectrum when I started to read what the parties said and saw what they did/didn’t do. Some people never question their party loyalty. It would be healthy for everyone if they did. I prefer Trump for 2 things, Supreme Court picks and that trump represents political chaos and the US political system needs a healthy dose of chaos and the tables at the political elite temple being kicked. He will drag in new insiders who will challenge the current monopoly that is to comfortable. It would be nice if someone even farther from the corridors of power got in, but the system is rigged by the vast expense required to be a contender. Reduce the costs of running and then you might see more people. However the main lesson to be learned from this election is that no normal human being has a background clean enough to survive the scrutiny being done. That will leave the field open to the politically addicted and the Puritans, which scares me.



You have stated my opinion better than if I had written it myself.


----------



## mariomike (4 Nov 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Sounds sorta bad I suppose, but hardly enough to sway Clinton voters  ;D



Perhaps Mr. Trump said it best.  

Election is only four days away, and we are only four pages away from 100! 

Anyone interested in a friendly little pool of our own? ( An election pool that is. Not on the violence which may, or may not, follow the election. )


----------



## Good2Golf (4 Nov 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> Not sure if I am validating or skirting Goodwin's Law here, but ...



[pedant]

G*o*dwin. 

[/pedant]

 :bowing:


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Nov 2016)

Oopsie - someone's newsroom is champing at the bit to say it ...


> Fox News anchor Bret Baier apologized Friday for reporting that federal investigators had determined that Hillary Clinton’s private email server had been hacked and that an investigation would lead to an indictment of Clinton after the election.
> 
> In fact, Baier said, after checking with his sources, there is no evidence at this time for either statement.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Mr. Trump sent a lot of angry tweets to his followers when President Obama was re-elected in 2012,
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/18/politics/donald-trump-rigged-vote-twitter-2012/
> "We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!"
> 
> CNN: "Sound familiar? Trump called 2012 vote a 'total sham' "



Refresh my memory.  Was CNN the news agency that had the employee who secretly gave Hillary Clinton the presendital debate  questions?


----------



## mariomike (4 Nov 2016)

I don't know which media sources are acceptable to you. 

Is Canada's National Post acceptable to you?

‘Revolution!’: Donald Trump and Fox News suffer epic election-night meltdowns after Obama’s victory
http://wpmedia.news.nationalpost.com/2012/11/donald-trump-2.jpg?quality=65&strip=all


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Nov 2016)

Did the national post give someone debate answers too?


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Nov 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Refresh my memory.  Was CNN the news agency that had the employee who secretly gave Hillary Clinton the presendital debate  questions?


Like I've said in the U.S. election thread, if there's any question about who's doing the quoting, maybe it's better just quoting directly from the candidate's Twitter feed from 2012:

_*"Very dangerous pattern developing across country by Obama supporters. Detroit poll watcher was threatened with gun"*_
_*"We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!"*_


----------



## krustyrl (4 Nov 2016)

Apparently it was CNN's political commenter Donna Brazile


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Nov 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> There is a bunch of Alberta oil workers who voted NDP who may give you an argument, if you buy them a coffee they can no longer afford.



Probably the communist, union indoctrinated idiots from Ontario and Quebec that went there for work. They travel around looking for work, with all the union perks. When they can't find it, they degrade everyone else's employment with their activist sentiments and try instill everyone else with their collective bullshit. Invariably it ends with corporate shutdowns and massive layoffs. Devastating to most honest working people, but union organisers don't care because they get paid either way.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Nov 2016)

krustyrl said:
			
		

> Apparently it was CNN's political commenter Donna Brazile



Yes it was. Irrefutable evidence proving the Dems complicity in subverting the rule of law.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Perhaps Mr. Trump said it best.
> 
> Election is only four days away, and we are only four pages away from 100!
> 
> Anyone interested in a friendly little pool of our own? ( An election pool that is. Not on the violence which may, or may not, follow the election. )



I'm in, my vote is for Clinton winning the election.  

Incidentally  do you still have access to medical supplies? I wanna stock up my prepping stash


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Nov 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Yes it was. Irrefutable evidence proving the Dems complicity in *subverting the rule of law*.


Leaking a debate question is a *HUGE* revelation of insecurity and an ethical disaster (both _*huge*_ strikes against Team Clinton), but what law was broken here?  Or is that dealing with another Brazile f**k-up?


----------



## tomahawk6 (5 Nov 2016)

This subject is tin foil hat stuff.We have had contentious campaigns in the past without civil war erupting.Look no further than Bush-Gore which was settled by the Supreme Court.To this day some on the left feel that Gore was the winner.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Nov 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> This subject is tin foil hat stuff.We have had contentious campaigns in the past without civil war erupting.Look no further than Bush-Gore which was settled by the Supreme Court.


You're there, so I'm curious on your take:  I remember that back-and-forth, too, and it eventually did get sorted out.  Do you remember it being as hateful/vicious though?  Honestly _not_ poking, but from the outside looking in, that campaign was polarized, but didn't NEARLY as antagonistic as this one.


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Nov 2016)

I agree with Milnews.  People on both sides are getting full on assaulted in the streets for wearing a hat and the accusations being leveled are significantly higher and world encompassing.


----------



## mariomike (5 Nov 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> We have had contentious campaigns in the past without civil war erupting.



Hopefully, there will be no inflammatory Twitter rants from the loser.  

As an outsider looking in, I have always been impressed by the gracious concession speeches in Presidential elections that lead to a smooth transition of power. 

"This presidential election "must" follow the American traditional for the candidate who does not win to give a gracious and heartfelt concession speech. In the speech they should pledge their undivided support to the winner, and tell their supporters to support the winner 100% as well."

Here’s a video of televised concession speeches from every presidential candidate since Richard Nixon in 1960.
http://time.com/4539461/presidential-concession-speeches-video/

"Donald Trump is threatening to make history—in an unfortunate way—by refusing to concede if he loses on Election Night."

Why Trump’s concession speech would be like no other in U.S. history
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/election/article112552522.html#storylink=cpy

Here’s What Donald Trump Rejects When He Undermines the Election Results
http://time.com/4538700/election-concession-history-donald-trump/
He's threatening to turn his back on the centuries-long achievement of American democracy

Presidential concession speeches - from multiple sources
https://www.google.ca/search?q=presidential+election+concession+speeches&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=eNAdWNO7EceC8QeY6Y3ABA&gws_rd=ssl#q=presidential+concession+speech&tbs=qdr:m


----------



## Journeyman (5 Nov 2016)

> *Voters repulsed by U.S. election campaign, poll finds *
> An overwhelming majority of voters are disgusted by the state of American politics, and many harbour doubts that either major-party nominee can unite the country after a historically ugly presidential campaign, according to the final pre-election New York Times/CBS News Poll.


LINK
Oh, so it's not _just_  me.  



I wasn't sure if this fit better here, in the other US Election/civil war thread.... or maybe start a third US Election thread.   :


----------



## mariomike (5 Nov 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm in, my vote is for Clinton winning the election.



I didn't mean who we expect will win. But, who would we vote for, if we had the opportunity. An anonymous election poll of our own. 

We had one in 2012, but it was for who we _expected_  to win, rather than who we would vote for in a secret ballot.

On Nov 6 Who Will Win President Obama or Mitt Romney ? 
https://army.ca/forums/threads/83554.0.html


----------



## muskrat89 (5 Nov 2016)

> "Donald Trump is threatening to make history—in an unfortunate way—by refusing to concede if he loses on Election Night."



Attacking the sources in 3....2....1.....

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/media-outraged-trump-concede-results-something-dems-2000/

http://www.redstate.com/patterico/2016/10/20/guess-else-refused-accept-results-presidential-election/


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Nov 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> But he had a good excuse. Medically unfit for duty, heel spurs. So don't be so hard on the man. After all it must have been intolerably painful when he was a star athelete in high school and college. And it has got to be tough playing 18 holes suffering as he does. The pain is so bad it's made him insane. :bowing:


Just look at how the pain keeps his hair on end like that.  Sorta a slicked down Don King style.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Nov 2016)

Bill Clinton avoided the Draft also. I believe there was lots of discussion re deferment of rich guys during the Vietnam War.


----------



## mariomike (5 Nov 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I believe there was lots of discussion re deferment of rich guys during the Vietnam War.


----------



## QV (5 Nov 2016)

Neither of the Clintons served.


----------



## mariomike (5 Nov 2016)

QV said:
			
		

> Neither of the Clintons served.



Mrs. Clinton was not subject to the Draft. Mr. Clinton and Mr. Trump were.


----------



## QV (5 Nov 2016)

Right.


----------



## observor 69 (5 Nov 2016)

Ah yes Mr.Trump:

"But after he graduated from college in the spring of 1968, making him eligible to be drafted and sent to Vietnam, he received a diagnosis that would change his path: bone spurs in his heels."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/02/us/politics/donald-trump-draft-record.html


----------



## George Wallace (5 Nov 2016)

So?  Now the Chairman of Homeland Security has outright called Hillary a Traitor, and implicated PROTUS as communicating on insecure means with her under a pseudonym.   They now believe five or more foreign intelligence agencies hacked all those email communications.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HtZXJnVfAA


----------



## observor 69 (5 Nov 2016)

So you might want to take a look at this. Whole lot of apologizing going on.   

Fact Check 

 Politics  

 Premature Litigation

An inaccurate claim that Hillary Clinton was indicted for treason followed in the wake of a report that her e-mail server was hacked by multiple foreign intelligence agencies.

http://www.snopes.com/homeland-security-indicts-hillary/


----------



## George Wallace (5 Nov 2016)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> So you might want to take a look at this. Whole lot of apologizing going on.
> 
> Fact Check
> 
> ...



Guess you never watched the video.

He outright called it treasonous.  That is his opinion.

It is right there in front of your eyes and if you turn on your volume, you will hear him say it.  Snopes can not discredit the video evidence.......Or are other outside Intelligence Agencies now using CGI to create videos discrediting Hillary Clinton?


----------



## cupper (5 Nov 2016)

Everyone at Fox News wet themselves when they got the scoop from Brett Baier.

Only to have Baier come out the next day and retract his story.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/04/fox-news-apologizes-clinton-report/93300254/

And the "Chairman of Homeland Security" you refer to is the REPUBLICAN Chairman of a congressional committee, so isn't exactly a shining beacon of truthiness.

Sorry George, you're about 48 hours behind the 24 hour news cycle.


----------



## George Wallace (5 Nov 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Everyone at Fox News wet themselves when they got the scoop from Brett Baier.
> 
> Only to have Baier come out the next day and retract his story.
> 
> ...



I really don't have a horse in this race and am not betting on any of the current horses.  It really doesn't matter what or who the news agency is showing this video broadcast, it is right there for you to see and hear.  So what if you have a low opinion of Fox News.  It really is irrelevant.  So, the CHAIRMAN is a Republican.  I am sure that he has just as many who are not Republicans on that panel/committee.  Again: it is his opinion.  Whether or not all the committee agree that it was Treason, again doesn't matter, until they have a unanimous statement, or lay charges, of Treason.  His statement, however, can not be ignored as a jest.  I would imagine that making it will either make or break his career.

AND ONCE AGAIN, I POINT OUT THAT WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT WHAT WAS SHOWN ON THE VIDEO I LINKED.


----------



## cupper (5 Nov 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> AND ONCE AGAIN, I POINT OUT THAT WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IS NOT WHAT WAS SHOWN ON THE VIDEO I LINKED.



Actually I did watch the video, and yes I am talking about what was stated in the video. Steve Duce starts the conversataion referencing Baeir's report, which included the incorrect statement the the server was hacked by 5 foreign agencies.



> Fox News anchor Bret Baier apologized on air Friday for his report that Hillary Clinton faces a "likely" indictment as the result of a  federal investigation into the Clinton Foundation *and for his report that Clinton's private email server had been hacked by five foreign intelligence agencies.*
> 
> Both of Baier's mistaken reports were made Wednesday night in an appearance with Fox News Channel's Brit Hume. At the time, Baier said the information was based on "two separate sources with intimate knowledge of the FBI investigations into the Clinton emails and the Clinton Foundation."



Having read portions of the FBI's summary of the investigation, there is no definitive evidence that the information stored on the server was compromised. The only intrusion that was shown was by Guccifer, which accessed a separate e-mail set up for former Pesident Clinton and his office staff. There is no evidence that information was taken from the server.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-documents-in-hillary-clinton-e-mail-investigation

I was listening to a story on This American Life which interviewed Garret Graff a reporter on the national security and political beat. He read the full summary when it was released, and essentially the whole e-mailgate story comes down to 1) Clinton is clueless when it comes to technology, and cannot adapt to any changes to what she is used to using (several staffers reported that she didn't know how to use a desk top computer). 2) A culture within government that the rules are really just guidelines 3) A government that is still operating computer systems that were state of the art back in the previous century. 4) staffers that were incompetent when it came to transferring and backing up information to protect document retention.

When the story is available online tomorrow night I will add a link to it. It is very eye opening.

For now the link to the promo and story summary is here:

https://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/601/master-of-her-domain-name


----------



## cupper (5 Nov 2016)

;D


----------



## cupper (5 Nov 2016)

Fortunately security prevented something serious from happening, and Trump went on later to finish his speech.

*Trump rushed off stage at campaign rally*

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/05/politics/trump-rushed-off-stage-at-campaign-rally/index.html



> Reno, Nevada (CNN)Donald Trump was rushed off a stage here Saturday by Secret Service agents during a campaign speech after an incident in the crowd near the front of the stage.
> 
> A scuffle could be seen breaking out in the audience, but it was not immediately clear what happened. A law enforcement official told CNN no weapon was discovered. The GOP nominee was apparently unharmed and returned to the stage minutes later to finish his speech.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Nov 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I would imagine that making it will either make or break his career.


As a Republican Member of Congress, I'm guessing saying Hillary is treasonous won't do his career any harm.  And as for his chairmanship, I'm also guessing that'll depend what Congress looks like after the election.

It looks like everyone's correct -- the Chair of the Committee calls it "treason", but Fox News guy who first said she would "likely" be indicted, and now says, "uh, nobody knows if that's going to happen or not."


----------



## mariomike (5 Nov 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Fortunately security prevented something serious from happening, and Trump went on later to finish his speech.



The scenario of the sudden demise - due to causes natural or unnatural - of either candidate this close to Nov. 8th has probably been considered by the legal community. 
What effect it would have now on the election is likely too morbid for polite discussion in politically mixed company.  

Glad he is ok and hopefully there will be no problems with either candidate!


----------



## cupper (5 Nov 2016)

The Secret Service apparently released a statement which says that when the scuffle broke out someone yelled "Gun!". They said that no gun was found.


----------



## mariomike (6 Nov 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> The Secret Service apparently released a statement which says that when the scuffle broke out someone yelled "Gun!". They said that no gun was found.



I'm sure Clint wouldn't hesitate to take a bullet for either candidate!


----------



## Brad Sallows (6 Nov 2016)

Item 1:

>Do you remember it [2000 post-election?] being as hateful/vicious though?

To add my $0.02, I was in FL (Orlando, Miami, Key West) for a couple of weeks just after the election.  Can't speak to what was going on in the rest of the US, but everything in those communities looked like business as usual, except for endless TV coverage of legal minutiae that was most likely boring the heck out of everyone.  Even today I could probably still pick David Boies out of a line up.

Item 2:

With respect to Trump's supposed refusal to accept the election result - he hasn't refused anything yet; the election result isn't in.  What he said was basically that he'd wait to see the result: “I will look at it at the time. I will keep you in suspense.”  Not sure how deranged you have to be to interpret that as an outright refusal, let alone a threat to foment revolution (as some would have it).  Nearly every candidate in history waits to see how close a result is before conceding; nearly every candidate in history reserves the right to contest a close result.

Item 3:

Baier relied on an FBI claim that an indictment was likely, barring DoJ obstruction.  (The FBI doesn't level indictments.)  Welcome to the land of Chomsky-fied "no true Scotsman" statements.  Comey not too long ago: "No reasonable prosecutor would bring a case."  Some guy inside the FBI now: "No reasonable prosecutor would fail to seek an indictment."  Meanwhile, very little else that Baier said has been refuted.  My guess: since the DoJ has to bring the indictment and the DoJ will not for political reasons, an indictment is unlikely.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Nov 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> ;D





> Godwin's law
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> American attorney and author Mike Godwin coined his eponymous law on Usenet in 1990
> ...



 [cheers]


----------



## mariomike (6 Nov 2016)

The inventor of "Godwin's Law" had this to say,

By Mike Godwin
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/12/14/sure-call-trump-a-nazi-just-make-sure-you-know-what-youre-talking-about/
"If you’re thoughtful about it and show some real awareness of history, go ahead and refer to Hitler or Nazis when you talk about Trump. Or any other politician."

More regarding "Godwin's Law" and Mr. Trump,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump+godwin&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=5yUfWIjyHauC8QeR-YCADg&gws_rd=ssl

Scenes from the Trump rally in NV where he was rushed off-stage by Secret Service.  Lots of Paramedics in ballistic helmets and vests.
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2016/11/05/us/scenes-from-the-trump-rally-in-reno/s/rally-ss-slide-3WIA.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0


----------



## cupper (6 Nov 2016)

But if you are having a discussion about Hitler and the Nazi era, does Godwin's Law apply?  [


----------



## cupper (6 Nov 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Wikileaks and Anonymous promise a bombshell tomorrow (05 Nov)
> 
> We'll see (getting more popcorn...)



 :crickets: 

Still waiting.


----------



## cupper (6 Nov 2016)

[

https://youtu.be/SvGiqzblasg


----------



## cupper (6 Nov 2016)

So, was anyone expecting a different outcome?

Or is this the White House flexing its influnce to ensure Clinton gets in?

I can guess what the majority opinion is. op:

*FBI Affirms July Decision Not To Charge Clinton, After Review Of Weiner Emails*

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/11/06/500929164/comey-we-have-not-changed-our-conclusions-as-fbi-finishes-clinton-email-review



> Following up on his letter that set off a firestorm of speculation just two weeks before U.S. voters head to the polls to choose a new president, FBI Director James Comey says the investigative team that analyzed a new trove of emails that were either to or from Hillary Clinton has finished it work — and that the review doesn't change the findings he put forth in July.
> 
> "Since my letter, the FBI investigative team has been working around the clock to process and review a large volume of emails from a device obtained in connection with an unrelated criminal investigation," Comey wrote Sunday, in an official communication with 16 chairmen and ranking members of relevant House and Senate committees.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Nov 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> So, was anyone expecting a different outcome?
> 
> Or is this the White House flexing its influnce to ensure Clinton gets in?
> 
> ...



Dunno.  And that's the problem.

Nobody knows nuffink no more.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Nov 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> So, was anyone expecting a different outcome?


Not me.  I can think of over 600'000 reasons why James Comey chose not to charge her


----------



## mariomike (6 Nov 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Not me.  I can think of over 600'000 reasons why James Comey chose not to charge her



Saw this ( someone's wishful thinking ) perp walk titled, "I have a Dream!"


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Nov 2016)

And this from Daesh leading up to the election (7 page PDF at non-terrorist site here) - highlights mine:


> ... as  it  is  clear  that * the  voter  is  a  part  of  the taghut of democracy* – “the power of the people” – and that the voters are directly involved in the decision making process by choosing delegates to represent them and their  whims  executively,  judicially,  and  legislatively,  *the  blood of Crusader voters is even more deserving of being spilled than the blood of Crusader combatants*. The same would apply to the blood of female voters, as they are no longer  mere  wives  serving  Crusader  husbands  and  raising  cross-worshiping  children,  rather  *female  voters  are  part  of  the  democratic  taghut  that  decrees  the  crusades  to be waged against Islam and the Muslims, and are thus just  as  actively  responsible  for  the  Muslim  blood  being  spilled as the male, Crusader soldier on the frontlines* ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Nov 2016)

Sooner may have been better for his campaign ...


> ... Aides to Mr. Trump have finally wrested away the Twitter account that he used to colorfully — and often counterproductively — savage his rivals.
> 
> ( ... )
> 
> ...


----------



## mariomike (7 Nov 2016)

Even if he doesn't get Air Force One - not to insinuate he won't! - Mr. Trump has a pretty nice air ride himself.

But, I wonder if these rich guys ever miss the era of campaigning across America in private rail cars?
https://www.google.ca/search?q=private+rail+car&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjXzZbpjJfQAhWj54MKHa9PDyQQ_AUICCgB&biw=1536&bih=770#tbm=isch&q=%22private+rail+car%22

“I can’t confirm it’s true. But apparently his campaign has taken away his Twitter. In the last two days, they had so little confidence in his self-control, they said, ‘We’re just going to take away his Twitter,’” Obama said.
Obama continued: “Now, if somebody can’t handle a Twitter account, they can’t handle the nuclear codes. If somebody starts tweeting at 3 in the morning because ‘SNL’ made fun of you, then you can’t handle the nuclear codes.”  

Whoever loses will be devastated and whoever wins will rub the other side’s noses in it. In New York, public resources are being expended to the nth degree. The FDNY-EMS, NYPD, and others will be working overtime times 3. The biggest concern among most? The potential of rioting in the streets.
http://www.funnygov.com/election-night-new-york-city-hillary-trump/


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Nov 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And this from Daesh leading up to the election (7 page PDF at non-terrorist site here) - highlights mine:



Hard to fault the logic.


----------



## Journeyman (7 Nov 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And this from Daesh leading up to the election (7 page PDF at non-terrorist site here) - highlights mine:
> ....*  the blood of Crusader voters is even more deserving of being spilled than the blood of Crusader combatants.*


A FragO, with Commander's Intent being "you know, if any of you radicalized folks sitting around the US are looking for a suitable target, the Grand Poobah blesses attacking polling stations.  :nod: "?


----------



## dapaterson (7 Nov 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> A FragO, with Commander's Intent being "you know, if any of you radicalized folks sitting around the US are looking for a suitable target, the Grand Poobah blesses attacking polling stations.  :nod: "?



Don't be ridiculous,

You can't just issue orders.   You need elaborate PowerPoint kabuki theatre to let all the staff officers present a single slide that's irrelevant to the issue at hand, followed by pointless discussions, followed by drafts in both official languages that go through an ever growing series of advisors, culminating in a draft that gets derailed because the environmental annex is insufficiently inclusive, before you can finally issue commander's guidance on drafting the order to form a working group to study the issues to be considered when assembling the first draft of the orders.


----------



## Journeyman (7 Nov 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Don't be ridiculous


You're a very bitter individual.  Don't change.   ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Nov 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Hard to fault the logic.


Especially when there's going to be people assembled at polling stations soon.


			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Don't be ridiculous ...


JM beat me to the "so cynical for someone so young" punch - and I second his "don't change"  ;D


----------



## George Wallace (7 Nov 2016)

Granny and Jed discuss the upcoming election


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Nov 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Many people vote for the party their parent voted for, started out that way and then moved across the spectrum when I started to read what the parties said and saw what they did/didn’t do. Some people never question their party loyalty. It would be healthy for everyone if they did. I prefer Trump for 2 things, Supreme Court picks and that trump represents political chaos and the US political system needs a healthy dose of chaos and the tables at the political elite temple being kicked. He will drag in new insiders who will challenge the current monopoly that is to comfortable. It would be nice if someone even farther from the corridors of power got in, but the system is rigged by the vast expense required to be a contender. Reduce the costs of running and then you might see more people. However the main lesson to be learned from this election is that no normal human being has a background clean enough to survive the scrutiny being done. That will leave the field open to the politically addicted and the Puritans, which scares me.



I stole that....


----------



## mariomike (7 Nov 2016)

NYPD outlines security operation for Election Day when Clinton & Trump will be in NYC. 
http://nypost.com/2016/11/07/nypd-vows-to-keep-city-both-candidates-safe-on-election-day/
More than 5,000 cops will be stationed across all five boroughs – a deployment comparable in scale to that during New Year’s Eve and the recent papal visit, officials said at a press conference in Times Square.

“This is by far the biggest election detail the NYPD has ever had,” NYPD Chief of Department Carlos Gomez said while flanked by Mayor de Blasio, police Commissioner James O’Neill, Secret Service officials and other city leaders.

Hillary Clinton will not have fireworks display over NYC. She canceled it. One less headache for FDNY and NYPD.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Nov 2016)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I stole that....


You mean "borrowed" it - since it's not missing here  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Nov 2016)

Had to giggle at this one from a RUS Foreign Minister parody (?) Twitter feed:


> Imagine being Donald's campaign manager saying that you should trust him to have the nuke launch codes after you banned him from tweeting.


----------



## mariomike (7 Nov 2016)

All kidding aside,

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/08/05/our-nuclear-procedures-are-crazier-than-trump/

In a 30 March 2012 public interview with the Council on Foreign Relations, former United States National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski explained that after learning of what was later a false alarm regarding a potential nuclear attack, he had three minutes to determine if he should inform the President of the United States. The President would then have a time period of four minutes to decide what to do next. Foreign Policy magazine reported on this in a 5 August 2016 article: "he recalled having only three minutes to decide whether or not to inform the president, after which the president had four minutes to decide whether or not to retaliate."


----------



## a_majoor (7 Nov 2016)

Culture of corruption:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/06/exclusive-virginia-gov-pardons-60000-felons-enough-to-swing-election/



> *EXCLUSIVE: Virginia Gov. Pardons 60,000 Felons, Enough To Swing Election*
> LUKE ROSIAK
> Investigative Reporter
> 8:30 AM 11/06/2016
> ...


_- mod edit to fix link URL -_


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Nov 2016)

And for the latest predictions ...


> Since pollsters, citizens, and the media all seem to have no idea who will win tomorrow’s presidential election, “psychic animals” are now being consulted.
> 
> In Scotland, a goat named Boots that rose to fame by predicting futures for his fans across the nation has chosen Hillary Clinton as the big winner. Earlier this year, the 3-year-old Golden Guernsey goat, who wears a tartan hat and scarf, correctly predicted the outcome of the Brexit vote when pollsters and pundits had no clue.
> 
> The global psychic animal kingdom appears to be in disagreement however, as last week Gena, a famous monkey in China who has been dubbed the "the king of prophets," called the election for Trump by lovingly kissing a cardboard cutout of the candidate on the face ...


Source


----------



## cupper (7 Nov 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> A FragO, with Commander's Intent being "you know, if any of you radicalized folks sitting around the US are looking for a suitable target, the Grand Poobah blesses attacking polling stations.  :nod: "?





			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Don't be ridiculous,
> 
> You can't just issue orders.   You need elaborate PowerPoint kabuki theatre to let all the staff officers present a single slide that's irrelevant to the issue at hand, followed by pointless discussions, followed by drafts in both official languages that go through an ever growing series of advisors, culminating in a draft that gets derailed because the environmental annex is insufficiently inclusive, before you can finally issue commander's guidance on drafting the order to form a working group to study the issues to be considered when assembling the first draft of the orders.



Let's not forget that there will be boo coo Trump pole watches open carrying who won't think twice about taking out anyone who fits the profile, armed or not.  [


----------



## George Wallace (7 Nov 2016)

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> Matthew Fisher: No matter what the result of the U.S. presidential election, this genie is not going back in the bottle
> Matthew Fisher
> Monday, Nov. 7, 2016
> The National Post
> ...




More on LINK


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Nov 2016)

The nuke launch codes are way safer in Clintons hands. She would never risk all her back door Clinton Foundation deals and "birthday gifts" by using those suckers.


----------



## Chispa (7 Nov 2016)

They might windup with 3 main parties after the election, which might be a good thing? What ever the outcome the Red, White, & Blue, USA, internationally, etc., has one heck of a black eye.

Who ever wins, crooked Hillary or Loud Mouth Schnook Trump, USA is Boned for the next 4 years.

Canadians should demand a Wall be built, although not aware we should demand Trump pay for.


C.U.


----------



## Chispa (7 Nov 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The nuke launch codes are way safer in Clintons hands. She would never risk all her back door Clinton Foundation deals and "birthday gifts" by using those suckers.



Your argument holds water, greasing the wheels on masse [lol:


----------



## cupper (7 Nov 2016)

:rofl:

Another good one from the Canada Party.

https://youtu.be/QSkqSv6fcSw


----------



## cupper (7 Nov 2016)

Not sure how his supporters will take this kind of defeatist attitude Tuesday night after the results come in. Or Wednesday. Or Thursday. Or December. 

*Donald Trump Says Loss Would Spell ‘Single Greatest Waste of Time’
GOP candidate dismisses talk of postelection Trump ‘movement’: ‘It won’t mean a damn thing’*

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-trump-stakes-claim-to-florida-as-home-turf-1478542526



> RALEIGH, N.C.—Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has always described his campaign as a zero-sum game.
> 
> And even as he admitted at the second of five rallies Monday that victory wasn't “100%,” he offered no path forward to the faithful who have waved signs, knocked on doors, made phone calls, raised money and performed endless other tasks on his behalf.
> 
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (8 Nov 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> In one meta-moment, Mr. Trump held up a mask of his own face and remarked, “Nice set of hair.”


Ahhhh...clutching at the Justin Kardashian Trudeau mantra   ;D


----------



## Blackadder1916 (8 Nov 2016)

And the first results are in - from Dixville Notch, New Hampshire

Clinton    4
Trump     2
Johnson   1
Romney   1


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Nov 2016)

Other than the whining from the losing side to come, I am so glad election day has dawned, I won't have to listen to it anymore.


----------



## Remius (8 Nov 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Other than the whining from the losing side to come, I am so glad election day has dawned, I won't have to listen to it anymore.



Yes but now you'll have months of challenges, post-mortems, what ifs and fights with congress and the senate to get anything done.

Sounds like the same to me...


----------



## mariomike (8 Nov 2016)

A comment I read,

"Ah, to be in Canada where two month elections are outrageously long. Really the American system has long devolved now from being important to farcical entertainment. Within that scope it makes perfect sense the consummate entertainer would get this far, doesn't it'?"


----------



## George Wallace (8 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> A comment I read,
> 
> "Ah, to be in Canada where two month elections are outrageously long. Really the American system has long devolved now from being important to farcical entertainment. Within that scope it makes perfect sense the consummate entertainer would get this far, doesn't it'?"



It is the ultimate American Reality Show.


----------



## mariomike (8 Nov 2016)

Interesting to note this thread started exactly four years ago from tomorrow : November 09, 2012

Congratulations guys, we made our 100 pages!

Time to start a Donald versus Hillary 2020 re-match thread?


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Nov 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Yes but now you'll have months of challenges, post-mortems, what ifs and fights with congress and the senate to get anything done.
> 
> Sounds like the same to me...



There will be that added to the whining, yes.  But that being said, I don't believe it will be as invasive as the election run up.  Also,  looking forward to a stronger Canadian dollar too for the next while.


----------



## Remius (8 Nov 2016)

Blackadder1916 said:
			
		

> And the first results are in - from Dixville Notch, New Hampshire
> 
> Clinton    4
> Trump     2
> ...



I love how the press is just chomping at the bit like a bunch of hungry dogs.  8 people vote and it is national news  :


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Nov 2016)

Possibly a Dog should be elected POTUS.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt1uxEVZROg


----------



## FJAG (8 Nov 2016)

At Disney World today.

So far, no rioting in the streets. All is calm.

 :cdnsalute:


----------



## dapaterson (8 Nov 2016)

Fearless prediction / Occam's razor:

Tonight at 23:45 EST, at the Trump rally, Donald J Trump will take centre stage and begin to sing the Mighty Mouse theme song, then pull off his mask to reveal that the entire campaign was a piece of performance art by Andy Kaufman.


----------



## Journeyman (8 Nov 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Fearless prediction / Occam's razor:
> 
> Tonight at 23:45 EST, at the Trump rally, Donald J Trump will take centre stage and begin to sing the Mighty Mouse theme song, then pull off his mask to reveal that the entire campaign was a piece of performance art by Andy Kaufman.


And _that_  would be seen as a logical explanation....even with him being dead all these years.  Personally, I was clinging to the hope that the entire thing has been a dream by Victoria Principal's "Dallas" character.


----------



## Chispa (8 Nov 2016)

Celebs moving if Donald Trump wins
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/08/entertainment/celebs-canada-donald-trump/index.html

Many state Canada, well certainly all welcomed, however for the exception of one: Snivelling Ted Cruz, should be officially declared as persona non grata. 

Cape Breton and the 'Trump Bump'
Cape Breton Island, Nova Scotia (CNN)As we wound down a series of switchbacks toward the Seal Island Bridge, my ears popping as we left the rolling green highlands behind and descended to Bras d'Or -- a massive inland sea -- Donny Hall told me that he was surprised at the worldwide attention his small island of Cape Breton was currently attracting.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/04/travel/cape-breton-island-canada-trump-bump/



C.U.


----------



## mariomike (8 Nov 2016)

Chispa said:
			
		

> Celebs moving if Donald Trump wins



America's loss will be Canada's loss.


----------



## Chispa (8 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> America's loss will be Canada's loss.



Can U kindly elaborate? Canada with the exchange, location, etc., many movies, etc., are made.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Nov 2016)

In case you're interested in following the news/polling, here's a page I pulled together @ the start of the campaign.

There's a range of sources, but be warned:  infowars.com and globalresearch.ca aren't included  ;D

op:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Nov 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Let's not forget that there will be boo coo Trump pole watches open carrying who won't think twice about taking out anyone who fits the profile, armed or not.  [



Smilie or not, that is a ridiculous and irresponsible statement to make.

Besides, during the run of this election, the democrats have proven themselves, time and again, to be the party with the violent supporters, not the GOP.


----------



## Chispa (8 Nov 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> In case you're interested in following the news/polling, here's a page I pulled together @ the start of the campaign.
> 
> There's a range of sources, but be warned:  infowars.com and globalresearch.ca aren't included  ;D
> 
> op:




Seen way too many, certainly all over the map, will see in 6 hrs.


----------



## Jed (8 Nov 2016)

Chispa said:
			
		

> Can U kindly elaborate? Canada with the exchange, location, etc., many movies, etc., are made.



I'll bite.  Why would Canada want those elitist prigs coming up here to spread their nonsense ?  [


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Nov 2016)

Chispa said:
			
		

> Can U kindly elaborate? Canada with the exchange, location, etc., many movies, etc., are made.



Not wanting to put words in MM's mouth, but I believe he's talking about 'our loss if American celebrities move here. I have to agree though. I don't need or want Rosie O'Donnel or Whoopi Goldberg, George Clooney or DiCaprio coming here as residents, thank you very much.


----------



## mariomike (8 Nov 2016)

Chispa said:
			
		

> Can U kindly elaborate?



I hope you didn't think I was being serious? It was just my lame attempt at a joke.

Just reminded me of an old joke when I saw the names of some of the American "celebrities" threatening to move to Canada,

When Oscar Levant was asked by Jack Paar to describe his reaction to Milton Berle converting to become a Christian Scientist, he said “Our loss is their loss.”  



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> I don't need or want Rosie O'Donnel or Whoopi Goldberg, George Clooney or DiCaprio coming here as residents, thank you very much.



Although I must admit I will always be a fan of Mr.Clooney's charming aunt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0Go8Xep9fY


----------



## George Wallace (8 Nov 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Not wanting to put words in MM's mouth, but I believe he's talking about 'our loss if American celebrities move here. I have to agree though. I don't need or want Rosie O'Donnel or Whoopi Goldberg, George Clooney or DiCaprio coming here as residents, thank you very much.



Crap!....Then we would have to change all our daily Weather Reports on the radio and TV to daily Climate Change Statistics and fear mongering.  

IT IS WEATHER Leonardo.....A Chinook is a natural occurance, not Global Warming.


----------



## Journeyman (8 Nov 2016)

As long as we don't have to take Bieber back......


----------



## mariomike (8 Nov 2016)




----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> America's loss will be Canada's loss.


Then we`ll need to make Canada great again  ;D


----------



## Chispa (8 Nov 2016)

By the Smile at end figured not serious, while we/Canadians can be critical of Americans, and their Propaganda Machine, certainly with good reason. Canada/USA post 1900, the population of both countries spread inward through the border, as towns, villages and cities sprung into existence. News-press of the day, repartee, commerce, goods, work, etc., was exchanged by both sides of the border’s population, counting Canadian, American shared back and forth immigration and still do today.

While America dragged her heels during "World War," countless of Americans crossed the border and enlisted with CEF.

What is a Canadian? The term Canadian/Canadien used in the olden days = Canadians with French origin.

Just my thoughts.


C.U.


----------



## Remius (8 Nov 2016)

So far no riots, no gun toting crazies, no foul smelling leftist agitators.  

Could it be that the US might just have a normal election day? Who knew.

For all the rhetoric it seems that people are respecting the process...so far.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Nov 2016)

[quote author=Remius] 
For all the rhetoric it seems that people are respecting the process...so far.
[/quote]
Minus the voting fraud  of Couse


----------



## McG (8 Nov 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Let's not forget that there will be boo coo Trump pole watches open carrying who won't think twice about taking out anyone who fits the profile, armed or not.  [


Somebody has to guard against nefarious interferences from La Raza, the Revolutionary Communist Party and its affiliates, the New Black Panther Party, Black Lives Matter, ISIS and North Korea.  But I understand the intent of some is to keep things more concealed.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/please-dont-dress-in-cammo-pants-oath-keepers-are-out-there-today-across-america-covert-and-primed


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Nov 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Minus the voting fraud  of Couse


Don't worry, a grip is being gotten in this respect - highlight mine ...


> Donald Trump’s campaign filed a lawsuit Tuesday in Nevada claiming that Clark County benefited Democrats by keeping polling stations open two hours beyond when early voting was supposed to close on Friday.
> 
> Clark County, which encompasses Las Vegas, is more than 30 percent Hispanic. An enormous surge in early votes cast by Latinos in Nevada were favorable to Hillary Clinton, giving her nearly a 73,000-vote edge over Trump in the state ahead of Election Day, the Reno Gazette-Journal reported Sunday. Jon Ralston, a political analyst in Nevada, predicted that those votes meant Nevada would go blue.
> 
> In the suit, Trump’s campaign alleges that the Clark County Registrar’s decision to keep early polls open “very much appears to have been intentionally coordinated with Democratic activists in order to skew the vote unlawfully in favor of Democratic candidates.” *Nevada voting laws say the polls have to stay open to accommodate everyone waiting in line* ...


Standby for more of this - likely from both sides, but we'll see ...


----------



## Blackadder1916 (8 Nov 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Don't worry, a grip is being gotten in this respect - highlight mine ...
> 
> Standby for more of this - likely from both sides, but we'll see ...



And the court's response . . .


Nevada judge denies Trump request; warns about Twitter trolls
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/08/politics/nevada-voting-lawsuit-donald-trump/


> Washington (CNN) — A Nevada court judge denied a request Tuesday from Donald Trump campaign lawyers to issue an order directing a county registrar of voters to preserve and separate ballots from voting machines in four early voting sites in Clark County, Nevada.
> 
> *In legal briefs filed Monday night, Trump lawyers had asked for an order to have the pertinent early vote ballots not to be "co-mingled or interspersed" with other ballots after the campaign alleged the county registrar kept polling locations open beyond their designated hours.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Nov 2016)

http://www.breitbart.com/live/2016-election-day-live-updates/officials-pa-voting-machines-incorrectly-registered-straight-republican-votes/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Nov 2016)

Fox News called Indiana and Kentucky for Trump.Hillary gets Vermont.


----------



## Chispa (8 Nov 2016)

Looks like 5 states could approve its recreational use this November, potentially signaling a point of no return for legalized pot.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/10/marijuana-legalization-election/503252/


----------



## Chispa (8 Nov 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Fox News called Indiana and Kentucky for Trump.Hillary gets Vermont.



Just saw CNN, and the race is on........Gun and ammunition, etc., sales were up this week I heard.


Ok U can add Bunkers..... God Bless America....Business report: Bunker and gun sales surge ahead of U.S. election.

http://www.citynews.ca/2016/11/08/business-report-bunker-and-gun-sales-surge-ahead-of-u-s-election/


.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Nov 2016)

Add West Virginia to the Trump column.Looks like its very close in Florida so far.I think Florida is a must win for the Donald.


----------



## Chispa (8 Nov 2016)

Many believe Florida Is a must win...... News Flash....looks like some in Florida voted for Mickey Mouse..... [lol:


“Write-in votes are commonly cast for fictional characters such as ‘Mickey Mouse’ and ‘Donald Duck,’ as well as for ‘None of the Above,’ and dead people,” the state’s attorney general wrote in an opinion submitted to the secretary of state in 1999. “It is the opinion of this Office that vote totals should be given only for living human beings.”

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/election-2016-write-ins/story?id=43358737


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Nov 2016)

You might want to follow the election on real clear politics.Trump now has 4 states.There could be a Trump blowout which would make this a short night.Otherwise we go into the wee hours of the morning.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2016_general/president/map.html


----------



## Chispa (8 Nov 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> You might want to follow the election on real clear politics.Trump now has 4 states.There could be a Trump blowout which would make this a short night.Otherwise we go into the wee hours of the morning.
> 
> http://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2016_general/president/map.html




Thanks, I just saw better then CNN. You might be right a long night indeed if Hillary looses more.....could be long for her, 
for now she's winning by 1....



.


----------



## Scott (8 Nov 2016)

I've got CNN, Real Clear, MacLeans, and the CBC going - nobody seems to agree, and I can't be sure if they're projecting or declaring.

Looks like Trump is down in Ohio and Florida - but massive loads of votes to be counted


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Nov 2016)

Chispa said:
			
		

> Many believe Florida Is a must win...... News Flash....looks like some in Florida voted for Mickey Mouse..... [lol:



His Vice President could be Goofy....but then again Joe Biden and Dan Quayle are actually goofy


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Nov 2016)

NBC has a very good interactive map. They are currently showing Trump in front with 137 electoral college votes and ahead by almost 2 million in the popular. Mind you- Florida is showing as "undecided" in their model and California has not yet closed their polls, sho if he is going to win tonight, Trump better get really far ahead.

Interestingly, Arkansas, the Clinton home state went Trump in a landslide.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Nov 2016)

Fox is doing a pretty good job.

http://www.foxnews.com


----------



## jollyjacktar (8 Nov 2016)

CBC is showing Trump leading in Florida and ahead overall.  That must really hurt for them to put that up.  It tastes like burning.... ;D

If only there was an interactive showing how many Celebrities are throwing themselves off buildings and bridges at the thought of a Trump win.  That would be interesting.


----------



## McG (9 Nov 2016)

BBC just switched to Clinton out front with 190 EC votes to 172.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-us-2016-37899679


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (9 Nov 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> BBC just switched to Clinton out front with 190 EC votes to 172.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/election-us-2016-37899679



My prediction, Trump takes Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, New Hampshire while Hillary takes Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Maine, Nevada.  

Alaska becomes the all important tie breaker 😎


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Nov 2016)

Boy, all the pundits are squirming. Voters didn't follow their script. Armchair pontification a dying art form I guess


----------



## Journeyman (9 Nov 2016)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> Armchair pontification a dying art form I guess


No sign of it dying off here.  op:


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Nov 2016)

> No sign of it dying off here.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Nov 2016)

Lame prediction: renewed interest in checks and balances in general, and the senate filibuster in particular, among Democrats.


----------



## McG (9 Nov 2016)

Now he is up 244 to 209 EC votes.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Nov 2016)

I predict a ton of votes for Clinton pop up out of no where at the last minute.


----------



## blacktriangle (9 Nov 2016)

If Trump wins, I hope he has some kind of plan. I think a lot of Americans put their trust in him today. If he screws this up, the movement behind him may not get another chance.

Although I think Jarnhamar could be right, and we could be stuck with good ol' Hillary & co.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Nov 2016)

Democrats have never been particularly efficient with their votes; thus it's still entirely possible that Clinton will get a majority of the votes, but not take the electoral college.


----------



## Remius (9 Nov 2016)

A lot of long faces in the media right now.


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Nov 2016)

Trump has 255 on RCP right now, with 3 paths: PA (20), MI (16), or AZ(11)+NH(4).  People who seem to know what they are talking about think he's likely to take either PA or MI, and possibly both.


----------



## blacktriangle (9 Nov 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> A lot of long faces in the media right now.



Wolf Blitzer has been seeming a little anxious...


----------



## dapaterson (9 Nov 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Trump has 255 on RCP right now, with 3 paths: PA (20), MI (16), or AZ(11)+NH(4).  People who seem to know what they are talking about think he's likely to take either PA or MI, and possibly both.



Yes.  Traditionally Democratic voters are more urban, and thus their votes tend to be reported first.  The more rural areas tend to report later, and skew Republican - so if it's close or there's a Republican lead with a good chunk of the state already reporting, it generally means good news for the Republicans.

What will be most interesting is to see how things work where both houses and POTUS are notionally from the same party...


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Nov 2016)

>What will be most interesting is to see how things work where both houses and POTUS are notionally from the same party...

Shouldn't be hard to imagine.  That was last seen in 2008.


----------



## Remius (9 Nov 2016)

In other related news...

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-s-immigration-website-crashes-on-election-night-1.3152231

Lol


----------



## QV (9 Nov 2016)

I expect this to land somewhere around 290-304 electoral college votes for Trump.

I spoke too soon.  Prob more like 310. - LOL


----------



## muskrat89 (9 Nov 2016)

Lots of discussion about polls earlier in the thread, and I made a post or two wondering about a hidden vote, based on my discussions with random people...

http://www.12news.com/news/politics/national-politics/how-did-pollsters-get-trump-clinton-election-so-wrong/350242410



> Donald Trump's strong performance dealt a crushing blow to the credibility of the nation's leading pollsters, calling into question their mathematical models, assumptions and survey methods.
> 
> Several months of polls pegged Hillary Clinton as the leader in the polarizing race and as the leader in many key battleground states.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Nov 2016)

Putin in Moscow, Trump in Washington, and Trudeau in Ottawa.  The real loser in this election is Canada, we're going to get squeezed like a pimple.


----------



## Inspir (9 Nov 2016)

Maybe it will be more incentive to bolster the defence GDP


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Nov 2016)

Just watched John Podesta not-conceding on behalf of HRC.  Tasty.


