|
Post by stevegm on Oct 25, 2016 12:41:36 GMT
A Trump victory though, will end all of the squaking about allowing too many unvetted middle easterners into Canada.
We'll be overwhelmed with millions of capable, hard working Americans looking to move here, who'll contribute right out of the gate. With zero government money.
Go Trump.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 13:24:07 GMT
Trump 5, Shillary 4.
Way to go, Donald!
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Oct 25, 2016 13:52:52 GMT
Ayotte: 'I made a mistake' calling Trump a role model'
LoL
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 16:04:51 GMT
Ayotte: 'I made a mistake' calling Trump a role model' LoL She's a token in the GOP. The GOP needs to show its policies work and are a solution instead of pandering to tribal voters if they're going to be a factor in national elections.
|
|
|
Post by bookboy007 on Oct 25, 2016 17:17:31 GMT
Ayotte: 'I made a mistake' calling Trump a role model' LoL She's a token in the GOP. The GOP needs to show its policies work and are a solution instead of pandering to tribal voters if they're going to be a factor in national elections. I read this out of context at first and thought you mean Hillary was a token GOPher. SNL made exactly that joke last week with Hillary saying that something like the country is ready for the next Republican president and she's the closest thing to it on that stage.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 17:30:15 GMT
She's a token in the GOP. The GOP needs to show its policies work and are a solution instead of pandering to tribal voters if they're going to be a factor in national elections. I read this out of context at first and thought you mean Hillary was a token GOPher. SNL made exactly that joke last week with Hillary saying that something like the country is ready for the next Republican president and she's the closest thing to it on that stage. She's pretty close to a neocon aside from a few women's issues like the ERA and abortion. The only progressive views she has are to save face, like gay marriage. Liberals are going to be very disappointed. I hope debt free college is a broken promise to appease the Sanders idiots. With the percentage of our budget going to entitlements and national debt (60/20 trillion) another goody and a war could be the financial ruin of America.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Oct 25, 2016 20:01:50 GMT
I read this out of context at first and thought you mean Hillary was a token GOPher. SNL made exactly that joke last week with Hillary saying that something like the country is ready for the next Republican president and she's the closest thing to it on that stage. She's pretty close to a neocon aside from a few women's issues like the ERA and abortion. The only progressive views she has are to save face, like gay marriage. Liberals are going to be very disappointed. I hope debt free college is a broken promise to appease the Sanders idiots. With the percentage of our budget going to entitlements and national debt (60/20 trillion) another goody and a war could be the financial ruin of America. I don't think gay marriage is a "save face" issue for anyone who favors it. I think politicians, like most Americans, have realized that the horse is out of the barn here. Opposition is just stupid, since 55% of the people support gay marriage in some form, and another 25% either don't care or don't think it's any of the government's business. So, unless you're beholden to that 15-20% of the country that falls under religious conservative moralists, there just isn't any reason at all to oppose it. I think she and Trump are being sincere in their support for gay marriage. Hillary is going to be more liberal on immigration, and a slew of social issues, that will probably keep her on Bush-Obama track of debt accumulation. The problem is that Trump doesn't offer much of a contrast there -- both candidates look very bad from a debt perspective, and Sanders would have been a disaster too. Why can't there be a candidate that would dump the many stupid social and moral causes of the religious Right AND the many stupid victim/entitlement causes of the Left; who has some governing experience; can balance an annual budget; has some foreign policy experience, can name a foreign policy leader, believes in science over Jesus, can be hawkish towards our enemies without nation-building interventions in shithole countries; respects women; respects police; respects veterans, and could calmly match wits with maniacs like Putin and Jong Un without flinching, all while keeping their personal sexual urges in check and generally behaving like a decent human being to others? Is that too much to ask?
|
|
|
Post by schlich on Oct 25, 2016 20:05:55 GMT
A Trump victory though, will end all of the squaking about allowing too many unvetted middle easterners into Canada. We'll be overwhelmed with millions of capable, hard working Americans looking to move here, who'll contribute right out of the gate. With zero government money. Go Trump. Canadia will need a wall on their southern border.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Oct 25, 2016 20:08:33 GMT
I read this out of context at first and thought you mean Hillary was a token GOPher. SNL made exactly that joke last week with Hillary saying that something like the country is ready for the next Republican president and she's the closest thing to it on that stage. She's pretty close to a neocon aside from a few women's issues like the ERA and abortion. The only progressive views she has are to save face, like gay marriage. Liberals are going to be very disappointed. I hope debt free college is a broken promise to appease the Sanders idiots. With the percentage of our budget going to entitlements and national debt (60/20 trillion) another goody and a war could be the financial ruin of America. As long as she plans on getting reelected she'll pander to their issues and blame the republicans for undermining progress. Progressives will turn to Lizzie Warren because she's their hero and the Bern will be too old, too compromised by his sellout to the DNC and possibly too dead by then. They don't like old Hillz now and they won't like her as prez. The bulk of the dems might be a bit disappointed in her but I don't think it will matter much. They will stay behind her, maybe somewhat grudgingly, though. Unless the party steers even further left she's their gal for the next run. I'll read about it from my new home somewhere in the UK or BC.
|
|
|
Post by walktheline on Oct 25, 2016 20:11:56 GMT
She's pretty close to a neocon aside from a few women's issues like the ERA and abortion. The only progressive views she has are to save face, like gay marriage. Liberals are going to be very disappointed. I hope debt free college is a broken promise to appease the Sanders idiots. With the percentage of our budget going to entitlements and national debt (60/20 trillion) another goody and a war could be the financial ruin of America. I don't think gay marriage