----------



## J.J (9 Nov 2016)

Just announced, Hillary called Trump and conceded!


----------



## QV (9 Nov 2016)

That must have hurt.

I will really enjoy watching CNN and all the long faces for the next few weeks.  I can't wait to hear how the pollsters justify their crap polls.  

Excellent news, should not come as a total shock however.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Nov 2016)

A Trifecta !  8)

 [cheers]


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Nov 2016)

Let the enjoyment of hearing the lamentation of their women commence.


----------



## QV (9 Nov 2016)

:cheers:


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Nov 2016)

This is what I get for going to bed early  ;D

I guess we get to see just how good a deal maker he is.

Meanwhile, on the markets _very_ early on ...


> ... As the votes rolled in for Trump, U.S. stock markets plunged with futures on the Dow Jones Industrial Average falling 506 points, or roughly 4%, as investors began to brace for Trump’s agenda and his anti-free trade views. Those losses were paired when Trump struck a conciliatory tone in accepting Clinton’s concession.
> 
> Fear of a Trump presidency was evident at the open of trading in Europe, where stocks in London plunged 2%, after futures indicated losses as high as 4%. The Hang Seng Index in Hong Kong tumbled 2.7%, the South Korean Kospi fell 2.5% and the Japanese Nikkei 225 was down 5.1%. Australian and New Zealand markets fell by a similar measure.
> 
> ...


----------



## George Wallace (9 Nov 2016)

Now comes the scary part:


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Nov 2016)

I just want to stand at the border waving at the Hollywood liberals as they cross into Canada. >
With full control the GOP should be able to kill Obamacare as the first order of business.This is something that everyone in the GOP can agree on and it doesnt need to be replaced.I could support grudgingly expanding medicare and Medicaid to cover everyone,but it wouldnt be pretty.


----------



## Remius (9 Nov 2016)

So any takers on his cabinet?

Rudy Giuliani
Newt Gingrich
Sean Hannity
Chris Christie

His kids.  (I bet he makes one of them his COS)


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Nov 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Let the enjoyment of hearing the lamentation of their women commence.



Oh,oh,oh, the wailing on CBC radio this morning was a delight to my ears.  I am going to enjoy the next few days of lamentations from the left.  How I wish I had of put some money on the election.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (9 Nov 2016)

Wondering how the Democrats feel about how the nomination process now?
My post on FB.

"I'm not one to gloat or despair over election results. The true winner is every person that actually got to use that wonderful thing that, lots of folks would, and have, given their life blood for. The right to cast a ballot.......
 I do however think this is an interesting topic of discussion. Its pretty much a given that the Democrat's heirarchy rigged the nomination process so that Ms. Clinton would beat Mr. Sanders. I wonder how things would have turned out had that not been so........I think Bernie would have won the election by a country mile. We'll never know but it does intrigue me."


----------



## Remius (9 Nov 2016)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Wondering how the Democrats feel about how the nomination process now?
> My post on FB.
> 
> "I'm not one to gloat or despair over election results. The true winner is every person that actually got to use that wonderful thing that, lots of folks would, and have, given their life blood for. The right to cast a ballot.......
> I do however think this is an interesting topic of discussion. Its pretty much a given that the Democrat's heirarchy rigged the nomination process so that Ms. Clinton would beat Mr. Sanders. I wonder how things would have turned out had that not been so........I think Bernie would have won the election by a country mile. We'll never know but it does intrigue me."



They certainly did it to themselves.

So what about all that vote rigging  [


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Nov 2016)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Wondering how the Democrats feel about how the nomination process now?
> My post on FB.
> 
> "I'm not one to gloat or despair over election results. The true winner is every person that actually got to use that wonderful thing that, lots of folks would, and have, given their life blood for. The right to cast a ballot.......
> I do however think this is an interesting topic of discussion. Its pretty much a given that the Democrat's heirarchy rigged the nomination process so that Ms. Clinton would beat Mr. Sanders. I wonder how things would have turned out had that not been so........I think Bernie would have won the election by a country mile. We'll never know but it does intrigue me."



Great post Bruce.

Couldn't agree more.  The hierarchy did their best to rig the election.  Ballot stuffing, machines that mysteriously registered the wrong vote, a heavily biased media, biased polls.A campaign to recruit Hollywood actors and Youtube celebrities. Random accusations of alleged sexual harassment and assault. The president of the US campaigning for Clinton and not doing his own job.

And yet, a surprising win for democracy.   I hope Mr Trump throws Clinton in jail, addresses the rampant US media bias and takes apart the corrupt Clinton foundation.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Nov 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> So any takers on his cabinet?
> 
> Rudy Giuliani
> Newt Gingrich
> ...



I imagine that his kids will take over the Trump Empire/business as he gives up management of it.  Unlike in Canada, it is not necessary in the US for him to do so, but the "tradition" has been for the President to place their business interests into a blind management agreement to avoid a potential conflict of interest.

(That practice nearly bankrupted Jimmy Carter when he was President.)


----------



## Jed (9 Nov 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Great post Bruce.
> 
> Couldn't agree more.  The hierarchy did their best to rig the election.  Ballot stuffing, machines that mysteriously registered the wrong vote, a heavily biased media, biased polls.A campaign to recruit Hollywood actors and Youtube celebrities. Random accusations of alleged sexual harassment and assault. The president of the US campaigning for Clinton and not doing his own job.
> 
> And yet, a surprising win for democracy.   I hope Mr Trump throws Clinton in jail, addresses the rampant US media bias and takes apart the corrupt Clinton foundation.



Its never too late to do the right thing.


----------



## Remius (9 Nov 2016)

Here is a good post mortem that I largely agree with.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/09/donald-trump-white-house-hillary-clinton-liberals?CMP=share_btn_tw

It lays the blame squarely on the DNC and Liberals.  He makes a strong argument.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Nov 2016)

Here's PMJT's response ...


> The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today issued the following statement on the result of the US Presidential Election:
> 
> “On behalf of the Government of Canada, I would like to congratulate Donald J. Trump on his election as the next President of the United States.
> 
> ...


... Putin's statement ...


> Vladimir Putin sent a message of congratulations to Donald Trump on his victory in the US presidential election.
> 
> In his message, Mr Putin said he hopes for work together to lift Russian-US relations out of the current crisis, resolve issues on the international agenda, look for effective responses to global security challenges.
> 
> ...


... and @DarthPutin's response via his (satirical?) Twitter account here and here:


> My first summit with President Trump will take place in the Russian city of Kiev.





> Before he is inaugurated I will meet Trump in the Saint Petersburg suburb of Estonia.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Nov 2016)

The way forward for the Democrats will be instructive - will they think that Trump won, or that Clinton lost.  That will inform what they do, and how they change (or don't).


----------



## Chispa (9 Nov 2016)

Last Night for some reason, CTV was 1/2hr ahead of the count, before the US Propaganda Machine networks posted.

I stated over a year ago that if Trump won, He would be the Biblical prophecy of the Antichrist.

We are headed into WWIII, 3rd WW, China, Russia, North Korea Vs US, etc., will be the next World wide block buster, 
made in the USA, produced by Trump TV.


C.U.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Nov 2016)

Chispa said:
			
		

> Last Night for some reason, CTV was 1/2hr ahead of the count, before the US Propaganda Machine networks posted.
> 
> I stated over a year ago that if Trump won, He would be the Biblical prophecy of the Antichrist.
> 
> ...


 They were ahead because they were speculating based on percentages. Many of the networks were doing it. Except FOX. They wouldn't speculate and wouldn't report till the numbers were real.

As for the rest of your post, that's even too far out for my imagination. :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## Remius (9 Nov 2016)

Chispa said:
			
		

> Last Night for some reason, CTV was 1/2hr ahead of the count, before the US Propaganda Machine networks posted.
> 
> I stated over a year ago that if Trump won, He would be the Biblical prophecy of the Antichrist.
> 
> ...



That was likely because CTV were counting projected wins.  

They said those things when Bush was voted in.  

"Doing 38 Dan, chill the f**k out, mow your damn lawn and sit the hell down."


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Nov 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The way forward for the Democrats will be instructive - will they think that Trump won, or that Clinton lost.  That will inform what they do, and how they change (or don't).



If I were them, I'd start planning for Michelle Obama in 2020, now... :nod:

Clearly, not enough Dems came out to vote, albeit potentially whilst holding their noses.

If one looks at the closely contested States, one can assess that 164,000 Dems could have made the difference, had they sorted themselves out towards the end.  Dems correctly assessed MI as a close state, sending Hillary in on the last day, and it was, but there were three other States that would have made the difference too (most 'efficiently' re: minimal add'l voter turnout required to swing the votes).  I think the Dems knew about PA, but WI and CO were close but as I recall, weren't focused on by Team Blue.

EC votes -  State -  loss by voters - efficiency of additional voters per EC required

16             MI            ~17,000            1,000 / EC vote
10             WI            ~27,000           2,700 / EC vote
20             PA            ~70,000           3,300 / EC vote
  9             CO           ~50,000           5,500 / EC vote

55 (for 273)             ~164,000           3,000avg / EC vote

I'm sure they'll do the statistical autopsy on this one, but interesting to see the narrow margins and how a slight increase in turnout might have swung things for them.

One should see things move forward with an Executive, House and Senate now aligned.  Americans certainly should expect to see no excuses anymore on moving the issues.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Nov 2016)

>I stated over a year ago that if Trump won, He would be the Biblical prophecy of the Antichrist.

You must be young.  "They" said much the same about Reagan.  Now it just sounds tiresomely repetitive and meaningless alongside all the other crap about the Republican nominee-of-the-day being racist, misogynist, fascist, Nazi, Hitler, etc.

To paraphrase - you need to find a politics that goes to 11- on this one, once you dial it up to 10, there's nowhere left to go.


----------



## Chispa (9 Nov 2016)

Yes that's what they were projections, just point out CTV was / hr ahead of most TV stations

I remember Reagan dubbed the antichrist, online is littered with it.

As for the rest, well time will tell, China and Russia have been seeking world domination.

U.S. And China Flirting With Military Confrontation In South China Sea 
http://yournewswire.com/u-s-and-china-flirting-with-military-confrontation-in-south-china-sea/


US says Russian jet flew 10ft from plane over Black Sea.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37303247


.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Nov 2016)

[quote author=Chispa]


US says Russian jet flew 10ft from plane over Black Sea.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37303247


.
[/quote]

A NATO country DID shoot down a Russian jet.

The US has been starting wars for years.  From the US military plan to attack US citizens during the Cuba crap to Vietnam to the Gulf war 1 & 2. Maybe this is a chance for them to reboot their government and retake the moral high ground.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Nov 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> I just want to stand at the border waving at the Hollywood liberals as they cross into Canada. >
> With full control the GOP should be able to kill Obamacare as the first order of business.This is something that everyone in the GOP can agree on and it doesnt need to be replaced.I could support grudgingly expanding medicare and Medicaid to cover everyone,but it wouldnt be pretty.



Happy to have you direct them our way.  Just tell them to cross at St Stephen, New Brunswick and take a right to Grand Manan.  The tide will handle the rest.   >


----------



## Chispa (9 Nov 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> A NATO country DID shoot down a Russian jet.
> 
> The US has been starting wars for years. From the US military plan to attack US citizens during the Cuba crap to Vietnam to the Gulf war 1 & 2. Maybe this is a chance for them to reboot their government and retake the moral high ground.




I can't argue on what's factual, however Trump taking the moral high ground, I don't know about that. 
Plus with the Democrats loosing the house, senate, not much opposition, they can pass what ever.


----------



## Remius (9 Nov 2016)

Chispa said:
			
		

> I can't argue on what's factual, however Trump taking the moral high ground, I don't know about that.
> Plus with the Democrats loosing the house, senate, not much opposition, they can pass what ever.



Chispa, here is what I see happening and it isn't WW3.  At least from a Canadian perspective.

1.  Keystone gets approved.  Yay us.  Alberta needs this and the Liberals will claim a victory the Conservatives couldn't achieve.
2. NAFTA will remain in place.  To many internal issue sin the US for him to scrap it.
3. However TPP will be dead or severely diminished.  
4. We might actually see the dismantling of NATO.  Depends on how NATO partners react to having to pay up. What might rise from the ashes is another issue.
5. Expect civil unrest as various groups protest the repealing of certain social rights, gay marriage, Roe v. Wade etc. 
6. Expect environmentalists to go more bat crazy
7. Expect applications for immigration to Canada. Not in huge waves but I fully expect some leftist trying to claim political asylum.
8. Expect the US to withdraw from some theatres and reduce its military presence world wide. We might actually have to really buy things this to make up for this. 
9. Expect the Conservative leadership race to have some candidates try and emulate Trump.
10.  expect the DNC to look hard for their next hero.

That's my short list. It's not all bad, it's not all good.  But it is what it is.  Canada will have to decide how it wants to work within this new reality.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Nov 2016)

Interesting that Clinton lost her home state of Arkansas... and Trump lost his home state of New York.


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Nov 2016)

Everyone can relax after the tense few weeks.Trump is a smart guy and will get the best advisors available.Trump will go slowly his first 100 days.Rebuilding the military is a big starter.That means money.He wants to expand the Army and probably reversing manpower cuts.I too hope that Keystone gets approved its good for everyone.It helps cut reliance on the ME and provides high paying jobs.Even the wall is going to create shovel ready jobs.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Nov 2016)

Meme circulating out there:  "Bill tried to console Hillary this morning by pointing out that Nelson Mandela didn't get elected President until after he served 27 years in prison"


----------



## a_majoor (9 Nov 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> If I were them, I'd start planning for Michelle Obama in 2020, now... :nod:



I think Americans spoke pretty clearly in the Primaries and the General about how they feel towards political dynasties. And you can think back to Carolyn Kennedy seeking a Senate seat, mostly "just because" she was a Kennedy. That idea got pretty firmly squashed as well.


----------



## Altair (9 Nov 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Chispa, here is what I see happening and it isn't WW3.  At least from a Canadian perspective.
> 
> 1.  Keystone gets approved.  Yay us.  Alberta needs this and the Liberals will claim a victory the Conservatives couldn't achieve.
> 2. NAFTA will remain in place.  To many internal issue sin the US for him to scrap it.
> ...


And this way PM Trudeau will reject both the transmountain pipeline and the Energy east and get to say that no pipelines are being built in Canada.



he's probably not all that unhappy.

I wonder with his claims to kill the families of terrorists if JSOC gets a carte blanche to do whatever it wants. Moreso than now I guess. Probably never know.


----------



## Old Sweat (9 Nov 2016)

In the meantime the Democrats are probably working on how to seize control of the Senate and maybe the House in the 2018 mid-term elections. And all sorts of ambitious people in both houses are considering a run for the nomination for the 2020 presidential election.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Nov 2016)

Chispa said:
			
		

> I stated over a year ago that if Trump won, He would be the Biblical prophecy of the Antichrist.
> 
> We are headed into WWIII, 3rd WW, China, Russia, North Korea Vs US, etc., will be the next World wide block buster,
> made in the USA, produced by Trump TV.



Time to get the classics back out:  ;D ;D ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHmH1xQ2Pf4


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Nov 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I think Americans spoke pretty clearly in the Primaries and the General about how they feel towards political dynasties. And you can think back to Carolyn Kennedy seeking a Senate seat, mostly "just because" she was a Kennedy. That idea got pretty firmly squashed as well.



Thuc, I don't necessarily disagree, and Dynasties can work (happen): Bush, Trudeau, etc...  However, the DNC seemed determined to try a dynasty-building attempt over what, in retrospect for them, may ironically have worked - Bernie Sanders.  They'll try it again in 2020, I'm sure, although they will likely see it as "Good morning, Ms. President" attempt 2.0, vice a "go for the same last name" attempt.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Nov 2016)

As everybody goes on about The Great Divides - I played with numbers as is my wont.

25 million old fogies (45 to 64) voted for Trump
But 22 million voted for Clinton

13 million youngsters (18-29) voted for Clinton
But 8 million voted for Trump

48 million whites voted for Trump
But 33 million voted for Clinton

23 million church goers voted for Trump
But 17 million voted for Clinton

17 million secularists voted for Clinton
But 7 million voted for Trump

23 million white women voted for Trump
But 19 million voted for Clinton

25 million white men voted for Trump
But 13 million voted for Clinton.

I don't see anything in those numbers that justify pollsters, politicians and pundits exacerbating divisions.

Those idiots amongst the pollsters make their money separating 1% of Bud drinkers from Budweiser and delivering them to your latest craft brewer.  They are all about separation, and division and marginalizing - and that is what they sell to the politicians.

But elections are not about finding 1% of the market to launch your latest IPO.

That election was not about group against group.  It was about marketing as usual and a great Yowp!

The numbers came from this report

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/video/news/white-women-helped-donald-trump-beat-first-female-candidate/vi-AAk5dTX?ocid=sf

And from this estimate

http://globalnews.ca/news/3054505/u-s-presidential-election-2016-voter-turnout-drops-to-near-50-per-cent/


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Nov 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I played with numbers as is my wont.
> 
> 25 million old fogies (45 to 64) voted for Trump
> But 22 million voted for Clinton
> ...



Well, no wonder they claim that some people voted more than once.  [


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Nov 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, no wonder they claim that some people voted more than once.  [



OGBD, remind me to hire you if I ever need any high-power statistics work!  ;D

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Nov 2016)

The Senate in 2018 is expected to be a mirror of this year - Democrats will be on defence.

The result surprised me.  I expected Clinton to be elected and face a Republican House and Senate.  Thus, I expected a continuation of Obama's "I won", "pen and phone", "if Congress won't act, I will" governance, with a USSC increasingly appointed to defend the president's decisions whenever challenged.  And thus I also expected a likely snap-back in 2018, or 2020 at latest.

It looks like yesterday was the snap-back.  So I expect 2018 to see corrections favouring Democrats if the Republicans over-reach, but corrections favouring Republicans if Democrats lack introspection and keep going to the "racist, misogynist" well for explanations.

Meanwhile, I continue to enjoy the meltdowns being written and aired - in the US, Canada, and abroad; in both journalistic media and social media.  Progressives really do seem to have no capacity for anything except denunciations of filthy white people from an imagined position of great moral advantage.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Nov 2016)

[quote author=Brad Sallows]

Meanwhile, I continue to enjoy the meltdowns being written and aired - in the US, Canada, and abroad; in both journalistic media and social media.  
[/quote]

Me too. It's like Tumblr on too many Redbulls.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Nov 2016)

And (AFG) Taliban says (screen capture attached) ...


> The result of US election shows that Republican presidential candidate – Donald Trump – has been successful.
> 
> Our message is that he should give US government a policy of not depriving freedom of other nations of the world and should not seek American interests in the destruction and conviction of other nations, so to make the world safer and end the ongoing crisis.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (9 Nov 2016)




----------



## cupper (9 Nov 2016)




----------



## MilEME09 (9 Nov 2016)

My biggest question is will he follow through with everything he has said about NATO? which could go bad for the alliance


----------



## mariomike (9 Nov 2016)

They say the government you elect is the government you deserve,

‘Not my president’: Protests erupt after Trump victory
http://nypost.com/2016/11/09/protests-erupt-in-california-after-trump-victory/


----------



## dapaterson (9 Nov 2016)

As with any new job, he's in for a huge learning curve.  And will be confronted with "Events, dear boy, events!" which may well pull him away from the various and contradictory promises made on the campaign trail.  (Note: that's no different from anyone else campaigning - promises made may overlap, may contradict, and are frequently broad enough that they can mean many different things to many different people)

I hope that when people vote it's not for "He'll do what I want" but more for "I trust him to do the best when things happen".  In other words, campaign promises should be read as "This is the direction I intend to follow" more than "This is the slavish direction I will follow regardless of unconsidered consequences".


----------



## Brad Sallows (9 Nov 2016)

Most of what politicians and journalists refer to as "plans" are really aspirational statements.  Most of Trumps "promises" were just emotion-stoking rhetoric too ludicrous to be taken seriously (eg. build a wall and make Mexico pay for it), but his most unhinged critics hold them up as Things You Will Be Sorry For.  (Really?  How exactly does he bring them to fruition?  Do those people have the foggiest schmick about who controls what in the US system of government?)


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Nov 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

>



Yup.
The US needs to sink a few million dollars into building more safe places and setting up hotlines for people who have been triggered by the election.
Don't want all those special snowflakes to melt eh?


----------



## dimsum (9 Nov 2016)

A friend put this up on FB, and it makes more sense to me than most of the "analysis" on the MSM:


> A government of the people, for the people, by the people. The people spoke last night, and the message is clear, they want change, and they want it very very bad.
> 
> To Canadians, and perhaps much of the world this doesn't make any sense, but if you look closely and try to understand the American people, and their history it makes eminent sense.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jed (9 Nov 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> As with any new job, he's in for a huge learning curve.  And will be confronted with "Events, dear boy, events!" which may well pull him away from the various and contradictory promises made on the campaign trail.  (Note: that's no different from anyone else campaigning - promises made may overlap, may contradict, and are frequently broad enough that they can mean many different things to many different people)
> 
> I hope that when people vote it's not for "He'll do what I want" but more for "I trust him to do the best when things happen".  In other words, campaign promises should be read as "This is the direction I intend to follow" more than "This is the slavish direction I will follow regardless of unconsidered consequences".



Oh you mean, totally unlike the approach now taken by JT's government ?


----------



## mariomike (9 Nov 2016)

Who voted for Donald Trump?
http://globalnews.ca/news/3057298/who-voted-for-donald-trump/


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Who voted for Donald Trump?
> http://globalnews.ca/news/3057298/who-voted-for-donald-trump/



Crap!

http://army.ca/forums/threads/108210/post-1463065.html#msg1463065

This was not about groups.  It was about individuals making choices.


----------



## mariomike (9 Nov 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Crap!



Not arguing politics with you, Chris. I just know what I read in the papers.


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Nov 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> On the subject of civil unrest, I'm much more concerned about violence and rioting in the face of a Clinton defeat than I am about a Trump defeat.



Sometimes it's easy being right: http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/flag-burned-as-protests-breakout-across-the-us


----------



## QV (9 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Not arguing politics with you, Chris. I just know what I read in the papers.



So long as a key take away from this election cycle is just because it's printed doesn't make it true.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Not arguing politics with you, Chris. I just know what I read in the papers.



Seen Mike.

Just arguing with what I saw in the papers.   ;D

Interesting map from the New York Times.

Results by County.

http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president

Curiosity.  Apparently 93% of DC voted Democrat.


----------



## mariomike (9 Nov 2016)

QV said:
			
		

> So long as a key take away from this election cycle is just because it's printed doesn't make it true.



I treat opinions I read on anonymous internet forums with respect, but also with a grain of salt and a sense of humour.


----------



## QV (9 Nov 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Seen Mike.
> 
> Just arguing with what I saw in the papers.   ;D
> 
> ...



FTFY 😀


----------



## mariomike (9 Nov 2016)

Idiots marching & screaming in Union Square and Columbus Circle too stupid to realise the election is over.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Donald-Trump-New-York-City-Reaction-Protests-Union-Square-Columbus-Circle-NYC-400546271.html


----------



## Chispa (9 Nov 2016)

Remius said:
			
		

> Chispa, here is what I see happening and it isn't WW3.  At least from a Canadian perspective.
> 
> 1.  Keystone gets approved.  Yay us.  Alberta needs this and the Liberals will claim a victory the Conservatives couldn't achieve.
> 2. NAFTA will remain in place.  To many internal issue sin the US for him to scrap it.
> ...



Think it's 60 votes for the senate, revoking or getting out of NAFTA is plausible, however will take time and legal maneuvering, etc....

No. 4, 5, I'm good with and as FR 6 U GT THT right, while No.8 that's what Trump wants, like LBJ “We are not about to send American boys 
nine or ten thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves.”


Did U know LBJ was a pervert, exhibitionist, when possible, willing to showoff his best friend "Jumbo," & that's what he called it [lol:


C.U.


----------



## Chispa (9 Nov 2016)

Tomahawk6 gave moi an idea: To the Mods, Etc., A thread posted on Trump in Office, styled as fallows….

``El Presidente`` Donald J. Trump`s First 100 Days in Office. 

Well…. Small protests on the streets reported today, a score of world leaders contacted Trump congratulating on his victory, while some asking too see him during the transition period.

Meeting with Mexican president P Nieto confirmed, while Chine as other Asian states called emergency meetings alarmed by Trumps victory. 

EU foreign ministers will hold a special meeting to assess the fallout from the U.S. presidential election victory of Donald Trump, according to a diplomatic source.

http://www.politico.eu/article/eu-foreign-ministers-to-hold-special-meeting-after-donald-trump-victory-frank-walter-steinmeier/

China Responds to U.S. Election With Heavy Censorship, Light Schadenfreude.
http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/7572627/china-reaction-donald-trump-election

Russia's autocratic leader Vladimir Putin offered warm congratulations and seized on the opportunity to urge Trump to help him get "U.S.-Russia relations out of their critical condition."

But EU leaders Donald Tusk and Jean-Claude Juncker invited him to an EU-U.S. summit at his "earliest convenience" to seek reassurances about trans-Atlantic ties.

And NATO head Jens Stoltenberg warned Trump, who spoke during the campaign of making U.S. allies take a bigger share of the Western security burden, that "U.S. leadership is more important than ever." 

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/asia/japan/2016/11/10/483513/Nikkei-battered.htm


.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Nov 2016)

Trump should tell Juncker, Tusk and Schulz that he would be happy to meet with him should they have they opportunity to visit Washington.

Home turf.


----------



## cupper (9 Nov 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Trump should tell Juncker, Tusk and Schulz that he would be happy to meet with him should they have they opportunity to visit Washington. Trump Tower, New Youk City
> 
> Home turf.



FTFY  [


----------



## muskrat89 (10 Nov 2016)

http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/264771/american-uprising-daniel-greenfield#.WCNvZF3wfDY.facebook



> It’s midnight in America. The day before fifty million Americans got up and stood in front of the great iron wheel that had been grinding them down. They stood there even though the media told them it was useless. They took their stand even while all the chattering classes laughed and taunted them.
> 
> They were fathers who couldn’t feed their families anymore. They were mothers who couldn’t afford health care. They were workers whose jobs had been sold off to foreign countries. They were sons who didn’t see a future for themselves. They were daughters afraid of being murdered by the “unaccompanied minors” flooding into their towns. They took a deep breath and they stood.
> 
> ...






> Who were these people? They were leftovers and flyover country. They didn’t have bachelor degrees and had never set foot in a Starbucks. They were the white working class. They didn’t talk right or think right. They had the wrong ideas, the wrong clothes and the ridiculous idea that they still mattered.
> 
> They were wrong about everything. Illegal immigration? Everyone knew it was here to stay. Black Lives Matter? The new civil rights movement. Manufacturing? As dead as the dodo. Banning Muslims? What kind of bigot even thinks that way? Love wins. Marriage loses. The future belongs to the urban metrosexual and his dot com, not the guy who used to have a good job before it went to China or Mexico.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Nov 2016)

Thanks for that Cupper 

By the way - you couldn't have fixed my thick finger mistakes while you were at it?   :'(


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Nov 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> As with any new job, he's in for a huge learning curve.  And will be confronted with "Events, dear boy, events!" which may well pull him away from the various and contradictory promises made on the campaign trail ...


And that's true of any new person in the post, no matter what colour jersey they're wearing.

And along those lines ...
_*"Muslim ban statement removed from Donald Trump's website"*_
But does anything really disappear from the interwebs?  Google Cache version attached for posterity.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Nov 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> .... all the other crap about the Republican nominee-of-the-day being racist, misogynist....





			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> ..... keep going to the "racist, misogynist" well for explanations.


Do you honestly believe that Trump is not racist and/or misogynist -- the portrayal is all some .               .*  conspiracy?



* Choose any combination of evil conspirator(s):  leftist; establishment; feminist; Muslim; immigrant; Latino; media.


----------



## cupper (10 Nov 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Thanks for that Cupper
> 
> By the way - you couldn't have fixed my thick finger mistakes while you were at it?   :'(



I had a hard time fixing my own typos. 



> New Youk


. WTF?? :facepalm:


----------



## dapaterson (10 Nov 2016)

Interesting, in retrospect: if you were to say that the election was a competition between a TV star and an individual who received millions in funding from Wall Street, you'd probably assume very different party affiliations...


----------



## cupper (10 Nov 2016)

I was just watching an interview with Michael Duffy, co author of "The President's Club".

The book makes a very good point, that the people who assend to the office really do not know what it is like to sit in that chair behind the desk in the Oval Office. It is a very lonely position, and going into it you think you know everything you need to know. But the office will soon prove that you know nothing. 

It is a very exclusive club, with membership at any given time numbering in the single digits. And these are the people you can lean on when things become difficult, because they have been in the same position when you have to make the hard decisions that will effect the lives of millions in significant ways.

He gives some historic examples of times when incoming Presidents felt that they didn't need to meet with the outgoing President to discuss the realities of what you are about to enter. Truman & Eisenhower, Johnson & Nixon.

Obama extended the invitation for a visit today, partly to help begin healing the rift in the country, and partly to give advice to Trump about the realities of being President. 

(Although if you are a conspiracy nut, you may believe that Obama plans to take him out  ;D)


----------



## Remius (10 Nov 2016)

Chispa said:
			
		

> Think it's 60 votes for the senate, revoking or getting out of NAFTA is plausible, however will take time and legal maneuvering, etc....



Except that some republican senators represent states with industries that benefit from NAFTA and won't be ready or willing to support the president on this.


----------



## mariomike (10 Nov 2016)

Chispa said:
			
		

> Did U know LBJ was a pervert, exhibitionist, when possible, willing to showoff his best friend "Jumbo," & that's what he called it [lol:



He is well ranked by historians,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

How Do Historians Evaluate the Administration of Lyndon Johnson? 
http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/439#sthash.QFbtmxQm.dpuf

Historian Survey Results 
https://web.archive.org/web/20110209101510/http://legacy.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/president/Lyndon_Johnson.aspx

I wonder how future historians will rank Mr. Trump's administration? 




			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> As with any new job, he's in for a huge learning curve.



Donald Trump is the first person elected president with zero government or military experience.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/11/08/donald-trump-experience-president/93504134/


----------



## Remius (10 Nov 2016)

Hehe. 

Here from CNN.  It's worth the read.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/opinions/liberals-chill-out-about-trump-victory-stanley/index.html


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Nov 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Do you honestly believe that Trump is not racist and/or misogynist -- the portrayal is all some .               .*  conspiracy?
> 
> 
> 
> * Choose any combination of evil conspirator(s):  leftist; establishment; feminist; Muslim; immigrant; Latino; media.



I can't speak for Brad but I believe in these:



> Always remember the first rule of power tactics: Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have.
> 
> The second rule is: Never go outside the experience of your people. When an action is outside the experience of the people, the result is confusion, fear, and retreat.
> 
> ...



And I also believe in the power of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert who, in my opinion, have built their careers on raising the mob.  I found it a bit rich when Stephen Colbert looked as if he had finally had a come-to-Jesus moment on election night and found himself trying to quell the mob that he has been responsible, in part, for raising.

If he wants to know who to blame for the coarsening of debate he needs to look in the mirror.  That coarsening has demanded the thickening of skins among candidates and what the process has created is a candidate with a very tough hide indeed.  

It remains to be seen if this elephant can be ridden.

Edit: My other culprit is Moveon.org.   Who are explicit in their goal of raising the mob.


----------



## Jed (10 Nov 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I can't speak for Brad but I believe in these:
> 
> And I also believe in the power of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert who, in my opinion, have built their careers on raising the mob.  I found it a bit rich when Stephen Colbert looked as if he had finally had a come-to-Jesus moment on election night and found himself trying to quell the mob that he has been responsible, in part, for raising.
> 
> ...




True words. The sensationalist Media / Comedians are raising the mob.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Nov 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And I also believe in the power of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert who, in my opinion, have built their careers on raising the mob.


If we're going to list, I'd even add Bill Maher - even if he can be funny.  I've heard/read a fair bit of dissing and "we know better than you do what you need" from the left, indeed.

If we ARE going to list members of the commentariat, though, I don't see how any of _these_ folks have made the conversation _more_ civil ...


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Nov 2016)

I'd agree.

I would just point out that Alinsky published his rules in 1971.  Three years after 1968 and Paris, Watts, Detroit, and the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

He rather eclipsed Robert's Rules of Order, published 100 years earlier.

We have gone from a society that aims to minimize friction by allowing the rough with the smooth to rub along together to a society that elevates the creation of friction to an art form.  A society that encourages the venting of passions rather than controlling them.


----------



## Jed (10 Nov 2016)

Our society has surely evolved as you describe.  As a child I was raised with the most dominate figures being put on a pedestal were A: A strong, loving mother being selfless and always putting her family first, or B: A strong, quiet spoken, highly moral father who stuffed his emotions, would never cry or tell his loved ones that he loved them.  Subjects such as Sex, Religion and Politics were carefully discussed, or not discussed at all.

Today, it is a total free for all. Any sense of decorum is gone out the window. All we have left is the new age Millennial Speak  akin to George Orwell's 1984. Sad times.


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Nov 2016)

milnews.ca, I would agree with two for sure of your choices. Hannity was firmly behind Trump and made no bones about it.  Would not incl Bill O'Reilly at all in that list. You would know that if you watched his show.

Too many criticize FOX News without watching it. FOX News have both sides on for almost every segment, unlike other networks. FOX News is No 1 in the USA.


----------



## mariomike (10 Nov 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> FOX News is No 1 in the USA.





			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> This used to give me some concern until I found out that Fox's viewership only runs around an average of two million and that the median age of it's viewers is 65+ (I've seen some stats that say the low 70s). That raises a worrying concern that if only 2 mil old codgers watch Fox and it's the most watched then where does the average American get his/her information from?
> 
> :cheers:



Fox News average age
https://www.google.ca/search?q=fox+news+average+age&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=gQjsV_nWMcqC8Qeu2ofABA&gws_rd=ssl


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Nov 2016)

Here's a great clip of Obama burning Trump (complete with mic drop) about Trump not being a president.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCtVhTiVjQI

Pretty funny to see videos with people crying and losing their shit because Trump won.  I think people over at Berkley are reporting throwing up and getting PTSD.  Good stuff.


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Nov 2016)

I knew this would happen.

http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/the-top-cable-news-programs-for-october-2016-were/309592

*Top Cable News Programs For October 2016 Were…*

Fox News programming continues to rank at the top of the cable news landscape, but CNN and MSNBC series made some in-roads in October, particularly when it came to performance among younger viewers.

Fox News remained dominant in total audience rankings for October 2016. FNC claimed 8 of the top 10 cable news programs for the month in total audience, once again led by The O’Reilly Factor. The Kelly File finished No. 2 in total viewers, followed by Hannity, Special Report with Bret Baier, The Five, and On the Record with Brit Hume. MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show was the most-watched non-Fox News program, followed by its lead-out The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, with Fox News’ America’s Newsroom and Your World with Neil Cavuto rounding out the top 10.

The Kelly File was the No. 1 cable news program for the month of October among adults 25-54, up +71 percent from October 2015, and ahead of Bill O’Reilly by +20,000 viewers. Fox News took the top 3 spots in A25-54 (The O’Reilly Factor and Hannity followed Kelly), but Anderson Cooper 360, which averaged 571,000 viewers, was the highest-rated non-Fox News program of the month and ranked No. 4 overall. MSNBC’s The Rachel Maddow Show ranked 5th in the demo, followed by CNN Tonight with Don Lemon, Erin Burnett Outfront, Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell, with Fox News’ Special Report with Bret Baier and On the Record with Brit Hume rounded out the top 10. That’s 5 from Fox News, 3 from CNN and 2 from MSNBC. Not quite the dominance we have become accustomed to.

Additionally, Erin Burnett Outfront grew +131 percent in the demo from October 2015, and beat On the Record. Burnett’s win represents CNN’s first victory over Fox News in the demo at 7 p.m. since 2001.

Cable News Ranker: Oct. 2016 (Adults 25-54) See Link

Cable News Ranker: Oct. 2016 (Total Viewers) See Link


http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/q3-2016-ratings-fox-news-is-most-watched-cable-network/305851

*Q3 2016 Ratings: Fox News Is Most-Watched Cable Network*

It was a controversy-filled summer for Fox News Channel, but that didn’t deter viewers from flocking to the network. Fox News was the most-watched basic cable network for Q3 2016, both in prime time and across total day. Not only did the network beat all cable news and entertainment competition in total audience, but FNC improved 25 percent in prime time, and by 29 percent in total day vs. the 3rd quarter of 2015. The network also delivered year-over-year improvement in the key A25-54 demo, up 50 percent in prime time and up 31 percent in total day. Averaging 1.41 million viewers every day for the last three months, made this the most-watched quarter ever for the 20-year-old network.

The ratings for Q3, 2016 (Nielsen Live + Same Day data):

    Prime time (Mon-Sun): 2,437,000 total viewers / 459,000 A25-54
    Total Day (Mon-Sun): 1,410,000 total viewers /276,000 A25-54

Fox News’ year-over-year improvement was given a boost by campaign 2016 which, in the last three months, included the Republican and Democratic National Conventions. Fox News beat CNN and MSNBC in total viewers across the 8 nights of 2016 convention coverage, and delivered a 5 percent improvement in total prime time viewers compared to its convention 2012 coverage.

The O’Reilly Factor remained the No. 1 cable news program for the quarter in total viewers, while The Kelly File finished No. 1 in the A25-54 demo. Hannity won the news demo for September, likely helped by consistent appearances from GOP nominee Donald Trump.

Additionally, every Fox News program improved by double-digits in both viewers and the demo compared to the same quarter last year, and multiple programs delivered their most-watched quarters ever in viewers including America’s Newsroom, Happening Now, Shepard Smith Reporting, The Five, The Kelly File, Hannity, MediaBuzz and Justice with Judge Jeanine.


http://www.thewrap.com/cable-ratings-fox-news-beats-cnn-and-msnbc-combined-in-primetime/

*Cable Ratings: Fox News Beats CNN and MSNBC Combined in Primetime*


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Nov 2016)

> BOOKIES 'TRUMPED' Paddy Power stung for £3.5MILLION as Trump shock victory leaves bookies out of pocket
> 
> One British superfan has bagged more than £100,000 after betting on Trump
> 
> ...



https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2147833/paddy-power-stung-for-3-5million-as-trump-shock-victory-leaves-bookies-out-of-pocket/

Another article mentioned that Paddy had been seeing the bets on Trump coming in for a while but decided to ignore the evidence and held their odds.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Nov 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I'd agree.
> 
> I would just point out that Alinsky published his rules in 1971.  Three years after 1968 and Paris, Watts, Detroit, and the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.


I guess the classics never _do_ go stale  ;D



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> We have gone from a society that aims to minimize friction by allowing the rough with the smooth to rub along together to a society that elevates the creation of friction to an art form.  A society that encourages the venting of passions rather than controlling them.


Well put!


----------



## Chispa (10 Nov 2016)

While Fox spearheads the wolf pack they cater too a specific group championing the republican party narrative, or known as the Arm of RP. While CNN is the most trusted name in Recycled American Tabloid Rubbish. CNN Wolf Isaac Blitzer's interview, etc., style gives me a bad rash.

I fined Burnett condescending, etc., etc.,

Note this was in 2011: One writer said Erin Burnett came across as self-satisfied, smug and privileged on the new CNN program.
This week, former CNBC co-host Erin Burnett debuted her new primetime CNN program, Erin Burnett OutFront, and the critics made their opinions known as the week progresse

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/erin-burnett-outfront-what-critics-245858




C.U.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Nov 2016)

So far, more than one side is unhappy  ;D

_*"President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday refused to let a group of journalists travel with him to cover his historic first meeting with President Barack Obama, breaking a long-standing practice intended to ensure the public has a watchful eye on the nation's leader ..."*_
_*"One of Trump’s campaign platforms (1 of 2, to be specific, the other being the stupid wall), has been a highly offensive call to ban all Muslim immigration to the United States.*  Proving that he is one of the biggest con men in history, and that he duped a naive and fearful electorate into putting him in the White House, he is already pulling the ol’ switcheroo on one of his biggest campaign promises ... A statement that the Trump campaign issued proposing a total ban on the immigration of Muslims to the United States has disappeared from the team’s website ... That statement mysteriously disappeared from Trump’s website ONE DAY after winning the election ..."_


----------



## mariomike (10 Nov 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> So far, more than one side is unhappy  ;D




"One of Trump’s campaign platforms (1 of 2, to be specific, the other being the stupid wall), has been a highly offensive call to ban all Muslim immigration to the United States.  Proving that he is one of the biggest con men in history, and that he duped a naive and fearful electorate into putting him in the White House, he is already pulling the ol’ switcheroo on one of his biggest campaign promises ... A statement that the Trump campaign issued proposing a total ban on the immigration of Muslims to the United States has disappeared from the team’s website ... That statement mysteriously disappeared from Trump’s website ONE DAY after winning the election ..."

If true, sounds like what the legendary showman P.T.Barnum said.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Nov 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> So far, more than one side is unhappy  ;D
> 
> _*"President-elect Donald Trump on Thursday refused to let a group of journalists travel with him to cover his historic first meeting with President Barack Obama, breaking a long-standing practice intended to ensure the public has a watchful eye on the nation's leader ..."*_


I guess the press will have to work for a living and pay their own airfare..... Insh'allah.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Nov 2016)

Quote from: Brad Sallows on Yesterday at 11:33:56

    .... all the other crap about the Republican nominee-of-the-day being racist, misogynist....

Quote from: Brad Sallows on Yesterday at 14:07:23

    ..... keep going to the "racist, misogynist" well for explanations.

Do you honestly believe that Trump is not racist and/or misogynist -- the portrayal is all some .               .*  conspiracy?

The first item is about how people have referred to various Republican nominees, not Trump alone.  That context would be clearer if you didn't drop off the remaining descriptors.

The first second item is about how people have referred to Republican voters, not Trump at all.

As for the question: of course Trump is racist and misogynist.  But so is pretty much everyone, at some point or in some way.  I doubt that he's as racist or misogynist as Bill Clinton, if you measure the morality of the execution of Ricky Ray Rector or the allegations of rape victims.


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Nov 2016)

And the press expect him to fall all over himself to pander to them after all the shit they have been stirring up for him?   :rofl:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> "One of Trump’s campaign platforms (1 of 2, to be specific, the other being the stupid wall), has been a highly offensive call to ban all Muslim immigration to the United States.  Proving that he is one of the biggest con men in history, and that he duped a naive and fearful electorate into putting him in the White House, he is already pulling the ol’ switcheroo on one of his biggest campaign promises ... A statement that the Trump campaign issued proposing a total ban on the immigration of Muslims to the United States has disappeared from the team’s website ... That statement mysteriously disappeared from Trump’s website ONE DAY after winning the election ..."
> 
> If true, sounds like what the legendary showman P.T.Barnum said.



VERY NEARLY EVERY politician in history, has made promises on the campaign trail, that didn't see the light of day.

The SJW's just won't admit that they are not the anointed ones and that their agenda is coming apart faster than Miley Cyrus' pants being worn by Beyonce.


----------



## mariomike (10 Nov 2016)

What is quoted is from here, 



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> So far, more than one side is unhappy  ;D
> 
> _*"One of Trump’s campaign platforms (1 of 2, to be specific, the other being the stupid wall), has been a highly offensive call to ban all Muslim immigration to the United States.*  Proving that he is one of the biggest con men in history, and that he duped a naive and fearful electorate into putting him in the White House, he is already pulling the ol’ switcheroo on one of his biggest campaign promises ... A statement that the Trump campaign issued proposing a total ban on the immigration of Muslims to the United States has disappeared from the team’s website ... That statement mysteriously disappeared from Trump’s website ONE DAY after winning the election ..."_



All I said was, "If true, sounds like what the legendary showman P.T.Barnum said."

Maybe it's not true? Who believes everything - or anything - they read on the internet? Especially when political candidates are involved.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> What is quoted is from here,
> 
> All I said was, "If true, sounds like what the legendary showman P.T.Barnum said."
> 
> Maybe it's not true? Who believes everything - or anything - they read on the internet?





MM,

I just used your post to segue into my point. Nothing personal.


----------



## mariomike (10 Nov 2016)

Thanks.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Nov 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And that's true of any new person in the post, no matter what colour jersey they're wearing.
> 
> And along those lines ...
> _*"Muslim ban statement removed from Donald Trump's website"*_
> But does anything really disappear from the interwebs?  Google Cache version attached for posterity.


Aaaaaaaaaand, as of this post, it's back.  Interesting times, indeed.


			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> ... their agenda is coming apart faster than Miley Cyrus' pants being worn by Beyonce.


What is imagined, can't be unimagined ....


----------



## cupper (10 Nov 2016)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The SJW's just won't admit that they are not the anointed ones and that their agenda is coming apart faster than Miley Cyrus' pants being worn by Beyonce.



Are we sure that Miley Cyrus even wears pants?

 ;D


----------



## George Wallace (10 Nov 2016)

Not in "Wrecking Ball"


----------



## cupper (10 Nov 2016)

And I'll throw in the Penguins for good measure.

:rofl:


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Nov 2016)

>The SJW's just won't admit that they are not the anointed ones and that their agenda is coming apart faster than Miley Cyrus' pants being worn by Beyonce.

Let me know when Miley Cyrus is being worn by Beyonce.  (Thread will need pics.)


----------



## cupper (10 Nov 2016)

I wonder if the Obama White House staffers will pop all the T's off of their keyboards before they leave, just as the Clinton staffers did before George W. Bush moved in.


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Nov 2016)

To all the unhappy Democrats looking to flee north: What's wrong with Mexico? Ya, racist or something?  >


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Nov 2016)

>I wonder if the Obama White House staffers will ...

I will be surprised if any such pranks occur.  Accounts indicate that Obama desires a smooth, competent, adult transition like the one he received from his predecessor.

Obama has a lot of character flaws he indulges in political contexts that grate on me, but at a personal level he appears to me (and is alleged by many) to be civil and gracious.


----------



## George Wallace (11 Nov 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I wonder if the Obama White House staffers will ...
> 
> I will be surprised if any such pranks occur.  Accounts indicate that Obama desires a smooth, competent, adult transition like the one he received from his predecessor.
> 
> Obama has a lot of character flaws he indulges in political contexts that grate on me, but at a personal level he appears to me (and is alleged by many) to be civil and gracious.



 [


----------



## mariomike (11 Nov 2016)

"Welcome to Fort Trump." - NYPD

Fort Trump: New security measures ring Trump Tower 
http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/
NEW YORK (AP) — Being a midtown Manhattan neighbor of Donald Trump now that he's president-elect has come to this: navigating swarms of police officers, barricades, checkpoints and street closings that have turned Trump Tower — a tourist attraction normally open to the public — into a fortress.

The extreme security measures began going up around the landmark Fifth Avenue skyscraper on Election Day, when authorities brought in a fleet of heavy Sanitation Department trucks filled with sand to wall off the front of the glittering, 664-foot glass tower and protect it from a potential car bomb attack.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Nov 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I'd agree.
> 
> I would just point out that Alinsky published his rules in 1971.  Three years after 1968 and Paris, Watts, Detroit, and the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.
> 
> ...



Jon Stewart's election

http://thefederalist.com/2016/11/11/how-jon-stewart-and-the-daily-show-elected-donald-trump/


----------



## cupper (11 Nov 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >I wonder if the Obama White House staffers will ...
> 
> I will be surprised if any such pranks occur.  Accounts indicate that Obama desires a smooth, competent, adult transition like the one he received from his predecessor.
> 
> Obama has a lot of character flaws he indulges in political contexts that grate on me, but at a personal level he appears to me (and is alleged by many) to be civil and gracious.



I agree, Obama is nothing if not civil.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Nov 2016)

http://www.usnews.com/news/the-run-2016/articles/2016-11-11/dnc-staff-arrogance-cost-hillary-clinton-the-election-vs-donald-trump



> DNC Staff: Arrogance Cost Clinton the Election
> The Democratic National Committee is raging against the Hillary Clinton campaign machine.
> 
> ...
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Nov 2016)

And on the same topic

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/jonathan-kay-under-trumps-spell-conservative-thinkers-have-stumbled-into-crude-power-worship


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Nov 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> [


They missed their chance saying he'd displaced a black family from public housing  ;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (12 Nov 2016)

Michigan was finally called for Trump pushing his electoral college vote to 306 to 232 and winning 31 states.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Nov 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Michigan was finally called for Trump pushing his electoral college vote to 306 to 232 and winning 31 states.



Congratulations to you and your country electing Trump. I would have bet money Clinton was going to win, glad I'm wrong. Hopefully Mr Trump brings her to task for the shit she's done.


----------



## tomahawk6 (12 Nov 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Congratulations to you and your country electing Trump. I would have bet money Clinton was going to win, glad I'm wrong. Hopefully Mr Trump brings her to task for the crap she's done.



Thats a tight rope right there.The Clinton Foundation though would be fair game.


----------



## Journeyman (12 Nov 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> They missed their chance saying he'd displaced a black family from public housing  ;D


Hmm....Jack Layton/Olivia Chow flashback...


----------



## mariomike (12 Nov 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I would have bet money Clinton was going to win, glad I'm wrong.



You were right, and wrong.

New York Times,

"Hillary Clinton didn’t just win the popular vote. She won it by a substantial margin."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/11/opinion/clintons-substantial-popular-vote-win.html?_r=0


----------



## Journeyman (12 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> "Hillary Clinton didn’t just win the popular vote. She won it by a substantial margin."



Ah, memories of Col. Harry Summers: "You know you never defeated us on the battlefield," said the American colonel. The North Vietnamese colonel pondered this remark a moment. "That may be so," he replied, "but it is also irrelevant."

Yep, Hillary may have won the popular vote, but that isn't what the 'Electoral College war' is based on.


----------



## Chispa (12 Nov 2016)

The Electoral College epic saga is still today overwhelmed by vigorous debate, carry on, or scrap it? Some state, praying Trump can still be stopped.... say what??? he went over 270 how can this be?

Found this..... 

Trump can still be stopped. The Founding Fathers foresaw just this catastrophe, and built a fail-safe into the Constitution. It’s called the Electoral College. Alexander Hamilton was explicit: this mechanism was designed to ensure that “the office of president will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” In short, it was designed to prevent just this situation: the rise of an unqualified demagogue like Donald Trump.

You can make it do what it was meant to do.

The requirement here is modest: a small group of Republican electors must be persuaded to vote their conscience. No question that many of these are appalled at the prospect of a Trump presidency; surely a few are courageous enough to cast a vote for someone else. (Most if not all would vote for another Republican, of course; it doesn’t seem likely that many would choose Hillary Clinton.) Depending upon how current recounts turn out, somewhere between a minimum of ten and a maximum of thirty-seven electors would have to defect in order to bring Trump’s count down to less than 270. More reading fallow link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/douglas-anthony-cooper/the-electoral-college-was_b_12897066.html


Although fully aware of my, etc., above comments for many moons; all indications point the EC will vote in Trump's favour, although Hillary won the Popular Vote, as many have reverberated...NO... Your Single Vote Does Not Count in the USA.

Just my thoughts...

C.U.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Nov 2016)

I have heard talk of democratic or coastal or tech secession.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/nov/08/us-election-2016-results-live-clinton-trump?view=map&type=presidential

Judging from the map it would appear to be a little bit complicated.

The Mississippi valley is engulfed by rednecks. The Piedmont citadels are surrounded by crackers.  Chicago is afflicted with hoosiers.  

Miami is adrift.

Manhattan runs into deplorables on Long Island and Poughkeepsie.

And Washington DC?  40 miles in any direction and they run into Southerners.

Coastal California might be able to make a go of it - although the Deplorables of Kern County are only 40 miles from Malibu.   And then there is that unfortunate problem with the San Andrea Fault.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Nov 2016)

Regarding the Kay column "Under Trump’s spell, conservative thinkers have stumbled into crude power-worship", Kay is making what is turning out to be a common error.

Voting "for Trump to oppose Hillary", or "for Trump to upset the status quo" is not the same as voting "for Trump", and is not something that can easily be teased out absent an unequivocal statement from the voter.

I regularly read several columnists at NRO, where there were many Never-Trumpers and Lukewarm-Trumpers.

Trump is the apocryphal "crisis == danger+opportunity".  Most of the conservative output right now recognizes both the risk (Trump's character) and the opportunity (to enact not only parts of the broader Republican / conservative agenda, but also to lay down some lasting restraints on the presidency).  There's nothing crude about their reservations or ideas.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Nov 2016)

This explains a lot, from a British commentator (print and video versions):

 Nick Ferrari: How the "deplorables" took back America 



> Hillary Clinton labelled Donald Trump supporters "a basket of deplorables". Well it turn out there are over 59million deplorables in the United States.
> 
> Nick Ferrari told his LBC listeners that the voters were fed up with the entitlement of the Clintons, who felt that it was "Hillary's turn" to be President.
> 
> ...



Of course there are other reasons argued by others as to why Hillary failed in her bid.  This is only one opinion that is formulated.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Nov 2016)

"Hillary failed in her bid to be POTUS". That's all I need to know to surmise that America is waking up.

The next Clinton endeavour I hope to see or hear about is their appeal to the SCOTUS to remain free on bail.

Clinton is the New Orange.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Nov 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Regarding the Kay column "Under Trump’s spell, conservative thinkers have stumbled into crude power-worship", Kay is making what is turning out to be a common error.
> 
> Voting "for Trump to oppose Hillary", or "for Trump to upset the status quo" is not the same as voting "for Trump", and is not something that can easily be teased out absent an unequivocal statement from the voter.
> 
> ...



I note that both in Britain and in the US the cry now is:  Tell us what will happen.

I said earlier that the most effective weapon that any commander has at his disposal is Surprise.  Both the Conservative establishment in the UK and the Republican establishment in the US have been given prizes of the greatest value.

Nothing is predictable.

Theresa May is negotiating with both her domestic internationalists and EU saying that no matter what they do - take her to court, force an election on her - she has 17 to 18 million people only to willing to believe the worst of her opponents.

Donald Trump - well everyone knows that he is crazy.  He, like every American President, is quite willing to push the button on a nuclear war.  Why wouldn't he consider launching an economic war against China, ripping up all the trade deals, blowing apart the Internationalist Consensus, building a wall with Mexico.  He has 60 million people that don't find those prospects objectionable.

They are now playing two games of Three Card Monte with two rich, nuclear armed states  - and they are waiting for the cards to stop.

Who wants to make a deal?


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Nov 2016)

And the award for "Line of the Election - 2016" goes to:

Rex Murphy.



> Boasting about her expertise in the area, and her unparalleled experience, Madonna promised to give oral sex to any man who voted for Hillary Clinton. The threat did not go unheeded: all over the country, men went into hiding and trembled with dread.



http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/rex-murphy-fear-and-loathing-on-the-campaign-trail-16


----------



## cupper (12 Nov 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And Washington DC?  40 miles in any direction and they run into Southerners.



The only problem with that is only going 40 miles out from DC you are still in the suburbs, where the population is ethnically and politically diverse. 

40 miles west and south into would put you in the outer edges of Northern Virginia which is essentially what has made Virginia a blueish purple state in the last few elections.

40 miles north and east puts you in the Maryland suburbs around DC. Prince Georges County is majority African American and other ethnic groups. Montgomery County is more diverse across ethnic groups than PG county.

To get into more predominantly Republican areas you need to go much further south into rural Virginia. Go further north or East and you hit Delaware a democratic state, and Pennsylvania which tends to flip flop depending on the candidates in play.


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Nov 2016)

Sorry Cupper - make it 50 miles, 60 miles if you like.  Either way.  It is a pick-up truck ride away.  If you have a pick-up truck.  But it is beyond the range of the subway and your Starbucks is likely to get cold before you can walk there.

The problem is that the guy in the pickup truck knows the folks on the subway. They keep telling him all about it every night on every show.  Nobody on the subway knows the guy in the pickup truck.

And on a similar note

https://www.facebook.com/viralthread/videos/598130190359668/


----------



## cupper (12 Nov 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Sorry Cupper - make it 50 miles, 60 miles if you like.  Either way.  It is a pick-up truck ride away.  If you have a pick-up truck.  But it is beyond the range of the subway and your Starbucks is likely to get cold before you can walk there.
> 
> The problem is that the guy in the pickup truck knows the folks on the subway. They keep telling him all about it every night on every show.  Nobody on the subway knows the guy in the pickup truck.
> 
> ...



I got your point and its a very valid one. 

However DC and it's suburbs are a different situation. The population is getting more diverse each year, but also a large portion of the population is transient, coming in for government and military jobs, then moving out as postings come in and jobs get moved elsewhere. Due to the costs of housing, people are commuting into DC from West Virginia, Richmond, points further out. And it's getting further and further each year. Virginia used to be a staunch Republican or Dixiecrat state. But because of the growth of the outer suburbs, the red parts of the state are getting diluted by the influx of immigrants, government and military employees. 

And this is becoming a more visible situation in other regions and states. Take Texas for example. As the Hispanic and Latino communities grow, within the next 10 to 20 years, Texas will become a majority minority state. Some of that could be seen in this cycle because Texas was at times considered to be in play for either side.


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Nov 2016)

I read an interesting article that may help to illustrate why the Electoral College system might actually be more fair. In short, half of the US population resides in just 146 of 3144 counties.

Article:

Half of the U.S. lives in these 146 counties

Map:


----------



## George Wallace (12 Nov 2016)

For the Clinton fans, and Republicans who don't like Trump:

‘Prediction professor’ who called Trump’s big win also made another forecast: Trump will be impeached



> The Washington Post
> The Fix
> ‘Prediction professor’ who called Trump’s big win also made another forecast: Trump will be impeached
> By Peter W. Stevenson November 11 at 11:29 AM
> ...



More links and video on LINK.


----------



## dapaterson (12 Nov 2016)

ModlrMike: Are you saying that half the population shouldn't get half the vote?   There are some arguments to be made on those lines, but at what point does it become unfair to them?  For example, in a Canadian context, there's PEI with four senators and four MPs for a population of 156K; were every province to get the same level of representation, we'd need nearly 2000 members of the House of Commons and Senators - but instead, we give disproportionate power to Anne of Green Gables and Cows ice cream.

What level of imperfection in representation is fair?


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Nov 2016)

Perhaps fair was the wrong word to use there. But then the fairness concept is not always absolute.


----------



## mariomike (12 Nov 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> ModlrMike: Are you saying that half the population shouldn't get half the vote?





			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Perhaps fair was the wrong word to use there. But then the fairness concept is not always absolute.


----------



## cupper (12 Nov 2016)

:rofl:


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Nov 2016)

>Are you saying that half the population shouldn't get half the vote?

Not addressed to me, but to add to the discussion: they may have half the vote, but they should not have half the influence on a one-for-one basis (ie. a mere popular vote count).

Canada was created by those-who-would-be-provinces.  The US was created by those-who-would-be-states.  Both countries are creations of entities which necessarily had to concede some powers to the federal authority, but should not (then, or ever) be expected to concede everything.  I would expect the important elections for federal power to be structured in perpetuity in a way that doesn't end up handing the keys to the country over to a mere popular majority concentrated in only a few of the entities (by luck of being granted an outsize geographic footprint or circumstances favouring outsized population growth).


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Nov 2016)

Democracy is so much more than "majority rules". 

Clinton lost, and no amount of wet dreaming by the cabal at HuffPo wont change that fact.


Meanwhile:


----------



## mariomike (12 Nov 2016)

New York Times

"This is, in some ways, uncharted territory for a modern American president. You have to go back to Abraham Lincoln’s election in 1860 to see these types of mass demonstrations in response to the mere election of a president."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/trump-protest-rallies.html?_r=0

1860? We know how bloody that turned out.

Large anti-Trump protest planned for Toronto
http://www.citynews.ca/2016/11/12/large-anti-trump-protest-planned-toronto/

Bet they'll be calling in a lot of overtime for that.

Donald Trump feeds the emergency services at the Trump Protest in Chicago. Quite a nice spread.
https://twitter.com/ChiTownCheese/status/797578721238675456


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Nov 2016)

More on the "idiots on both sides" reportedly causing problems (with reports of fake reports as well), via the BBC.


			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> Democracy is so much more than "majority rules".


And way more than just about voting, too -- well put.


----------



## cupper (13 Nov 2016)

[


----------



## George Wallace (13 Nov 2016)

It's over.  America is doomed


----------



## Chispa (13 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> New York Times
> 
> 
> 1860? We know how bloody that turned out.



I don`t believe America is doomed, although her time in world domination might be afoot, taken into consideration the Rise & fall of World Empires through the ages.....Even if America was in Civil War, she would surely come together and fight any state attacking her sovereignty..

Statements from many believing Trump will windup being Impeached within a year of taking office, or term....Protest since DOD, Day of Deliverance, have ratcheted, denouncing Trump as burning effigies and the American flag...True has surfaced in past American History in which way too many were needless killed, etc., all in the name of ``King Cotton,`` etc.

Not known too many, the American Patriot Wars of 1838-ca40., this was with the Hunter Lodge Brotherhood, a secret society, which also participated in the Cdn Rebellion of 37-38, all wanted changes in Government, policies, laws, etc.

Yesterday for some reason CNN stated the EC vote will unfold on the 21st., I checked looks like it`s on the 19th, online contains an alarming frenzy, calls on Trump protest until that time period. Some calling on open gun states too march armed in protest from both sides, although many from White-Bread Pride Crap supporting Trump.

Russian, China, etc., are giddy with joy, America is such turmoil, while her polarization world wide, points too wide spread bigotry, etc., etc., an embarrassment, recovery will take many moons.


C.U.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Nov 2016)

[quote author=Chispa] points too wide spread bigotry, etc., etc., an embarrassment, recovery will take many moons.


C.U.     
[/quote]
Maybe the Liberals should stop crying, quit rioting and get on with their lives?


----------



## QV (13 Nov 2016)

Ain't democracy a bitch?


----------



## mariomike (13 Nov 2016)

12 presidents in my lifetime. 7 of them Republican. But, I've never seen anything like this before the guy is even sworn in.

President-elect Trump post election protests / riots,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_Donald_Trump#Post-election_protests


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> 12 presidents in my lifetime. 7 of them Republican. But, I've never seen anything like this before the guy is even sworn in.
> 
> President-elect Trump post election protests / riots,
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_Donald_Trump#Post-election_protests


A generation of androgynous cry babies will do that to a society. I don't like something therefore it cannot exist  :


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Nov 2016)

Scott Adams (creator and author of Dilbert) has this to say about The Cognitive Dissonance Cluster Bomb.

"This brings me to the anti-Trump protests. The protesters look as though they are protesting Trump, but they are not. They are locked in an imaginary world and battling their own hallucinations of the future."

"As I often tell you, we all live in our own movies inside our heads. Humans did not evolve with the capability to understand their reality because it was not important to survival. Any illusion that keeps us alive long enough to procreate is good enough.

That’s why the protestors live in a movie in which they are fighting against a monster called Trump and you live in a movie where you got the president you wanted for the changes you prefer. Same planet, different realities."


----------



## mariomike (13 Nov 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> A generation of androgynous cry babies will do that to a society. I don't like something therefore it cannot exist  :



I guess so. I'm old enough to remember watching the race riots and draft protests on TV in the 1960's. Nothing new about that.
But, protests and riots against a president-elect is new to me.


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I guess so. I'm old enough to remember watching the race riots and draft protests on TV in the 1960's. Nothing new about that.
> But, protests and riots against a president-elect is new to me.



Its an example how far left the democrats have gone. For me they are not any different than the communist party in tactics if nothing else.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 Nov 2016)

Hey T6-

I would like to highlight the fact that you called the Trump win, right here in this thread, weeks ago when conventional wisdom held that he was finished.

You sir, are quite the political prognosticator!


----------



## observor 69 (13 Nov 2016)

Mr.Trump won the primary and presidential election because he was like no presidential contender before.
People are demonstrating in the streets, post election, because he said things like no presidential contender before.
Standing by to see how this develops.


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Nov 2016)

My wife's nephew placed a wager in a betting shop that Donald would take the day, wish I could have done the same.


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Nov 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Hey T6-
> 
> I would like to highlight the fact that you called the Trump win, right here in this thread, weeks ago when conventional wisdom held that he was finished.
> 
> You sir, are quite the political prognosticator!



Thanks !! Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every so often.


----------



## mariomike (13 Nov 2016)

Trump’s win could boost Toronto’s housing market
http://www.680news.com/2016/11/12/weekend-business-report-trumps-win-could-boost-torontos-housing-market/
American searches for Canadian housing spiked 282 percent after the US election.


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Nov 2016)

The Hollywood crowd has decided not to move to Canada after all. :camo:


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Nov 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> The Hollywood crowd has decided not to move to Canada after all. :camo:


You'd think Donald Sutherland would be able to sell the place better  ;D


			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Thanks !! Even a blind squirrel finds a nut every so often.


Still, credit where due - well called.

Meanwhile, oopsie ...


> The Australian prime minister on Monday confirmed that he did not tell President-elect Donald Trump that the United States had agreed to resettle an unspecified number of refugees languishing at Australia's expense in Pacific island camps.
> 
> In announcing the deal on Sunday, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull would not say whether he had discussed it with Trump during their telephone conversation on Thursday.
> 
> ...


Let's see how THAT goes ...


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Nov 2016)

Even a very cursory look at the voting over the last three elections shows what happened. Democrat voters chose to stay at home. The failed to muster almost five million voters over 2012, and nine million over 2008. The Republican numbers stayed mostly flat over the same time period. I'm sure there are a number of reasons why Democrat voters failed to show up at the polls. It would seem they only have themselves to blame.

	                    2016	    2012	   2008

Republicans	60265858	60933504	59948323
Democrats	        60839922	65915795	69498516

Voting Rate	56.1	          54.9	    58.2


----------



## mariomike (13 Nov 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It would seem they only have themselves to blame.



Why bother? You're still going to lose.

"All the ballots haven't been counted yet, but it looks like Hillary Clinton really did win the nationwide popular vote -- if not the presidency -- by a considerable margin."
http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/13/who-won-the-popular-vote/

Today in Toronto,
Hundreds of protesters march against Trump in Toronto
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-trump-protest-1.3849311


----------



## Chispa (13 Nov 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> "As I often tell you, we all live in our own movies inside our heads. Humans did not evolve with the capability to understand their reality because it was not important to survival. Any illusion that keeps us alive long enough to procreate is good enough.



That’s why movies, love, etc., nonsense novels, soap-crap, reality TV, etc., are part of popular culture world wide....Was advised: No matter what great U have achieved in life, a good portion of individuals are figments of their own imagination, when U get down too the nuts & bolts... Per Say: Many believe their better then others while standing on their height horse in morality, we're all born and die sooner or later the same way....



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Maybe the Liberals should stop crying, quit rioting and get on with their lives?



Although your certainly right, the problem is one needs too stop the ones that are feeding, organizing the frenzy, while many are calling on Clinton too address her supporters in quelling the roots of a rebellion.... :argument:

Only seen this in third world or Banana republic states, in all US elections yet too see, and this is just the start supposed tooo intensify by EC vote on Dec., 19th.


When U thought the White House could not get any whiter, S. Bannon is in the house as El Presidente Elect, D.J. Trump chief adviser, etc. 
While many state Reince Priebus, chairman of the Republican National Committee and a loyal campaign adviser, to be his White House chief of staff, was a wise choice, however, Priebus and Bannon will be equals.......

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/us/politics/reince-priebus-chief-of-staff-donald-trump.html?_r=0


C.U.

Too Mods, I checked my Word, Keyboard all is good, however when I type on YR MSG board French keys are 
activated ÈÈÈÈÈÈÈèèèèèèééééé Ièm on Canadian English


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Nov 2016)

With a population of 330 million, and over 120 million voters, who cares that a small bunch of snowflakes protest. It's a free country. Look at some of the video feeds. Some groups are less than 200, some less than a thousand. Portland Ore - look at the photos of the 71 recently arrested http://www.kgw.com/news/local/anti-trump-protesters-march-for-fifth-straight-night/351400705 and make your own assessment.


----------



## Chispa (13 Nov 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> With a population of 330 million, and over 120 million voters, who cares that a small bunch of snowflakes protest. It's a free country. Look at some of the video feeds. Some groups are less than 200, some less than a thousand. Portland Ore - look at the photos of the 71 recently arrested http://www.kgw.com/news/local/anti-trump-protesters-march-for-fifth-straight-night/351400705 and make your own assessment.




Your right, make no mistake for now its thousand across America have been protesting since Trump won, each day, and that's how the majority of news are reporting....

Yes might be small and hope it stays that way, however this might escalate, like a small crack on a dam if you don't fix it might get bigger.

Anti-Trump protests stretch into fifth day.. 
On Saturday, 8,000 people took to the streets in Los Angeles. The march was peaceful, unlike a Friday night protest by 1,000 people that resulted in the arrests of 187 adults and eight juveniles, Los Angeles police said.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/13/us/protests-elections-trump/index.html


C.U.


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Nov 2016)

Your quoting the media, CNN???

They did not have a clue that Trump was going to win. They did not read the pulse of the voters. Out of touch. They could not see past their big liberal nose. So why believe anything from them especially CNN. A CNN employee gave Hillary at least two questions to be prepared for in her debate with Bernie.

Thousands. Wow. 160 + million voters. I wonder if any of these rioting snowflakes even voted or worked for the election of a candidate.

News reporting- If it bleeds it leads.


----------



## tomahawk6 (13 Nov 2016)

Obama and Clinton are being asked to put an end to the protests by their paid agitators.

http://theweek.com/speedreads/661787/conway-says-obama-clinton-sanders-must-calm-paid-antitrump-protesters

In interviews Sunday with NBC's Chuck Todd and Fox News' Chris Wallace, Kellyanne Conway said it is the responsibility of Democratic leaders to quiet protests of President-elect Donald Trump. She also suggested at least some of the protesters are paid professionals intentionally fomenting turmoil.

Trump's former campaign manager and a key member of his transition team, Conway told Todd it is "time really for President Obama and Secretary Clinton to say to these protesters, 'This man is our president.'" With Wallace she made the same point in regards to Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders, adding that it is their supporters who are "masquerading as protesters now — many of them professional and paid by the way, I'm sure."


----------



## Chispa (13 Nov 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Your quoting the media, CNN???
> 
> They did not have a clue that Trump was going to win. They did not read the pulse of the voters. Out of touch. They could not see past their big liberal nose. So why believe anything from them especially CNN. A CNN employee gave Hillary at least two questions to be prepared for in her debate with Bernie.
> 
> ...



Having Issue... I can use FOX or any other.... all say same... Thousands across America for 5 days..... Yes I heard... many say it was Anderson giving crooked Hillary a big heads up...It was clear CNN was praying Trump would loose and made every effort... Trump will not allow CNN be sold to??? I just forgot..Sorry

Ok found it's AT&T for 83 B: http://www.adweek.com/tvnewser/cnn-parent-time-warner-will-sell-to-att-for-83-billion/309014

Ok what ever happened thanks the keyboard is now OK, no French letters......


----------



## mariomike (13 Nov 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Obama and Clinton are being asked to put an end to the protests by their paid agitators.





			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> who cares that a small bunch of snowflakes protest. It's a free country.



Looks like a lot of OT for Ottawa P.D.

Ottawa police are already concerned about security for a Trump visit
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/city-hall-blog-a-trump-visit-to-ottawa-isnt-like-an-obama-love-in-for-police

“(With) Obama, it’s a love-in and the two visits we had with President Obama were very positive. I think the dynamics with a person like Trump is totally different that we have to factor into our planning assumptions and the potential (for) demonstrations or activities on such a visit.”
Ottawa Police Chief Charles Bordeleau


----------



## blacktriangle (13 Nov 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> look at the photos of the 71 recently arrested http://www.kgw.com/news/local/anti-trump-protesters-march-for-fifth-straight-night/351400705 and make your own assessment.



Looks like a mix of coffee shop baristas and halfway house tenants. Thanks for the laugh!


----------



## dimsum (13 Nov 2016)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Looks like a mix of coffee shop baristas and halfway house tenants. Thanks for the laugh!



Well, that *was* in Portland, Oregon.


----------



## FJAG (13 Nov 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Even a very cursory look at the voting over the last three elections shows what happened. Democrat voters chose to stay at home. The failed to muster almost five million voters over 2012, and nine million over 2008. The Republican numbers stayed mostly flat over the same time period. I'm sure there are a number of reasons why Democrat voters failed to show up at the polls. It would seem they only have themselves to blame.
> 
> 2016	    2012	   2008
> 
> ...



While I don't disagree with your basic premise that the Democrats didn't get the vote out (for whatever reason), it strikes me that by limiting your sample to those three elections you may be missing an issue. If you go back three more elections you get the following:

                            2016                 2012                 2008                 2004                2000               1996

Republicans      60,265,858        60,933,504       59,948,323       62,040,610      50,456,002    47,401,185
Democrats	       60,839,922        65,915,795       69,498,516       59,028,444      50,999,897    39,197,469
                                                                                                                                            (Ross Perot) 8,085,294 
                                                                                               
Voting Rate          56.1                   54.9                  58.2                    55.7                 50.3                49.0

Note that there was a turnout uptick in 2004 which added some 10 million votes to each of the Democrats and Republicans and that in 2008 there was again a rise that added another 10 million to the Democrat vote but lost two million Republicans. In 2012 the rate lowered a few points which exclusively hit the Democrats. In 2016 the rate went back up again and, while the final numbers aren't in yet, predictions are that the vote will be 63,400,000 Democrats to 61,200,000 Republicans (assuming anyone believes predictions anymore).

The conclusion that I take from this is that over the last four elections there has developed a core of roughly 60,000,000 each of Democrat and Republican voters but that in 2008/2012 Obama drew a premium of otherwise uncommitted voters who were personally invested in him rather than the Democratic Party in general. Basically, with Obama gone, the uncommitted voters have decided to sit this one out.

Anyway, that's my guess. I'm sure that there will be no shortage of other guesses in the horde of upcoming post mortems.

 [cheers]


----------



## blacktriangle (13 Nov 2016)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Well, that *was* in Portland, Oregon.



I was expecting it to be a bit more diverse. They mainly look like a bunch of under-achieving white people. I guess all the other demographic groups there are too busy WORKING to protest en masse. 

Even more shocking to me - these people actually seem to believe that those like Clinton give a damn about them...


----------



## Chispa (13 Nov 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> While I don't disagree with your basic premise that the Democrats didn't get the vote out (for whatever reason), it strikes me that by limiting your sample to those three elections you may be missing an issue. If you go back three more elections you get the following:
> 
> 2016                 2012                 2008                 2004                2000               1996
> 
> ...



That's about my understanding of the numbers, nor in any disagreement, owing the comments are on the ball.. However for days now many are pointing too a White Lash, as many Rural white American especially in the rust belt voted for Trump, not forgetting the white working class...

Editorial: Rural America and a Silent Majority Powered Trump to a Win by MARIE WHITAKER
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/2016-election-day/analysis-rural-america-silent-majority-powered-trump-win-n681221

C.U.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Nov 2016)

>Obama drew a premium of otherwise uncommitted voters who were personally invested in him 

I've read several analyses that confirm your assessment.  There is a growing cadre of Democrats who agree with the sentiment "Obama was personally popular, but his (to be fair, Democratic - Reid and Pelosi should feature strongly in this) policies were unpopular".  That is a plausible explanation for the apparent paradox of his (current) high favourability ratings compared to the election results.

So four election cycles (2010, '12, '14, '16) have elapsed during which Democratic-held offices all down the ballot have diminished.

I'll stick to my earlier hypothesis: Democrats conceded (2010) that the dream of a permanent Democratic majority was premature, but concluded that demographics and data crunching could keep the presidency in their hands indefinitely.  With the presidency and enough Democrats in Congress to prevent a veto override (and hopefully with enough to sustain Senate filibusters), they could achieve their aims with executive power.

The conclusion/assumption was premature.  The Democratic party is weak at all levels, and much of what was achieved can be rolled back by the pen and phone almost as easily as it was enabled.  Much of the ACA was passed via budget reconciliation and is not protected by minority filibuster rules.


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Nov 2016)

I keep seeing the "non college educated white" thing in respect to Trump voters.  Of course they voted Trump, having not been privileged enough to attend a four year+ rightthink indoctrination camp, poor morons.   :


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Nov 2016)

Credit where due - POTUS-elect uses a bit of his "60 Minutes" appearance to tell his supporters to behave ...


> ... President-elect Donald Trump is demanding that any of his supporters who are harassing people or destroying property “stop it.”
> 
> He tells CBS’s “60 Minutes” that he is “saddened” to hear that is happening. He says, “I will say it right to the cameras: Stop it.” ...


----------



## Journeyman (14 Nov 2016)

Well, I was the victim of physical violence this weekend because of the election.

Was in a Toronto bar, listening to some music and chatting with the other folks at the table.  When they said they were up from the States, I asked if they were looking to buy or rent a place to live.  Girlfriend kicked me under the table.

Politics can be painful.   :nod:


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Nov 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well, I was the victim of physical violence this weekend because of the election.
> 
> Was in a Toronto bar, listening to some music and chatting with the other folks at the table.  When they said they were up from the States, I asked if they were looking to buy or rent a place to live.  Girlfriend kicked me under the table.
> 
> Politics can be painful.   :nod:



 ;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Nov 2016)

Trump protests are professionally organized and they are not trying to hide it.

http://www.socialistalternative.org/2016/11/11/anti-trump-protests-24-hours-40000-people-answered-call/


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Nov 2016)

The issue of women in combat is probably going to get rolled back by the Trump administration.

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/donald-trump-women-combat-obama-military-policy

The Obama administration’s historic decision to open military combat jobs to women, a process well underway for nearly a year, could be reviewed or even reversed as President-elect Donald Trump and his Republican Party take control of Washington in January. 

Trump has been a vocal skeptic of the new policy, calling the change “politically correct” and linking it to a rise in reported sexual assaults throughout the ranks. The Republican Party's official platform, drawn up this summer, expressly calls for reversal. And top lawmakers who will control Congress for at least the next two years have voiced clear opposition as well. 

The policy affects nearly 300,000 military jobs involved in direct ground combat. 

“Those policies have to be rolled back,” said Elaine Donnelly , president of the Center for Military Readiness, an advocacy group opposed to the slate of Obama-era military personnel reforms. “Right now the policy is that women can and will be assigned to ground combat units. That pronouncement can indeed be changed by a future secretary of defense." 

Trump’s election comes as the gender-integration effort — once said to be a two-year process — nears key milestones in the Army and Marine Corps, the services most significantly affected. Since January, when implementation began in earnest, hundreds of women have expressed interest in joining the infantry, artillery and armor career fields, and dozens are in the pipeline for assignment to operational units next year. 

The process could be stalled in several ways. Trump's administration could simply reverse the policy outright; Congress has passed no laws on this issue. Alternatively, a new defense secretary could grant exceptions to the policy. 

Those who support the change are worried. “We have real concerns that this administration will not ensure that the integration continues,” said Kate Germano, a recently retired Marine Corps officer who now works for the Service Women’s Action Network, an advocacy group for military women. 

Trump has not indicated whom he will appoint to be the defense secretary. His top uniformed adviser, Marine Corps Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, opposed women serving in combat units. As the Marines' top general in 2015, Dunford voiced concerns about potential impacts on combat readiness, and he filed a formal request to exempt his service from having to comply. His civilian superiors rejected that request. 

A more subtle option for the next defense secretary would be to allow the policy to remain in place while exerting no substantial pressure on the military leaders charged with implementing it, thus allowing the transition to slow or stall. 

“Let’s be honest,"Germano said. "Not all of the services have embraced the change. We’re already seeing it slow-rolled to a certain degree, and the next administration would just enable that type of behavior.” 

WHERE THE SERVICES STAND 

The Army and the Marine Corps have responded very differently. While the former started early and has moved quickly to implement the new policy, the latter initially opposed the change and has made less progress toward placing women in combat units. 

Army leaders began sending women to the prestigious Ranger School last year, before the Pentagon's decision was final. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley said at the time: “Women are in combat. I don’t know what the debate is, actually, frankly, on women in combat. Because women have been fighting in combat for quite some time.” 

There is one female Army officer, a captain, who has been assigned to an operational unit in the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division. Another 10 women have successfully completed the Infantry Basic Officer Leaders Course, which takes freshly commissioned lieutenants and, over 17 weeks, prepares them for assignment to an infantry unit. 

On the enlisted side, the Army says about 245 female soldiers and recruits are in the training pipeline for combat arms jobs in 2017. 

As the only service to seek an exemption to gender integration, the Marines pointed to their own internal study that found male Marines far outperformed women in a variety of ground-combat tasks. Women were slower, fired their weapons with less accuracy and were more susceptible to injury, the Marine Corps' data showed. And a survey conducted in 2012 found that two out of three male Marines was opposed to gender-integrated combat units.  

The service's current commandant, Gen. Robert Neller, has promised to carry out orders and integrate combat units. Three enlisted women have been approved to join East Coast infantry units in the coming months, including one rifleman, one machine gunner and one mortar Marine, officials say. And two junior officers have become the Marine Corps’ first female artillery officers. 

But so far, no female Marines have passed the famously rigorous Infantry Officer Course, even though dozens have tried. And while one female corporal met the minimum requirements to pass the first phase of special operations training, she did not score high enough to continue. 

The Navy has offered to open its special operations units, but so far no female sailors have volunteered for Navy SEAL training. 

In the Air Force's special operations community, the first woman to enter training to become a tactical air control party airman left shortly after starting due to an injury. There are no women currently in the pipeline at the TACP Preparatory Course at Joint Base San Antonio-Lackland, Texas. 

'THERE IS NO TURNING BACK' 

Obama's defense secretary, Ash Carter, has said the Pentagon needs to eliminate barriers that prevent people from serving in the military, and that doing so will help recruit and retain the most talented force. Supporters of gender integration say opening combat career fields to women will improve their promotion rates, helping to push them into the services' highest ranks, which are dominated by officers from the combat arms career fields. Any attempt by the Trump administration to reverse or slow the policy could face a challenge in court. 

The change in Pentagon policy was partly influenced by a 2012 lawsuit from four female service members. They claimed the combat-exclusion rule for women violated their constitutional rights against gender discrimination. The suit is pending. While the Defense Department sought to have it thrown out earlier this year, saying Obama’s policy rendered the issue moot, the federal judge in northern California said the issue and lawsuit remain active. 

Attorneys have argued whether the Defense Department’s integration plan is sufficient and moving quickly enough. And in October, there was a warning that the case’s underlying issue would be revived if Trump won the election. “If we have a Republican president, we may well be in the same position we were when we filed this complaint, a categorical exclusion of all women from combat units,” Steven Perry, who represents the four women, told a judge in the federal court. The judge agreed and set a followup court date for January. 

Federal courts have the power to overturn Defense Department policy, which can result in immediate changes. Military officials fear that would be disruptive and at odds with the Pentagon’s traditional bureaucratic process for implementing new policies. 

“The judge put off any further discussion of what direction the case will go in after the election,” said Gillian Thomas, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, which also is involved in the lawsuit. Thomas said any effort to scale back women’s opportunities in the military will meet stiff resistance. “There is no turning back for us,” she said. 

WHAT TRUMP & THE GOP HAVE SAID 

The president-elect has not stated explicitly that he will reverse the policy, but his comments on the campaign trail indicated he is skeptical of it. “It's a very tricky subject,” Trump told CBS News in December 2015 just a few days after the Pentagon announced the change. “You're in there and you're fighting and you're sitting next to a woman, and now they want to be politically correct. They want to do it, but there are major problems. And, as you know, there are many people that think this shouldn't be done, at a high level, at a level of general.”  

Just weeks before the election, during an October campaign event with veterans in Herndon, Virginia, Trump addressed questions about gender integration by promising to heed his generals' advice and by suggesting Obama had not. “We have a politically correct military, and it's getting more and more politically correct every day. ... Some of the things that they're asking you to do and be politically correct about are ridiculous," he said. 

The Republican Party platform adopted in August called for “an objective review of the impact on readiness of the current administration’s ideology-based personnel policies." Specifically, the platform states the party wants to exempt women “from direct ground combat units and infantry battalions." 

The Pentagon’s change came after 15 years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, where counterinsurgency operations made rules referencing "ground combat" seem out of step with missions targeting a shadowy enemy using nontraditional, asymmetrical tactics. During those conflicts, more than about 300,000 women were deployed into combat zones. More than 9,000 earned combat action badges, while 800-plus were wounded. At least 161 have died from combat- and noncombat-related incidents, according to Defense Department data. 

Some experts say the issue is far more controversial among people who know very little about the military. “The fact that most of the American public is so removed from the battlefield makes it easier to make it a political issue,” said Gayle Tzemach Lemmon, author of “Ashley's War: The Untold Story of a Team of Women Soldiers on the Special Ops Battlefield.” 

“They don’t know that this has been happening for more than a decade and women have been on the front line because commanders needed them," she said. “It is possible that people who were opposed to it from the start could use this as their window. But what I hear from folks on the ground is, if you meet the standards and accomplish the mission, then you’re part of the team. And oh by the way, that’s been happening for 15 years.”


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 Nov 2016)

Goodbye 'foo foo' economics, hello again 'bread and butter' energy...

As Forbes contributor Michael Lynch (@laffngeconomist) tweeted last week, Tesla’s big new solar roof system is “probably the most expensive way to reduce GHG emissions short of lawyers on hamster wheels.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2016/11/09/president-trump-will-make-americas-energy-sector-great-again/#3d1aab6e64e2


----------



## Chispa (14 Nov 2016)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I keep seeing the "non college educated white" thing in respect to Trump voters.  Of course they voted Trump, having not been privileged enough to attend a four year+ rightthink indoctrination camp, poor morons.   :





The Beverly Hillbillies - 1x08 - Jethro Goes to School - part 2

I got me a "sixth-grade education."

https://youtu.be/CNgv4Jp6ipc


In disclosure: I'm well aware many without an academic education, etc., were or are successful, even those that can't read or write made $$$$$$$$$$$, etc.

Just my thoughts..


----------



## mariomike (14 Nov 2016)

"Elly May done popped the buttons off her shirt again!"

Just my thoughts...


----------



## Chispa (14 Nov 2016)

No comment, although wasn't bottle fed as a baby... :-X a yes Buttons  ;D


Going back on the Election, could it be; D. J. Trump was never breast fed? 

Trump lands in new controversy over breast-feeding comments.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-trump-idUSKCN0Q31WN20150729


Presidential Candidate Donald Trump Hates Breastfeeding Women ...
http://www.babypost.com/blogs/baby-buzz/presidential-candidate-donald-trump-hates-breastfeeding-women

What happened Too kissing babies in elections, I the words of FF: Whose Baby Is That?", "What's Your Angle?", "I'll Buy That".


C.U.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Nov 2016)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I keep seeing the "non college educated white" thing in respect to Trump voters.  Of course they voted Trump, having not been privileged enough to attend a four year+ rightthink indoctrination camp, poor morons.   :



It's also because a great many people in the blue camp consider only university to be education. 

I know a ton of folks in the trades with great careers. That's of course balanced by the degree holding barista battalions.


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Nov 2016)

Kat Stevens: 





> I keep seeing the "non college educated white" thing in respect to Trump voters.  Of course they voted Trump, having not been privileged enough to attend a four year+ right think indoctrination camp, poor morons.



ModlrMike:





> It's also because a great many people in the blue camp consider only university to be education. I know a ton of folks in the trades with great careers. That's of course balanced by the degree holding barista battalions.



Agree fully. I always felt that the demographic "non college educated white" was condescending and disliked the connotation that they are less intelligent. Trades persons, probably the majority of US military enlisted members are probably not considered in this demographic. Are they lessor persons?

https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40 US Dept of Education

The 6-year graduation rate for first-time, full-time undergraduate students who began their pursuit of a bachelor's degree at a 4-year degree-granting institution in fall 2008 was 60 percent. That is, 60 percent of first-time, full-time students who began seeking a bachelor's degree at a 4-year institution in fall 2008 completed the degree at that institution by 2014.


----------



## mariomike (14 Nov 2016)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I keep seeing the "non college educated white" thing in respect to Trump voters.


----------



## Chispa (14 Nov 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Are they lessor persons?



Pour moi: Nope, however if they are an arse....In educated or Non... You have good, the bad and the ugly.....I know a few that are....Yr typical well educated and without, know it all, with chips on their shoulders looking down on others.




We all heard in conflict of interest; Trump is going to get tough on China’s trade policies, etc., the reality will dawn on him 
when China holds the note over his Big head….

Trump's Empire: A Maze of Debts and Opaque Ties - The New York ..
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/21/us/politics/donald-trump-debt.html?_r=0

Here's why Donald Trump hates China so much: he's ... - Daily News Bin
http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/heres-why-donald-trump-hates-china-so-much-hes-massively-in-debt-to-the-chinese-government/25765/

'Beholden to no one' Trump owes $650 MILLION to China, and ...
http://therightscoop.com/beholden-to-no-one-trump-owes-650-million-to-china-and-goldman-sachs/

My understanding the P and VP are exempt from blind trusts, etc., carrying on…


C.U.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Nov 2016)

More tea leaves to read - highlights mine ...


> President-elect Donald Trump made his first two key personnel appointments on Sunday, one an overture to Republican circles by naming GOP chief *Reince Priebus* as his White House chief of staff, the other a shot across the bow of the Washington establishment by tabbing Breitbart news executive *Stephan Bannon* as chief strategist and senior counselor.
> 
> The two men had made up the president-elect's chief of staff shortlist, and while Priebus received that job, Bannon's post also is expected to wield significant clout. The media executive with ties to the alt-right and white nationalist movement was given top billing in the press release announcing their appointments.
> 
> *Trump's hires were, at first glance, contradictory, though they fit a pattern of the celebrity businessman creating a veritable Rorschach test that allowed his supporters to see what they wanted.* Priebus, who lashed the RNC to Trump this summer despite some intraparty objections, is a GOP operative with deep expertise of the Washington establishment that Trump has vowed to shake up. He has close ties to House Speaker Paul Ryan, a fellow Wisconsinite ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Nov 2016)

NY Times/CNN same non credible sinking canoe.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Nov 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> NY Times/CNN same non credible sinking canoe.


Associated Press wire service, actually, not NYT or CNN - or am I not the only one commenting without reading?


----------



## mariomike (14 Nov 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> NY Times/CNN same non credible sinking canoe.



When people on the internet tell me which sources are credible, and which are not, I take my guidance from,

Milnews
Reply #2184 on: October 24, 2016, 12:56:38 in this thread.
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/108210/post-1460600.html#msg1460600


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> When people on the internet tell me which sources are credible, and which are not, I take my guidance from,
> 
> Milnews
> Reply #2184 on: October 24, 2016, 12:56:38 in this thread.
> http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/108210/post-1460600.html#msg1460600




Jeez, you can't trust him!!!

I heard tell that he was a militiaman.


----------



## mariomike (14 Nov 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Jeez, you can't trust him!!!
> 
> I heard tell that he was a militiaman.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

>



 [cheers]


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Nov 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Jeez, you can't trust him!!!
> 
> I heard tell that he was a militiaman.


 :rofl:  Guilty as charged, m'lord!  And I wouldn't trust me many days, either  ;D


----------



## Chispa (14 Nov 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> NY Times/CNN same non credible sinking canoe.



Well the Majority of all Major, online, etc., press, certainly got it wrong, en masse. I can't emphasis on the amount of Newspapers pre 1860 till present day I've rummaged through while researching, noted their first objective is selling papers, while credibility in the narrative suffers. Papers with one sided championed agendas feeding the frenzy when breaking news surfaced, word spread throughout Canada's, US, Briton's press all contributing changes at times too the narratives. 

In 1860s with the Mason & Slidell Affair, the press printed inaccurate columns, filled with embellished speculative rhetoric feeding the masses, while many had no clue what was really unfolding demands for war by US, Canadian and British press surfaced, at times with "Yellow Journalism."   

Well CNN the most trusted name in "recycled tabloid rubbish," gets it right, at times certainly wrong, same can be said of other mainstream news outlets.

In the wise words of E.A.P.: “Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear.” 


*Trump, Putin agree in phone call to improve ‘unsatisfactory’ relations between their countries, Kremlin says…*

The statement said the two leaders discussed combining efforts in the fight against terrorism, talked about “a settlement for the crisis in Syria” and agreed their aides would begin working toward a face-to-face meeting between them.

Trump’s office said in a statement that Putin had called to “offer his congratulations” and that the two had discussed “a range of issues including the threats and challenges facing the United States and Russia, strategic economic issues and the historical U.S.-Russia relationship that dates back over 200 years.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/14/trump-faces-backlash-over-appointing-bannon-as-a-top-aide-a-choice-critics-say-will-empower-white-nationalists/

*Trump team seeks top-secret security clearances for Trump's children:* The Trump team has asked the White House to explore the possibility of getting his children the top secret security clearances. Logistically, the children would need to be designated by the current White House as national security advisers to their father to receive top secret clearances. However, once Mr. Trump becomes president, he would be able to put in the request himself. His children would need to fill out the security questionnaire (SF-86) and go through the requisite background checks. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-team-seeks-top-secret-security-clearances-for-trump-children/


*Appointment of 'white nationalist' Steve Bannon must be reversed, critics declare!*

Progressive advocates and some politicians say selection of top adviser shows Trump ‘intends to carry racism 
and antisemitism straight to the White House’

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/14/steve-bannon-white-house-racism-fear


C.U.


----------



## cupper (14 Nov 2016)

[

https://youtu.be/bufTna0WArc


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> "All the ballots haven't been counted yet, but it looks like Hillary Clinton really did win the nationwide popular vote -- if not the presidency -- by a considerable margin."
> http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/13/who-won-the-popular-vote/



Snopes....nice

If by "considerable margin" they mean by 0.55%, then ok.

Also, remove California, and Mr Trump wins by a very real considerable margin.


----------



## mariomike (14 Nov 2016)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Snopes....nice



Trump Clinton Popular Vote
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=H24qWI72MOOM8Qfx9rXgAg&gws_rd=ssl#q=clinton+trump+%22popular+vote%22&tbs=qdr:d


----------



## a_majoor (15 Nov 2016)

It is amazing how the whole Popular Vote canard is in play again. Evidently the whole idea of the Electoral College is now a bad idea.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/10/the_electoral_college_could_be_abolished_without_an_amendment.html

Oh, wait, it was a great idea when _they_ won

(http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html)

The only constant is the Progressives will do anything, say anything and take any position so long as they think it will lead to power over the rest of us......


----------



## mariomike (15 Nov 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The only constant is the Progressives will do anything, say anything and take any position so long as they think it will lead to power over the rest of us......



Mr. Trump tweeted,
"The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/266038556504494082?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

I don't believe the riots are anti-Republican. These riots are personal, in my opinion.
During my lifetime, as far back as Eisenhower, there have been Republican presidents without rioting between election and inauguration.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Nov 2016)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Snopes....nice
> 
> If by "considerable margin" they mean by 0.55%, then ok.
> 
> Also, remove California, and Mr Trump wins by a very real considerable margin.



Or remove a state Mr Trump dominated and... it's a silly argument.  The rules of the game were known well in advance.  The Republicans were more vote efficient than the Democrats.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Nov 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The only constant is the Progressives*Politicians* will do anything, say anything and take any position so long as they think it will lead to power over the rest of us......



The lust for power belongs to no lone spot on the political spectrum.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Nov 2016)

Fabulous Facebook meme:


----------



## a_majoor (15 Nov 2016)

The future. Demographics, economics and social structures have changed (and not for the better), making current political parties more and more out of touch with the questions of the day. This article suggests the shift from ideology to identity, and the irony is the Republicans are going to benefit the most, even though it was the Progressives and Leftists who were pushing identity politics for decades:

http://observer.com/2016/11/americas-emerging-nationalism-crisis/



> *America’s Emerging Nationalism Crisis*
> Progressives managed not to see the nose on their face
> By John R. Schindler • 11/14/16 8:30am
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Nov 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The lust for power belongs to no lone spot on the political spectrum.



That may be so. But there are people out there that do NOT lust for power. Some are perfectly happy to be led.  Some are even accepting of subjugation if they can watch the sun come up every morning and they have bread on the table.  But there is another group that does not lust for power.  They have no desire to lead, or be led.  They have no desire to subjugate or be subjugated.  They just want to be left alone in their lives.

Unfortunately, that apparently seems to require having sufficient power to keep the others at bay.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Nov 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Or remove a state Mr Trump dominated and... it's a silly argument.  The rules of the game were known well in advance.  The Republicans were more vote efficient than the Democrats.



Agreed.  We can all agree the Maple Leafs would have won many Stanley Cups if they were playing tiddley-winks.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Nov 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Agreed.  We can all agree the Maple Leafs would have won many Stanley Cups if they were playing tiddley-winks.



The only way for the Leafs to win the cup would be for them to be the only team in the league.

And even then it would be long odds...


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Nov 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The only way for the Leafs to win the cup would be for them to be the only team in the league.
> 
> And even then it would be long odds...



OK. I tried. Some people are just sooooo conservative.  They cling to their beliefs in the face of all possibilities.   [ [ [


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Nov 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> The lust for power belongs to no lone spot on the political spectrum.



Normally I would agree, but there's that whole "Natural Governing PartyTM" thing I keep hearing.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Nov 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Normally I would agree, but there's that whole "Natural Governing PartyTM" thing I keep hearing.


Ah, but does that mean the fire to rule doesn't exist in the loins of Team Blue or Team Orange?  Once they start eating the majority apple, they get mighty used to the flavour ...


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Nov 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Ah, but does that mean the fire to rule doesn't exist in the loins of Team Blue or Team Orange?  Once they start eating the majority apple, they get mighty used to the flavour ...



My party's campaign theme:

"So just leave me alone
Leave me alone (leave me alone) (leave me alone)
Leave me alone (leave me alone) (leave me alone) (leave me alone)
Leave me alone, stop it!
Just stop doggin' me around"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ww02hBysQ0

Any party adopting that song has my vote.

Or, for the more country inclined

"Leave me alone, won't you leave me alone
Please leave me alone now, leave me alone
Leave me alone, please leave me alone, yes leave me
Leave me alone won't you leave me alone
Please leave me alone, no leave me alone
Leave me along, just leave me alone, oh leave me"

https://youtu.be/sKfqHsiHWJU

Edit:  I can stand with George MacDonald Fraser -

"My favourite prime minister was Sir Alec Douglas-Home, not because he was on the Right, but because he spent a year in office without, on his own admission, doing a damned thing."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-506219/The-testament-Flashmans-creator-How-Britain-destroyed-itself.html#ixzz4Q8TH9OqW 
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Nov 2016)

Elections have consequences and when Obama took office,he was all about his agenda without compromise.Now its the democrats who will be odd man out.Harry Reid changed the rules in the Senate requiring a simple majority for Supreme Court judges instead of 60. 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/11/15/why_mitch_mcconnell_might_want_to_keep_the_filibuster.html


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Nov 2016)

Reid had the filibuster rules removed for federal judicial appointments, but not for Supreme Court appointments.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (16 Nov 2016)

Iowa lawmaker is fed up with the hysteria/protests going around university/colleges over the recent election of Donald Trump. He has prosed a law to put a stop to the protests and has called it the 'Suck it up, Buttercup' bill.



> Iowa lawmaker's 'suck it up, buttercup' bill targets protests
> 
> Brianne Pfannenstiel , bpfannenst@dmreg.com 7:04 p.m. CST November 14, 2016
> 
> ...



Article Link


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Nov 2016)

One cluster of pretty specific promises (from #POTUS44's FB feed) to be done by 30 April 2017 ...

It'll be interesting to see how many more of these issue cluster's we'll be seeing soon - and how it unfolds.


----------



## FJAG (17 Nov 2016)

Congressional term limits will need a constitutional amendment like the 22nd limited the presidential terms.

My guess is it will never get enough support to pass muster.

 [cheers]


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Nov 2016)

Popular vote? If Clinton thought she had the chance, she'd go for recounts.

However, doing that might expose all the voter fraud that the DNC minions have been, supposedly, documented as approving.


----------



## cupper (17 Nov 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> One cluster of pretty specific promises (from #POTUS44's FB feed) to be done by 30 April 2017 ...
> 
> It'll be interesting to see how many more of these issue cluster's we'll be seeing soon - and how it unfolds.



That's 45. Obama is 44.


----------



## mariomike (21 Nov 2016)

21 Nov., 2016

New York City spending more than $1 million dollars per day protecting Donald Trump from NYC protesters.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/21/new-york-city-spending-more-than-1-million-per-day-on-donald-trump-report-says.html

Securing Trump Tower could cause a traffic nightmare
http://nypost.com/2016/11/14/securing-trump-tower-could-cause-a-traffic-nightmare/


----------



## tomahawk6 (21 Nov 2016)

They will be repaid once he is in office.Getting the security bill I hope gets him to move to the White House rather than commute.


----------



## mariomike (21 Nov 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> They will be repaid once he is in office.Getting the security bill I hope gets him to move to the White House rather than commute.



I read that NYC can ask for reimbursement from the Federal government. But, it is not automatic and it is never paid in full.

Goes on to say, And those costs won't necessarily drop significantly once he moves to the White House. 
That's because Melania Trump and their 10-year old son Barron expect to stay at their home at Trump Tower in midtown Manhattan, at least until the end of the school year. And Donald Trump has indicated he plans to return home regularly.
Adding to the expense is the cost of police assigned to Trump's adult children and his grandchildren, who are also receiving Secret Service protection, John Miller, NYPD's deputy commissioner of intelligence & counterterrorism, told WCBS Monday. All of them live in the city, and all are entitled to receive Secret Service protection.
The police have set up barricades around Trump Tower at 56th Street and 5th Avenue, smack in the middle of the city. While a block of 56th street has basically been closed to traffic, 5th Avenue remains open, although the traffic flow on that major thoroughfare has been affected. 
And as Trump moves through the city, police need to close streets accordingly. For example, the Lincoln Tunnel was closed to traffic on Friday afternoon during rush hour when Trump traveled to New Jersey."

With just two weeks before the crushing crowds of holiday shoppers and tourists descend on the Big Apple, some of the swankiest retailers near President-elect Trump’s private residence on Fifth Avenue are wondering if this will be the worst season ever.

The tight ring of security surrounding Trump Tower between 56th and 57th streets, where protestors have been gathering since Election Day night, is creating an environment of fear rather than festivity.

“Some high-end shoppers may not even want to go there now,” said Tom Cusick, president of the Fifth Avenue Business Improvement District, which has been fielding calls from anxious members.

“There is very sharp concern by the retailers located between 56th and 57th streets,” which include Tiffany & Co., Gucci, Prada and Piaget, Cusick added.

Lots more in the story,
http://nypost.com/2016/11/11/trump-protests-poised-to-ruin-5th-avenue-christmas-shopping/

Not just NYC. Even if there are no personal injuries or property damage, there are traffic delays and police overtime. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_Donald_Trump#Post-election_protests


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Nov 2016)

I suppose if they managed Joe Biden's commute, they can manage Trump's quiffs.


----------



## CountDC (21 Nov 2016)

I am thinking as it is the people of NY causing the problem with their protests then the Federal government may very well tell NY to deal with it and I wouldn't blame them.


----------



## mariomike (21 Nov 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I suppose if they managed Joe Biden's commute, they can manage Trump's quiffs.



I don't believe Joe Biden was protested as much as Mr. Trump is. That complicates things.



			
				CountDC said:
			
		

> I am thinking as it is the people of NY causing the problem with their protests then the Federal government may very well tell NY to deal with it and I wouldn't blame them.



It's not just the people of NY causing problems,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_Donald_Trump#Post-election_protests


----------



## a_majoor (24 Nov 2016)

Send the bill to George Soros, the DNC and every other organization that has been calling for or hiring protesters for these demonstrations, and I'll be the problem comes to a very swift end.

They always act when they can send the bill to someone else (the taxpayer), but when it comes to spending their own money, Ebenezer Scrooge has nothing on them.


----------



## Jed (24 Nov 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Send the bill to George Soros, the DNC and every other organization that has been calling for or hiring protesters for these demonstrations, and I'll be the problem comes to a very swift end.
> 
> They always act when they can send the bill to someone else (the taxpayer), but when it comes to spending their own money, Ebenezer Scrooge has nothing on them.



Too true.


----------



## CountDC (24 Nov 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> It's not just the people of NY causing problems,
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protests_against_Donald_Trump#Post-election_protests



In the case of New York it is


----------



## cupper (24 Nov 2016)

Ah, Canada Party, awesome as ever. :rofl:

https://youtu.be/4ORe6TmRjOQ


----------



## Fishbone Jones (24 Nov 2016)

CountDC said:
			
		

> In the case of New York it is



Time for the gloves to come off.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Nov 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> I suppose if they managed Joe Biden's commute, they can manage Trump's quiffs.


But was Biden collecting rent on the Secret Service apartment space?


----------



## cupper (28 Nov 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> But was Biden collecting rent on the Secret Service apartment space?



Or billing the Service for airfare to travel with him?


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Nov 2016)

Biden lives in a taxpayer supplied residence and has a security detail 24/7.Its not as grand as the Queen's digs but her Guardsmen while on duty are not charged rent in the Guard Room.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Nov 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Biden lives in a taxpayer supplied residence and has a security detail 24/7.Its not as grand as the Queen's digs but her Guardsmen while on duty are not charged rent in the Guard Room.



The Secret Service has to pay rent for a Vice Presidential guard duty at Biden's place? I assume the same is for the President and anyone else that has their services?


----------



## tomahawk6 (28 Nov 2016)

The difference may be when the person being guarded has a private residence. Biden has a home in Delaware and he owns the house next door which he is renting to the Secret Service for $2200 a month.In the case of Trump the agents guarding the Trump Tower will be leasing a floor there. The Secret Service also reimbursed Trump for the airfare of their agents that rode on Trump's plane.


----------



## kkwd (28 Nov 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Or billing the Service for airfare to travel with him?



The FEC requires all campaign travelers to pay the candidates campaign for travel on their aircraft. Campaign travelers include the media and Secret Service. It was enacted to ensure there was no appearance of corruption. The reimbursement is paid to the candidate's campaign and not the candidate. The Clinton campaign also received millions in reimbursement. 

http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/ej_compilation/2009/notice_2009-27.pdf

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/11/100.93

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-15/how-trump-can-make-money-off-the-secret-service


----------



## cupper (28 Nov 2016)

kkwd said:
			
		

> The FEC requires all campaign travelers to pay the candidates campaign for travel on their aircraft. Campaign travelers include the media and Secret Service. It was enacted to ensure there was no appearance of corruption. The reimbursement is paid to the candidate's campaign and not the candidate. The Clinton campaign also received millions in reimbursement.
> 
> http://www.fec.gov/law/cfr/ej_compilation/2009/notice_2009-27.pdf
> 
> ...



I'm not questioning the legality of it. It's the optics of it that is the problem. And if the price is inflated significantly above the real cost such that he is profiteering then that's a bigger problem.

It will be interesting to see his reaction when presented with his first bill for living in the White House. He is expected to pay his own living expenses, including food and incidentals. The only time he is not required to pay for them is when it is direct government business such as state dinners.


----------



## kkwd (28 Nov 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> And if the price is inflated significantly above the real cost such that he is profiteering then that's a bigger problem.
> 
> It will be interesting to see his reaction when presented with his first bill for living in the White House. He is expected to pay his own living expenses, including food and incidentals. The only time he is not required to pay for them is when it is direct government business such as state dinners.



Is there evidence of profiteering? 

I am sure he is used to paying for his own growlies.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Dec 2016)

On the "Mad Dog Appointment," I just HAD to share this one with the crowd here (source)


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Dec 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Biden has a home in Delaware and he owns the house next door which he is renting to the Secret Service for $2200 a month.In the case of Trump the agents guarding the Trump Tower will be leasing a floor there.


It it's already happening, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander, optics notwithstanding.


----------



## mariomike (8 Dec 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Because we know how accurate the polls were on Brexit, and Trump.  >



On the other hand, The Washington Post ( December 7 ) reports, "no incoming president in history has ever lost the popular vote quite so badly."  
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/07/the-only-thing-more-useless-than-winning-the-popular-votes-is-winning-the-most-counties/?utm_term=.7a90e2eb1071


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Dec 2016)

If you factor out the illegal voters,Trump may have won the popular vote as well.There has been irregularities in California,Nevada and Michigan where each ballot cast for Hillary was counted 6 times.The full depth of the fraud wont be known until after the investigation.


----------



## Halifax Tar (8 Dec 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> If you factor out the illegal voters,Trump may have won the popular vote as well.There has been irregularities in California,Nevada and Michigan where each ballot cast for Hillary was counted 6 times.The full depth of the fraud wont be known until after the investigation.



Is there any actual proof of this ?  I hear it all the time by the sources never seem to come up with proof.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Dec 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> If you factor out the illegal voters,Trump may have won the popular vote as well.There has been irregularities in California,Nevada and Michigan where each ballot cast for Hillary was counted 6 times.The full depth of the fraud wont be known until after the investigation.


If there was this much _alleged_ fraud, and with all his warnings during the campaign, interesting that Trump doesn't seem to want recounts.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Dec 2016)

>On the other hand, The Washington Post ( December 7 ) reports, "no incoming president in history has ever lost the popular vote quite so badly."

That's similar to the "biggest spending government ever" tripe.  CA has been trending more Democratic for a long time, and accounts for most of that popular vote gap.  We should expect Republican presidents to continue to do poorly in the popular vote if CA remains large and continues to grow bluer.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Dec 2016)

Looks like bad news on the recount front for Ms Stein:

Judge's ruling ends vote recount in Michigan

A federal judge who ordered Michigan to begin its recount effectively ended it on Wednesday, tying his decision to a state court ruling that found Green Party candidate Jill Stein had no legal standing to request another look at ballots.

...Stein, who finished fourth in Michigan on Nov. 8, didn't have a chance of winning even after a recount and therefore isn't an "aggrieved" candidate, the appeals court said.

---------------------------------

I'm inclined to agree with this outcome, and the judge's interpretation. It should surely be a reasonable expectation that a recount appellant has a reasonable chance of victory subject to the recount.

Now we get to watch Democrat supporters lose their minds for the second time?  >


----------



## mariomike (8 Dec 2016)

12/08/16 
Clinton Leads Trump By 2.6 Million, Margin Grows As Votes Continue To Be Counted
http://www.ibtimes.com/latest-2016-popular-vote-election-results-clinton-leads-trump-26-million-margin-grows-2457151

The unprecedented protests suggest Trump has inspired a popular resistance that will haunt his entire presidency.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Dec 2016)

The media via it's bias reporting has whipped up a frenzy of hate. It is NBC/ABC/CBS/MSNBC/Washington Post/NY Times problem as they created the hate. Same happened to Harper. It will be a different world, and I think for the better under President Trump. Canada, especially Ontario better watch out because Trump will not put up with amateur hour in Ottawa/Toronto. Canada seems to be lurching to oblivion with it's stupid liberal thought process e.g. carbon tax. The loonie is going to tank which supposedly our exporters will welcome but all Canadian consumers will pay the price for vehicles/electronics/fresh friuit & vegs to subsidize the exporters.

The CBC had an article the other day stating how much Canadian consumers will have added to their food bill this year, blaming it on Trump of course. Enough already. He is the POTUS now as elected by the US system. Trudeau doesn't have a majority either. Quit spamming.


----------



## mariomike (9 Dec 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> It will be a different world, and I think for the better under President Trump.



As a Canadian, I find that very comforting.  
http://globalnews.ca/news/3045796/80-of-canadians-fear-a-donald-trump-presidency-poll/


----------



## Journeyman (9 Dec 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The media via it's bias reporting has whipped up a frenzy of hate.


I know it's a stretch, but _some_  people have the ability to form opinions independently of the evil media conspirators.  This is generally done by actually listening to the politicians and reading what they write/post, then thinking about it.



> It will be a different world, and I think for the better under President Trump.


   :nod:



> Quit spamming.


There are generally two options if you dislike what others post: a) offer an informed, contradictory post, or b) don't read the thread.  Otherwise you're...... well, you're spamming.



ps - "it's" is a contraction for "it is"; "its" is already a possessive without an apostrophe.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Dec 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The media via it's bias reporting has *whipped up a frenzy of hate*. It is NBC/ABC/CBS/MSNBC/Washington Post/NY Times problem as *they created the hate*.


Is this like the sentiment around some social media saying, "You know, there wasn't so much racism when there wasn't a Black president"?  Shared in a way sorta-kinda suggesting it was the Black president that caused the racism?

Just askin' ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Dec 2016)

He wasn't a black president; he was half white with dark skin. ;D

It wasn't that I did not like the other post, it is that the US election is over and we now proceed forward or backward, depending on you opinion.

Years ago an old soldier told me something like: CO's (RSM's) come and go but the Regiment lives on.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Dec 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> He wasn't a black president; he was half white with dark skin. ;D


One that wasn't born in the U.S. - yeah, I read that somewhere.  ;D


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Dec 2016)

Never said he wasn't born in the US. IMHO he will go down in history as at least one of the worst or the worst.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Dec 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Never said he wasn't born in the US.


And I never said you did - I just said I'd read that somewhere.

Meanwhile ...
_*"Intel analysts instructed to limit briefings with Trump to under 140 characters"*_***

*** - Trigger warning:  this story comes from a satire fake news site.


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Dec 2016)

> * - Trigger warning:  this story comes from a satire fake news site.



CBC??


----------



## Rocky Mountains (9 Dec 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If there was this much _alleged_ fraud, and with all his warnings during the campaign, interesting that Trump doesn't seem to want recounts.



Trump won by 3 big states by significant margins. The closest, Michigan, did an automatic recount.  Requesting recounts would be truly odd.  Only New Hampshire would be in play and it's tiny.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Dec 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> _*"Intel analysts instructed to limit briefings with Trump to under 140 characters"*_***



Given some of the alternatives - doesn't sound like a bad thing.

140 character tweets - and elevator pitches - efficient governance.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Dec 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> 140 character tweets - and elevator pitches - efficient governance.


Because it contributes such a range of debate and depth of nuance, right?    


> North Korea may have some (#?) nukes - has missiles (cfmd range?) -- bombing could piss off China.  Leader unstable, but in firm control.


Some issues can be summed up this way, but to use a parallel example, what kind of decisions could I make based on a Twitter summary of a cancer diagnosis?  Sometimes, good ones.  Others, maaaaaaaaybe I need more informaion.

I like to think some leaders can handle a bit more complexity than 140 characters, so we'll have to see how this goes with #POTUS45.


			
				Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Requesting recounts would be truly odd.  Only New Hampshire would be in play and it's tiny.


So a system one candidate _*consistently*_ said was rigged from the start of the campaign is beyond question because the candidate making the allegations won?  Sounds good to me - I'm sure it would have also worked this way if the other candidate won, right?


----------



## a_majoor (10 Dec 2016)

Gab.ai has a 300 character limit.

There is little doubt that the Legacy Media is totally rigged (in the words of one candidate), simply examine which issues received heavy rotation in the news cycle, and which news items were ignored and ask "who did that favour?

The real issue for the purveyors of Fake News is people are on to them, and have tuned them out as sources of information. While one might ask how well the various replacement sources work, I suspect that the real driver was the simple disconnect between the reporting ("Recovery Summers" and low unemployment) vs the reality of limited employment opportunities and stagnate or declining wages. The deliberate underreporting of the negative effects of Obamacare must also have rankled (people losing their doctors and the health care coverage they had already secured, the ever escalating premiums and the sharp limiting of choices, among other factors), and the various "challenges" to domestic and international security being brushed away with a "nothing to see here" approach to reporting.

Since experience and word of mouth by trusted neighbours and friends was providing a totally different worldview, and one which resonated with the campaign themes of one candidate, it is hardly a wonder that Fake News lost big in this election. Judging by what is pn screen these days, it seems the Fake News networks have not learned a da***d thing from all of this.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Dec 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Gab.ai has a 300 character limit.


Might give me a slightly better summary of a cancer diagnosis, but for anything that complex (including in government), sometimes you'll still need more.


			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Since experience and word of mouth by trusted neighbours and friends was providing a totally different worldview, and one which resonated with the campaign themes of one candidate ...


And, as can be seen on social media, it's also that much easier to screen out sources (including not talking to/listening to people saying things) that don't fit in with one's world view ... #ConfirmationBiasRulz! #InfowarsMustBeAllTrue

Meanwhile, HERE'S something intriguing from #POTUS45


> US president-elect Donald Trump on Friday said he was considering imposing a lifetime ban on US military procurement officials going to work for defence contractors, a move that could dramatically reshape the defence industry.
> 
> Three days after publicly rebuking Boeing over the cost of the next-generation Air Force One presidential aircraft, Trump floated the idea of such a ban at a rally for Republican supporters in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.
> 
> ...


In theory, a decent idea.  That said, given the power of the building-stuff-for-the-military lobby, let's see how long this stays up the flagpole with people saluting ...


----------



## a_majoor (10 Dec 2016)

President-elect Trump is signalling his opening positions and playing to the masses who support his "drain the swamp" theme.

Considering there is a report which suggests the Pentagon could save $125 _billion_ over the next five years simply by streamlining a lot of "back end" processes and eliminating lots of civilian contractors there is more than a little to what he is saying.

As President, he could have all his cabinet secretaries apply the same methodology to every Federal department and agency, potentially saving $500 billion or more over the same period. Taking away incentives for spending is a great way to drain the swamp, and spending cuts of this magnitude also make the proposed tax and regulatory cuts much easier to achieve as well (less spending means needing less money, cutting bureaucrats and contractors to manage the regulatory state makes streamlining an imperative).

Still and all, President elect Trump is causing a great shakeup of the establishment before he even gets sworn into office. I can only imagine how things will go once he actually has his hands on the levers of power.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Dec 2016)

Some folks make their living out of writing - and get paid by the word.  Others enjoy the infinite range of possibilities that are indulged by the cornucopia of vocabulary that the myriad dictionaries of the modern anglo-saxon tongue and its variants present and the opportunities afforded to debate the choice of bon mot, sui generis, or even to manufacture novel verbiage in its entirety.  Conrad Black comes to mind for some reason.

Often all that is required is a succinct, Yes!, No!, Get Stuffed! or even Nuts! - and an occasional "Action this day!"

Government - Debating Society or Executive Office?

Oh, and on the subject of vocabulary and tone -

Please explain the difference between the educated charge of "racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, mysogynistic"  and Archie Bunker's "commie, pinko fag" - aside from the target and the number of syllables.


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Dec 2016)

President-elect Trump's challenge will be the same one that confronts every president upon taking office no matter the magnitude of their victory. The US system is designed to prevent any one person from having too much power. He can not change a law or a spending programme or the direction of the ship of state without congressional agreement. Even though the Republicans hold a majority in both the house and the senate, they are not going to follow in step automatically, especially if to do so would jeopardize their reelection prospects. Furthermore the Supreme Court is a separate and equal branch of government designed to keep the president and the congress in line. 

No number of 140 figure rants is going to change that.


----------



## tomahawk6 (10 Dec 2016)

Trump attended the Army-Navy game to chants of "Make America Great Again ". Proud to finally have a man in the Oval Office that is respected.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Trump+at+Army+Navy+game


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Dec 2016)

He ain't there yet, but I take your point.


----------



## mariomike (10 Dec 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Proud to finally have a man in the Oval Office that is respected.



It's great that his fans respect him.

I just know what I read in the US papers,

Trump Is the Least Popular President-elect in Modern American History
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/12/trump-is-the-least-popular-president-elect-in-modern-history.html

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/309319-trumps-popularity-spikes-but-lags-behind-past-presidents

Here in Canada,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump+canadians+poll&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=QT5MWI7kHYaN8QfesJbQBA&gws_rd=ss

Also, a lot in the news about Russia and the US election,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=russia+trump+cia&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=aa5MWNCjKcmC8QfV1pSIDw&gws_rd=ssl


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Dec 2016)

Just because you're the selfie King and loved by the masses, doesn't necessarily translate into being an effective leader.  

I don't have to look any farther than the  :backpedalling:  gang running the monkey show on Parliament Hill to satisfy that suspicion in my eyes.  I don't think they could organize a great gang bang in a whore house if their lives depended upon it.

Mr. T might be despised, but that doesn't mean he won't be a good POTUS at the end of the day.


----------



## FJAG (10 Dec 2016)

One of the problems with draining the swamp is that once you get that done, all that you are left with is the muck at the bottom. While there are some cabinet picks that might be good for their departments, the majority seem questionable. Far from being respected by his base (much less the country as a whole) it strikes me that he's starting to worry many of the people in Congress whose support he's going to need.

 :subbies:


----------



## mariomike (10 Dec 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Mr. T might be despised, but that doesn't mean he won't be a good POTUS at the end of the day.


----------



## cavalryman (10 Dec 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I just know what I read in the US papers,



Which ones?  The ones peddling "fake" news, the ones peddling "real fake" news, the ones peddling "fake, fake" news?  The ones publishing "secret CIA briefings"?  I can't quite identify any of them actually putting out real news anymore.  It seems that we're faced with wall-to-wall polemics trying to push a narrative.  Sad, but at this point, we might as well hope for the best and prepare for the worst, which is exactly what I would have said had the other candidate won.


----------



## mariomike (10 Dec 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Which ones?



I consider government news releases, backgrounders, etc. as primary sources.  

Next, mainstream media (MSM).

After that, blogs. Which basically means anybody with a keyboard.


----------



## tomahawk6 (11 Dec 2016)

A little play on Rogue One.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (11 Dec 2016)

Since everyone is talking about draining the swamp, I think this oldie-goldie might be appropriate:


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Dec 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Just because you're the selfie King and loved by the masses, doesn't necessarily translate into being an effective leader.


And just because you beat someone you like even less doesn't mean you'll be an effective leader, either.

We _will_ have to see how #POTUS45 unfolds.


			
				cavalryman said:
			
		

> Which ones?  The ones peddling "fake" news, the ones peddling "real fake" news, the ones peddling "fake, fake" news?  The ones publishing "secret CIA briefings"?  I can't quite identify any of them actually putting out real news anymore.  It seems that we're faced with wall-to-wall polemics trying to push a narrative.


To defame, you don't have to necessarily discredit, just cast doubt - and repeat _over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over_ again, on any social medium you can, that MSM lies all the time.***

*** - Does MSM get it completely right all the time?  Not fully.  Does Infowars.com get it completely right all the time?  Far less often than MSM.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Dec 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And just because you beat someone you like even less doesn't mean you'll be an effective leader, either.



So true, but eventually you'll get the measure of the man/woman and can determine if they're effective or not worth a pinch of coon shit.  Time will tell if their Mr. T will be able to "Pity the Fool" or be one himself as our Mr. T is for me.


----------



## Journeyman (11 Dec 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Please explain the difference between the educated charge of "racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, mysogynistic"  and Archie Bunker's "commie, pinko fag" - aside from the target and the number of syllables.


Are you suggesting that neither are suited to be US President?  Is that what you were going for?     




			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Trump attended the Army-Navy game to chants of "Make America Great Again ". Proud to finally have a man in the Oval Office that is respected.


Based more on my passing experience with RMC (and Queen's) -- never having been to either US Service Academy -- I can't imagine citing the views of those 19-20 year olds, _especially_  regarding politics, as justification for my own.  That's just me though, YMMV.

The *only* useful bit to come out of all that, is that Army won.   [


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Dec 2016)

Another intriguing possible choice - highlights mine ...


> Exxon Mobil Corp Chief Executive Officer Rex Tillerson emerged on Friday as President-elect Donald Trump's leading candidate for U.S. secretary of state, a senior transition official said.
> 
> Trump met Tillerson on Tuesday and may talk to him again over the weekend, the official said. Trump appears to be in the final days of deliberations over his top diplomat with an announcement possible next week.
> 
> ...


On that bit in orange, if one complains about Trudeau's links to Castro, I guess one _should_ complain about this guy's links to Russia, right?  Am I riiiiiiiiiight?

On that bit in yellow, no conflict there, I guess.


----------



## tomahawk6 (11 Dec 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that neither are suited to be US President?  Is that what you were going for?
> 
> Based more on my passing experience with RMC (and Queen's) -- never having been to either US Service Academy -- I can't imagine citing the views of those 19-20 year olds, _especially_  regarding politics, as justification for my own.  That's just me though, YMMV.
> 
> The *only* useful bit to come out of all that, is that Army won.   [



The military voted overwhelmingly for Trump.Those same 19-20 are representative of the composition of our military.Journeyman I dont need to cite anyone or group to support my positions as they are opinion.The reason I liked the video was how Trump was received by those in attendance.It was similar to his rallies.Over time I may not like his policies but for the moment its better than 4 years of Hillary.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Dec 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that neither are suited to be US President?  Is that what you were going for?



 :not-again:  ;D

I'm heading for the beer cellar until the wars are over.  It'll give me some time to work on my Huguenot history.

 :subbies:

All the best.


----------



## Journeyman (11 Dec 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I'm heading for the beer cellar until the wars are over.


Now _that_  may have been the wisest thing posted in any of the politics threads.    :cheers:


----------



## a_majoor (11 Dec 2016)

More post electoral shenanigans. If we are to take the Fake Media at its word, then the Russians have penetrated and taken over the DHS as well (although considering the US record on cybersecurity over the last several years, this may actually be true):

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/251521/



> YEAH, AT FIRST THEY BLAMED THE IRS SCANDAL ON “ROGUE EMPLOYEES,” TOO: Exclusive: DHS Says Georgia Hack May Have Been Rogue Employee: Officials tell members of Congress the attack on state firewall could have been inside job. Plus: “With few concrete answers from DHS so far, the aide said there is a lot of skepticism about the department’s innocence in the attempted breach. ‘There’s a lot of mistrust at the moment.'”
> 
> A cynic might conclude that all the sudden hoopla about Russian hacking is meant to distract from what DHS was doing.
> 
> ...


----------



## mariomike (11 Dec 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> To defame, you don't have to necessarily discredit, just cast doubt - and repeat _over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over_ again, on any social medium you can, that MSM lies all the time.***



 :goodpost:


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Dec 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> More post electoral shenanigans. If we are to take the Fake Media at its word, then the Russians have penetrated and taken over the DHS as well (although considering the US record on cybersecurity over the last several years, this may actually be true) ...


Or, it may just have been the Administration breaking in and sharing emails to torpedo it's own party's fight ...


> John Bolton, who may be named deputy secretary of state, is suggesting that the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion about Russian hacking that favored Republican nominee Donald Trump could be a deception, a “false flag.”
> 
> In an interview Sunday, Bolton told Fox News’ Eric Shawn, “It is not at all clear to me, just viewing this from the outside, that this hacking into the DNC and the RNC computers was not a false flag operation.”
> 
> ...


But wait -- this is a legacy media/fake news outlet reporting on something biased Fox News said, so is it REALLY true?


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Dec 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Or, it may just have been the Administration breaking in and sharing emails to torpedo it's own party's fight ...But wait -- this is a legacy media/fake news outlet reporting on something biased Fox News said, so is it REALLY true?


Ok, _now_ we're certain it's true because a pro-Russian media outlet in separatist Ukraine says it's true - aaaaaaaaaaaaaall sorted out ...
_*"CIA READY TO OVERTHROW ANOTHER GOVERNMENT, THIS TIME THE TARGET IS THE UNITED STATES, COUP PLANNED AGAINST TRUMP, DANGEROUS TIMES AHEAD !"*_


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (12 Dec 2016)

Well, John Bolton would certainly know something about "false flag" operations by the intelligence community.

Wasn't he a Dubya hack in diplomatic circles when they tried to sell the world a bill of sales on weapons of mass destruction, based on cooked up intel prepared at their own higher leadership request's !


----------



## mariomike (12 Dec 2016)

U.S. police expect Trump to lift restrictions on surplus military gear
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/12/11/us-police-expect-trump-to-lift-restrictions-on-surplus-military-gear.html
Police organizations have argued that military-style vehicles and gear help protect officers’ lives and improve public safety. 

See also,

Militarization of the police?
http://army.ca/forums/threads/116026.0
7 pages.
Locked.


----------



## cupper (12 Dec 2016)

cavalryman said:
			
		

> Which ones?  The ones peddling "fake" news, the ones peddling "real fake" news, the ones peddling "fake, fake" news?  The ones publishing "secret CIA briefings"?  I can't quite identify any of them actually putting out real news anymore.  It seems that we're faced with wall-to-wall polemics trying to push a narrative.  Sad, but at this point, we might as well hope for the best and prepare for the worst, which is exactly what I would have said had the other candidate won.



The same ones that Sarah Palin reads. All of them.


----------



## cupper (12 Dec 2016)

Now some of the Electors are requesting intelligence briefs on the hacking investigation, as well as Investigations into the connections between Russia and Trump and his staffers.

*Electoral College voters demand their own briefing.*

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/us/politics/donald-trump-transition.html?_r=0



> One week before the Electoral College meets to ratify Mr. Trump’s election victory, 10 electors — including a Texas Republican who has turned on Mr. Trump, and Christine Pelosi, the daughter of Representative Nancy Pelosi — have demanded their own intelligence briefing on Russian efforts to elect Mr. Trump.
> 
> “We intend to discharge our duties as electors by ensuring that we select a candidate for president who, as our founding fathers envisioned, would be ‘endowed with the requisite qualifications.’ As electors, we also believe that deliberation is at the heart of democracy itself, not an empty or formalistic task. We do not understand our sole function to be to convene in mid-December, several weeks after Election Day, and summarily cast our votes.”
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Dec 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, John Bolton would certainly know something about "false flag" operations by the intelligence community.
> 
> Wasn't he a Dubya hack in diplomatic circles when they tried to sell the world a bill of sales on weapons of mass destruction, based on cooked up intel prepared at their own higher leadership request's !


Which is, ironically, the very shot Trump & Co. are throwing back @ the CIA #DejaVuAllOverAgain

Meanwhile, this was too funny NOT to share - gotta love Duffle Blog:
_*"Army to become ‘Land Marines’ under Mattis, Dunford-led Pentagon reorganization"*_


----------



## a_majoor (12 Dec 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, John Bolton would certainly know something about "false flag" operations by the intelligence community.
> 
> Wasn't he a Dubya hack in diplomatic circles when they tried to sell the world a bill of sales on weapons of mass destruction, based on cooked up intel prepared at their own higher leadership request's !



By "W" are you referring to William Jefferson Clinton, who warned us of the dangers of Iraqi WMD in 1998?


----------



## FJAG (13 Dec 2016)

A worthwhile read:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/12/12/why-hillary-lost-the-great-american-lie/?utm_hp_ref=au-homepage

 :subbies:


----------



## a_majoor (13 Dec 2016)

For the "Putin rigged the election" fans.....


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Dec 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> By "W" are you referring to William Jefferson Clinton, who warned us of the dangers of Iraqi WMD in 1998?


1)  If _entirely_ true, I guess if someone from one party makes a mistake, it sorta cancels out the next party's mistake of carrying on with the same mistake and not correcting it, especially if you like the next party better (see New Veterans Charter)?  
2)  Here's a slightly different take on the attached meme.

Standing by for "fake news" reference, in 3, 2 ...


----------



## mariomike (13 Dec 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> A worthwhile read:
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/12/12/why-hillary-lost-the-great-american-lie/?utm_hp_ref=au-homepage
> 
> :subbies:



"Hillary Clinton Won More Votes. A Lot More. 

Hillary Clinton won the national popular vote by 2.7 million.” Or, put in another way, “Hillary Clinton won more votes than any other presidential candidate in history, second only to Obama.” (Note: Cook Political Report believes that she may surpass Obama’s 2012 total, for good measure.)

Let’s pretend for a minute that the very real possibility of foreign interventionism is not a factor, or the unaddressed fact that overwhelming evidence suggest Russia interfered, and ignore investigative journalist Greg Palast’s stunning revelation that more than 3 million absentee and provisional ballots were wrongfully disqualified and thrown away uncounted.

Any honest assessment of this presidential election must look at the disproportionate power the Electoral College currently allocates to rural areas. Indeed, a vote in Wyoming has four times the power of a vote from New York, thanks to the way electoral college votes are apportioned in each state."


----------



## QV (13 Dec 2016)

No one had a problem with the electoral college when they thought Clinton had this in the bag.


----------



## mariomike (13 Dec 2016)

QV said:
			
		

> No one had a problem with the electoral college when they thought Clinton had this in the bag.



One individual Tweeted, "The electoral college is a disaster for a democracy."  
https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/266038556504494082?lang=en&lang=en

"The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting."

— George C. Edwards, 2011
http://pols.tamu.edu/about-us/faculty-directory/george-c-edwards-iii-distinguished-professor/

Why the Electoral College Is Bad for America
http://yalebooks.com/book/9780300166491/why-electoral-college-bad-america


----------



## QV (13 Dec 2016)

I stand corrected

😀


----------



## vonGarvin (13 Dec 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> "Hillary Clinton Won More Votes. A Lot More.
> 
> Hillary Clinton won the national popular vote by 2.7 million.” Or, put in another way, “Hillary Clinton won more votes than any other presidential candidate in history, second only to Obama.” (Note: Cook Political Report believes that she may surpass Obama’s 2012 total, for good measure.)
> 
> ...


Well, if this were a direct democracy, then it would matter.  If popular vote were all that mattered, then Clinton, Trump et al would campaign in NYC and LA.  That's it, that's all.  Read the reason for the electoral college.  Also remember that states are all supposed to be equal partners in the United States and that there wasn't one election, but 51 simultaneous elections, one in each state and one in DC.  So, the individual doesn't elect the president; the states do.
So, New York has 29 votes for POTUS, where Wyoming has 3.


----------



## mariomike (13 Dec 2016)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> So, New York has 29 votes for POTUS, where Wyoming has 3.



So, New York has 6.16% of the total US population, Wyoming has 0.18%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population#States_and_territories

"Remember Donald Trump’s tax returns? It was unheard-of for a presidential candidate to refuse to release returns, since doing so strongly suggests that he has something to hide. And at first the Trump campaign offered excuses, claiming that the returns would eventually be made available once an I.R.S. audit was done, or something. But at this point it’s apparent that Mr. Trump believed, correctly, that he could violate all the norms, stonewall on even the most basic disclosure, and pay no political price.

Indeed, it’s clear that Hillary Clinton was in effect punished for her financial transparency, while Mr. Trump was rewarded for his practice of revealing nothing about how he makes money."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/05/opinion/the-art-of-the-scam.html?_r=0


----------



## Jed (13 Dec 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> So, New York has 6.16% of the total US population, Wyoming has 0.18%.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territories_by_population#States_and_territories
> 
> "Remember Donald Trump’s tax returns? It was unheard-of for a presidential candidate to refuse to release returns, since doing so strongly suggests that he has something to hide. And at first the Trump campaign offered excuses, claiming that the returns would eventually be made available once an I.R.S. audit was done, or something. But at this point it’s apparent that Mr. Trump believed, correctly, that he could violate all the norms, stonewall on even the most basic disclosure, and pay no political price.
> ...



Oh give me a break, Hillary Clinton - Financial Transparency?


----------



## kkwd (13 Dec 2016)

Nowhere else in the world can you lose the popular vote and still win the election. Or is there?

http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/compilations/ElectionsAndRidings/ResultsParty.aspx
http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/Files/Parliament.aspx?Item=c5449790-7bc0-4dfd-9dfa-08e67900dade
http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/Files/Parliament.aspx?Item=208ab68e-34ac-423b-abb9-1723ff5a6a2c
http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/Files/Parliament.aspx?Item=96c4fc6b-343a-4458-8860-38f39f20f737
http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/Files/Parliament.aspx?Item=1929ac35-2e4b-4cd2-8c90-f0d54cdf11da
http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/Files/Parliament.aspx?Item=3f135f9f-59ca-42f9-b36f-6abfd0137c1e


----------



## a_majoor (13 Dec 2016)

Slate published an article about how great the Electoral College is in 2012: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html…

Slate published an article in 2016 on why the Electoral college was an anachronism and could be quickly abolished:http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html …

I wonder what was different to make them change their minds? </sarc>


----------



## mariomike (13 Dec 2016)

Jed said:
			
		

> Oh give me a break, Hillary Clinton - Financial Transparency?



Why does he refuse to release his tax returns? 

"With the exception of Mr. Trump, every major party presidential candidate for nearly 40 years has made his or her tax returns public, because voters need to know how candidates made their money, how much they paid in taxes, and their use of tax shelters and deductions. Tax returns also provide information about a candidate’s financial ties to foreign businesses and governments, and other potential conflicts of interest."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/12/opinion/an-antidote-to-donald-trumps-secrecy-on-taxes.html

The 2012 US election, and the 2015 Canadian election have been brought up,

Popular vote 2012:
Obama 65,915,795 
Romney: 60,933,504 



			
				Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> The same reason the Liberals promised electoral reform... And then they won a majority with less than 40% popular vote...



Popular vote 2015:
Trudeau 6,943,276 
Harper 5,613,614 
Mulcair 3,470,350


----------



## Halifax Tar (13 Dec 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Slate published an article about how great the Electoral College is in 2012: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html…
> 
> Slate published an article in 2016 on why the Electoral college was an anachronism and could be quickly abolished:http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html …
> 
> I wonder what was different to make them change their minds? </sarc>



The same reason the Liberals promised electoral reform... And then they won a majority with less than 40% popular vote... Yikes!!!!  Don't push that campaign promise to hard!


----------



## McG (13 Dec 2016)

kkwd said:
			
		

> Nowhere else in the world can you lose the popular vote and still win the election. Or is there?
> 
> http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/compilations/ElectionsAndRidings/ResultsParty.aspx
> http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/ParlInfo/Files/Parliament.aspx?Item=c5449790-7bc0-4dfd-9dfa-08e67900dade
> ...


The quote you are refuting is specifically about electing presidents.  Since we do not have a president and we do not vote on the Governor General, is the Canadian example relevant?


----------



## cupper (13 Dec 2016)

MCG said:
			
		

> The quote you are refuting is specifically about electing presidents.  Since we do not have a president and we do not vote on the Governor General, is the Canadian example relevant?



NO!


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Dec 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> NO!



Oh, what the hell!

YES!


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Dec 2016)

[quote author=mariomike]
 since doing so strongly suggests that he has something to hide. 
[/quote]
Just like refusing to talk to the police without legal council present.


----------



## mariomike (13 Dec 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Just like refusing to talk to the police without legal council present.



The complete quotation, not my words was, "Remember Donald Trump’s tax returns? It was unheard-of for a presidential candidate to refuse to release returns, since doing so strongly suggests that he has something to hide."


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Dec 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> The complete quotation, not my words was, "Remember Donald Trump’s tax returns? It was unheard-of for a presidential candidate to refuse to release returns, since doing so strongly suggests that he has something to hide."



No worries I know it wasn't your words.


----------



## Loachman (13 Dec 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Wasn't he a Dubya hack in diplomatic circles when they tried to sell the world a bill of sales on weapons of mass destruction, based on cooked up intel prepared at their own higher leadership request's !



The 1987 4 CMBG Brigade Study Week focussed on NBCW (CBRN as it is known now). Saddam Hussein featured prominently, due to his use of chemical agents in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, which resulted in approximately 1,000,000 deaths, and against Iraqi Kurds, who sided with Iran. One of many outstanding briefers was a Belgian doctor who had treated victims of Saddam Hussein's preferred nerve/blister cocktail, and even brought videos depicting treatment and autopsies. Another briefed on Iraqi chemical agent production, which was also the subject of a BBC documentary - "Secrets of Samarra" which appears, unfortunately, to be the only thing not available on Youtube these days. See also https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxB.html.

Saddam Hussein produced, stockpiled, and used chemical agents. That is fact. There was no reason to believe that he did not still have stocks available prior to the US-led invasion, coupled with a demonstrated willingness to use them.

There have been a few reports of small numbers of US personnel encountering chemical agent effects in Iraq, post-invasion, usually near old and disused ammunition dumps. These were, if I remember correctly, posted on Lightfighter a couple of years ago.


----------



## Loachman (13 Dec 2016)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Well, if this were a direct democracy, then it would matter.  If popular vote were all that mattered, then Clinton, Trump et al would campaign in NYC and LA.  That's it, that's all.  Read the reason for the electoral college.  Also remember that states are all supposed to be equal partners in the United States and that there wasn't one election, but 51 simultaneous elections, one in each state and one in DC.  So, the individual doesn't elect the president; the states do.
> So, New York has 29 votes for POTUS, where Wyoming has 3.



And this is what so few people realize, even in the US.

The national popular vote is irrelevant. The state popular votes, collectively, are what count.


----------



## Loachman (13 Dec 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> The complete quotation, not my words was, "Remember Donald Trump’s tax returns? It was unheard-of for a presidential candidate to refuse to release returns, since doing so strongly suggests that he has something to hide."



But he DID offer to release his tax returns - as soon as Hillary released her 33000 Bleach Bit-deleted e-mails.


----------



## Loachman (13 Dec 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> A worthwhile read:
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2016/12/12/why-hillary-lost-the-great-american-lie/?utm_hp_ref=au-homepage
> 
> :subbies:



It's only worth reading to see how the Democrat-supporting media failed to understand what was happening and why, and still fails to understand what happened and why.

I was following the USC Dornsife/Los Angeles Times Daybreak poll at http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/, which did not conform to polls rigged in favour of Hillary, and sites such as the Still Report https://www.youtube.com/user/bstill3/videos, plus some Fox reporters, and was not surprised at all by Donald Trump's win. Yes, there is a lot of fake news (MSNBC, CNN, NYT, Washington Post, Huffington Post etcetera as well as personal websites), but there was also some very good information and analysis on some of the smaller sites. There were many indicators of a possible Donald Trump win well in advance - relative size of rallies, relative sales of anti-Hillary merchandise (like my "Hillary for Prison" T-shirt) to anti-Donald Trump merchandise (8:1), being two of them. I was quite surprised by the quality of detailed analysis coming from some of the individual sites, which ultimately proved to be far more accurate than the official fake news sites, which were more Clinton propaganda pushers than news organizations.


----------



## Loachman (13 Dec 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, this was too funny NOT to share - gotta love Duffle Blog:
> _*"Army to become ‘Land Marines’ under Mattis, Dunford-led Pentagon reorganization"*_



And that led me to http://www.duffelblog.com/2016/12/defense-secretary-nominee-gen-james-mattis-vows-make-killing-great/


----------



## mariomike (13 Dec 2016)

I find this, from Milnews, helpful,



			
				milnews.ca said:
			
		

> To defame, you don't have to necessarily discredit, just cast doubt - and repeat _over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over_ again, on any social medium you can, that MSM lies all the time.***
> 
> *** - Does MSM get it completely right all the time?  Not fully.  Does Infowars.com get it completely right all the time?  Far less often than MSM.



13 Dec., 2016

Donald Trump has lost popular vote by greater margin than any US President.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-lost-popular-vote-hillary-clinton-us-election-president-history-a7470116.html
Now 2.8 million votes behind Hillary Clinton - five times more than the second biggest deficit.

Trump lost the popular vote in last month’s US presidential election by a bigger margin than any other US president in history. 

The Republican is currently trailing Democrat rival Hillary Clinton by 2.8 million votes as the last remaining postal ballots are counted.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Dec 2016)

So Clinton beat Trump by over 4 million votes in CA, but only 2.8 million votes overall.

It's at least as relevant to ponder the meaning of that - while reflecting that each House elector represents a district ("riding") - as it is to rant and rave about the injustice of the electoral college.

Here in Canada, a very very blue - or red, or orange - riding still elects only one MP.


----------



## mariomike (13 Dec 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> - as it is to rant and rave about the injustice of the electoral college.



https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/266038556504494082?lang=en&lang=en


----------



## Loachman (13 Dec 2016)

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443000/russia-election-hack-plan-revealed-hillary-clinton-donald-trump-only-pawns-kremlin

The Kremlin's Ingenious Plan to Hack the Election, Revealed

December 13, 2016 2:28 PM

Here's how the KGB orchestrated Hillary Clinton's defeat.

I just got off the phone with my secret source, deep inside the Kremlin. Using my command of highly limited tourist Russian, I spoke with Comrade Leonid Stalinov Leninksy. (Oops! I think I just outed him.) In a worldwide-exclusive interview, Leninsky explained to me how hackers controlled by Russian intelligence orchestrated the defeat of Hillary Clinton and the election of Donald J. Trump as the next president of the United States.

Their plan was truly ingenious:

- Anticipating that Clinton would run for president in 2016, these very far-sighted Russians hacked the State Department's operation center. They tampered with the January 2009 work order for a new computer server in the office of the secretary of state. These covert operatives in Moscow changed the instructions from "Please install in Secretary Clinton's seventh-floor office" to "Please install in basement of Secretary Clinton's Chappaqua, N.Y., home." Thus, that pesky server wound up in Clinton's cellar. Little did she know this would explode into the Servergate scandal.

- On the evening of September 11, 2012, Russian hackers infiltrated the information system at the State Department's Office of Public Affairs. They digitally doctored a press release that correctly blamed the al-Qaeda–linked Islamic terrorists of Ansar al-Sharia for the then-unfolding, deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. The Russians rewrote the 10:32 p.m. EST communique to call "this vicious behavior" a "response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet." This forced Clinton's hand. Not wanting to send contradictory signals by revealing the truth, she stuck with that false "the video did it" narrative for years.

- The men from Moscow hacked into Clinton's teleprompter last September 9. In a fundraising speech that she delivered to donors at Cipriani restaurant, literally on Wall Street, her original reference to half of Trump's supporters as "hard-working Americans thirsty for economic growth and tired of being lectured to by condescending, out-of-touch elites in Washington" disappeared. Instead, Clinton was amazed to find herself calling them a "basket of deplorables." She was as stunned as anyone to find her lips forming the words "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic - you name it."

- The Russians cunningly hacked Clinton's HVAC systems in her two homes and the hotel rooms in which she slept on the campaign trail. Every night, soon after Hillary retired, the Russians hijacked the air conditioner where she dozed that evening. Forcing the room temperature down to 55 degrees, Moscow eventually gave the Democratic nominee pneumonia. This prompted the notorious fainting incident on September 11, which - fairly or not - raised questions about Clinton's health and stamina.

- The hackers penetrated campaign manager Robby Mook's PC and deleted Clinton's positive economic message.

- These e-vil people burrowed into the computers in Clinton-Kane's policy-development offices. They electronically shredded the campaign's plan to appeal to black voters with a new, nationwide commitment to robust school choice, so that black boys and girls might boost their life prospects by actually learning something in America's ghetto schools. Once that proposal vanished, Team Hillary had no choice but to revert to hackneyed scare tactics about an incipient rise of the Ku Klux Klan. Unimpressed, normally reliable black Democrats stayed home in sufficient numbers to contribute to Clinton's loss. In fact, enough of them voted for Trump to increase the GOP's share of the black vote by 33 percent, compared to what Mitt Romney earned in 2012.

- The Russians drilled into the navigation system of Stronger Together, Clinton's campaign plane, and erased Wisconsin from its map of the USA. This prevented her from landing and stumping even once in that entire state during the fall election campaign.

I had planned to send details of this conversation to my main contact at the CIA, J. Worthington Carstairs IV. However, I bet that Vladimir Putin's boys already have hacked Carstairs' e-mail system and slipped it into his inbox. I thank the Kremlin for sparing me the trouble.

- Deroy Murdock is a Manhattan-based Fox News contributor and a contributing editor with National Review Online.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Dec 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/266038556504494082?lang=en&lang=en



So Trump's a hypocrite and changes his mind a lot.  Congratulations.


----------



## vonGarvin (14 Dec 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> And this is what so few people realize, even in the US.
> 
> The national popular vote is irrelevant. The state popular votes, collectively, are what count.


Exactly

One vote per senator and one per congressional district. 
Earlier New York and Wyoming were compared. Well, Wyoming has 1 member in the house; New York State has 27. Thats where thing divvy up by population.  
Each has 2 senators, where states are all equal.


----------



## mariomike (14 Dec 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> But he DID offer to release his tax returns - as soon as Hillary released her 33000 Bleach Bit-deleted e-mails.



There are various explanations I have read,

Refusal to release tax returns
Trump did not release his personal income tax returns, as nominees traditionally do, and said he does not plan to do so before the November election.[662] Historians say he would be the first major party nominee since 1976 not to make his tax returns public. Before declaring for president he said he would "absolutely" release them if he decided to run for office.[663] Early in the 2016 primary process he promised to put out "very big, very beautiful" returns.[663] He offered various reasons for not giving out the information. He says his lawyers told him not to release the returns because they are being audited. He contends that voters are not interested and "there's nothing to learn from them". He told one interviewer that his tax rate is "none of your business".[663]

Trump was criticized for his refusal to release tax information. Experts say being audited is no bar to releasing the information.[664] The current top IRS official, Commissioner John Koskinen, said that it would be fine for Trump to release his returns during an audit.[665][666]

2012 presidential candidate Mitt Romney said that, "It is disqualifying for a modern-day presidential nominee to refuse to release tax returns to the voters." Romney speculated, "There is only one logical explanation for Mr. Trump's refusal to release his returns: there is a bombshell in them."[667] John Fund of the National Review said that Republican convention delegates should abstain from voting for Trump if he does not release the information, fearing that the returns could contain an electoral "time bomb".[668]

There is no requirement that presidential candidates release their tax returns but candidates are legally free to do so even when under audit.[669][670] Tax lawyers differ as to whether releasing tax returns is legally advisable for someone like Trump who is under audit.[670][671] According to NPR, tax experts such as New York University Law School professor Daniel Shaviro say that "Trump's lawyers may advise him not to release the returns for legal strategy purposes."[672]

On October 1, 2016, the New York Times reported that the Times had been given three pages of certain state tax returns for Trump for the year 1995. The materials indicated that Trump incurred a $916 million net operating loss which, for Federal income tax purposes, could potentially have prevented Trump from owing any Federal income taxes for up to 18 years.[673]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016#Refusal_to_release_tax_returns
References are at bottom of the page.

From what I have read, historians are saying there have not been president-elect demonstrations/protests/riots like this since Lincoln in 1860.

Even in Canada,

Ottawa police are already concerned about security for a Trump visit
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/city-hall-blog-a-trump-visit-to-ottawa-isnt-like-an-obama-love-in-for-police
“(With) Obama, it’s a love-in and the two visits we had with President Obama were very positive. I think the dynamics with a person like Trump is totally different that we have to factor into our planning assumptions and the potential (for) demonstrations or activities on such a visit.”
Ottawa Police Chief Charles Bordeleau 

To see how in-step our opinions are with our fellow Canadians,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump+canadians+poll&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=klxRWLzLC4SN8QfW06uwBA&gws_rd=ssl


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Dec 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> And that led me to http://www.duffelblog.com/2016/12/defense-secretary-nominee-gen-james-mattis-vows-make-killing-great/


Which led me to ...
*"Headquarters Marine Corps orders Marines to stop referring to Mattis as ‘God’ "*
Some of this stuff really _does_ write itself ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Dec 2016)

I was going to post "give it a rest" with this blathering about all things the evil Trump but I posted that previously about the evil Harper.


----------



## mariomike (14 Dec 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I was going to post "give it a rest" with this blathering about all things the evil Trump but I posted that previously about the evil Harper.



I don't believe anyone called him evil.

Not sure what Mr. Harper has to do with this discussion? Don't recall anyone calling him evil either.


----------



## Lumber (14 Dec 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I don't believe anyone called him evil.
> 
> Not sure what Mr. Harper has to do with this discussion? Don't recall anyone calling him evil either.



We don't call them evil until _after_ they've been democratically elected, democratically sworn in, been named Times "person of the year", addressed problems revolving around a specific and identifiable religious group, and had a few years to come up with a solution to those problems...........


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Dec 2016)

Lumber said:
			
		

> We don't call them evil until _after_ they've been democratically elected, democratically sworn in, been named Times "person of the year", addressed problems revolving around a specific and identifiable religious group, and had a few years to come up with a solution to those problems...........



Nice way to invoke "Godwin" without actually saying it.


----------



## mariomike (15 Dec 2016)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Nice way to invoke "Godwin" without actually saying it.



Mike Godwin says it's OK, "Sure call Trump a Nazi. Just know what you're talking about."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/12/14/sure-call-trump-a-nazi-just-make-sure-you-know-what-youre-talking-about/?utm_term=.fe3e0dd57603

Regarding a technical glitch, Reply #2857 was awarded 1200 Milpoints by the same poster. Well deserved, of course! But, I thought the limit was 300? The same thing happened to me a few times.

We've been blathering about qualifications - or lack of - for 115 pages, ( even have an Election 2020 thread going ). 

When it comes to politics, internet "blathering" - from all sides - never stops! ( Until they finally lock the thread. ) 

Besides, it's Radio Chatter! 

My concern, as a non-voter in US elections, is who gets the nuclear codes.
Since it looks like President Obama will be handing them to this individual,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump+nuclear&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=sKZSWLaLMcyC8Qe804PQAw&gws_rd=ssl#q=trump+nuclear&start=0

Which really isn't worth worrying about, because most of us probably won't be around to argue about who should / should not get them anyway!


----------



## Rifleman62 (15 Dec 2016)

> My concern, as a non-voter in US elections, is who gets the nuclear codes



Your concerned? Nancy Pelosi, when she was the Speaker, would have had the codes if the Pres/VPres were struck down. That got me worried.


----------



## mariomike (15 Dec 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Your concerned? Nancy Pelosi, when she was the Speaker, would have had the codes if the Pres/VPres were struck down. That got me worried.



"Everything will settle down nicely. Unless we have another war. Then none of us have to worry because we'll all be blown to bits the first day. So cheer up, huh?"  

Best Years of our Lives.

Nothing is impossible, but how likely is it that the Pres/VPres would both be "struck down" at the same time? 

I'm thinking of JFK and LBJ both riding in open cars in Dallas. But, I doubt the Secret Service would let a Pres/VPres do that again?


----------



## CountDC (15 Dec 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> "I'm thinking of JFK and LBJ both riding in open cars in Dallas. But, I doubt the Secret Service would let a Pres/VPres do that again?



let's see once Trump is in.  I lean towards yes they would from reports of their warm and fuzzy with Clinton if she had got in.  I can see it now - oops, missed that one as I was too busy getting the luggage and making sure I stayed the proper distance away. ;D


----------



## mariomike (15 Dec 2016)

CountDC said:
			
		

> let's see once Trump is in.  I lean towards yes they would from reports of their warm and fuzzy with Clinton if she had got in.  I can see it now - oops, missed that one as I was too busy getting the luggage and making sure I stayed the proper distance away. ;D



I'm sure the Secret Service would never say it out loud. But, I am reminded of what the Dallas detective said to Lee Oswald. “Lee, if anybody shoots, I hope they're as good a shot as you are."  

I've read in this thread about checks and balances on the US President. That he is constrained by the constitution, the courts and the Congress from "going rogue".

As a Canadian, that's none of my business. But, who President Obama transfers the nuclear codes to is, I believe, a legitimate concern.

There are no checks and balances on the use of nuclear weapons. The president doesn't have to check with anybody. He doesn't have to call the Congress. He doesn't have to check with the courts. 
The US is not committed to a doctrine of "no-first-use" of nuclear weapons either. He can strike first at an adversary, even if the US itself has not been attacked.

Which really isn't worth worrying about, because most of us probably won't be around to argue about who should / should have received the codes anyway!


----------



## Loachman (15 Dec 2016)

I worry a lot less about him than I would have about crooked Hillary.


----------



## mariomike (15 Dec 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I worry a lot less about him than I would have about crooked Hillary.



That's comforting.

For anyone interested,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump+nuclear+trust&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=PWdTWIalPMSC8Qe485MY&gws_rd=ssl


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Dec 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Not sure what Mr. Harper has to do with this discussion? *Don't recall anyone calling him evil either*.


Maybe not around these online parts, but there's a looooooot of hits out in Google-ville of "Stephen Harper"+evil if one looks.

Meanwhile, good questions, these:

_*"If Donald Trump Is So Upset About Iraq WMD Lies, Why Would He Want to Hire John Bolton?"*_
_*"John Bolton Was Wrong About Iraq WMDs But Says Trust him on Iran Nukes "*_ (from last year)
In the interests of some semblance of balance, here's the Breitbart version of events ...


> ... The truth is that Bolton was frozen out of Iraq War planning. This criticism also ignores Bolton’s successful diplomacy as Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security to pressure rogue states to comply with WMD treaties and his work as UN ambassador to take strong and meaningful action in the UN Security Council against WMD proliferation and terrorism.
> 
> The record shows John Bolton had little to do with promoting the Iraq war or war planning ...


Caveat lector ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Dec 2016)

I have always liked Bolton.He is competent and a straight shooter,unusual for a diplomat.


----------



## mariomike (16 Dec 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Maybe not around these online parts, but there's a looooooot of hits out in Google-ville of "Stephen Harper"+evil if one looks.



Didn't have to look far.  
https://www.google.ca/search?q=site%3Aarmy.ca+%22evil+harper%22&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=PfBTWNTOIKmC8Qe9yL7wBQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=site:army.ca+evil+harper


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Dec 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> As a Canadian, that's none of my business. But, who President Obama transfers the nuclear codes to is, I believe, a legitimate concern.
> 
> ...



Unless you are capable of, and willing to, pry the codes out of the hands of the US President then there is no point being concerned, is there?


----------



## mariomike (16 Dec 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Unless you are capable of, and willing to, pry the codes out of the hands of the US President then there is no point being concerned, is there?


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Dec 2016)

We went through this same sh!t with Reagan, who was supposedly going to bring about Armageddon on behalf of televangelists.

"The sky is falling" act has worn too thin to be taken seriously.  Birthers, 9/11 inside-jobbers, omigod-Trump-will-have-nukes : all members of the same club.


----------



## mariomike (16 Dec 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> We went through this same sh!t with Reagan,



Other than breaking Reagan's record of being the oldest president ever elected, are you comparing the two?
http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-oldest-president-us-history-2016-11
Yes, I do believe the age of the person who will be holding America's nuclear code in 2017 and beyond is relevant. 

I enjoy reading opinions expressed in Radio Chatter.  

I'm also influenced by what I read _outside_  of Radio Chatter,
https://www.google.ca/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=kK5UWNHiLcaC8QfLw4LgDA&gws_rd=ssl#q=trump+nuclear+trust

I think we can agree that if it does happen, most of us will be offline for a long, long time. Arguing about American politics will probably be the least of our problems.


----------



## Loachman (17 Dec 2016)

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443109/donald-trump-strongman-foreign-policy-follows-henry-kissinger&ct=ga&cd=CAEYACoUMTU5NTY0MjE4NjE1MTYyMTY1ODAyGjU2MjMxYTIzMjJhYzE4ZWQ6Y29tOmVuOlVT&usg=AFQjCNE2iUpesgDj9mzg7E03ENRCnOMECQ?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily%20Trending%20Email%20Reoccurring-%20Monday%20to%20Thursday%202016-12-16&utm_term=NR5PM%20Actives

Is Trump Pursuing a 'Kissinger-Inspired Strategy'?

by Michael Barone December 16, 2016 12:00 AM

His foreign policy seems to have more coherence than many realize.

What is President-elect Donald Trump up to on foreign policy? It's a question with no clear answer. Some will dismiss his appointments and tweets as expressing no more than the impulses of an ignorant and undisciplined temperament - no more premeditated than the lunges of a rattlesnake.

Others may recall that similar things were said (by me, as well as many others) about his campaign strategy. But examination of the entrails of the election returns suggests that Trump was following a deliberate strategy based on shrewd insight when he risked antagonizing white college-educated voters in the process of appealing to non-college-educated whites.

Antagonizing college graduates cost him scads of popular votes - but zero electoral votes - in states such as California, Arizona, Texas, and Georgia. But his appeal to non-college-educated whites in Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Maine's 2nd Congressional District won him just enough popular votes to capture 100 electoral votes that had gone for President Barack Obama in 2012.

So maybe Trump knew what he was doing. It seems to me that like many rich men, he has original insights that, together with hard work and good luck, have made him successful, even while showing boundless ignorance or mindless delusion about other things.

So let's examine Trump's actions and comments on foreign policy so far in that light and in light of the speculations of historian and Henry Kissinger biographer Niall Ferguson, who, in an American Interest article last month, sketched out what a "Kissinger-inspired strategy" by Trump might look like.

Ferguson argued that Trump is pursuing what Kissinger's most admired American statesman, Theodore Roosevelt, also sought: "a world run by regional great powers with strong men in command, all of whom understand that any lasting international order must be based on the balance of power."

That seems in line with Trump's moves vis-à-vis China. He ostentatiously took a congratulatory call from Taiwan's president, and the first foreign leader to make a post-election visit to Trump Tower was Japan's Shinzo Abe. Both are signals that Trump will look askance at China's moves to establish sovereignty in the first island chain.

But then he tapped as ambassador to Beijing Iowa governor Terry Branstad, whose friendship with Xi Jinping goes back to the Chinese leader's visit to Iowa in 1985. Those moves look like a "good cop, bad cop" routine. Trump wants some changes in trade relations with China and limits on its probes in the South China Sea and will build up U.S. military forces. But there's room for acceptance of China as a great power.

Trump wants some changes in trade relations with China and limits on its probes in the South China Sea and will build up U.S. military forces. There's room for acceptance of Russia, too, as suggested by the secretary-of-state nomination of Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson, self-proclaimed friend of Russian president Vladimir Putin's. He may be opposed by Republican senators who, like Mitt Romney in 2012, see Russia as "our No. 1 geopolitical foe." But perhaps Trump favors Kissinger's proposal for a neutral and decentralized (i.e., dominated and partitioned) Ukraine, with an end to sanctions on Russia. Tillerson would be a good choice if that were your goal.

This would make the Baltic States and Poland understandably nervous, but they could take some comfort in Trump's reaffirmation of our NATO pledge to defend them and in the fact that Pentagon nominee James Mattis has gone out of his way to honor Estonia for its sacrifices in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As for the rest of Europe, Ferguson cited Kissinger's urging that it move "from bureaucratic introspection back to strategic responsibility." Finance ministers, stung by Trump's campaign criticisms, are ponying up more money to meet their NATO defense-spending commitments; German chancellor Angela Merkel is backing down from her disastrous decision to welcome 1 million "refugees."

Long-standing U.S. cheerleading for the European Union reached a crescendo when President Obama threatened that Britain would go to "the back of the queue" if it voted to leave the EU. Trump supported Brexit and has supported a U.S.–U.K. free-trade agreement. He obviously doesn't have much use for multinational talking shops.

In the Middle East, will Trump ditch the Iranian nuclear deal or police it aggressively? Will he bolster the tacit Sunni–Israeli alliance against the expansion of Iranian influence? Unclear, though Mattis and Tillerson could help with both.

Trump's moves and picks so far are not inconsistent with Ferguson's supposition that his strategy is to seek accommodations with regional powers led by strongmen, showing even less regard for and paying even less lip service to human rights than Obama. We'll see.

- Michael Barone is a senior political analyst for the Washington Examiner, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a longtime co-author of The Almanac of American Politics.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Dec 2016)

Interesting take, Loachman - thanks for sharing that.


			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> ... Pentagon nominee James Mattis has gone out of his way to honor Estonia for its sacrifices in Iraq and Afghanistan ...


And if the carrot of "didn't our soliders' deaths make as much of a contribution as your soldiers' deaths?" doesn't work, there's always the stick of "black sites" in those parts of the world - it certainly would be interesting if more information about THAT got out ...


----------



## Journeyman (17 Dec 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Is Trump Pursuing a 'Kissinger-Inspired Strategy'?


Very interesting article.  I still remain on the side of Trump "showing boundless ignorance or mindless delusion about other things," more so than "maybe Trump knew what he was doing," but maybe I'll plan for the world still turning after 20 January.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Dec 2016)

>Other than breaking Reagan's record of being the oldest president ever elected, are you comparing the two?

No, I'm comparing the speculative fear-mongering.  Doom following a Republican presidency has been imminent for so long that I've managed to get through high school and nearly all the way to retirement while it progresses.


----------



## mariomike (17 Dec 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Doom following a Republican presidency has been imminent for so long that I've managed to get through high school and nearly all the way to retirement while it progresses.



American, and Canadian, party politics aside, ( if that is possible on social media   )

Did you watch the debates? In case you missed this question about the Nuclear Triad,

Mr. Trumps response,
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2015/12/17/what-is-nuclear-triad-debate-sot.cnn

Republican Senator Rubio's
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XwImyOu6YBk


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Dec 2016)

It looks to me like Trump either didn't understand the question or chose to waffle on and make some unrelated point.

How you get from there to fearing that he is going to order a nuclear launch - with or without understand means of delivery - is not shown.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (18 Dec 2016)

For something a little different, the latest SNL episode, starring Donald, Vladimir, and Rex. 

 Donald, Vladimir, and Rex celebrate Christmas


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Dec 2016)

So have all those loser Hollywood actors moved to Canada yet?  Has a single one?


----------



## George Wallace (18 Dec 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So have all those loser Hollywood actors moved to Canada yet?  Has a single one?



Hard to tell.....Are they moving to Toronto, or just there on a long-term film contract?


----------



## mariomike (18 Dec 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> So have all those loser Hollywood actors moved to Canada yet?



Maybe they're waiting to see how much he is willing to pay them, or what he will give them, to perform at his inauguration?  
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Trump+Team+Scrambles+for+A-List+Inaugural+Performers%3A+%E2%80%98They+Are+Willing+to+Pay+Anything%E2%80%99&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=qd5WWNKuFKeC8QffzaDYBw&gws_rd=ssl

https://www.google.ca/search?q=refuse+perform+trump&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=X-BWWP7gAqmC8Qe9yL7wBQ&gws_rd=ssl#tbs=qdr:w&q=refuse+perform+inauguration

If 16 year old Jackie Evancho counts as a "celebrity," then the claim that "no" celebrities will perform at his inauguration is not true in a literal sense.

More on Americans - not just the rich and famous - wishing to move to Canada,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=americans+move+canada&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=w_VWWJiELoeN8Qfw4pWwBQ&gws_rd=ssl

Not as easy as some may wish.


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Dec 2016)

There may be other reasons to flee.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2016/11/21/as-trump-tax-cuts-emerge-high-13-3-california-tax-spells-exodus/#6c99edc927f3

These Hollywood "celebrities" are mainly actors, industry workers who have about as much experience running a government as a community organizer or a part time drama teacher/snowboarder.

Staying in the US means they will get a big tax cut Federally.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Dec 2016)




----------



## mariomike (18 Dec 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> These Hollywood "celebrities" are mainly actors, industry workers who have about as much experience running a government as a community organizer or a part time drama teacher/snowboarder.



In spite of being the oldest ever, the President-elect will have a bit of a learning curve.

Donald Trump will be the only US president ever with no political or military experience
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13587532/donald-trump-no-experience

"In the office’s storied 227-year existence — from George Washington to Barack Obama — there has never been a president-elect who has entirely lacked both political and military service. Donald Trump will change that."


----------



## Loachman (18 Dec 2016)

Obama.

Carter.

Both duds, despite their experience.

Mr Trump understands business, though, and much of that experience will serve him well. He's picking good people, too, and they are not likely to reach the levels of corruption that Obama's minions did.


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Dec 2016)

Or Canada's Liberals.


----------



## mariomike (18 Dec 2016)




----------



## vonGarvin (18 Dec 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> More on Americans - not just the rich and famous - wishing to move to Canada,
> https://www.google.ca/search?q=americans+move+canada&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=w_VWWJiELoeN8Qfw4pWwBQ&gws_rd=ssl
> 
> Not as easy as some may wish.



The irony.  Wanting to flee their country because the president elect wants to enforce standards for immigration and then finding out that said country has standards for immigration that make it challenging to immigrate...


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Dec 2016)

[quote author=mariomike]
Donald Trump will be the only US president ever with no political or military experience
[/quote]

Because War isn't a major business export of the US and Trump a business man?


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Dec 2016)

Actually, he served three terms in the Illinois State Senate and was a serving US Senator when he ran for president.

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/senators/a/barack_obama.htm


----------



## FJAG (18 Dec 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Obama.
> 
> Carter.
> 
> ...



He may know real estate and the financing involved with it but has no viable experience with manufacturing, transportation, telecommunications, health services, education, public services or infrastructure, the military, raw material extraction; I could go on and on. When he tried an airline he failed. When he tried sports he failed. Hell, even when he tried retailing meat, he failed.

Please stop telling us that he "knows" business and that this will somehow make up for his inexperience in government. It won't. With the exception of General Mattis (who I think might be a good Secretary of Defence), his cabinet picks are equally unqualified. His other selections remind me of when McNamara (a good Ford executive) was made Secretary of Defence and completely screwed the pooch. Most of Trump's picks have minimal--at best--qualifications for their portfolios but they do come loaded with self-interest issues and private agendas.

If you honestly think that Carter and Obama's administrations were corrupt then keep your eyes open on the future. You ain't seen nuthin' yet. The US is about to go back to the age of the robber barons.  :2c:

 :subbies:


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Dec 2016)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Actually, he served three terms in the Illinois State Senate and was a serving US Senator when he ran for president.
> 
> http://uspolitics.about.com/od/senators/a/barack_obama.htm


All legislative; none of it executive.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Dec 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> These Hollywood "celebrities" are mainly actors, industry workers who have about as much experience running a government as a community organizer or a part time drama teacher/snowboarder.


Or an oil-company mailroom guy who's done nothing but NGO work before getting into politics, right?


----------



## cupper (18 Dec 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> He may know real estate and the financing involved with it but has no viable experience with manufacturing, transportation, telecommunications, health services, education, public services or infrastructure, the military, raw material extraction; I could go on and on. When he tried an airline he failed. When he tried sports he failed. Hell, even when he tried retailing meat, he failed.
> 
> Please stop telling us that he "knows" business and that this will somehow make up for his inexperience in government. It won't. With the exception of General Mattis (who I think might be a good Secretary of Defence), his cabinet picks are equally unqualified. His other selections remind me of when McNamara (a good Ford executive) was made Secretary of Defence and completely screwed the pooch. Most of Trump's picks have minimal--at best--qualifications for their portfolios but they do come loaded with self-interest issues and private agendas.
> 
> ...



 :goodpost:


----------



## FJAG (18 Dec 2016)

New LEGO line. What America is getting for Christmas ;D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lCRBQGs34FE

 :subbies:


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Dec 2016)

Actually Obama was a US Senator with no real world experience.Eight years later we are looking at a Republican with real executive experience running a billion dollar enterpise. Lets not debate who has experience. Hillary had slightly more experience than Obama did,but hers came with a few bodies.


----------



## mariomike (19 Dec 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Lets not debate who has experience.



ok 

Reading some of the comments in this thread, I must confess to a certain curiosity about the demographics in Radio Chatter. 
Of course, that's none of my business.

But, if interested in voter demographics, 

Mrs. Clinton is in the first column.   Mr. Trump is in the second. 

Popular Vote as of December 19

65,844,594   62,979,616

Race/ethnicity

White  37   58 
Black   88     8  
Asian   65   29  
Other   56   37  
Hispanic (of any race)  65   29 

White evangelical or born-again Christian 16   81 
Jewish 71   24 

White no college degree  28   67 

Rural areas  34   62 

Issue regarded as most important

Foreign policy  60   34 

These are a few I found of interest, there are many more that others may, or may not, find of interest.

2016 Presidential vote by demographic subgroup
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Voter_demographics

I also found this of interest,

2016 United States election interference by Russia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_election_interference_by_Russia


----------



## tomahawk6 (19 Dec 2016)

With the utmost respect Mario I disagree.Demographics has nothing to do with experience.Obama was a political agitator err community organizer,then he was elected to the Senate.Prior to his election he had zero executive experience.Clinton also was a Senator and then became Sec State.Her tenure was a mixed bag. Trump runs a billion dollar business with loads of experience managing people and money. I voted for experience. :warstory:


----------



## mariomike (19 Dec 2016)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> With the utmost respect Mario I disagree.Demographics has nothing to do with experience.Obama was a political agitator err community organizer,then he was elected to the Senate.Prior to his election he had zero executive experience.Clinton also was a Senator and then became Sec State.Her tenure was a mixed bag. Trump runs a billion dollar business with loads of experience managing people and money. I voted for experience. :warstory:



T6, with equal respect*, I was not referring to the demographics of the candidates, or their experience, ( or lack of ). Depends on your point of view, I suppose?

My post was about the demographics of the _voters_.  

* With more respect actually, because I'm not a US voter. Just a spectator. 

Although I must admit to a slight concern as to which candidate gets control of the nukes. But, why worry, eh?


----------



## QV (19 Dec 2016)

Maybe it's time for fresh ideas instead of the same career politicians all taking a turn.  Trump seems sincere to me unlike the other options.

Go Trump!


----------



## suffolkowner (19 Dec 2016)

It's electoral college day!

I think Trumps a complete idiot and I think that's great. The next 4 years if he's not assassinated before will be very entertaining. Finally we have someone to counter the Putin's and Erdogan's of the world. Obama never understood that his adversaries weren't interested in compromise or fair outcomes.


----------



## Journeyman (19 Dec 2016)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Finally we have someone to counter the Putin's and Erdogan's of the world.


I recommend reading the National Review article cited a few pages back.  

The gist is that Trump would likely seek "a world run by regional great powers with strong men in command"; he would not counter Putin and Erdogan, he would _join_  them.


----------



## mariomike (19 Dec 2016)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I think Trumps a complete idiot and I think that's great.



Then, you may enjoy this,  

Dec 18, 2016 

Donald Trump’s questionable intelligence: All those false claims about his academic record and derision of others bespeak profound insecurity 
http://www.salon.com/2016/12/18/donald-trumps-questionable-intelligence-all-those-false-claims-about-his-academic-record-and-derision-of-others-bespeak-profound-insecurity/
Our president-elect loves to talk about his intellectual gifts and academic success. Shockingly, none of it's true 

Donald Trump says he doesn’t need daily intelligence briefings.

“I’m, like, a smart person,” he told Fox News’ Chris Wallace last weekend, explaining why he’ll be the first president since Harry Truman to avoid getting daily updates from intelligence professionals about national security threats. 



			
				suffolkowner said:
			
		

> The next 4 years if he's not assassinated before will be very entertaining.



Trump Tower seems well defended with 200 NYPD officers stationed there 24/7. That doesn't include the Secret Service. 
Like anything else, security comes at a cost,

December 18, 2016 
NYPD pushes for feds to cover $35M Trump Tower security cost
http://nypost.com/2016/12/18/nypd-pushes-for-feds-to-cover-35m-trump-tower-security-cost/

How do you get past all the Secret Service & the NYPD protecting Trump Tower? Use the tenants entrance.
http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/woman-trump-tower-24th-floor-psych-evaluation-article-1.2897357



			
				suffolkowner said:
			
		

> Finally we have someone to counter the Putin's and Erdogan's of the world.





			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> The gist is that Trump would likely seek "a world run by regional great powers with strong men in command"; he would not counter Putin and Erdogan, he would _join_  them.


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Dec 2016)

You know that all your casting about to denigrate the next POTUS and posting herein means FA in the scheme of things. I detest our current PM and his father but have better things to do than fill pages with links.

Take a pill or have a Martini.

If Trump misuses the nuclear codes maybe you will just have the time to post "Told you so" before you disintegrate. 

My 2 cents, but I get your diligence. Merry Christmas.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Dec 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> You know that all your casting about to denigrate the next POTUS and posting herein means FA in the scheme of things ...


Since this is "Radio Chatter," that can be said about _anybody's_ comments about _any_ politician/ideology, including my own.

Folks, not a warning, but an ... aspiration ... from someone smarter WAY than me:


> ... … let us treat each other, even our political opponents and, yes, even our enemies, with dignity and the elementary level of respect that is everyman’s due. We may fear and detest, even hate ideologies and tyranny and barbaric practices but, underneath everything, we are all human beings, sharing a planet ...


Dare to dream, I know.

And for passionate folks at _all_ ends of the political spectrum, remember ...


----------



## mariomike (19 Dec 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> You know that all your casting about to denigrate the next POTUS and posting herein means FA in the scheme of things.



These 117 pages, and the 2020 US election thread mean FA in the scheme of things. Most of us can't even vote in US elections.

If you don't like my posts, why not offer an informed, contradictory post, or don't read them?  



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I detest our current PM and his father but have better things to do than fill pages with links.



Even in this thread, I do get that impression!  



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Take a pill or have a Martini.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Dec 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> You know that all your casting about to denigrate the next POTUS and posting herein means FA in the scheme of things. I detest our current PM and his father but have better things to do than fill pages with links.
> 
> Take a pill or have a Martini.
> 
> ...



Maybe Army.ca can take a page out of the US university's book and start handing out Playdough and Colouring books.


I was trying to find a YouTube video of crying SJWs reacting to Trump being elected but I can't pick my favorite one.


----------



## mariomike (19 Dec 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I was trying to find a YouTube video of crying SJWs reacting to Trump being elected but I can't pick my favorite one.



Will this do until you find a favorite?  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8_7Orhey-g


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Dec 2016)

mariomike: 





> If you don't like my posts, offer an informed, contradictory post, or don't read them.



It is not that I don't like your posts. Offering an informed, contradictory post will not change your bubble. I read them to stay informed of contradictory opinions. To not read them equates to not being informed of others chain of thoughts. It is just you have a chain and are pedantic, which you are entitle to as I am to point it out.

Look on the bright side, only four/eight more years starting in January then the heavens will unfold with Chelsea Victoria Clinton as the first woman POTUS. ;D


----------



## a_majoor (19 Dec 2016)

Winding down this administration:
http://nypost.com/2016/12/18/time-to-face-reality-obama-trump-is-going-to-be-president/



> *Time to face reality, Obama — Trump is going to be president*
> By Michael Goodwin December 18, 2016 | 9:51am | Updated
> Michael Goodwin
> 
> ...


_- mod edit to add link to article -_


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Dec 2016)

> On her way out the door, first lady Michelle Obama tossed off an ungracious remark, saying, “We’re feeling what not having hope feels like.”



Seems on par with her personality.


----------



## ModlrMike (19 Dec 2016)

Considering Mr Obama's 2008 campaign slogan was "Hope", she's factually correct.


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Dec 2016)

While pondering the value of "experience", mull over the fact that a career captain has a lot of "experience", and consider what the political equivalent of a career captain might be.


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Dec 2016)

The actual election is going on as I type this.  Here's a link to follow along:

http://linkis.com/www.270towin.com/84jOA

Also read of one "rogue" elector.  He cast his ballot for John Kasich.  His vote was void and he was replaced.  (I think it's one of the states where rogue votes are discounted.  Wisconsin, maybe?)


----------



## cavalryman (19 Dec 2016)

So far, Clinton's faced 7 faithless electors to Trump's 0...  Mind you three of them (ME, MI & CO) were forcibly changed back to Clinton, but so far no word on the other 4 from WA.  It sure says something about the Dems' internal divisions.  Can't blame the Russkies, the FBI or the basket of deplorables this time around.


----------



## cupper (19 Dec 2016)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> The next 4 years if he's not assassinated before will be very entertaining.



Trump is more likely die from health issues or being impeached.

Either way Pence would take over and then we have an extreme social conservative in charge.


----------



## cupper (19 Dec 2016)

If it does come to pass that enough faithless electors cause Trump to drop below the 270 threshold, and this goes to the House, their choices are limited to the top 3 names that the electors voted for.

That would mean that they third option could be either Sanders or Kasich. The vote is taken based on seach state delegation (senators and representatives) having a single vote. If they vote along party lines, it is quite possible that the vote could be split and the opposite party might gain the White House.

If no one gains the majority of all votes, then it goes to the VP to decide. And we know what that outcome will be.

The chances of any of these scenarios coming to pass is slim to none.


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Dec 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> Either way Pence would take over and then we have an *extreme social conservative in charge*.



I think the use of the word "extreme" is, well, extreme.  But it would be a breath of fresh air, given the extreme social progressives that have been polluting the gene pool lately.


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Dec 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> If it does come to pass that enough faithless electors cause Trump to drop below the 270 threshold, and this goes to the House, their choices are limited to the top 3 names that the electors voted for.



You're high if you think that would happen.  As stated, there have been 7 thus far: 3 in states where it's not allowed and the voter is removed and the votes "fixed" and 4 in Washington.  The four in Washington were:
3 for Colin Powell
1 for Faith Spotted Eagle of South Dakota.

And they all ran from Clinton.  Of course, it was the Russians.   :


----------



## vonGarvin (19 Dec 2016)

It's official.  Now you can stop fantasizing about an electoral college revolt.  Or whatever.


Edit to add:
In Texas, 2 electors voted for someone other than Mr. Trump: one for Mr Kasich and one for Ron Paul.


----------



## cupper (19 Dec 2016)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> You're high if you think that would happen.  As stated, there have been 7 thus far: 3 in states where it's not allowed and the voter is removed and the votes "fixed" and 4 in Washington.  The four in Washington were:
> 3 for Colin Powell
> 1 for Faith Spotted Eagle of South Dakota.
> 
> And they all ran from Clinton.  Of course, it was the Russians.   :



If you are going to cast aspersions of substance abuse, at least provide the full context of the quote.



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> The chances of any of these scenarios coming to pass is slim to none.



But I do agree with the point that Drugs may be necessary to get through the next 4 / 8 years.  ;D


----------



## cupper (19 Dec 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Look on the bright side, only four/eight more years starting in January then the heavens will unfold with Chelsea Victoria Clinton as the first woman POTUS. ;D



I'm looking forward to the 2028 version. Trump vs Clinton:The Next Generation. Ivanka vs Chelsea.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Dec 2016)

How's it going?  Beer's tasting pretty good.

Guessing it will still be fine 4 years from now.


----------



## mariomike (19 Dec 2016)

The fact that about 3,000,000 more Americans voted for his opponent is, _legally speaking,_  irrelevant. I hope they accept that fact.

But, as a non-voting spectator, I wonder if the resistance / demonstrations / protests / riots / traffic delays etc. and police overtime to contain and clear them will continue?

Hopefully there will be no violence or property damage, and our First Responders will be safe!


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Dec 2016)

[quote author=cupper]


But I do agree with the point that Drugs may be necessary to get through the next 4 / 8 years.  ;D
[/quote]

Got crayons?


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Dec 2016)

cupper:





> But I do agree with the point that Drugs may be necessary to get through the next 4 / 8 years.  ;D



Here's another option for you: ;D

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/15/lisa-edelstein-alan-thicke-died-to-escape-trump-pr/

*Lisa Edelstein: Alan Thicke died to escape Trump presidency*

TV actress Lisa Edelstein is facing online backlash after tweeting a joke about the recent death of actor Alan Thicke.

“RIP Alan Thicke. Seems like everyone is checking out before the Trumpacolypse,” the former “House” star tweeted to her 93,000 followers.



P.S. I am surprised this wasn't posted before by someone whose been preaching the end of the world.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Dec 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> The fact that about 3,000,000 more Americans voted for his opponent is, _legally speaking,_  irrelevant.


I would say statistically irrelevant too since estimates are half of the some 319 million Americans didn't even bother to vote.


----------



## mariomike (19 Dec 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> P.S. I am surprised this wasn't posted before by someone whose been preaching the end of the world.



Congratulations! You beat me to it.  



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I would say statistically irrelevant too since estimates are half of the some 319 million Americans didn't even bother to vote.



If they had bothered, it would have been 6,000,000?


----------



## cupper (19 Dec 2016)

I read something a while ago that looked at the vote efficiency of each candidate, or the number of wasted votes, votes in excess of the majority to win in each district or state.

Clinton wasted 10 million votes, while Trump only wasted 8.5 million.

It puts into perspective one of the issues with the Electoral College system of voting. That being not all votes count, rather than every vote counts.


----------



## QV (19 Dec 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> mariomike: .....
> 
> Look on the bright side, only four/eight more years starting in January then the heavens will unfold with Chelsea Victoria Clinton as the first woman POTUS. ;D



Negative.  First woman POTUS: Ivanka Trump.  You heard it here first.


----------



## Remius (19 Dec 2016)

QV said:
			
		

> Negative.  First woman POTUS: Ivanka Trump.  You heard it here first.



I already called it with Michelle Obama.


----------



## mariomike (19 Dec 2016)

I would not be surprised if the Democrats play it safe in 2020, and run an African-American male.

Obama got 365 Electoral votes in 2008, and 332 Electoral votes in 2012. 

Trump got 304 Electoral votes in 2016.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Dec 2016)

The US presidency is a reality TV show.


----------



## cupper (19 Dec 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I would not be surprised if the Democrats play it safe in 2020, and run an African-American male.
> 
> Obama got 365 Electoral votes in 2008, and 332 Electoral votes in 2012.
> 
> Trump got 304 Electoral votes in 2016.



And you thought Trump would be bad for the country.  ;D

Oh, and your facts must be wrong because Trump had the biggest electoral college win in the history of the United States, and had the biggest margin ever in the popular vote if they didn't count all those millions of illegal votes cast for Clinton.

It's all true because it was on the internet and we all know you aren't allowed to post lies on the internet. twitter is another story. ;D


----------



## FJAG (19 Dec 2016)

As a conservative, this is the dilemma that I see:



> The GOP is at its peak, but conservatism has hit rock bottom
> 
> By Michael Gerson Opinion writer December 19 at 7:45 PM Washington Post
> 
> ...



https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-gop-is-at-its-peak-but-conservatism-has-hit-rock-bottom/2016/12/19/ebcb896e-c624-11e6-8bee-54e800ef2a63_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-f%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.7cab54ed7ea1


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Dec 2016)

FJAG



> if conservatism is defined as embracing limited government, displaying a rational, skeptical and moderate temperament and believing in the priority of the moral order.



That doesn't define conservatism - that defines liberalism - as Gladstone would have defined it, and Laurier would have accepted it.

Just because Lloyd George co-opted the Liberal party for the socialists, until the real socialists of Labour forced the liberals into the Conservative party does not make liberals conservatives.

And as for the GOP being conservatives - they are not so much conservatives as they are non-progressives.


----------



## mariomike (20 Dec 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Look on the bright side, only four/eight more years starting in January then the heavens will unfold with Chelsea Victoria Clinton as the first woman POTUS.





			
				QV said:
			
		

> First woman POTUS: Ivanka Trump.



As long as we are speculating into the future, what if the Democrats run an African-American for president, in 2020?

It worked out well for them in 2008 and 2012,

Electoral votes

Barrack Obama in 2008 365  

Barrack Obama in 2012 332 

Prohibited from serving third term.

Ivankas's father 304

Or, Michelle. If she changes her mind about the job. In 2020, Barack would still only be in his fifties. They would have 16 years combined experience as President and First Lady.

I would have replied in the 2020 thread, but there was no prediction as to _when_  America will have its "First woman POTUS".



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> Oh, and your facts must be wrong because Trump had the biggest electoral college win in the history of the United States, and had the biggest margin ever in the popular vote if they didn't count all those millions of illegal votes cast for Clinton.
> 
> It's all true because it was on the internet and we all know you aren't allowed to post lies on the internet. twitter is another story. ;D



There's an app for that!

Washington Post automatically inserts Trump fact-checks into Twitter
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/12/washington-post-automatically-inserts-trump-fact-checks-into-twitter/
Chrome plug-in comes 6 months after Trump revoked Post's campaign press credentials.


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Dec 2016)

[quote author=mariomike] what if the Democrats run an African-American for president, in 2020?


[/quote]

No way, shit's getting real. As long as the Presidency is now about race and gender they have to pull out all the stops and run a Transgendered Native American who was adopted and is in a serious committed relationship but not tied down by patriarch marriage ideas.


----------



## mariomike (20 Dec 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> As long as the Presidency is now about race and gender they have to pull out all the stops and run a Transgendered Native American who was adopted and is in a serious committed relationship but not tied down by patriarch marriage ideas.



Funny. My wife is waiting for them to elect their first Jewish president. Doesn't care which gender. Doesn't care which party.   

Although, 71% of Jewish people voted Democrat, and 24% voted Republican.


----------



## Lightguns (20 Dec 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> As long as we are speculating into the future, what if the Democrats run an African-American for president, in 2020?



The shine is off that turd now, even Black American activists noted that the "community organizer" never visited an inner city black neighbourhood once after getting elected to POTUS.  Black politicians do historically little for their poor co-racial communities once elected, just the white politicians.  The only real difference between politicians of any race, stripe or religion is where they appeal for their votes on election day, the rest of the time it is graft as usual.


----------



## FJAG (20 Dec 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> FJAG
> 
> That doesn't define conservatism - that defines liberalism - as Gladstone would have defined it, and Laurier would have accepted it.
> 
> ...



I have always considered myself a conservative and I put the emphasis on my beliefs in the following portions of that quote: 



> ... conservatism is defined as embracing limited government, displaying a rational, skeptical and moderate temperament and believing in the priority of the moral order...
> 
> ... to balance ambition with ambition through a divided government (executive, legislative and judicial) ... assuming that every branch of government is both dedicated to the common good and jealous of its own power...
> 
> ...



It's the first line about limited government; rational, skeptical and moderate temperament; and the priority of the moral order that sets the overarching principles for me. 

I agree with you entirely with respect to the GOP having become non-progressive. 

For me the moral component does not (and in fact should not) be rooted in faith; it should be based on fundamental concepts of common decency and not a polyglot of 1,500 to 4,000 year old agrarian superstitions. The GOP had already turned to a base that not only does not want to progress but wants to regress everyone to its model of an "ideal society" by pushing fundamentalist Christianity into politics (vis homosexuality, abortion, anti-Muslim etc), a philosophy which is personally unacceptable to me even though I continue to believe in small government, scepticism and a moral order. They have now been joined by a new movement that wants to regress to an economic post-WWII American ideal that is probably no longer viable. 

My second area of concern is that for conservatives scepticism should be universal (all notions should follow the "I'm from Missouri-- prove it" concept) but instead it has become very one-sided to the point where opposing ideas are automatically rejected as "lies", regardless of how detailed or convincing the proof is, while statements that support their own beliefs or prejudices are automatically endowed with "truth" regardless of how inane or blatantly false they are.

If I was a Liberal, this whole Trump thing wouldn't cause me any concern. I'd retreat into my little shell and work hard to get out the Liberal vote in the next election. The fact that I'm a conservative (and Conservative) who is seeing my own belief system being hijacked by people who will take it to an extreme where I don't want to go, is what is freaking me out. The only thing they and I have left in common is our shared belief in limited government and that will forever keep me out of the Liberal and NDP camps.

 :subbies:


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Dec 2016)

I think you and I are not dissimilar - except that you expect words to mean things.  Presumably a failing associated with your profession.

My read of history suggests to me that Deacon Dodgson had it right and words mean exactly what you want them to mean - it is far better, in my view to look at the concepts.  In point of fact I don't accept any institutional label because the institution can be hijacked to serve the interests of those who are disadvantaged by the institution.

The label is only as good as the last advertisement or the last party platform.

As to the faith bit - I am at variance with you there.  I am of the opinion that I don't care what somebody believes so long as they believe.  In my opinion, again, it gives that person more of a stake in the consequences of their decisions.


----------



## Loachman (20 Dec 2016)

One does not have to be religious to be less than comfortable with homosexuality, especially the over-the-top blatant variety, disagree with abortion, or see great harm in allowing uncontrolled immigration by huge numbers of anybody - Muslims, Mexicans, or whatever.

Abortion is an inefficient form of birth control at best, murder at worst, distressing, later in life, to at least some of the women who opt for it, and unfair to the victims; I also find many of the proponents to be hypocritical: they claim that they should have complete control over their bodies, but then claim full control over another's by killing it. Late-term abortions are particularly abhorrent, especially partial-birth abortions.


----------



## mariomike (20 Dec 2016)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> The shine is off that turd now, even Black American activists noted that the "community organizer" never visited an inner city black neighbourhood once after getting elected to POTUS.  Black politicians do historically little for their poor co-racial communities once elected, just the white politicians.  The only real difference between politicians of any race, stripe or religion is where they appeal for their votes on election day, the rest of the time it is graft as usual.



I read that after President Obama had been POTUS for four years ( 2008 - 2012 ), 

in the 2012 election,

Washington (CNN) – A new Census Bureau report shows a higher percentage of African-Americans than whites voted in a presidential election for the first time in history last year during the matchup between President Obama and GOP nominee Mitt Romney.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/05/09/blacks-outvoted-whites-in-2012-the-first-time-on-record/

Of course, there was no African-American candidate in 2016. Be interesting to see if there is one in 2020!


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Dec 2016)

Too bad Colin Powell didn't get more votes...a lot more... :nod:


----------



## mariomike (20 Dec 2016)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Too bad Colin Powell didn't get more votes...a lot more... :nod:



2016 presidential election

Powell has been very vocal on the state of the Republican party. Speaking at a Washington Ideas forum in early October 2015, he warned the audience that the Republican party had begun a move to the fringe right, lessening the chances of a Republican White House in the future. He also remarked on Republican presidential contender Donald Trump's statements regarding immigrants, noting that there were many immigrants working in Trump hotels. [98]

In March 2016, Powell denounced the "nastiness" of the 2016 Republican primaries during an interview on CBS This Morning. He compared the race to a "reality show", and stated that the campaign had gone "into the mud". [99]

In August 2016, Powell accused the Clinton campaign of trying to pin Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton's email controversy on him. Speaking to People magazine, Powell said, "The truth is, she was using [the private email server] for a year before I sent her a memo telling her what I did." [100]

On September 13, 2016, emails were obtained that revealed Powell's private communications regarding both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Powell privately reiterated his comments regarding Clinton's email scandal, writing, "I have told Hillary's minions repeatedly that they are making a mistake trying to drag me in, yet they still try," and complaining that "Hillary’s mafia keeps trying to suck me into it" in another email.[101] In another email discussing Clinton's controversy, Powell noted that she should have told everyone what she did "two years ago", and said that she has not "been covering herself with glory." Writing on the 2012 Benghazi attack controversy surrounding Clinton, Powell said to then U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice, "Benghazi is a stupid witch hunt." Commenting on Clinton in a general sense, Powell mused that "“Everything [Clinton] touches she kind of screws up with hubris", and in another email stated "I would rather not have to vote for her, although she is a friend I respect."[102]

Powell referred to Donald Trump as a "national disgrace", with "no sense of shame". He wrote candidly of Trump's role in the birther movement, which he referred to as "racist". Powell suggested that the media ignore Trump, saying, "To go on and call him an idiot just emboldens him." The emails were obtained by the media as the result of a hack.[103]

Powell endorsed Clinton on October 25, 2016, stating it was "because I think she's qualified, and the other gentleman is not qualified."[104]

Despite not running running in the election, Powell received three electoral votes for president from faithless electors in Washington who had pledged to vote for Clinton, coming in third overall.[105] After Barack Obama, Powell was only the second African American to receive electoral votes in a presidential election. He was also the first Republican since 1984 to receive electoral votes from Washington in a presidential election, as well as the first Republican African American to do so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell#2016_presidential_election


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Dec 2016)

Wasn't Powell one of the US generals salivatating over "proof"  of wmd's in Iraq?  The ol red marker circle on a shitty quality aireal photo?


----------



## Old Sweat (20 Dec 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Wasn't Powell one of the US generals salivatating over "proof"  of wmd's in Iraq?  The ol red marker circle on a shitty quality aireal photo?



He was Secretary of State at the time.


----------



## FJAG (20 Dec 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The label is only as good as the last advertisement or the last party platform.
> 
> As to the faith bit - I am at variance with you there.  I am of the opinion that I don't care what somebody believes so long as they believe.  In my opinion, again, it gives that person more of a stake in the consequences of their decisions.



As to the label thing, I can buy into that. My conservatism leads me to believe that labels and platforms shouldn't change without due and deliberate contemplation. That's not the way it goes anymore and I'm coming to accept that but don't like it.

As to faith see below.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> One does not have to be religious to be less than comfortable with homosexuality, especially the over-the-top blatant variety, disagree with abortion, or see great harm in allowing uncontrolled immigration by huge numbers of anybody - Muslims, Mexicans, or whatever.
> 
> Abortion is an inefficient form of birth control at best, murder at worst, distressing, later in life, to at least some of the women who opt for it, and unfair to the victims; I also find many of the proponents to be hypocritical: they claim that they should have complete control over their bodies, but then claim full control over another's by killing it. Late-term abortions are particularly abhorrent, especially partial-birth abortions.



I'm with you on unrestricted immigration especially as I'm a legal immigrant to this country. 

As to homosexuality, I find that my attitudes have changed dramatically since my youth. In large part that came with my kids being band kids in high school with a number of homosexual friends. The more time I spent talking with them the more I saw them as ordinary kids trying hard to live a normal and happy life. I don't discuss their sex life with them anymore than I do with men who want to discuss the details about the woman they took to bed the night before. I find that makes me uncomfortable as well. The point though is that it's not just the feeling of discomfort that you describe but actual discrimination for services and employment etc much of which is faith based (and not just Christian)

Let's just disagree about abortion. In a perfect world where everyone has access to proper sex education and birth control or wasn't raped, or didn't get drunk or get pressured into unprotected sex, abortions wouldn't be necessary. Since we don't have any of that perfection there will continue to be a need for it. As to whether or not a woman may regret it later in life, well I think the decision should be hers and not some male majority legislatures. The main problem we have with discussing the concept of abortion is that notwithstanding the vast debate and rhetoric on both sides we have no agreement as to when a fetus becomes a person. Abortion has been practised for thousands of years (both herbally and mechanically). It wasn't considered murder by Catholics until Pope Sixtus V in the late 1500s declared it such and even then, it was not vigorously enforce until the late 1800s. 

I obviously have an issue with religions (yup pretty much all of them--I don't discriminate). It's not that I believe that religion should not be a protected human right and that people should not have a right to practice the religion of their choice. They should certainly have that right so that if a woman has a religious belief that she ought not to have an abortion then so be it for that woman. My problem is that when people use their religious ideology to deny other people their basic human rights or try to impose those beliefs on others who want no part of it. Governments and laws IMHO should be purely secular. 

For me human rights should be two tiered. The top tier should be protections based on characteristics that an individual has no control over such as skin colour, nationality of birth, ethnic origin, gender, age, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability and the like. The second, and subordinate tier would include those over which the person has a choice such as religious preferences, political preferences, family status and the like. People should be absolutely free from any discrimination based on the top tier grounds but, while free to engage as they see fit in the second tier, should not be able to use those beliefs to restrict others' first tier rights.

Boy am I ever getting  ff topic: but to bring it back a bit, my concern remains the same. The conservative faction that I have always belonged to has become in the US and may be becoming in Canada a proponent of faith based (read fundamentalist Christian) policies that they insist everyone in the country ought to adhere to or, at the very least, believe that everyone should give them licence to discriminate against anyone that they believe contravenes their social mores.

 :stirpot:


----------



## GAP (20 Dec 2016)

I think each and everyone of us has enough issues to deal with that dictating to others should be a non issue.

Most of this stuff, on a scale of 1 - 10 (with 10 being death) rarely gets above a 1.... :2c:


----------



## Loachman (21 Dec 2016)

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443188/donald-trumps-cunning-animal-instinct?utm_source=jolt&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Jolt%2012/20/2016&utm_term=Jolt

The Animal Cunning and Instinct of Donald Trump

by Victor Davis Hanson December 20, 2016 4:00 AM

He grasped that what voters cared about were the very issues politicos were disdainfully ignoring.

The American middle classes, the Chinese, and Vladimir Putin have never been convinced that Ivy League degrees, vast Washington experience, and cultural sophistication necessarily translate into national wisdom. Trump instead relies more on instinct and operates from cunning - and we will soon see whether we should redefine "wisdom."

But for now, for example, we have never heard a presidential candidate say such a thing as "We love our miners" - not "we like" miners, but "we love" them. And not just any miners, but "our" miners, as if, like "our vets," the working people of our moribund economic regions were unique and exceptional people, neither clingers nor irredeemables. In Trump's gut formulation, miners certainly did not deserve "to be put out of business" by Hillary Clinton, as if they were little more than the necessary casualties of the war against global warming. For Trump, miners were not the human equivalent of the 4,200 bald eagles that the Obama administration recently assured the wind turbine industry can be shredded for the greater good of alternate energy and green profiteering.

In other words, Trump instinctively saw the miners of West Virginia - and by extension the working-class populations of states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Ohio - as emblematic of the forgotten man, in a way few of his Republican rivals, much less Hilary Clinton, grasped.

No other candidate talked as constantly about jobs, "fair" trade, illegal immigration, and political correctness - dead issues to most other pollsters and politicos. Rivals, Democratic and Republican alike, had bought into the electoral matrix of Barack Obama: slicing the electorate into identity-politics groups and arousing them to register and vote in record numbers against "them" - a fossilized, supposedly crude, illiberal, and soon-to-be-displaced white working class.

For Democrats that meant transferring intact Obama's record numbers of minority voters to a 68-year-old multimillionaire white woman; for Republicans, it meant pandering with a kinder, softer but still divisive identity-politics message. Trump instinctively saw a different demographic. And even among minority groups, he detected a rising distaste for being patronized, especially by white, nasal-droning, elite pajama-boy nerds whose loud progressivism did not disguise their grating condescension.

Trump Dismissed as a Joke

Yet even after destroying the Clinton Dynasty, the Bush-family aristocracy, the Obama legacy, and 16 more-seasoned primary rivals, Trump was dismissed by observers as being mostly a joke, idiotic and reckless. Such a dismissal is a serious mistake, because what Trump lacks in traditionally defined sophistication and awareness, he more than makes up for in shrewd political cunning of a sort not seen since the regnum of Franklin Roosevelt. Take a few recent examples.

Candidate Donald Trump was roundly hounded by the political and media establishment for suggesting that the election might be "rigged." Trump was apparently reacting to old rumors of voting-machine irregularities. (In fact, in about a third of blue Detroit's precincts, to take just one example, more votes this election were recorded than there were registered voters.)

Or perhaps Trump channeled reports that there was an epidemic of invalid or out-of-date voter registrations. (Controversially, the normally staid Pew Charitable Trust found that 2.4 million voter registrations were no longer accurate or were significantly inaccurate.)

Or maybe he fanned fears that illegal aliens were voting. (Another controversial study from two professors at Old Dominion suggested that over 6 percent of non-citizens may have voted in 2008; and the president on the eve of the election, in his usual wink-and-nod fashion, assured the illegal-alien community that there would be no federal interest in examining immigration status in connection with voting status.)

Or perhaps Trump was convinced that the media and the Democratic establishment worked hand in hand to warp elections and media coverage. (The WikiLeaks trove revealed that media operatives leaked primary debate questions and sent their stories to the Clinton campaign for fact-checking before publication, as two successive DNC chairpersons resigned in disgrace for purportedly sabotaging the primary-challenge efforts of Bernie Sanders.)

For all this and more, Trump was roundly denounced by the status quo as a buffoon who cherry-picked scholarly work to offer puerile distortions. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both expressed outrage at Trump's supposedly incendiary suggestions of voter irregularity, alleging that Trump was either delusional or insurrectionary or both.

But was he?

Or did he sense that his candidacy was touching off an "any means necessary" effort of unethical progressives to warp the law and custom for purportedly noble ends? After the election, that supposition was more than confirmed.

The Joke's on Them

Trump's enemies have now proved him a Nostradamus. Fourth-party candidate Jill Stein, joined by the remains of the Clinton campaign, asked for a recount of the 2016 election, but only in those states that provided Trump his electoral majority and only on the assumption that there was zero chance that Stein's candidacy would be affected by any conceivable new vote figure. Though perhaps, Trump's critics wished, the recount would resurrect the candidacy of Stein's stalking horse Hillary Clinton.

Then members of the Clinton campaign and powerful Democrats joined an effort to pressure electors of the Electoral College to defy their state-mandated duty to reflect the vote totals of their states and instead refrain from voting for Donald Trump. That was all but a neo-Confederate, insurrectionary act that sought to nullify the spirit of the Constitution and the legal statues of many states - part and parcel of new surreal progressive embrace of states'-rights nullification that we have not seen since the days of George Wallace.

Trump then earned greater outrage when he questioned the CIA's sudden announcement, via leaks, that the Russians had hacked Clinton-campaign communication. When Trump said that the newfound post-election "consensus" on Russian hacking was improper, unreliable, and suggestive of an overly politicized intelligence apparatus, he once again drew universal ire - proof positive that he lacked a "presidential" temperament.

Yet our intelligence agencies _do_ have a history of politicization. The 2006 national intelligence assessment at the height of the Iraq insurgency and of George W. Bush's unpopularity oddly claimed that Iran had stopped nuclear-weapons work as early as 2003 - a finding that, if plausible, would probably have rendered irrelevant all of Obama's frantic efforts just three years later to conclude an Iran deal. And our intelligence agencies' record at assessment is not exactly stellar, given that it missed the Pakistan and Indian nuclear-bomb programs, Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, and the status of Saddam's WMD program.

There is still no solid proof of deliberate Russian cyber interference intended to aid Donald Trump. Loretta Lynch is skeptical that Russia tried to help the Trump campaign. A Washington Post story alleging that the RNC was hacked was based on myth. WikiLeaks, for what it is worth, insists its source was not Russian. And we now learn that intelligence authorities are refusing to testify in closed session to the House Intelligence Committee about the evidence that prompted their odd post-election announcements - announcements that contradict their earlier pre-election suggestions that Russian hacking was _not_ affecting the election.

One possibility is that the likelihood of a Clinton victory spurred the administration and the likely president-elect to suggest that the election process remained sacrosanct and immune from all tampering - while the completely unforeseen loss to Trump abruptly motivated them to readjust such assessments.

Trump has a habit of offering off-the-cuff unconventional observations - often unsubstantiated by verbal footnotes and in hyperbolic fashion. Then he is blasted for ignorance and recklessness by bipartisan grandees. Only later, and quietly, he is often taken seriously, but without commensurate public acknowledgement.

A few more examples. Candidate Trump blasted the "free-loading" nature of NATO, wondered out loud why it was not fighting ISIS or at least Islamic terrorism, and lamented the inordinate American contribution and the paucity of commensurate allied involvement. Pundits called that out as heresy, at least for a few weeks - until scholars, analysts, and politicos offered measured support for Trump's charges. Europeans, shocked by gambling in Casablanca, scrambled to assure that they were upping their defense contributions and drawing the NATO line at the Baltic States.

President-elect Trump generated even greater outrage in the aftermath of the election when he took a call from the Taiwanese president. Pundits exploded. Foreign policy hands were aghast. Did this faker understand the dimensions of his blunder? Was he courting nuclear war?

Trump shrugged, as reality again intruded: Why sell billions of dollars in weaponry to Taiwan if you cannot talk to its president? Are arms shipments less provocative than receiving a single phone call? Why talk "reset" to the thuggish murderous Castro brothers but not to a democratically elected president? Why worry what China thinks, given that it has swallowed Tibet and now created artificial islands in the South China Sea, in defiance of all maritime custom, law, and tradition?

Two weeks later after the call, analysts - true to the pattern - meekly agreed that such a phone call was hardly incendiary. Perhaps, they mused, it was overdue and had a certain logic. Perhaps it had, after all, sent a valuable message to China that the U.S. may now appear as unpredictable to China as China has appeared to the U.S. Perhaps the Taiwan call had, after all, sent a valuable message to China that the U.S. may now appear as unpredictable to China as China has appeared to the U.S.

More recently, Trump asked in a tweet why we should take back a sea drone stolen by China from under the nose of a U.S. ship. Aside from questions of whether the drone is now compromised, damaged, or bugged, would anyone be happy that a thief appeared days later at the door, offering back the living room's stolen loot, on the condition to just let bygones be bygones - at least until the next heist?

On most issues, Trump sensed what was verbiage and what was doable - and what was the indefensible position of his opponents. Prune away Trump's hyperbole, and we see that his use of the illegal immigration issue is another good example. Finishing the existing southern border wall is sane and sober. "Making Mexico pay for it" can quietly be accomplished, at least in part, by simply taxing the over $50 billion in remittances sent to Mexico and Latin America by those in the U.S. who cannot prove legal residence or citizenship. Ending sanctuary cities will win majority support: Who wants to make the neo-Confederate argument that local jurisdictions can override U.S. law - and, indeed, who would make that secessionist case on behalf of violent criminal aliens?

Deporting illegal-alien law-breakers - or those who are fit and able but without any history of work - is likewise the sort of position that the Left cannot, for political reasons, easily oppose. As for the rest, after closing off the border, Trump will likely shrug and allow illegal aliens who are working, who have established a few years of residence, and who are non-criminal to pay a fine, learn English, and get a green card - perhaps relegating the entire quagmire of illegal immigration to a one-time American aberration that has diminishing demographic and political relevance.

Trump the Brawler

Finally, Trump sensed that the proverbial base was itching for a bare-knuckles fighter. They wanted any kind of brawler who would not play by the Marquess of Queensberry rules of 2008 and 2012 that had doomed Romney and McCain, who, fairly or not, seemed to wish to lose nobly rather than win in black-and-blue fashion, and who were sometimes more embarrassed than proud of their base. Trump again foresaw that talking trash in crude tones would appeal to middle Americans as much as Obama's snarky and ego-driven, but otherwise crude trash-talking delighted his coastal elites. So Trump said the same kinds of things to Hillary Clinton that she, in barely more measured tones, had often said to others but never expected anyone to say out loud to her. And the more the media cried foul, the more Trump knew that voters would cry "long overdue."

We can expect that Trump's impulsiveness and electronically fed braggadocio will often get him into trouble. No doubt his tweets will continue to offend.

But lost amid the left-wing hatred of Trump and the conservative Never Trump condescension is that so far he has shattered American political precedents by displaying much more political cunning and prescience than have his political opponents and most observers.

Key is his emperor-has-no-clothes instinct that what is normal and customary in Washington was long ago neither sane nor necessary. And so far, his candidacy has not only redefined American politics but also recalibrated the nature of insight itself - leaving the wise to privately wonder whether they were ever all that wise after all.

- NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals.


----------



## Loachman (21 Dec 2016)

Vivid Maps depictions of US election results:

http://www.vividmaps.com/2016/11/2016-us-presidential-election-results.html

http://www.vividmaps.com/2016/12/trumpland-and-clinton-archipelago.html#more

These show how small parts of the US would control the much larger rest were the presidential election decided by majority vote.

Keep in mind how Northern Ontario's very real interests and concerns are ignored by the Toronto-centric Wynne government and Western Canada's very real interests and concerns are ignored by the Ontario/Quebec-centric Trudeau government.

The US system attempts to balance population-based interests with regional interests by having more population-proportional representation in the House of Representatives and equal state (regional) representation in the Senate - wherein every state, no matter its population, has the same number of Senators (two per state). The Electoral College is another form of balance.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 Dec 2016)

Maybe this should be in the Canadian politics in 2016 thread, but ...

Loachman, how do you come to the conclusion that the Trudeau government is Ontario/Quebec centric? Personally, I think the Trudeau government is only Trudeau/Selfie-centric.

In fact, other than bringing in 50,000 refugees, rolling back a few "mean" conservative measures on science, crime and punishment or electoral laws, on one hand, and adoption of a very few pan-Canadian laws, such as the right to die legislation, the only real action of this government so far has been to actually authorize one pipeline - in the West.

So we can't say they are one region centric more than the other: in one year, they spoke a lot but haven't done anything, really!

P.S.: Watch out in the US, though. I am willing to bet that  president Trump will do more things in his first six months than most peacetime presidents do in four years. Some will like it, others won't - but change is-a-coming fast.


----------



## Loachman (21 Dec 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Loachman, how do you come to the conclusion that the Trudeau government is Ontario/Quebec centric?



They care only about those areas from where they derive the bulk of their votes - but only in so far as they get those votes. I agree with the rest of your post.

Donald Trump the misogynistic, racist, anti-Semitic, cold-hearted monster:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAM7JKajBlw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SoBUZl3Hoc

No publicity sought for either of these actions, just doing the right thing.

One president visibly cares about his people and one does not:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4UzvRR4tO0


----------



## mariomike (21 Dec 2016)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Keep in mind how Northern Ontario's very real interests and concerns are ignored by the Toronto-centric Wynne government < snip >



That seems very unfair!

Perhaps it's time for the GTA to go it's own way? Take it's tax dollars with it. I would support that. 

Problem is, it would require a constitutional amendment to separate from Ontario,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposal_for_the_Province_of_Toronto#Constitutional_amendment

Michael Gravelle, the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, said "I look at it from the perspective of would this be good for Northern Ontario . . . and I don‘t think it would be.”
http://www.liquisearch.com/proposal_for_the_province_of_toronto/history

I worked for the City of Toronto. But, we had to take our operational orders from Queen's Park. That people in rural Ontario were entitled to the same standard of emergency medical service as people in Metro.

If I had a nickel for every time I heard one of our departmental commanders or chiefs say, "Because Mayberry says so. That's why!"  

Meanwhile, if people from rural Ontario hated Metro so much, it surprised me that so many wanted to join our emergency services. To serve and protect our community, instead of their own. 
We had a Residency Requirement when I joined, but the province said it was unfair to out of town applicants and had it lifted.

By way of comparison, in the 2016 US election, Rural areas: 34% voted Democrat   62% voted Republican. 

As in Ontario, there seems to be an urban / rural political divide. 

Maybe a racial one too?

Even though the only candidates to chose from were white, 88% of African-American voters voted Democratic, and only 8% voted Republican in 2016. 
I would not be surprised if there is an African-American presidential candidate in 2020.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Dec 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> By way of comparison, in the 2016 US election, Rural areas: 34% voted Democrat   62% voted Republican.
> 
> As in Ontario, there seems to be an urban / rural political divide.
> 
> ...



General Collin Powell was considered to be a viable and potentially unbeatable moderate Republican candidate in 1996, but bowed out due to his "lack of passion" for electoral politics. There was also a movement to draft Dr Condeleeza Rice as a Presidential candidate in 2008 as well, although she never expressed interest in the position. Both these potential candidates were being touted for the "content of their character rather than the colour of their skin", which may explain why there were large Republican constituencies pulling for them. Dr Ben Carson was also a Republican candidate in 2016, and is now nominated to serve as Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. So that boat has already sailed.

The incoming administration is certainly changing the Republican party's approach to many things, and there may be a considerable difference in how _all_ Americans vote in 2018 and 2020. However, unless there are some drastic events between now and 2024, I don't see President Trump stepping aside (and if he does it will be for Mike Pence) and the Democrat leadership is pretty much fossilized white politicians for the foreseeable future as well.


----------



## mariomike (21 Dec 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> However, unless there are some drastic events between now and 2024, I don't see President Trump stepping aside (and if he does it will be for Mike Pence) and the Democrat leadership is pretty much fossilized white politicians for the foreseeable future as well.



Speaking of "fossilized white politicians",  you do realise that Mr. Trump is the oldest President-elect in history? 

All we know for sure is that every time an African-American candidate runs for POTUS, they win. By a significant margin. 

This was written almost four years ago,

"Forget 2016. The Pivotal Year In Politics May Be 2020
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/25/170240786/forget-2016-the-pivotal-year-in-politics-may-be-2020

"In 2012, Obama won 80 percent of the nonwhite vote but just 39 percent of the white vote."

"The demographic makeup of the United States will shift dramatically in the next eight years." ( This was written in Jan., 2013. He is referring to the 2020 election. )

"because our voting patterns are highly aligned by race," Taylor says.

Just have to keep an eye on the 2020 thread!


----------



## a_majoor (21 Dec 2016)

If US electoral politics is devolving into racial identity politics (as some "Alt-Right" thinkers believe), then everyone should be forewarned that whites still make up the largest single voting block in the United States. Openly pushing racial identity politics may well have driven many white voters to conclude they "should" vote as a racial block, another parting gift of the Obama administration's divisive racial politics and the growth of race based "identity" politics in general.

I'm still seeing the political divide as being more urban/rural and populist/elite in nature, so we will see how the next four years unfold.


----------



## mariomike (21 Dec 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> If US electoral politics is devolving into racial identity politics (as some "Alt-Right" thinkers believe),



The source was National Public Radio
http://www.npr.org/people/95608292/linton-weeks



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> I'm still seeing the political divide as being more urban/rural and populist/elite in nature, so we will see how the next four years unfold.



Hard to see the racial political divide when both candidates are white.  

Even so, 88% of African-American voters voted for Mrs. Clinton.  8% voted for Mr. Trump. That indicates a racial divide to me.

Barack Obama garnered 96 percent ( 2008 ) and 93% ( 2012 ) of the African-American vote.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> < snip>  everyone should be forewarned that whites still make up the largest single voting block in the United States.



Not to worry!

“And at the end of four years, I guarantee you that I will get over 95 percent of the African-American vote. I promise you."
https://www.google.ca/search?q=%22And+at+the+end+of+four+years,+I+guarantee+you+that+I+will+get+over+95+percent+of+the+African-American+vote.+I+promise+you.%22&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=B0pbWNHyBYGN8QfU84jwBQ&gws_rd=ssl

Same individual who said this about America's first African American president,
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/09/politics/donald-trump-birther/


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Dec 2016)

Well, well, well ...
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/cyber-experts-determine-link-dnc-breaches-russian-hostility-ukraine/


> The Russian hackers who launched a cyber attack against the Democratic National Committee earlier this year used a malicious software similar to that used to target the Ukrainian military, computer security experts determined.
> 
> CrowdStrike, the California-based cyber security firm that investigated the DNC hacks, said in a report released Thursday the malware used in the political breaches was a “variant” of software used by the Russian military to locate and kill Ukrainian troops who were fighting Russian-backed separatists, the Wall Street Journal reported.
> 
> ...


CrowdStrike report (11 pg PDF) downloadable here.


----------



## Journeyman (22 Dec 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ....cyber attacks against Democratic political networks, but Russian intelligence agencies ...





			
				Mike Bobbitt said:
			
		

> .... IPs from Russia have been hammering the site all week...



      :Tin-Foil-Hat:      anic:


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Dec 2016)

Interesting piece on Trump's version of conservatism



> The Return of Street Corner Conservatism
> Column: Donald Trump and the political philosophy of the Deplorables
> 
> 
> ...



More at the link

http://freebeacon.com/columns/return-street-corner-conservatism/


----------



## a_majoor (24 Dec 2016)

President Trump has popped the bubble surrounding NYC for the first time in generations, and the people inside don't like it. NYC, like other Blue cities, exists as small geographical islands in a sea of Red. I'm sure they are mortally afraid of the rising tide drowning their islands and sweeping away their assumptions and world view.

I'm sure for Trump (who has been dealing with this sort of behaviour since the 1980's, when he first rose to prominence as a real estate and building powerhouse) is using this as great theatre to play to his base. He certainly knows how to play the media like a guitar.

Newt Gingrich made a speech about Trump and explained his reactions to the press were trained and honed in NYC, where the operative rule is to "get into the next edition", a media form of getting inside the OODA Loop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3NN8-hXqCs


----------



## QV (24 Dec 2016)

The left sure can't lose with any grace or dignity.  The left is crumbling and just can't figure out why.


----------



## Journeyman (24 Dec 2016)

QV said:
			
		

> The left sure can't lose with any grace or dignity.


 As I once told my boys (before the training wife said I wasn't to discuss sportsmanship with them any more), "a good loser is still a loser."   


Unless you referring specifically to Putin lecturing on how democracy works....   
Putin to Dems: You lost, get over it

Edit to include Vlad's Christmas message....  ;D


----------



## Chispa (24 Dec 2016)

Odds on Donald Trump being impeached shorten amid flurry of bets on President-elect not serving full term
Ladbrokes opened market on Trump leaving office early by impeachment or resignation at 3-1 but has twice cut its price as punters pile in
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-impeach-impeached-odds-shorten-president-elect-hotels-constitution-republican-latest-a7430441.html


Donald Trump Specials American
Donald Trump Specials 
To leave office via impeachment or resignation before end of 1st term: 6/4
NOT to be re-elected as President in 2020: 4/7
To serve full term: 4/6

https://sports.ladbrokes.com/en-gb/betting/politics/american/specials/donald-trump-specials/222881036/


C.U.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Dec 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Considering the fact that the winner lost by about 3 million votes, I can't say that I am completely surprised.



If you remove California he still won the Electoral College and also the popular vote by ~1.5 million.

Clinton (w/ California): 65,844,610 - 232 College Votes
Clinton (w/o California):  *57,090,822* - 177 College Votes

Trump (w/ California): 62,979,636 - 306 College Votes
Trump (w/o California): *58,495,826* - 306 College Votes

Democrats are pissed because California can't tell the rest of the US what to do.


----------



## kkwd (24 Dec 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> LOSER LOSER YOU'RE A LOSER!!!
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8_7Orhey-g



That is pretty mean to go running down Clinton like that, she did her best.


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Dec 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If you remove California he still won the Electoral College and also the popular vote by ~1.5 million.
> 
> Clinton (w/ California): 65,844,610 - 232 College Votes
> Clinton (w/o California):  *57,090,822* - 177 College Votes
> ...



Kind of takes the wind out of everyone whining about the popular vote eh?


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Dec 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Claim: Hillary Clinton's popular vote win in the presidential election came entirely from the state of California.
> http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/



Wow, that Snopes article reads as a desperate attempt to deflect away from the actual claim. Trump led the popular vote all night until California was counted, so the claim itself is factually correct. Its not a "mixture". Then they throw some red herrings in there about other random states.

Simple fact is Trump won over 50% of the states in the US, easily won the electoral college and popular vote in the US system is irrelevant.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Dec 2016)

Winning the counties and States is how you win an EC election:


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Dec 2016)

> One of the websites Facebook is to use to arbitrate on 'fake news' is involved in a bitter legal dispute between its co-founders, with its CEO accused of using company money for prostitutes.
> 
> Snopes.com will be part of a panel used by Facebook to decide whether stories which users complain about as potentially 'fake' should be considered 'disputed'.
> 
> But the website's own troubles and the intriguing choice of who carries out its 'fact checks' are revealed by DailyMail.com, as one of its main contributors is disclosed to be a former sex-blogger who called herself 'Vice Vixen'.





http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4042194/Facebook-fact-checker-arbitrate-fake-news-accused-defrauding-website-pay-prostitutes-staff-includes-escort-porn-star-Vice-Vixen-domme.html


----------



## a_majoor (24 Dec 2016)

More "Fake News"


----------



## Jarnhamar (24 Dec 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> More "Fake News"



I can't wrap my head around it but I've seen left wing types argue that it's racist to point out those people are wrong doers.  They did that stuff because of racism they've felt and all the white privilege.  Basically white men made them do it.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Dec 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> More "Fake News"



I am curious about the thought process on the guy who spray painted the church, then burnt it down.

Why bother with the paint, if you are just going to torch the place?  :facepalm:


----------



## Journeyman (24 Dec 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am curious about the thought process on the guy who spray painted the church, then burnt it down.
> 
> Why bother with the paint, if you are just going to torch the place?  :facepalm:


Really?  _That's_  the only heartache you have with their behaviour?      ;D


----------



## dimsum (24 Dec 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Really?  _That's_  the only heartache you have with their behaviour?      ;D



 :rofl:


----------



## The Bread Guy (24 Dec 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> More "Fake News"


Interesting stories - is there a source for this?  After all, anyone can make up a graphic ...


			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> Really?  _That's_  the only heartache you have with their behaviour?      ;D


 :rofl:


----------



## a_majoor (25 Dec 2016)

You can google all these stories, and in each case, the media initially trumpeted these as "hate crimes" by white supremacists. After police investigation, the people in the pictures were charged with the crimes (or in the woman's case, making a false complaint). One commonality is the alleged "white supremacists" are not very white at all.....


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Dec 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Really?  _That's_  the only heartache you have with their behaviour?      ;D



Well, no. The burning of the church part bothers me. I was just kind of marvelling at his criminal "genius"...


----------



## a_majoor (25 Dec 2016)

Heh!


----------



## Journeyman (26 Dec 2016)

And _this_  is how the election would have played out had it been based on favourite fast-food joints, by state.







I just figured I'd keep with much of the previous 'relevance'   :nod:


.....knowing that 20 January will arrive -- accompanied by Armageddon or Rapture?  Probably not so much.   :boring:


----------



## mariomike (26 Dec 2016)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I just figured I'd keep with much of the previous 'relevance'   :nod:



Although the Popular vote is not 'relevant', legally, I found this BBC News story of interest,

New York: The city where Donald Trump hates being hated
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38019788

"In Manhattan, his long-time home, nine out of 10 voters supported Hillary Clinton."

New York City - the largest city in America - has been home to the family since 1905.


----------



## Rifleman62 (26 Dec 2016)

Take your pick from the links below. The Big O is my fav, and to paraphrase the lyrics, marionmike, just for you:

*"It's Over"*

Your citizen's don't love you anymore
Golden days before they end
Whisper secrets to the wind
Your Democrats' won't be near you any more

Tender nights before they fly
Send falling stars that seem to cry
Your citizen's don't want you anymore
*It's over*

It breaks your heart in two, To know Hillarys been untrue
But oh what will you do? Then she said to you
There's someone new We're through We're through
*It's over It's over It's over*

All the rainbows in the sky
Start to weep, then say goodbye
You won't be seeing rainbows any more
Setting suns before they fall, Echo to you that's all that's all
But you'll see lonely sunset after all

*It's over It's over It's over It's over* 

Now if we only could sing this about our PM.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9JArvEJ64M&list=RDh9JArvEJ64M#t=0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAE35c5WRXY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ussqi3nagrQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVztCBjlAVw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7Zr74nM0uY


----------



## mariomike (26 Dec 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> *"It's Over"*
> 
> *It's over It's over It's over It's over*



Do you really believe *"It's Over"*  *It's over It's over It's over It's over* 
?  
https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump+protest&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&biw=1536&bih=770&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjxs-7M4JLRAhUm6YMKHaNFBhsQ_AUICCgD

I can do that thing with the fonts too.  



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Now if we only could sing this about our PM.



He won. Why not try to get over it?  



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The Big O is my fav, and to paraphrase the lyrics, marionmike, just for you:



Do me a favour, Rifleman62. Don't do me any favours.


----------



## Rifleman62 (26 Dec 2016)

Quote from: Rifleman62 on Today at 14:57:26

    Now if we only could sing this about our PM.




> He won. Why not try to get over it?



I have thus do not compulsively, repetitively post the same theme. 

If I be so bold, open your big heart and forgive Hillary, the DNC and the millions and millions of voters who don't have your point of view.


----------



## mariomike (26 Dec 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I have thus do not compulsively, repetitively post the same theme.



There's 23 posts from other people ahead of mine! 

I think we get it, Rifleman62. You compulsively, repetitively post your feelings about the Prime Minister. Including in the US Election thread(s). 

Don't like him? Don't vote for him!



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> If I be so bold, open your big heart and forgive Hillary, the DNC and the millions and millions of voters who don't have your point of view.



Three million more Americans voted for her than him.


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Dec 2016)

This one graphic displays the utter ignorance of those who favored the losing candidate:

So, if you knew anything about the electoral college, you would know that they are based on two things:
1.  The number of representatives in the House; and
2.  The two senators in each state.

So, in Wyoming, they have 3 votes.  This means they have 2 senators (like every other state) and 1 representative.  In California, they have 55 votes, so that means they have 2 senators and 53 representatives.  


Since each state is to be considered equal and since each state votes for President, the college isn't going away.  If it goes away, then future candidates focus on the large urban centers and nowhere else.  I mean, why campaign in Wyoming?  
Also consider this: in 2000, the focus was on Florida, but the race was won in tiny West Virginia.  Long considered a Democratic bastion, Mr Bush Jr campaigned there and got those five votes.  If Mr Gore won West Virginia, then Florida would have been irrelevant.

So, back to California.  First, you have to ignore two votes (each state gets them) and go with the votes that represent the people.  Wyoming:  584, 153 to get one vote.  California: 716, 981 to get one vote.  Still a difference over over 132,000, but in a federation where states are equal, you're not going to change that without giving California more districts. But I suppose they could go to 66 districts and call it even.


----------



## vonGarvin (26 Dec 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Three million more Americans *people* voted for her than him.




Whether or not they were all Americans remains to be seen, but as pointed out, that number is irrelevant.


----------



## mariomike (26 Dec 2016)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Whether or not they were all Americans remains to be seen, but as pointed out, that number is irrelevant.



I get that. The Popular vote is not relevant, legally.

I was replying to this,



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> If I be so bold, open your big heart and forgive Hillary, the DNC and the millions and millions of voters who don't have your point of view.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Dec 2016)

[quote author=mariomike]
I get that. The Popular vote is not relevant, legally.

[/quote]

It's plain to see you're still hurting. Grab some whiskey and come over to my house, you can touch my guns. We'll go on Tumblr and troll the people who are "diagnosed with PTSD" over Trump winning.


----------



## mariomike (26 Dec 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> It's plain to see you're still hurting. Grab some whiskey and come over to my house, you can touch my guns. We'll go on Tumblr and troll the people who are "diagnosed with PTSD" over Trump winning.



I'm certainly thankful to live in Canada. 

I expect there will be more fun and games on the streets of America in the New Year. Lots of police overtime clearing traffic.

Hopefully, Democrats and Republicans will stay inside and take it out on each other with their keyboards and there will be no violence in the streets. 
Nothing new about riots. But, over a president-elect? That is a first, I believe, in my lifetime.

I figured whichever way their election went there would be action in the streets when he said this,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump+concede&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=0ZhhWOnnG6yC8QeQy574Cg&gws_rd=ssl

One can only imagine if he had won by 3 million votes, but lost the election.


----------



## QV (26 Dec 2016)

I recall when I said Trump would win popular vote by a landslide some folks on here stated all that mattered was the electoral college and Hillary had it locked up.  I guess we were all wrong.  😁  

But I still feel like I won.  And so did 'merica!

My second favourite pastime is watching all the anti Trump replays on YouTube right behind any Nigel Farage in the EU parliament videos.  The elite couldn't be more out of touch.  

I equate this US election to the last Alberta election.  People just had to go.  I don't think history will be very kind to Obama, in fact he will probably be remembered as one of the worst.


----------



## Jarnhamar (26 Dec 2016)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Not hurting. But, certainly thankful to live in Canada.



Don't try and get out of bringing me whiskey!   

I'm a bit jealous Americans got Trump and we got Trudeau. But speaking of thankful I'm sure American soldiers are thankful Trump got elected and not Clinton. She's a warmonger and would probably drone US soldiers just to cover up for her mistakes. Foreign countries have their hands so far in the Clinton Foundations pants even Trump wouldn't make a joke about it.

As far as what would happen if Trump won, if this election has shown us anything it's how utterly intolerant the far left is when someone disagrees with them. They're nuts.  Trump saved the US from all the snowflake social justice psychos.


----------



## mariomike (26 Dec 2016)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Don't try and get out of bringing me whiskey!



It would be my pleasure, JH!


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Dec 2016)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/26/us/politics/obama-third-term-donald-trump.html?_r=0

*Obama Says He Would Have Defeated Trump for a Third Term*


----------



## Journeyman (27 Dec 2016)

For change from the Party-centric finger-pointing er, name calling er, "discussion," to a bigger-picture perspective, folks may wish to have a look at an opinion piece by Marwan Bishara (Al Jazeera's senior political analyst): 
"What went wrong?  A withering West: How the West is wobbling under the pressures of its neoliberal and geopolitical overreach."


'Capt Obvious' warning: The combination of "Al Jazeera," "political analyst," and "opinion" should suggest a degree of bias.  
Some _possibility_  of learning exists nonetheless.


----------



## observor 69 (27 Dec 2016)

Excellent article. Some learning took place.  
Thanks for the link.


----------



## mariomike (27 Dec 2016)

Read an article in 27 Dec., 2016, The New York Times said, "The 2009 crowd of nearly two million people, a record, included few, if any, protesters and did not lead to a single arrest, according to Christopher T. Geldart, the director of homeland security for the District of Columbia."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/27/us/politics/donald-trump-inauguration-security.html?_r=0

There did not seem to be any problems with the 2013 crowd either. 

Hopefully, there will be no mayhem with the 2017 crowd!


----------



## jollyjacktar (27 Dec 2016)

Unlike the two previous elections, the losing side took their loss and carried on without carrying on as is the case this time.  I don't expect these sore losers to quit the whining, dripping and moaning for some time to come yet.


----------



## FJAG (27 Dec 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Unlike the two previous elections, the losing side took their loss and carried on without carrying on as is the case this time.  I don't expect these sore losers to quit the whining, dripping and moaning for some time to come yet.



My recollection of the post Obama election Republican reaction was more like this:



> When conservatives freaked the hell out after Barack Obama was first elected (and really throughout the entire eight year hissy fit that’s followed), they “feared” him for things that weren’t true. Republicans were sold a long-list of ridiculous conspiracy theories and most bought nearly every damn one of them. Since his election and over the past eight years conservatives were told he is/was:
> 
> -Not an American citizen.
> -Living under an alias.
> ...



Let's be honest. Neither party has a monopoly on whiners and complainers. Judging by the last eight years I would expect the whining will go on for the next four years at which point there will be another crop of whiners to take over.

 :subbies:


----------



## mariomike (27 Dec 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I don't expect these sore losers to quit the whining, dripping and moaning for some time to come yet.



Sadly, based on what we have seen so far, you may be right.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump+protest&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiPktKFy5XRAhUk3IMKHRgoCyUQ_AUICigD&biw=1536&bih=770

As far as finger-pointing, predictions for a non-violent transition were less than optimistic, even before the election. Regardless of the outcome.

What to look forward to if the Republicans lost,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=if+trump+loses&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=eARjWNCgO4GN8QfV5ZOICw&gws_rd=ssl

Any predictions on fatal and non-fatal shootings, stabbings, bludgeoning, vehichicular, roof toss and a$$ stompings in D.C., and across America, on Inauguration Day?

Whatever happened to disgruntled people taking it out on their keyboards, instead of each other?




			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> My recollection of the post Obama election Republican reaction was more like this:



There were a few disgruntled protestors,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=obama+protest&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjKv9zq4ZXRAhUM9YMKHSCGCzUQ_AUICSgC&biw=1536&bih=770

See also,

Dissing Obama - The worst moments of disrespect to President Obama and his family.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/28/politics/gallery/dissing-obama/


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Dec 2016)

FJAG said:
			
		

> My recollection of the post Obama election Republican reaction was more like this:
> 
> Let's be honest. Neither party has a monopoly on whiners and complainers. Judging by the last eight years I would expect the whining will go on for the next four years at which point there will be another crop of whiners to take over.
> 
> :subbies:



Ok, yes you have me there.  There was that moan about his place of birth.  True.  

I should have been clear.  I don't honestly remember mobs of Republicans taking to the streets in demonstrations against the then President-elect in cities across the country.  That is what I meant by them taking their lumps.


----------



## mariomike (28 Dec 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I don't honestly remember mobs of Republicans taking to the streets in demonstrations against the then President-elect in cities across the country.



I don't honestly remember mobs of Democrats taking to the streets in demonstrations against the then President-elect in cities across the country.

( Seven Republican Presidents in my lifetime. )

ALBANY, N.Y. — A former Donald Trump campaign official who wrote that he wanted to see Barack Obama dead of mad cow disease and Michelle Obama living with a gorilla in Africa now says those comments weren't meant for publication but were nevertheless "inappropriate."

Not just politicians. 

First Responders are still getting themselves in trouble on social media over politics.

"Keep your racist, sexist and homophobic rants off the internet. The ProTip that First Responders continue to ignore."
https://twitter.com/NYCEMSwatch/status/813857133074714625


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Dec 2016)

Then pray, let me remind you.  If you want to split hairs, then sure, they were not all Democrats in all probability. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/anti-trump-protests-not-letting-up-for-sixth-straight-day-after-presidential-election/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/election-results-reaction-streets/


----------



## observor 69 (28 Dec 2016)

The Republicans have just spent the past eight years blocking any bill presented by President Obama.  

And they wonder why people have lost faith in Congress!


----------



## jollyjacktar (28 Dec 2016)

That isn't so really different than what happens here to some extent.  The next wave rolls into power and starts to dismantle the work of the previous administration if it doesn't meet their views, the Liberals are gleefully ripping apart what they wish of the Harper era.  That's politics, their system just works a little different in how the kids kick sand over each other as opposed to our system.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Dec 2016)

There is a one word solution: Consensus.

And that is what the representatives are supposed to be paid for - to find the common ground that will accommodate the needs of both factions and will survive an election.  But that common ground also has to reflect the wishes of the electors (both general and specific) or the electors will opt for "none of the above".


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Dec 2016)

Baden Guy:
 The Republicans have just spent the past eight years blocking any bill presented by President Obama.  

And they wonder why people have lost faith in Congress!

I don't think so. Harry Reid, as Majority Leader, was a nasty and refused to put Bills on the Senate floor for a vote. The GOP has passed many Congressional Bills. Here is a fair summary: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/aug/06/lynn-jenkins/rep-lynn-jenkins-blames-harry-reid-do-nothing-sena/

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/statistics  This table breaks down the bills and resolutions introduced in each two-year Congress by their final status.

You may be interested in this article from July as an indication.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/11/gop-led-senate-passing-bills-at-rate-not-seen-in-d/

*GOP-led Senate passing bills at rate not seen in decades*


----------



## a_majoor (28 Dec 2016)

The GOP Congress passed lots of legislation, but was blocked by Obama, who prefers to ignore the Congress (and the rules laid down in the Constitution) to rule with a "pen and a phone".

As for the future, we have already seen President Trump signalling he will be renegotiating government contracts and reorganizing the Federal Bureaucracy to save money. Here is another look at some potential game changers for the Trump Administration. Saving money is the first order effect, cutting out a large swath of rent seekers will be a rather large second order effect. President Trump building a large scale political machine of his own based on infrastructure rebuilding is the likely third order effect (transferring the loyalties of the construction trades and unions from the Dems to his new American Populist party [can hardly call them Republicans anymore]):

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/12/27/a-test-for-the-democratic-party/



> *REBUILDING AMERICA*
> A Test for the Democratic Party
> 
> A story in The New York Times, about how New York State has slowly embraced the design-build construction process, demonstrates both the past failures of blue governance, and possible opportunities awaiting the Democratic Party, which has struggled to win state and local elections recently:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 Dec 2016)

The use of analytics (especially "Big Data") is supposed to allow users to reveal interesting patterns and trends hidden in large amounts of data. As this article demonstrates, Big Data and analytics suffer from the same issue as other computer driven solutions: Garbage In, Garbage Out. Of course, given the blatant manipulation of polling data, I doubt that polls would have helped much either:

https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/646194?unlock=O0PSAHTAHF7G58Y1



> *How Analytical Models Failed Clinton*
> Her campaign was so confident in its data that it opted not to do tracking polls in states that decided the election.
> Charlie Cook
> Dec. 26, 2016, 8 p.m.
> ...



I should also note that other alternatives like looking at the betting pools and some AI programs which scraped information from the Internet were remarkably precient in predicting the eventual outcomes of the Brexit and the US Presidential election, so the problem is most likely the modelling being used to interpret the data.


----------



## mariomike (28 Dec 2016)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Then pray, let me remind you.  If you want to split hairs, then sure, they were not all Democrats in all probability.
> 
> http://www.cbsnews.com/news/anti-trump-protests-not-letting-up-for-sixth-straight-day-after-presidential-election/
> 
> http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/election-results-reaction-streets/



WOW. Whatever happened to just sprinkling a few  > and hitting "Send"?

That seems to be the Canadian way.

As bad as these protests / riots are, I wonder how his followers would have reacted had he lost the Electoral vote?

If Trump loses: We’ll be at the White House — ‘in arms’ 
http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/trump-fans-say-hell-win-and-they-wont-accept-less/

Predictions of mayhem - if the Republicans lose the Electoral vote,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=if+trump+loses&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=6D1kWMScNoON8QfwnaHACw&gws_rd=ssl


"Bikers for Trump" will be at the inauguration, 
https://www.google.ca/search?q=bikers+for+trump&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjch6vn2ZfRAhWk1IMKHeiBBuIQ_AUICSgC&biw=1536&bih=770

"Bikers for Trump, a volunteer security detail that joined Trump on his campaign stops in order to push back against anti-Trump protestors. They were the first group to secure approval — and are also petitioning to ride along in the inaugural parade."

The Ku Klux Klan will hold a "victory parade", 
https://www.google.ca/search?q=kkk+trump+victory+parade&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=uylkWPrYKYiN8QfrkaD4BA&gws_rd=ssl#q=kkk+victory+parade

2017 should prove to be an interesting conglomeration of personalities coming together in the streets of America!



Would President Obama have won a third term if the constitution allowed it?

I believe so. On Inauguration Day, 2017, President Obama would only be 56 years old.

In 2008 he won the Popular vote by 10 million with 365 Electoral votes.

In 2012 he won the Popular vote by 5 million with 332 Electoral votes.

In 2016 the Republicans lost the Popular vote by 3 million with 304 Electoral votes.


----------



## QV (28 Dec 2016)

Doubtful.

During Obamas two terms the Dems have lost a total of 1030 seats at all levels.  Ouch.  It is Obama's fault the Democrats are in total disarray.  He stated over and over that his legacy was on the Clinton ticket in fact he stated it would be a personal insult for anyone to not vote Hillary.  He was desperate.  

Obama must be completely devastated his legacy will be systematically undone over the next few years.  

Crow must be an endangered species by now with all the pundits, media and Obama himself declaring Hillary the winner before it even began.  LOL!!


----------



## RocketRichard (28 Dec 2016)

QV said:
			
		

> Doubtful.
> 
> During Obamas two terms the Dems have lost a total of 1030 seats at all levels.  Ouch.  It is Obama's fault the Democrats are in total disarray.  He stated over and over that his legacy was on the Clinton ticket in fact he stated it would be a personal insult for anyone to not vote Hillary.  He was desperate.
> 
> ...


IMO Obama would have won. Grateful Trump is not our leader. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Chispa (29 Dec 2016)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> IMO Obama would have won. Grateful Trump is not our leader.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Tht’s MO; Obama over Trump, although character wise, it might unfold in 2019 with “Mr. Wonderful,” Kevin O’Leary.

Mr. Wonderful comes to Ottawa, and he’s ‘pissed off’ 

 “I’m in Ottawa because I am one pissed-off taxpayer,” O’Leary later tells me in an interview. “I want to get the public engaged. I want to help take our country back.

“Never have I seen such incompetence in a government. Justin Trudeau promised jobs to the millennials, and he screwed them.

“They’re still in their basements.”

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/12/12/mr-wonderful-comes-to-ottawa-and-hes-pissed-off


C.U.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Dec 2016)

[quote author=Chispa]

“Never have I seen such incompetence in a government. Justin Trudeau promised jobs to the millennials, and he screwed them.

“They’re still in their basements.”

[/quote]
That's their safe space, they want to be there.


----------



## mariomike (29 Dec 2016)

Chispa said:
			
		

> Tht’s MO; Obama over Trump, although character wise, it might unfold in 2019 with “Mr. Wonderful,” Kevin O’Leary.
> 
> Mr. Wonderful comes to Ottawa, and he’s ‘pissed off’
> 
> ...



As long as we are on the subject of Canadian politics, I thought the "pissed off" role would go to Ford Nation? Doug's "tell all" book came out just in time for Christmas.

Speaking of Ford Nation, in this morning's headlines,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=renata+ford&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=BjxlWLyFOIuN8Qecl5HwDA&gws_rd=ssl#q=renata+ford&tbs=qdr:d


Most Canadians ‘upset’ by Trump victory

Canadians are anything but mixed in their reaction to the result of the U.S. election. Three-in-five (62%) view the outcome negatively, and nearly half (45%) say they are “very upset” about the Republican nominee’s triumph, more than twice as many as register any other reaction to the results.

Roughly one-in-five say they feel “neutral” about Trump’s victory (20%), or are pleased at this result (18%).

“Upset” is the most common reaction to the results across all regions, ages, and genders in Canada, but women and young people are especially likely to feel this way. Seven-in-ten in each of these groups say they are upset with the election results, as seen in the graph that follows:
http://angusreid.org/post-us-election-trump/

Almost two-thirds of Canadians (62%) say they are upset with the outcome of Tuesday’s election, including nearly half (45%) who are “very upset.”


----------



## Rifleman62 (29 Dec 2016)

http://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2016/12/28/14088992/brain-study-change-minds

*A new brain study sheds light on why it can be so hard to change someone's political beliefs*

Why we react to inconvenient truths as if they were personal insults.  ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Dec 2016)

How dare you post that...


----------



## George Wallace (29 Dec 2016)

Anyone suspect the Obama Regime of sabotaging Donald Trump and setting his Presidency up for failure after Secretary of State John Kerry alienated Israel, followed by Obama's accusation of the Russians committing cyber attacks on Democratic Party sites and then expelling thirty some Russian Diplomats?


----------



## RocketRichard (29 Dec 2016)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Anyone suspect the Obama Regime of sabotaging Donald Trump and setting his Presidency up for failure after Secretary of State John Kerry alienated Israel, followed by Obama's accusation of the Russians committing cyber attacks on Democratic Party sites and then expelling thirty some Russian Diplomats?


Nope. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## QV (29 Dec 2016)

The Russian accusation is a distraction and meant to delegitimize Trump's win as much as possible.  Obama's administration didn't give the Russians much attention during the election when they were certain of a Hillary win. 

The Israel situation is disgusting.  This close to a handover there should not be any major policy decisions without concurrance with the incoming administration.  

Yes I think arrogant Obama is causing some lasting pain on his way out knowing he won't have to deal with it.  It is petty and pathetic and will further damage his "legacy".  

RocketRichard - Trump over Trudeau any day of the week my friend.


----------



## Rifleman62 (29 Dec 2016)

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/12/29/frank-luntz-obama-doing-an-fu-tour-in-final-days-in-office/

*Frank Luntz: Obama Doing An ‘FU Tour’ In Final Days In Office*

or watch the interview here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_L_yZJrOio


----------



## FJAG (29 Dec 2016)

QV said:
			
		

> ....  This close to a handover there should not be any major policy decisions without concurrance with the incoming administration. ...



On the other hand this gives the Trump administration a pretty good negotiation position to start from.

Israel has always taken US support for granted and has often taken positions (settlements for one) which have been counterproductive to the peace process.

Palestinians have been the biggest problem to peace and this latest move might embolden them but one shouldn't forget that almost the entire world rejects and condemns Israel's settlement policies while clearly understanding and supporting Israel's right to exist (yeah, yeah, I know there's a bunch of Middle Eastern Countries that have a different view on this last point)

With Obama's move, Trump now has a bargaining chip on the table that he didn't have before.

 :subbies:


----------



## a_majoor (30 Dec 2016)

QV said:
			
		

> The Russian accusation is a distraction and meant to delegitimize Trump's win as much as possible.  Obama's administration didn't give the Russians much attention during the election when they were certain of a Hillary win.
> 
> The Israel situation is disgusting.  This close to a handover there should not be any major policy decisions without concurrance with the incoming administration.
> 
> ...



Obama certainly didn't react this way when it was revealed the Russians had hacked the White House in *2014*, nor were there any public announcements after it was revealed the Chinese had hacked the database with the personal information of millions of Americans with access to classified information. If fact, he was rather quiet during the actual election campaign when Wikileaks was revealing the inner workings of the DNC and their manipulation of the Democrat primaries, collusion with the media and polling companies and even cheating on the Presidential debates, not to mention the data dumps on the Clinton foundation and the Podesta emails.

There is no principle behind the man, it is entirely situational based on presumed public perception of him and his actions, and how the media accommodated these actions to fit the "Narrative".

WRT Israel, the Palestinians and the Iranians are actually internally weak and divided at this point in time, and I suspect that the new Administration could be planning some diplomatic, economic and perhaps even cyber or SoF actions to shatter their internal cohesion and provide long term breathing space to look at how US policy will evolve in the Middle East.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Dec 2016)

This:


----------



## mariomike (30 Dec 2016)

Tom Hanks:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bnxo3KbpYqI


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Dec 2016)

That was then.

This is now.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (30 Dec 2016)

Quite frankly, going from "it'll be a dark day for the planet" if Trump is elected to "Lets see if he transcends the republican/Democrat thing enough to earn my vote in four years time" is a lot tamer than some of the swings in "accusation" to "your the best" we have seen in some Republican contenders that were defeated by trump in the leadership race ... and then came begging for jobs on their knees.  :nod:


----------



## mariomike (30 Dec 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> That was then.
> 
> This is now.


----------



## The Bread Guy (31 Dec 2016)

This from the FBI & DHS on Russian "fingerprints" on recent hacking ...


----------



## tomahawk6 (1 Jan 2017)

So far no evidence of Russian hacking has been presented. Maybe Trump can get to the bottom of it. My guess its a classic Obama misdirection play. To cover for their failure in Benghazi they invented the story that a mob attacked the embassy caused by a you tube video. In Libya protestors must bring their own heavy weapons along. To explain the election and to diminish Trump they invented the Russian hacking myth.If they had used the Chinese it might be more believable. Before the election Obama said it wasnt possible to hack the system.But DHS WAS caught trying to hack several state election servers.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Jan 2017)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> So far no evidence of Russian hacking has been presented.


This includes your assessment of the report attached earlier in the thread?  What's your take on that?


----------



## QV (1 Jan 2017)

Any guesses on if or who Obama will pardon as he goes out?


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Jan 2017)

No dates/times of intrusions from ip's originating from Russia nor target servers ? This document is garbage. The heading said it all to me before I began to read the so called report.



> DISCLAIMER: This report is provided “as is” for informational purposes only. The Department of Homeland
> Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within. DHS
> does not endorse any commercial product or service referenced in this advisory or otherwise. This document is
> distributed as TLP:WHITE: Subject to standard copyright rules, TLP:WHITE information may be distributed
> without restriction. For more information on the Traffic Light Protocol, see https://www.us-cert.gov/tlp.



Obama under pressure to provide proof of hacking.Unless they fabricate evidence this is al they have.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/312049-obama-under-pressure-to-prove-russian-interference-in-election

he Obama administration is under intense pressure to release evidence confirming Russian interference in the presidential election before leaving office.

The administration up until now has provided little documentation to back up its official October assessment that the Russian government was attempting to interfere in the U.S. election. 

Nor has it corroborated subsequent leaks from anonymous officials contending that the CIA believes the campaign was an attempt by Russian President Vladimir Putin to ensure Donald Trump’s victory. 

President Obama has ordered the intelligence community to produce a complete review of its findings before Trump takes office on Jan. 20. The White House has said it will make as much of the report public as it can.


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Jan 2017)

Kind of like Cyber-WMD.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 Jan 2017)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> So far no evidence of Russian hacking has been presented. Maybe Trump can get to the bottom of it. My guess its a classic Obama misdirection play. To cover for their failure in Benghazi they invented the story that a mob attacked the embassy caused by a you tube video. In Libya protestors must bring their own heavy weapons along. To explain the election and to diminish Trump they invented the Russian hacking myth.If they had used the Chinese it might be more believable. Before the election Obama said it wasnt possible to hack the system.But DHS WAS caught trying to hack several state election servers.



Here is a link to a report from ThreatConnect who make the following statement:

"_Now, after further investigation, we can confirm that Guccifer 2.0 is using the Russia-based Elite VPN service to communicate and leak documents directly with the media. We reached this conclusion by analyzing the infrastructure associated with an email exchange with Guccifer 2.0 shared with ThreatConnect by Vocativ’s Senior Privacy and Security reporter Kevin Collier. This discovery strengthens our ongoing assessment that Guccifer 2.0 is a Russian propaganda effort and not an independent actor_."


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Jan 2017)

According to Assange the DNC was the victim of some disaffected staff and not a hack. From released info by wikileaks the democrats were not united behind Hillary.The DNC treatment of Bernie Sanders was a strong motivator to derail Clinton.One thing the democrats have proven to be true is that tell a lie long enough and people will believe it. :-[

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/743430/WIKILEAKS-BOMBSHELL-Assange-ally-Clinton-hack-inside-job-NOT-Russia-Oliver-Stone


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Jan 2017)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> According to Assange the DNC was the victim of some disaffected staff and not a hack. From released info by wikileaks the democrats were not united behind Hillary.The DNC treatment of Bernie Sanders was a strong motivator to derail Clinton.One thing the democrats have proven to be true is that tell a lie long enough and people will believe it. :-[
> 
> http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/743430/WIKILEAKS-BOMBSHELL-Assange-ally-Clinton-hack-inside-job-NOT-Russia-Oliver-Stone



Trump should send the DNC a large gift basket...their pushing Hillary in place of Bernie won Trump the Presidency. :nod:


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Jan 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Trump should send the DNC a large gift basket...their pushing Hillary in place of Bernie won Trump the Presidency. :nod:



Funny but true


----------



## jollyjacktar (2 Jan 2017)

I believe that he has already done that.  Snowden got SFA, which disappointed some folks.   ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Jan 2017)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> According to Assange the DNC was the victim of some disaffected staff and not a hack. From released info by wikileaks the democrats were not united behind Hillary.The DNC treatment of Bernie Sanders was a strong motivator to derail Clinton.One thing the democrats have proven to be true is that tell a lie long enough and people will believe it. :-[
> 
> http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/743430/WIKILEAKS-BOMBSHELL-Assange-ally-Clinton-hack-inside-job-NOT-Russia-Oliver-Stone


Cool evolution.  We've come full circle from some folks here seeing Assange being _"a Judas, collecting payment for betrayal, but refusing in some twisted way, to consider himself responsible for any deaths or damage ... the worst type of parasite ..."_ (note all the violent disagreement with this position in the linked thread) to someone worth listening to/supporting when we like what he leaks.  

Then again, Oliver Stone _did_ say this several months ago, so we DO have corroboration ...

_- fixing spelling error -_


----------



## Chispa (2 Jan 2017)

CNN: Obama must pardon Manning and Snowden before Trump takes office.

President Obama should pardon Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden before President-elect Trump takes office and makes two internationally embarrassing situations worse. In a 2013 article for The National Law Journal, I argued that neither Manning nor Snowden was a hero, and both deserved prosecution. But times have changed, and the leakers deserve pardons before Trump is sworn in.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/19/opinions/pardon-manning-and-snowden-alagood-opinion/


Edward Snowden backers beam calls for pardon on Washington news museum.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/10/edward-snowden-pardon-messages-newseum-washington-dc


In the past 5 days the overwhelming amount of fake news, online Wing Wang, etc., on; did the Russians take a dump favoring a Trump win during the US election?

Well known is Pinko-Trump's position in this matter...


Something About This Russia Story Stinks - Rolling Stone: Many reporters I know are quietly freaking out about having to go through that again. We all remember the WMD fiasco.

"It's déjà vu all over again" is how one friend put it.

You can see awkwardness reflected in the headlines that flew around the Internet Thursday. Some news agencies seemed split on whether to unequivocally declare that Russian hacking took place, or whether to hedge bets and put it all on the government to make that declaration, using "Obama says" formulations.

The New York Times was more aggressive, writing flatly, "Obama Strikes Back at Russia for Election Hacking." It backed up its story with a link to a joint FBI/Homeland Security report that details how Russian civilian and military intelligence services (termed "RIS" in the report) twice breached the defenses of "a U.S. political party," presumably the Democrats. the evidence   yet Mr. know it all


FBI and Homeland Security detail Russian hacking campaign in new report.
The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and FBI have released an analysis of the allegedly Russian government-sponsored hacking groups blamed for breaching several different parts of the Democratic party during the 2016 elections.

The 13-page document, released on Thursday and meant for information technology professionals, came as Barack Obama announced sanctions against Russia for interfering in the 2016 elections. The report was criticized by security experts, who said it lacked depth and came too late.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439



“The activity by [Russian intelligence services] is part of an ongoing campaign of cyber-enabled operations directed at the US government and its citizens,” wrote the authors of the government report. “This [joint analysis report] provides technical indicators related to many of these operations, recommended mitigations, suggested actions to take in response to the indicators provided, and information on how to report such incidents to the US government.”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/29/fbi-dhs-russian-hacking-repor


C.U.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Jan 2017)

In the case of Snowden he hasnt had his day in court yet,as he remains on the lam. As for Manning she has had her day in court and has been convicted I guess she could receive a pardon.


----------



## QV (2 Jan 2017)

POTUS can pardon before there is an indictment - I am fairly certain.  Though I can't recall the ref, it shouldn't be too hard to find for yourself.  

Which is why I suspect Obama will pardon a whole swath of people just before he leaves.  All those related to the email scandal and a bunch more I suspect.


----------



## tomahawk6 (2 Jan 2017)

QV said:
			
		

> POTUS can pardon before there is an indictment - I am fairly certain.  Though I can't recall the ref, it shouldn't be too hard to find for yourself.
> 
> Which is why I suspect Obama will pardon a whole swath of people just before he leaves.  All those related to the email scandal and a bunch more I suspect.



I know he can I just question why he would do it. Bergdahl has asked for a pardon as well.For a man looking at a legacy does he want to be known as the guy that gave a pass to Snowden and Bergdahl.I would rather see a pardon for Assange.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Jan 2017)

Well....He already has a legacy of pissing off Israel and the Russians.......and numerous allies.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Jan 2017)

Pardon a [presumed] innocent man??   Wouldn't have even though that.......learned factoid for the day.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jan 2017)

Actually, it is very easy to eliminate the Russians as suspects in any attempted hacking or influencing of the elections: their candidate lost.

Which candidate could have been easily manipulated/blackmailed through the knowledge of classified US documents and information held on an illegal private server?

Which candidate was vulnerable to being influenced through pay to play?

Which candidate was already funnelling money to Russia's "Silicon Valley" and allowed Russia to buy control of 20% of America's uranium industry?

Which candidate was also vulnerable due to revelations that they were in collusion with their party to rig the primaries and nomination process, not to mention collusion with the media and polling companies to manipulate the news?

Why wouldn't the Russians have gone all out to ensure _Hillary Clinton_ was elected since she was the perfect puppet for Russian influence and victim for blackmail? If the reports of Russian influence are actually true, then President Putin must be raging through FSB headquarters every day and lots of Russian Cyberwar experts are managing network infrastructure somewhere in Siberia.

Fitst principles are wonderful things........


----------



## Retired AF Guy (3 Jan 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Actually, it is very easy to eliminate the Russians as suspects in any attempted hacking or influencing of the elections: their candidate lost.
> 
> Which candidate could have been easily manipulated/blackmailed through the knowledge of classified US documents and information held on an illegal private server?
> 
> ...



May be the goods they have on Trump are even more damaging??


----------



## tomahawk6 (3 Jan 2017)

More like who has what on Obama. The Chinese hacked government servers and got info on 4m civilian and military personnel.No diplomats were kicked out of the country.In fact nothing happened.  :

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-suspects-hackers-in-china-behind-government-data-breach-sources-say-1433451888


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Jan 2017)

My odd-ball theory?  Mr Obama, after weeks of assuring the US people that no, you cannot "hack" an election and that if you cannot accept the results, it's a danger to democracy, after his heir apparent lost the election, changed track 180 degrees in order to not just have people lose confidence in Mr Trump, but to declare that election void and null in order to cancel the inauguration and issue some executive order declaring himself president for life.









Edit to add: 

Oh, and chemtrails.  Obviously.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Jan 2017)

We haven't asked this guy yet:


----------



## cavalryman (4 Jan 2017)

You must mean this one


----------



## Jarnhamar (5 Jan 2017)

Apparently it's Trumps fault 4 Black Americans kidnapped, confined, degraded and tortured a mentally handicapped white guy which they posted on facebook.

Symone Sanders from CNN really nailed it.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/05/crazy-cnn-panelist-blames-trump-for-kidnapped-tortured-white-man-that-is-not-a-hate-crime-video/

It also doesn't look like Chicago police will not be investigating it as a hate crime despite the attackers screaming '**ck white people'.  According to the Chicago chief of police it's just some kids making a dumb mistake.  I mean who hasn't made an autistic kid drink water from a toilet right?


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Jan 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Apparently it's Trumps fault 4 Black Americans kidnapped, confined, degraded and tortured a mentally handicapped white guy which they posted on facebook.
> 
> Symone Sanders from CNN really nailed it.
> http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/05/crazy-cnn-panelist-blames-trump-for-kidnapped-tortured-white-man-that-is-not-a-hate-crime-video/
> ...



The ACLU needs to jump on this for the sake of the victim. Equality under the law, equality before the law.


----------



## cupper (5 Jan 2017)

It was announced on the news tonight that they are being charged with a hate crime along with all the other charges that will be brought forward.


----------



## George Wallace (6 Jan 2017)

And the latest winners of the Darwin Awards, in the Group Category, are:

Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.



> 6 Dead After Truck Collides With Anti-Trump Protesters On Freeway
> The Seattle Trubune
> By Lucas Bagwell -  January 4, 2017
> 
> ...



More on LINK.


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And the latest winners of the Darwin Awards, in the Group Category, are:
> 
> Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
> 
> More on LINK.



Play stupid games, get stupid prizes...


----------



## cavalryman (6 Jan 2017)

The anti-Trumpers are well on their way to ensuring a Trump win in 2020, and The Donald hasn't even been sworn in yet.  Keep it up  >


----------



## mariomike (6 Jan 2017)

Reports that a group of "Dump Trump" protesters was fatally struck by a truck while blocking a Seattle freeway came from a known hoax purveyor.
http://www.snopes.com/anti-trump-protesters-killed-on-freeway/
Although the Seattle Tribune appears to be the digital edition of a real city newspaper, it is simply one of many fake news sites (along with the Boston Tribune and the Baltimore Gazette) that mimics the appearance of real metropolitan news outlets in order to spread hoaxes and generate ad revenue.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> And the latest winners of the Darwin Awards, in the Group Category, are:





			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> Play stupid games, get stupid prizes...





			
				cavalryman said:
			
		

> The anti-Trumpers are well on their way to ensuring a Trump win in 2020, and The Donald hasn't even been sworn in yet.  Keep it up  >


----------



## Retired AF Guy (6 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> And the latest winners of the Darwin Awards, in the Group Category, are:
> 
> Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act.
> 
> More on LINK.



As always, read the small print. From the Seattle Tribune front page:



> Disclaimer
> 
> _"The Seattle Tribune is a news and entertainment satire web publication. The Seattle Tribune may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within The Seattle Tribune are fictional and presumably satirical news – with the exception of our ‘list style’ articles that include relevant sources. The content published on The Seattle Tribune is intended to be entertainment and is often intended to generate thought and discussion among its readers. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental. Advice given is NOT to be construed as professional. If you are in need of professional help, please consult a professional. The Seattle Tribune is not intended for children under the age of 18."_



Link


----------



## mariomike (6 Jan 2017)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> As always, read the small print.



But, but...

How gullible do they think people are?!


----------



## Flavus101 (6 Jan 2017)

Or perhaps it's because there are geniuses that have actually played the "if we link arms the traffic won't hit us" stunt in the past and at some point that game of chicken is just going to end poorly.

Some may think that the death of six people would make other "protesters" think twice about hopping in front of freeway traffic. I on the other hand think it will simply encourage more people to hop onto freeways and the new #banfreeways movement will begin.


----------



## mariomike (6 Jan 2017)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> Or perhaps it's because there are geniuses that have actually played the "if we link arms the traffic won't hit us" stunt in the past and at some point that game of chicken is just going to end poorly.



Do you think it's ever going to end?

Whichever side won the election, I personally don't see the resistance ( call it whatever you will ) ending in the foreseeable future.


----------



## the 48th regulator (6 Jan 2017)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> Or perhaps it's because there are geniuses that have actually played the "if we link arms the traffic won't hit us" stunt in the past and at some point that game of chicken is just going to end poorly.
> 
> Some may think that the death of six people would make other "protesters" think twice about hopping in front of freeway traffic. I on the other hand think it will simply encourage more people to hop onto freeways and the new #banfreeways movement will begin.



One man tried to stop much more.....

https://youtu.be/YeFzeNAHEhU


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Jan 2017)

cupper said:
			
		

> It was announced on the news tonight that they are being charged with a hate crime along with all the other charges that will be brought forward.



I came to correct my post.  Yes. You're right.  Either they realized how absurd they sounded or their boss gave them a one way phone call. 

I predict riots.


----------



## mariomike (7 Jan 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I predict riots.



They don't call it Chiraq for nothing!


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jan 2017)

More grist for the mill in case you want to read it instead of read about it ...
_*"Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections"*_ (Office of the Director of National Intelligence - 25 pg PDF)


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Jan 2017)

So, just how should one view the Open Societies Foundation - which gets involved in elections internationally, including Canadian ones, and not only promotes "democracy" as an institution, but backs positions, parties and politicians.

Or Brits and Yanks offering opinions on Quebec referenda?  Or foreigners offering advice on Alberta oilsands development?


----------



## Flavus101 (7 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Do you think it's ever going to end?
> 
> Whichever side won the election, I personally don't see the resistance ( call it whatever you will ) ending in the foreseeable future.



I don't see it ending in the foreseeable future either.

We can play the "what if" game forever though...


----------



## mariomike (7 Jan 2017)

Flavus101 said:
			
		

> We can play the "what if" game forever though...



I just know what I read in the papers.  
https://www.google.ca/search?q=if+trump+loses&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A2016-11-09&tbm=#q=if+trump+loses&tbs=cdr:1,cd_max:2016-11-09&start=0


----------



## kkwd (7 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I just know what I read in the papers.
> https://www.google.ca/search?q=if+trump+loses&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A2016-11-09&tbm=#q=if+trump+loses&tbs=cdr:1,cd_max:2016-11-09&start=0



There's nothing wrong with engaging in a little fantasy with all these opinion and speculation pieces. Sometimes fantasy is all you have to comfort you in your days of woe.


----------



## mariomike (7 Jan 2017)

kkwd said:
			
		

> There's nothing wrong with engaging in a little fantasy with all these opinion and speculation pieces. Sometimes fantasy is all you have to comfort you in your days of woe.



You live in Indiana? Celebrate! 

Personally, this thread makes me celebrate living in Canada.


----------



## kkwd (7 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> You live in Indiana? Celebrate!
> 
> Personally, this thread makes me celebrate living in Canada.



No need for celebration. The system is designed to work no matter who is driving the bus. Sometimes the bus misses a few stops or runs over somebody but it still chugs along and most of the people get to their destination. There is no need for any fear mongering at all, it serves no useful purpose.


----------



## mariomike (7 Jan 2017)

kkwd said:
			
		

> There is no need for any fear mongering at all, it serves no useful purpose.



Like posting Fake News - in huge yellow font?  

"6 Dead After Truck Collides With Anti-Trump Protesters On Freeway".
http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/108210/post-1471183.html#msg1471183
Reply #3059 

How's that for "engaging in a little fantasy" ?


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Like posting Fake News - in huge yellow font?
> 
> "6 Dead After Truck Collides With Anti-Trump Protesters On Freeway".
> http://milnet.ca/forums/threads/108210/post-1471183.html#msg1471183
> ...




Because people stupid enough to try and block vehicles with their bodies never happens?  

https://www.youtube.com/shared?ci=Nqhd1btYLIY    anti Trump rally

Just  watched a half dozen great videos of protestors learning about human vehicle physics you should check them out.


----------



## mariomike (7 Jan 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Just  watched a half dozen great videos of protestors learning about human vehicle physics you should check them out.



No thanks.  I've seen enough "human vehicle physics".  Don't need to re-live it on Youtube.

But, I do believe you. In fact, I believe you ain't seen nothing yet!

Shocked and appalled by what is happening in the US?: Yes. 
Surprised? : No, can't say that I am.

Matter of fact, I know it's in poor taste, but since we are still  on the subject of "human vehicle physics", how about a pool?  
( Fatal and non-fatal shootings, stabbings, vehicular, roof toss, a$$ stomping etc. ) for Inauguration Day 2017.

Place your bets gentlemen! ( I don't believe there are any ladies posting in this thread? )

No gambling or money involved. Bragging rights only to the winner!

Never was soooo thankful to live in Canada.


----------



## Rifleman62 (7 Jan 2017)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3ht6gi5jsE

https://thefederalist.com/2017/01/06/joe-biden-electoral-college-truthers/

*Joe Biden To Electoral College Truthers: 'It's Over'* - The Federalist


----------



## mariomike (7 Jan 2017)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3ht6gi5jsE
> 
> https://thefederalist.com/2017/01/06/joe-biden-electoral-college-truthers/
> 
> *Joe Biden To Electoral College Truthers: 'It's Over'* - The Federalist



Biden will be 78 years old in 2020! Woah, baby!  The one who just got in already broke the age record.

Reagan was only 77 when he _finished_  his second term as president.


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Jan 2017)

If we are going to speculate, what about Hillary in 2020? On first blush, one could or should imagine politically she is as dead as a Norwegian Blue Parrot. But is she? She must have considerable appeal to the heartstrings of the Democratic Party. Their movers and shakers and their deep pocketed Hollywood friends could convince themselves that the American people will come to their senses about January 21st and realize it was all a terrible mistake. 

Does she have a chance. That was a question they should have asked themselves a year or two ago? Well, if one does an estimate and gets the Enemy paragraph wrong, don't be surprised if the operation bombs. In this case, they considered the wrong enemy, picking the GOP establishment instead of the voters they took for granted. I suspect they will do it again, which does not rule out Mrs Clinton.

I am writing this from a RV park in rural southern Arizona populated roughly by 2/3 Americans and 1/3 Canadians, all over 55. The Americans to a very large extent proudly proclaim they voted for Mr Trump and probably would do it again. And they are not the deplorables Hillary painted them to be; but they are terribly annoyed at the mess the progressive elites made of the country.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jan 2017)

Zebedy Colt said:
			
		

> One man tried to stop much more.....
> 
> https://youtu.be/YeFzeNAHEhU



He's a hero for standing alone and unarmed against _real_ tyranny (you can hear the shots being fired into the crowd in the background), while the current protesters are attempting to de legitimatize the freely given votes of millions of Americans. If the anti-Trump protesters had their way, they would be driving those columns of tanks. Just like the waves of republican protestors rioted in American cities and had public meltdowns on all the major TV networks in 2008 and 2012...oh, wait...


----------



## mariomike (7 Jan 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Just like the waves of republican protestors rioted in American cities and had public meltdowns on all the major TV networks in 2008 and 2012...oh, wait...



https://www.google.ca/search?q=obama+protest&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjjxbLT_LDRAhVB8GMKHXpWBRAQ_AUICSgC&biw=1536&bih=723

If you wish to discuss the 2008 and 2012 election results, there's not much to compare,

Barrack Obama in 2008 Popular Vote: 69,498,516   Electoral 365  

Barrack Obama in 2012 Popular Vote: 65,915,795   Electoral  332 

Prohibited from serving third term.

Donald Trump in 2016   Popular Vote: 62,979,879   Electoral: 304


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Jan 2017)

[quote author=mariomike]

Never was soooo thankful to live in Canada.   
[/quote]

And you have Trump winning the election to thank for exposing how insane the Liberal left with their _safe spaces _and _everyone is special_ has become.

Can you imagine if Hillary would have won and they were emboldened by the win?   Maybe male user names like yours would be banned for triggering non-males or being a macro aggression lol

Trumps win made living with the emperor-selfie a bit more tolerable.


----------



## QV (7 Jan 2017)

MM, the Trump win must really bother you.  

With all that was going on during the election for anyone to say they are completely shocked by this result, well maybe it is time for a little self reflection.  

Don't get so cozey in Canada.  The LPC is flirting with the same stupid stuff that sunk the Democrats.


----------



## mariomike (7 Jan 2017)

QV said:
			
		

> MM, the Trump win must really bother you.



QV, the Trudeau win must really bother you.

See, I can do that to!  

Like I said, what I see happening on the streets of America just makes me appreciate living in Canada.  

I figured there would be riots no matter which one got in. 

With all due respect to Radio Chatter, it's not my source for news,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=if+trump+loses+violence&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A%2Ccd_max%3A2016-11-09&tbm=



			
				QV said:
			
		

> Don't get so cozey in Canada.  The LPC is flirting with the same stupid stuff that sunk the Democrats.



Their political system is what sank the Democrats.

She got 3 million more votes than he did. 

Fortunately, unlike in the US, at this point at least, most Canadians seem satisfied with taking out their political frustrations on their keyboards, with a lot of those  > 
things.  

I've lived through 13 Prime Ministers. You should ask me if I _ever_  gave a fuck about which political party got in.  

When Canadians start rioting in the streets before the next Prime Minister is sworn in - or secret handshake or however they do it - THEN I will GAF about party politics.

Not sure why you feel the need to bring up Canadian party politics in this thread?



			
				QV said:
			
		

> With all that was going on during the election for anyone to say they are completely shocked by this result, well maybe it is time for a little self reflection.



I said I am shocked and appalled by rioting. Guess I was not specific enough? My next sentence was, "Surprised? : No, can't say that I am."



			
				Old Sweat said:
			
		

> If we are going to speculate, what about Hillary in 2020?



Even though she got 3 million more votes, she's seen as damaged goods now, I suspect. 

Kim Kardashian might have a better shot at it. And, after this election, who can say she is not qualified?!


----------



## cupper (7 Jan 2017)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> If we are going to speculate, what about Hillary in 2020? On first blush, one could or should imagine politically she is as dead as a Norwegian Blue Parrot. But is she? She must have considerable appeal to the heartstrings of the Democratic Party. Their movers and shakers and their deep pocketed Hollywood friends could convince themselves that the American people will come to their senses about January 21st and realize it was all a terrible mistake.
> 
> Does she have a chance. That was a question they should have asked themselves a year or two ago? Well, if one does an estimate and gets the Enemy paragraph wrong, don't be surprised if the operation bombs. In this case, they considered the wrong enemy, picking the GOP establishment instead of the voters they took for granted. I suspect they will do it again, which does not rule out Mrs Clinton.
> 
> I am writing this from a RV park in rural southern Arizona populated roughly by 2/3 Americans and 1/3 Canadians, all over 55. The Americans to a very large extent proudly proclaim they voted for Mr Trump and probably would do it again. And they are not the deplorables Hillary painted them to be; but they are terribly annoyed at the mess the progressive elites made of the country.



Only is someone nails her to the perch.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jan 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> So, just how should one view the Open Societies Foundation - which gets involved in elections internationally, including Canadian ones, and not only promotes "democracy" as an institution, but backs positions, parties and politicians.
> 
> Or Brits and Yanks offering opinions on Quebec referenda?  Or foreigners offering advice on Alberta oilsands development?


If you consider these state-vs-state poking (and these examples are mostly NGO's & individuals - conspiracies/funding notwithstanding), let's not forget this one or, closer to home, this one if we're going to complain about political interference ...

I've heard/seen/read more than a complaint or two about *all* of the above, especially on some of the fora here (Open Society Institute, "celebrity foreign busybodies" on the oil sands), so if concern about one type of interference is OK, it must also be OK to be concerned about other interference.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Jan 2017)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If you consider these state-vs-state poking (and these examples are mostly NGO's & individuals - conspiracies/funding notwithstanding), let's not forget this one or, closer to home, this one if we're going to complain about political interference ...
> 
> I've heard/seen/read more than a complaint or two about *all* of the above, especially on some of the fora here (Open Society Institute, "celebrity foreign busybodies" on the oil sands), so if concern about one type of interference is OK, it must also be OK to be concerned about other interference.



I agree.  It is OK to be concerned about all types of interference.  And the NGO thing - a bit hard to swallow when the NGO is explicitly backing one party over another.  Harder still when, in many countries, governments own companies while in other companies own governments.   Kind of fuzzy in places.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jan 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> ...  the NGO thing - a bit hard to swallow when the NGO is explicitly backing one party over another ...


Not to mention who's funding them - hence my disclaimer.


			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Harder still when, in many countries, governments own companies while in other companies own governments.


Very true dat!


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Jan 2017)

A couple of useful Trump articles.

One - a reasoned liberal view of why Trump.

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-establishment-cultural-significance-explained-540213

Two - a reasoned conservative view of what Trump.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443667/trumpism-tradition-populism-american-greatness-strong-military


----------



## a_majoor (10 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Their political system is what sank the Democrats.



Sigh. The Electoral College system has been in place since the dawn of the Republic, so if the Democrats somehow forgot how their own system worked, then it sucks to be them. Anyway, their ideas on the EC are situational, see:

Slate published an article about how great the Electoral College is in 2012: …
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html

Slate published an article in 2016 on why the Electoral college was an anachronism and could be quickly abolished: …
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2012/11/defending_the_electoral_college.html



> She got 3 million more votes than he did.



Again totally irrelevant. How many home runs did Peyton Manning score to win Super Bowl 50? And the Green Party exposed some pretty interesting examples of voter fraud in their quest for a recount, so I'd take that vote count with a grain of salt.

The essential point of the post upthread is the LPC seems to have taken the lessons of the Brexit and the US Presidential Elections to heart, and are looking to ensure the voters are *not* going to be able to do that here in Canada. Can't let those _deplorables_ make decisions for the nation, now. Ibbitson's book "The Big Shift" suggests that the ground is shifting under the Ontario-Quebec axis, or Laurentian Elites, if you prefer, and they are going to game the system much like the political elites in other nations and fight to the last taxpayer to maintain their positions, power and privileges.

To paraphrase Trotsky: You may not be interested in Politics, but Politics is interested in you.










When Canadians start rioting in the streets before the next Prime Minister is sworn in - or secret handshake or however they do it - THEN I will GAF about party politics.

Not sure why you feel the need to bring up Canadian party politics in this thread?

I said I am shocked and appalled by rioting. Guess I was not specific enough? My next sentence was, "Surprised? : No, can't say that I am."

Even though she got 3 million more votes, she's seen as damaged goods now, I suspect. 

Kim Kardashian might have a better shot at it. And, after this election, who can say she is not qualified?! 
[/quote]


----------



## mariomike (10 Jan 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The Electoral College system has been in place since the dawn of the Republic,



That could be the problem.

North Dakota and South Dakota may not mind it, but New York and California might.


----------



## RocketRichard (10 Jan 2017)

Stand by. Predict Trump won't last as president 2 years, let alone the next 2 months...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Loachman (10 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> North Dakota and South Dakota may not mind it, but New York and California might.



And that is precisely one of the things that the Electoral College is designed to do - prevent one or two small areas with certain interests from controlling the rest of the country, which has differing interests, in perpetuity.

It seems to surprise citizens of Toronto that the rest of Canada does not think like them, and does not wish to be ruled by them.

Having watched this US election much more closely than any in the past, and being quite satisfied with the result, I have developed a much greater understanding of US politics and their electoral system.


----------



## mariomike (11 Jan 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> It seems to surprise citizens of Toronto that the rest of Canada does not think like them, and does not wish to be ruled by them.



My reply is here,
https://army.ca/forums/threads/124115/post-1471885.html#msg1471885


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jan 2017)

Loachman said:
			
		

> And that is precisely one of the things that the Electoral College is designed to do - prevent one or two small areas with certain interests from controlling the rest of the country, which has differing interests, in perpetuity.
> 
> It seems to surprise citizens of Toronto that the rest of Canada does not think like them, and does not wish to be ruled by them.
> 
> Having watched this US election much more closely than any in the past, and being quite satisfied with the result, I have developed a much greater understanding of US politics and their electoral system.



This from Andrew Potter's eulogy for Stephane Dion in the National Post



> It’s important to remember that from the moment Pierre Trudeau retired, there ceased to be anyone in power in Ottawa who would defend federalism on intellectual grounds. From *Brian Mulroney’s cravenness towards the provinces* to Jean Chrétien’s refusal to even think about the problem, two political generations were suckled on the conviction that the separatists had the arguments while the federalists had to rely on sentiment.



And thus, in my opinion, the value of the Electoral College.  

Canadian federalists have forgotten this was a confederation of autonomous colonies, all equal.


----------



## mariomike (11 Jan 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> And thus, in my opinion, the value of the Electoral College.


----------



## cupper (11 Jan 2017)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> Stand by. Predict Trump won't last as president 2 years, let alone the next 2 months...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



If any of the crap that has come out today becomes varified, grows legs and starts to walk I wouldn't give him the rest of the year. 

But the key point is *becomes varified*.

I'm taking it with a grain of salt. Apparently this has been making the rounds for months within the intell community, and even the press has been trying to run the story to ground, but no one could verify any of the allegations.

Speculation is that it may be the intel agencies firing a warning shot across Trump's bow. Things could get really interesting as the week progresses.


----------



## cupper (11 Jan 2017)

Add to that the fact that Monica Crowley who is up for a senior director position on the NSC has plagerized for many of her columns, her book (which the publisher has pulled from the shelves), and to top it off her PhD dissertation.

I can see this nomination going down in flames.

The tweets are going to go apocalyptical this week.


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Jan 2017)

Maaaaaaybe!


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jan 2017)

RocketRichard said:
			
		

> Stand by. Predict Trump won't last as president 2 years, let alone the next 2 months...
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Too Late.

The professor who was predicting Trump's victory, and has now successfully been able to accurately predict the winner for the past two decades, has also predicted that Trump would be Impeached.  That all before Trump's victory.


----------



## Remius (11 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Too Late.
> 
> The professor who was predicting Trump's victory, and has now successfully been able to accurately predict the winner for the past two decades, has also predicted that Trump would be Impeached.  That all before Trump's victory.



Congrats to President Pence.  [

House of Cards couldn't even write this stuff...


----------



## George Wallace (11 Jan 2017)

Sad to see that the Best Reality Show on TV today is now real life.....Perhaps Trump will win the Golden Globe next year for his "new Reality TV Show".


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jan 2017)

"Trump: It's not just his Globe that's Golden"


----------



## Remius (11 Jan 2017)

I just watched his press conference.  Say what you will he knows how to handle a room and he destroyed CNN.


----------



## tomahawk6 (11 Jan 2017)

Trump haters will try anything,but with Republican control of both houses impeachment is a pipe dream. Right now the democrat extremists are floating a bogus story that Trump is a Russian agent. I think in the end the Democrats will so damage their brand as not to be a viable national party. Thats not to say that they would not have success at the state and local levels, they might not win the Presidency again for a very long time.


----------



## beachdown (11 Jan 2017)

Oh....you mean CNN hasn't already been "destroyed" eons ago as a news source???? ??? I suppose in North America CNN is the gold standard for getting your news



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> I just watched his press conference.  Say what you will he knows how to handle a room *and he destroyed CNN*.


----------



## Remius (11 Jan 2017)

beachdown said:
			
		

> Oh....you mean CNN hasn't already been "destroyed" eons ago as a news source???? ??? I suppose in North America CNN is the gold standard for getting your news



huh?


----------



## beachdown (11 Jan 2017)

I second that thought! Trump has changed the landscape when it comes to US elections based on the current state of the world, and how it affects the US as a country. The average American based on what happened during this elections, has come to the conclusion that the 1% are just full of hot air and only interested in lining their own pockets.

Trump capitalized on terror attacks / attempts on the US, and the people bought into all that when they went to the polls. The next person just has to do the same and we've started seeing that happen in other countries.



			
				tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Trump haters will try anything,but with Republican control of both houses impeachment is a pipe dream. Right now the democrat extremists are floating a bogus story that Trump is a Russian agent. I think in the end the Democrats will so damage their brand as not to be a viable national party. Thats not to say that they would not have success at the state and local levels, *they might not win the Presidency again for a very long time*.


----------



## beachdown (11 Jan 2017)

BLUF: What is so special about CNN? I won't rate them as a reliable news outlet. Al Jazeera does a better job



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> huh?


----------



## beachdown (11 Jan 2017)

Speaking of tweets....how come Trump isn't banned from Twitter yet considering some of his tweets? "Phrama Bro" schkrelli who jacked up the price of HIV drug by 3000% got banned this week for harassing a female journalist



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> Add to that the fact that Monica Crowley who is up for a senior director position on the NSC has plagerized for many of her columns, her book (which the publisher has pulled from the shelves), and to top it off her PhD dissertation.
> 
> I can see this nomination going down in flames.
> 
> *The tweets are going to go apocalyptical this week.*


----------



## Remius (11 Jan 2017)

beachdown said:
			
		

> BLUF: What is so special about CNN? I won't rate them as a reliable news outlet. Al Jazeera does a better job



I didn't say they were special.  just that he destroyed them at his press conference.  He basically shut down their reporter.   ???


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jan 2017)

Leftist twitter bans members for political reasons,  not  because of ethics.  Twitter is a regular cesspool of  racism and hate; if they banned everyone who harassed other members there would be 85 people left on twitter


----------



## mariomike (11 Jan 2017)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> they might not win the Presidency again for a very long time.



Just have to keep an eye on the 2020 thread.  

National Public Radio ( This was written in 2013 )

"Forget 2016. The Pivotal Year In Politics May Be 2020
http://www.npr.org/2013/01/25/170240786/forget-2016-the-pivotal-year-in-politics-may-be-2020

"In 2012, Obama won 80 percent of the nonwhite vote but just 39 percent of the white vote."

"The demographic makeup of the United States will shift dramatically in the next eight years." ( This was written in Jan., 2013. He is referring to the 2020 election. )

"because our voting patterns are highly aligned by race," Taylor says.

I wonder if the Democrats will run an African-American candidate in 2020, like they did in 2008 and 2012?


----------



## Lumber (11 Jan 2017)

beachdown said:
			
		

> BLUF: What is so special about CNN? I won't rate them as a reliable news outlet. Al Jazeera does a better job



Still better than Fox.


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Jan 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> I didn't say they were special.  just that he destroyed them at his press conference.  He basically shut down their reporter.   ???



The Trump vs cnn/Buzzfeed smack down was pretty awesome to watch.


----------



## beachdown (11 Jan 2017)

Never heard of it



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> *Still better than Fox.*


----------



## beachdown (11 Jan 2017)

Meanwhile....Mr Sessions continues to have fire lit underneath him. he claims



> Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III Says His Name Is Why People Think He’s Racist



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/jeff-sessions-attorney-general-racism_us_58751865e4b099cdb0ffb10a

Mrs King had this to say about Sessions

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/coretta-scott-king-jeff-sessions_us_58760332e4b092a6cae40281





			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The Trump vs cnn/Buzzfeed smack down was pretty awesome to watch.


----------



## cupper (11 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Just have to keep an eye on the 2020 thread.
> 
> National Public Radio ( This was written in 2013 )
> 
> ...



My money is on them running someone from the Hispanic community.

However there isn't an apparent successor as of yet.


----------



## tomahawk6 (11 Jan 2017)

The left doesnt like Sessions stance on illegal migrants.Getting tough on illegals is a corner stone of the Trump agenda including a border fence. So far today all the Trump cabinet selctions did well in hearings.There is a new wind blowing in DC and the left is pissing in the wind.


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Jan 2017)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> There is a new wind blowing in DC and the left is pissing in the wind.



More like into the wind.


----------



## cupper (11 Jan 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> More like into the wind.



More like pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining. [


Oh, sorry, that would be Trump.


----------



## mariomike (11 Jan 2017)

cupper said:
			
		

> My money is Hispanic community.



Maybe you're right. An African-American candidate did ok in 2008 and 2012.

Barrack Obama in 2008 Popular Vote: 69,498,516   Electoral 365  

Barrack Obama in 2012 Popular Vote: 65,915,795   Electoral  332 

Prohibited from serving third term.

Donald Trump in 2016   Popular Vote: 62,979,879   Electoral: 304

I agree that someone from the Hispanic-American community would also likely do well.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=demographics+voting&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=KAl3WMmODsuC8Qe8poOgAw&gws_rd=ssl#q=voter+demographics+2016


----------



## a_majoor (12 Jan 2017)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Too Late.
> 
> The professor who was predicting Trump's victory, and has now successfully been able to accurately predict the winner for the past two decades, has also predicted that Trump would be Impeached.  That all before Trump's victory.



Many of the predictions that Trump would win came from statistical analysis of things like betting pools, social media and spread over a period of elections, so I do give these credence. OTOH, Impeachment is extremely rare (only two examples in the entire history of the United States: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton), so I would have to question the statistical model and validity of this prediction.

There will be a lot of beer and popcorn consumed over the next four years, however.


----------



## George Wallace (12 Jan 2017)

Just for info, ref Professor who predicted Trump win and his Impeachment:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/15/politics/allan-lichtman-professor-predicts-trump-impeachment-erin-burnett/

(Of course, this is CNN and on Trump's list of media outlets that are promulgating FALSE NEWS.)

The Washington Post also gave this coverage:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/11/prediction-professor-who-called-trumps-big-win-also-made-another-forecast-trump-will-be-impeached/

(Not sure if they are also on Trump's list of those printing False News.)


----------



## mariomike (12 Jan 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Impeachment is extremely rare (only two examples in the entire history of the United States: Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton)



Both were later acquitted by the Senate.

Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> (Of course, this is CNN and on Trump's list of media outlets that are promulgating FALSE NEWS.)





			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> The Washington Post also gave this coverage: < snip >
> 
> (Not sure if they are also on Trump's list of those printing False News.)



Trump adds 'Washington Post' to banned list
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Trump+adds+'Washington+Post'+to+banned+list&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=Vq53WKazIIyN8Qeb8bKACA&gws_rd=ssl#q=%22Trump+adds+%27Washington+Post%27+to+banned+list%22

"Russians are playing @CNN and @NBCNews for such fools - funny to watch, they don't have a clue! @FoxNews totally gets it!"
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/814958820980039681?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Impressions of his first press conference in six months,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump+%22press+conference%22&rls=com.microsoft%3Aen-CA%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&biw=1536&bih=723&noj=1&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A2017-01-11%2Ccd_max%3A2017-01-12&tbm=


----------



## kkwd (12 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> .
> 
> Trump adds 'Washington Post' to banned list
> http://www.usatoday.com/news/



I can't find a story on this at the link. I checked the WaPo site itself and it doesn't seem to be mentioned there either.


----------



## mariomike (12 Jan 2017)

kkwd said:
			
		

> I can't find a story on this at the link.



Sorry about that! I corrected the link,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Trump+adds+'Washington+Post'+to+banned+list&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=Vq53WKazIIyN8Qeb8bKACA&gws_rd=ssl#q=%22Trump+adds+%27Washington+Post%27+to+banned+list%22

Looks like he lifted it, for now at least,
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Trump+adds+'Washington+Post'+to+banned+list&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=Vq53WKazIIyN8Qeb8bKACA&gws_rd=ssl#q=trump+lifts+washington+post+ban

"Blacklist"
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Trump+adds+'Washington+Post'+to+banned+list&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=Vq53WKazIIyN8Qeb8bKACA&gws_rd=ssl#q=trump+blacklist


----------



## beachdown (12 Jan 2017)

It could just be a case of a broken catheter  ;D



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> *More like pissing on my leg and telling me it's raining.* [
> 
> 
> Oh, sorry, that would be Trump.


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Jan 2017)

Will VAC cover my Trump-Derangement syndrome?


----------



## mariomike (12 Jan 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Will VAC cover my Trump-Derangement syndrome?



Nothing new about Obama Derangement Syndrome ( ODS ).  
"Usually triggered by watching too much Fox News." ( According to the Urban Dictionary. )
https://www.google.ca/search?q=obama+protest&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjrrfPfqr3RAhWq6oMKHZ6ZC8kQ_AUICSgC&biw=1536&bih=723

Obama Derangement Syndrome Volume 1 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvv2R4ghLcI


----------



## cupper (12 Jan 2017)

beachdown said:
			
		

> It could just be a case of a broken catheter  ;D



Nope, 'cause the Russians have video proof. :rofl:


----------



## beachdown (13 Jan 2017)

Russia and proof in the same sentence? I'll be damned  ;D



			
				cupper said:
			
		

> Nope, *'cause the Russians have video proof*. :rofl:


----------



## FJAG (13 Jan 2017)

So for any of you fellow Canadians who  were wondering why I wasn't a Trump supporter, read this one:

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/pierre-poilievre-trump-could-be-about-to-take-a-bat-to-canadian-jobs

 :cdnsalute:


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Jan 2017)

beachdown said:
			
		

> Russia and proof in the same sentence? I'll be damned  ;D


And no mention of vodka, either ...


----------



## mariomike (13 Jan 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> So for any of you fellow Canadians who  were wondering why I wasn't a Trump supporter,



Was it his economic policies that won the election?

How many of his followers are really studying the numbers of NAFTA and contemplating the strengths and weaknesses of protectionism?


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Jan 2017)

Trump can hardly be worse for Canadian jobs than the Liberals IMO.

The article even mentions the exorbitant electricity prices here and ridiculous carbon tax.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Was it his economic policies that won the election?
> 
> How many of his followers are really studying the numbers of NAFTA and contemplating the strengths and weaknesses of protectionism?



It is OK, Mike.  We're all racist. And, as my wife keeps telling me, it is all my fault.  

Cheers.

 :cheers:


----------



## beachdown (13 Jan 2017)

There is probably a high number of Canadians with covert feelings similar to that of the Americans asking for a wall to be built as it relates to immigrants to Canada these days. Lets not kid ourselves



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> Was it his economic policies that won the election?
> 
> How many of his followers are really studying the numbers of NAFTA and contemplating the strengths and weaknesses of protectionism?


----------



## beachdown (13 Jan 2017)

> Joe Biden: I will not run for president in 2020 but I am working to cure cancer



He shouldn't bother...as he couldn't win anyway if he tried.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/joe-biden-think-tank-research-centre-university-pennsylvania-delaware-white-house-staff-cancer-a7526881.html


----------



## Journeyman (13 Jan 2017)

beachdown said:
			
		

> There is probably a high number of Canadians with covert feelings similar to that of the Americans asking for a wall to be built as it relates to immigrants to Canada these days.


That's sufficiently generic; it's probably pretty close to the percentage that see racism...or oppression....or aliens... at every turn.  

And we're even using the same sources, so it's got to be true!   :nod:

 :


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Jan 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> It is OK, Mike.  We're all racist. And, as my wife keeps telling me, it is all my fault.
> 
> Cheers.
> 
> :cheers:


You're response is problematic and highlights the systemic entitled privilege that's rampant in the army


----------



## Remius (13 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Was it his economic policies that won the election?
> 
> How many of his followers are really studying the numbers of NAFTA and contemplating the strengths and weaknesses of protectionism?



Probably the same amount that aren't worried about repealing Obamacare because they have the affordable health care act....lol


----------



## mariomike (13 Jan 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Probably the same amount that aren't worried about repealing Obamacare because they have the affordable health care act....lol



"I'm not on Obamacare. My insurance is through the ACA (Affordable Care Act), which is what they had to come up with after Obamacare crashed and burned as bad as it did. So I'm gonna be fine."  

Undetermined 
http://www.snopes.com/obamacare-and-the-affordable-care-act/


----------



## beachdown (13 Jan 2017)

Performers for the inaugural next week....

Donald Trump won't be getting Paul Anka after all, but Toby Keith, Jennifer Holliday and 3 Doors Down are among performers slated for inauguration celebrations in Washington, D.C., next week.

Country singer Keith, Broadway star Holliday and southern rockers 3 Doors Down, as well as a collection of choirs and bands, will perform at two pre-inauguration concerts at Lincoln Memorial on Jan. 19, organizers announced Friday.

However, contrary to earlier media reports, Anka won't be singing at the inauguration ball on Jan. 20, despite Trump being "an old friend of mine for 50 years."


----------



## beachdown (13 Jan 2017)

Trump needs to be careful with his coziness with Russia. This is what happens to oppositions that get in their way







http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3520238/Former-Russian-PM-filmed-Moscow-sex-sting-scantily-clad-British-activist-apparent-attempt-destroy-chances-rivalling-Putin.html


----------



## cupper (13 Jan 2017)

FJAG said:
			
		

> So for any of you fellow Canadians who  were wondering why I wasn't a Trump supporter, read this one:
> 
> http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/pierre-poilievre-trump-could-be-about-to-take-a-bat-to-canadian-jobs
> 
> :cdnsalute:



We already have that in one respect or another. The ARRA which was part of the stimulus put in place incorporated a Buy America clause for any federaly funded infrastructure project. It stipulated that all iron or steel used for construction must be American sourced. There was an exception for components which were incidental and not a major part of the product. For example a precast concrete unit would require the reinforcing to be American sourced (raw materials thru to final fabrication), but items such as lifting inserts and tie wire could be foreign sourced, as long as it was less than a certain percentage of the overall amount of steel and iron used, and less than a certain percentage of the total cost of materials used. Similar requirements for other materials or products used in construction was in place as well, with similar exemptions.

This exemption was repealed when the courts said that the Federal Highway Administration did not follow the proper procedure to implement the exemption. So manufacturers and fabricators were left scrambling to find American sources for the incidental materials / products. In some cases there was no American source. The FHWA is now in the process of reimplementing a similar exemption clause through the proper procedures.

As a result of the But America clause, many Canadian steel fabricators were cut off from the northern US markets. When the exemption was taken away, Canadian suppliers of incidental steel components lost their markets as well.

One interesting problem came about when it was found that the structural elements on a bridge replacement project were fabricated in Canada, after the bridge was completed. The supplier was a US company using one of its Canadian facilities to fabricate the steel elements. It was tied up in the courts for several years. The final outcome was that the general contractor and the supplier paid stiff fines for violating the provisions. But the steel itself was brought in from a US mill, which technically met the Buy America clause, but because the fabrication was in a Canadian facility it was deemed to be foreign sourced. Although the parties paid fines, it could have been a lot worse, as the DOT that owned the bridge had the option to have the structure rebuilt with American sourced materials and components. They decided that it was not a reasonable solution, and instead opted for a fefund of the steel costs. The courts flipped back and forth on this, and ultimately they resolved it to heavy fines, which was significantly less that the full steel costs.


----------



## cupper (13 Jan 2017)

beachdown said:
			
		

> He shouldn't bother...as he couldn't win anyway if he tried.
> 
> http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/joe-biden-think-tank-research-centre-university-pennsylvania-delaware-white-house-staff-cancer-a7526881.html



What makes you think that would be the outcome?

If Biden had run this year and became the Dem's nominee, he would easily defeated Trump, as Biden championed the cause of the middle and working class which was the major group that Trump pandered to. The outcome may be less certain if the GOP chose a different nominee.

The only reason he won't be running in 2020 is age. He would be the oldest person ever to run if he did. At 74 he would have held that distinction if he ran this year, but the death of his son took his heart out of making a run.


----------



## cupper (13 Jan 2017)

beachdown said:
			
		

> Trump needs to be careful with his coziness with Russia. This is what happens to oppositions that get in their way



Oh, he already knows about that type of thing.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-sex-allegations-germaphobe-press-conference-russia-dossier-a7522116.html



> In an apparent attempt to discredit the claims, during the press conference the President-elect said he was aware that miniscule cameras could be planted in foreign hotel rooms.
> 
> Mr Trump said he often warned people he travelled with specifically about the danger of being caught on camera in their rooms.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Jan 2017)

In case you're interested, the BBC has done a reasonably detailed story on where the "dossier" came from, who saw it & trying to get 'er verified (as much as one can these things).


> Donald Trump has described as "fake news" allegations published in some media that his election team colluded with Russia - and that Russia held compromising material about his private life. The BBC's Paul Wood saw the allegations before the election, and reports on the fallout now they have come to light.
> 
> The significance of these allegations is that, if true, the president-elect of the United States would be vulnerable to blackmail by the Russians.
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Jan 2017)

This part is interesting:



> ...the opposition research firm which commissioned the report had first worked for an anti-Trump political action committee.


----------



## mariomike (14 Jan 2017)

So is this:



> The opposition research firm that commissioned the report had worked first for an anti-Trump superpac - political action committee - during the Republican primaries.
> 
> Then during the general election, it was funded by an anonymous Democratic Party supporter. But these are not political hacks - their usual line of work is country analysis and commercial risk assessment, similar to the former MI6 agent's consultancy. He, apparently, gave his dossier to the FBI against the firm's advice.





			
				beachdown said:
			
		

> Performers for the inaugural next week....
> 
> Donald Trump won't be getting Paul Anka after all, but Toby Keith, Jennifer Holliday and 3 Doors Down are among performers slated for inauguration celebrations in Washington, D.C., next week.



https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=4JR6WKbtI4GN8QfJ5rKwCQ&gws_rd=ssl#tbs=qdr:d&q=%22jennifer+holliday%22
"A day after Jennifer Holliday was named to Trump's inauguration concert, the Broadway singer announced that she was dropping out of the performance."

Here’s Who’s Performing the Inauguration Concert
https://www.buzzfeed.com/marcusjones/heres-whos-performing-at-trumps-inauguration-concert?utm_term=.jn5rmZwKP#.nrG75kme6


----------



## Chispa (15 Jan 2017)

Leading up to inauguration day this will be one heck of a fiasco, reality TV at its finest moment.

'Bikers for Trump' to Form 'Wall of Meat' If Inauguration Protests Get Out of Hand.
The founder of Bikers For Trump told "Fox & Friends" his organization will, if need be, form a "wall of meat" to protect citizens attending President-elect Donald Trump's inauguration on Friday from protesters and the like. Chris Cox said thousands of bikers from across the country are going to converge on the District of Columbia to prevent any violence or wrongdoing at the event. http://insider.foxnews.com/2017/01/14/bikers-trump-wall-meat-inauguration-


Inauguration protests: your guide to where you can make your voice heard 
A host of events – from marches to queer dance parties to lawyers’ conferences – will cluster around Donald Trump’s swearing-in as president on Friday 
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jan/14/inauguration-protests-guide-where-events-happening-donald-trump-president

Anti-Trump civil rights demonstrators vow to 'march until hell freezes over'

As thousands rally in Washington, Trump takes aim at civil rights icon and Congressman John Lewis

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/washington-civil-rights-march-1.3936104


Anti-Trump protests start a week before inauguration with Rev. Al Sharpton's MLK civil rights march in D.C. and a Black Lives Matter demonstration outside Trump Tower.
•	Al Sharpton led the D.C. MLK march that turned into an anti-Trump rally 
•	Protesters shouted chants of 'we will not be Trumped' and 'love Trumps hate'
•	Black Lives Matter members also gathered outside of Trump Tower on Saturday
•	These protests come a week before Trump's inauguration on January 20

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4120930/Trump-protests-Washington-D-C-New-York-start-week-inauguration-Rev-Al-Sharpton-s-MLK-civil-rights-march-D-C-outside-Trump-Tower.html#ixzz4Vqtq6MDu 


C.U.


----------



## Journeyman (15 Jan 2017)

Chispa said:
			
		

> 'Bikers for Trump' to Form 'Wall of Meat'


Now _that_  is some funny shit.   :rofl:






Relax DC Police, Eddie's back from the freezer!   ;D


----------



## tomahawk6 (15 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> More bad news,
> 
> The Washington Post
> 
> ...



Not sure what your point is ? Wapo and most of the media has been feverishly printing fake news,anything anti-Trump. Trump's base is solid and the opposition are a bunch of Soros funded leftists. This is going to be a long slog for Trump as he has to over come the left to get his agenda passed. Thats where the real battles will be. The Democrats dont have the votes to stop Trump,unless some Republicans vote with them. :


----------



## mariomike (16 Jan 2017)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Wapo and most of the media has been feverishly printing fake news,anything anti-Trump.



If it's not pro-Trump it's fake?  :
https://www.google.ca/search?q=Trump+gallup&biw=1536&bih=723&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A1%2F10%2F2017%2Ccd_max%3A&tbm=


----------



## kkwd (16 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> More bad news,
> 
> The Washington Post
> 
> ...



This poll has only been conducted for the 3 past transitions, Clinton Bush and Obama. It is a bit of stretch to call the numbers historical with that small of a sample.


----------



## Loachman (16 Jan 2017)

And pollsters predicted the election outcome _soooo_ well.


----------



## beachdown (16 Jan 2017)

Lets not kid ourselves...do you honestly things would have been better under Hillary????



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> *Congratulations to those Americans who voted for him. *
> 
> But, is this what the result should look like?
> https://www.google.ca/search?q=trump+protest&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2kfy92cbRAhVq74MKHQOzDHkQ_AUICigD&biw=1536&bih=723
> ...


----------



## beachdown (16 Jan 2017)

So we are talking...Hells Angels and bikers of other ilk then??



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> Now _that_  is some funny crap.   :rofl:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Remius (16 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I know there is a "What if" thread somewhere here in Radio Chatter. So, dare I ask, what if he had lost?



My take would be:

Hillary wins.  Trump immediately calls it rigged and demands recounts. She stills ends up getting inaugurated.  Trump's more extreme supporters start openly carrying weapons and spouting off about protecting the US from tyrants, the media makes hay out of it.  Hollywood et al clamour to perform at her inauguration.  Lots of stuff about how historical this was as she is the first woman elected blah blah.  

A few extreme nut job groups get arrested for planning something they likely could never have pulled off anyway but not for lack of trying.  

The Senate and Congress vow to stop anything and everything she attempts to pass while in office.  They also pursue a more dogged attempt to investigate her for corruption.  her whole term is plagued by this and quite possibly will see herself impeached.  Several democrats, while not openly criticising her, , certainly refuse to help her.  Bill Clinton gets embroiled in an another scandal possibly real, possibly staged so someone can get their 5 mins of fame, either way he is vulnerable and a liability one way or another. 

At the end of 4 years she is so damaged, unable to get anything done and possibly have a had a few medical episodes that the US, even angrier than now and no better off than they were, finally has enough and votes in anyone but her.  

Essentially 4 years of predictable crap. 

Right now the US is facing uncertain and unpredictable possible crap.  Something the electorate was willing to risk in order to avoid what they feared would happen if Hillary won.  But a lot of people still don't get this and think it's all about racism and sexism.


----------



## Journeyman (16 Jan 2017)

beachdown said:
			
		

> So we are talking...Hells Angels and bikers of other ilk then??


Not everyone's cut out to be a rocket scientist  :   LMGTFY


----------



## kkwd (16 Jan 2017)

Everybody knows bikers are all knuckle dragging mouth breathers with a habit of heavy drug use supported by criminal activity. 
Well, maybe they are just ordinary hard working citizens like the throngs of protestors that will be flooding the streets on Friday.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Jan 2017)

Suppose this is the filter through which all of Donald Trump's pronouncements should be viewed?






A picture that looks even worse when the effects of fracking are excluded.






https://economicfront.wordpress.com/2016/02/

An outflow of 62 BUSD per month or 750 BUSD per year

Now, on top of this the US is spending 650 BUSD on defence and spending more on operations, funding the UN and international aid.

Meanwhile, while US workers are put out of jobs in Illinois and foreigners are hired in California, the outflowing cash goes to finance China - who is actively engaged in injurious economic and political conflict with the US, and building up its ability to challenge the US - and to Europe (Germany) - who is happy to sell cars but does nothing to share the defence burden, and who cavills over every US policy decision so as to maintain distance between them and their "friend".

Just because the "super powers" having been swapping bullets doesn't mean they haven't been at war.  China and the US have never not been at war.  Even during grip-and grins.

As for foreign intervention in domestic elections:  We could go with Mossadegh in Iran or we could go with The News of the World and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament in Britain.

Looked at it from that perspective I suspect that Trump might see Russia as a far lesser threat (it isn't sucking up US greenbacks and using them to build military installations) than China.  And Europe is a freeloading vanity project that ain't helping.

All of which makes this article worth a look.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/0/donald-trumps-policies-seven-charts-prepares-inauguration/


----------



## beachdown (16 Jan 2017)

as you put it..."bikers". I mean all that tattoo, jackets with badges and all that...going for the intimidation look?  >



			
				kkwd said:
			
		

> Everybody knows bikers are all knuckle dragging mouth breathers with a habit of heavy drug use supported by criminal activity.
> Well, maybe they are just ordinary hard working citizens like the throngs of protestors that will be flooding the streets on Friday.


----------



## beachdown (16 Jan 2017)

There you have it....Mike drop  :rofl:



			
				mariomike said:
			
		

> Hopefully, there will be no violence.
> https://www.google.ca/search?q=violence+inaguration&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=vMt8WK2CHamC8QfrtYGICQ&gws_rd=ssl#q=violence+inauguration
> 
> 
> *Doubt it.  *


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Jan 2017)

Further to my last

https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/mexico

https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/americas/canada

As of 2015 - 

Mexico sold 58 BUSD worth of goods to the US more than the US sold to Mexico.  Mexicans employed.  Hoosiers unemployed
In return Mexico only bought 9 BUSD worth of services from New York and California.

The net deficit to the US was -49 BUSD

The US actually has a surplus with Canada of +12 BUSD  - which may explain why Trump's people were surprised when Canada thought they were talking about us when they opened the discussion on NAFTA.

But that surplus is the result of us buying 27 BUSD more services from them, again largely profiting New York and California, than they buy from us.

On the goods side we sell 15 BUSD more to them than they sell to us.  Alberta oil, Ontario cars and Quebec aircraft.

That pits them against the Hoosiers and everyone else between the coasts.  But at least we are compensating the US with the Services cash.  That could be redistributed by the US from New York to Indiana.

And for the record:

1992 was the year the USSR dissolved, the EU signed on to Maastricht, the NAFTA agreement was signed and Global Warming became a thing at the Rio Summit.  

The new WTO regime came in to effect on 1 Jan.

For the US, it seems that with the new era of free trade, it was all downhill from there.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> If...there is violence, I suspect there will be a lot of finger pointing as to who started it.


I suspect you'll see a lot of this.(crying was edited in but fits perfectly)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XF9gqWVkHg

I bet YouTube "breaks the internet" with the massive influx of videos of people crying and "literally shaking" lol


----------



## mariomike (16 Jan 2017)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I bet YouTube "breaks the internet" with the massive influx of videos of people crying and "literally shaking" lol



For sufferers of Obama Derangement Syndrome ( ODS ), watching that over, and over and over might be therapeutic.  
https://www.google.ca/search?q=obama+syndrome&sourceid=ie7&rls=com.microsoft:en-CA:IE-Address&ie=&oe=&rlz=1I7GGHP_en-GBCA592&gfe_rd=cr&ei=lRp9WMGsAsOC8QewtpboCw&gws_rd=ssl#tbm=vid&q=%22obama+derangement+syndrome%22




			
				beachdown said:
			
		

> http://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/is-donald-trump-a-russian-agent/


"What is absolutely certain, however, is that if Trump were a cabinet nominee (and not a cabinet nominator) his many Kremlin connections, conflicts, and compromises would make it impossible for him to obtain a security clearance."


----------



## beachdown (16 Jan 2017)

...conspiracy theory now follows, and to think Trump is actually of German descent with the family changing their name a while back

http://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/is-donald-trump-a-russian-agent/


In other news, Trump praises BREXIT

http://windsor.ctvnews.ca/trump-praises-brexit-and-predicts-eu-s-demise-slams-nato-1.3242936


----------



## kkwd (16 Jan 2017)

beachdown said:
			
		

> as you put it..."bikers". I mean all that tattoo, jackets with badges and all that...going for the intimidation look?  >



Going by that train of thought are all the protestors equipped with rocks and bottles to throw, they have their faces covered, they damage police equipment, they break into businesses and loot. Probably not, but better to be safe than sorry so we might as well lump them into one bunch as well.


----------



## ModlrMike (16 Jan 2017)

Seen somewhere on the internet in the last few days:

The last time that Democrats were this mad at a Republican president was when Lincoln freed all their slaves.

 :rofl:


----------



## mariomike (17 Jan 2017)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The last time that Democrats were this mad at a Republican president was when Lincoln freed all their slaves.
> 
> :rofl:





For anyone interested in the African-American Presidential vote in 2016,

88% Democrat 

8%   Republican

4%   Other

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Voter_demographics


----------



## kkwd (17 Jan 2017)

Time for a little levity. This piece is from 2004. Will the same happen to today's outrage?

http://www.theonion.com/article/nations-liberals-suffering-from-outrage-fatigue-1190


----------



## vonGarvin (17 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> For anyone interested in the African-American Presidential vote in 2016,
> 
> 88% Democrat
> 
> ...


In 2012 is was 93, 6 and 1.

But this is as relevant to your post as yours is to the one previous. 

3 more days...


----------



## Lightguns (17 Jan 2017)

kkwd said:
			
		

> Time for a little levity. This piece is from 2004. Will the same happen to today's outrage?
> 
> http://www.theonion.com/article/nations-liberals-suffering-from-outrage-fatigue-1190



I don't know about liberals but I am getting tired of the butt-hurt whining on cable TV.  Heck, I voted con in Canada and haven't whined half as much as Dems in the US....


----------



## mariomike (17 Jan 2017)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> But this is as relevant to your post as yours is to the one previous.



The one previous was about African-Americans 150 years ago, "...when Lincoln freed all their slaves."

Mine was about African-Americans in 2016.  



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> In 2012 is was 93, 6 and 1.



In 2008 it was 95% Democrat and 4% Republican. 

Perhaps because, unlike 2016, the Democrats ran an African-American candidate in 2008 and 2012. 

I would not be surprised if the Democrats run an African-American candidate in 2020. But, that's about relevant to this thread as the 1860 election.  




			
				Lightguns said:
			
		

> I don't know about liberals but I am getting tired of the butt-hurt whining on cable TV.



As someone else pointed out,



			
				Chispa said:
			
		

> Leading up to inauguration day this will be one heck of a fiasco, reality TV at its finest moment.



 :goodpost:

On the other hand, I have also read this: "If Trump had won by 3 million votes, lost electoral college by 80K and Russia had hacked RNC, Republicans would have SHUT DOWN AMERICA."

I wonder if things will settle down a bit after the inauguration?


----------



## Lumber (17 Jan 2017)

beachdown said:
			
		

> Lets not kid ourselves...do you honestly things would have been better under Hillary????



Yes.

Next question.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I wonder if things will settle down a bit after the inauguration?



I would think that greatly depends on Trump himself, and wether he self-destructs. Early indicators are, unfortunately, not good.

Americans in general, and even more so the educated ones (by which I mean anything higher than high school diploma), care a lot more than they let on about their country's reputation in the world. It's a biased - rose coloured - view no doubt, but when something negative pierces through their rose coloured glasses, they don't like it. If Trump gets to be seen as a bully on the international scene, or even internally with the other politicians and critics, he may find himself at the heart of great upheavals.

US voters may have voted Trump in as a sign to the political class that they have had enough of their current deportment, and many may have liked, in that context, the acerbic tone and constant nasty attacks of Trump in the race to the White House, but once in power, they expect their presidents to act presidential and to be president for all Americans.


----------



## beachdown (17 Jan 2017)

Kushner (son-in-law) and advisor will make sure he stays in line  



			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> *I would think that greatly depends on Trump himself, and whether he self-destructs. *Early indicators are, unfortunately, not good.


----------



## Lumber (17 Jan 2017)

beachdown said:
			
		

> Kushner (son-in-law) and advisor will make sure he stays in line



Have you not been paying attention? Nothing can make sure he stays in line.

#Biden2020 #McCain 2024


----------



## Lightguns (17 Jan 2017)

beachdown said:
			
		

> Kushner (son-in-law) and advisor will make sure he stays in line



Twitter is the Achilles heel of the Trump presidency.  As long as he tweets he will stay in hot water regardless of his handlers.


----------



## beachdown (17 Jan 2017)

I have better things to do than spend hours I won't get back on Farcebook, Twitter et al



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> Have you not been paying attention? Nothing can make sure he stays in line.
> 
> #Biden2020 #McCain 2024


----------



## Lumber (17 Jan 2017)

beachdown said:
			
		

> I have better things to do than spend hours I won't get back on Farcebook, Twitter et al



First, how is this site any different then spending time on facebook or twitter?

Second, I don't have twitter, but his tweets are all over the news.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Jan 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> First, how is this site any different then spending time on facebook or twitter?



The insanely hot Moderators?

Yup, that's what I'm going with....... ;D


----------



## Remius (17 Jan 2017)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> The insanely hot Moderators?
> 
> Yup, that's what I'm going with....... ;D



Also the free cookies.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jan 2017)

Lightguns said:
			
		

> I don't know about liberals but I am getting tired of the butt-hurt whining on cable TV.  Heck, I voted con in Canada and haven't whined half as much as Dems in the US....



I suggest that that is what happens when you organize a party on Alinsky's Rules.  After you have convinced your followers that they are on the side of the angels, that the end justifies the means, that the other side are morons it becomes real difficult to manage defeat.

On the other hand, if you are Alinsky, you relish defeat  because it allows you more freedom to step outside of the other guy's rules.


----------



## beachdown (17 Jan 2017)

How? I don't update my pics or of family, like a post, share a post or look at what others are doing.



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> *First, how is this site any different then spending time on facebook or twitter*?
> 
> Second, I don't have twitter, but his tweets are all over the news.


----------



## Good2Golf (17 Jan 2017)

Remius said:
			
		

> Also the free cookies.



 :rofl:

#GeekyITjokes


----------



## Remius (17 Jan 2017)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> :rofl:
> 
> #GeekyITjokes



I figured someone would pick up on that... ;D


----------



## Lumber (17 Jan 2017)

beachdown said:
			
		

> How? I don't update my pics or of family, like a post, share a post or look at what others are doing.



How?

Twitter, Facebook and online forums like milnet.ca are all just different electronic mediums by which people interact to share information, stories, news, etc. There may be less cat pictures on milnet.ca, but there is just as much news, some of it fake, and a whole lot of time wasting......


----------



## Blackadder1916 (17 Jan 2017)

Lumber said:
			
		

> . . . There may be less cat pictures on milnet.ca . . .



When there are more cats, there will be more pictures!    :tank2:

Nice kitty.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Jan 2017)

We can post pictures of our cats now?

Here's my favourite cat:


----------



## Loachman (17 Jan 2017)

mariomike said:
			
		

> On the other hand, I have also read this: "If Trump had won by 3 million votes, lost electoral college by 80K and Russia had hacked RNC, Republicans would have SHUT DOWN AMERICA."



They would have gone to work, as they tend to have jobs, unlike pansy-assed university snowflakes who would rather whine and riot than be productive.

There may have been legal challenges where warranted and/or demands for recounts in states where wins/losses were very narrow.

Congress would have checked Clinton's outrageous demands, and begun justifiable impeachment procedures - it's not like they had a dearth of grounds.

Republicans tend to have more respect for the US Constitution and the rule of law than Democrats.


----------



## kkwd (18 Jan 2017)

Trump was accused of spreading fear and hate during the campaign. Now it looks like his opponents are the ones wearing the fear boots. They are stomping through the snowflakes safe spaces and stirring them up causing snowstorms in their world. It is all speculation on what will happen and just plain hate for Trump. 

It seems that anybody talking to Trump is a person of bad character. Steve Harvey got raked over the coals for just one meeting with Trump. The entertainers who may play at the inauguration are scared stiff of the many threats they will get from social media including death threats. 

It is not healthy to live in a world of maybe and perhaps and what if and only if. The reality is Trump is going to be president on Friday and then he actually gets down to business. Even with protests and refusals to attend his inauguration by so called democrat leadership makes no difference. As the Whos in Whoville said in How The Grinch That Stole Christmas, Christmas day will happen no matter what. And the inauguration will happen even if it is only Trump and the person swearing him in. And it will all be legal and done and over and he will get on with business even with a few whiners heard in the far distance.


----------



## QV (18 Jan 2017)

It was the same ordeal when Bush took office.  Some of the same congressmen refused to attend the inaugeration also, at least Mr Lewis anyhow.  There was just limited social media back then to cover it all.  It is typical left nonsense, that is all.


----------



## Chispa (18 Jan 2017)

Trump, Boeing CEO meet again to talk Air Force One price tag.

President-elect Donald Trump met Tuesday with the head of Boeing at Trump Tower to continue dialog about the costs of the Air Force One program. 
Reuters reported Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg said that the pair had made “great progress on simplifying requirements for Air Force One.” They also said Muilenburg suggested a deal could be reached "in the very near term."

Muilenburg told Reuters, "we were able to talk about options for the country and capabilities that will, again, provide the best capability for our war fighters most affordably”.

“Mr. Trump is doing a great job of engaging business," Muilenburg said. “We're proud to take on that mission and I think Mr Trump's engagement with industry is going to help us grow manufacturing jobs in this country."

Last month, Muilenburg met with Trump and told him that his company could build a cheaper Air Force One for less than originally quoted.
Trump took to Twitter to blast the company for alleged cost overruns, saying they should cancel the contract.

“I don't need a $4.2 billion airplane to fly around in,” Trump told “Fox News Sunday” earlier this month, referring to Air Force One.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/01/18/trump-boeing-ceo-meet-again-to-talk-air-force-one-price-tag.html


Trump also stated he’s looking into streamlining Air Force One.







C.U.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jan 2017)

A former PM's take on Trump


> Donald Trump's presidency will mark a landmark shift in U.S. foreign policy not seen since the end of the Second World War, says former prime minister Stephen Harper.
> 
> "The Trump presidency is a major source of global uncertainty," Harper said Thursday in a speech in New Delhi, the speaking notes for which were obtained by The Canadian Press.
> 
> ...


----------

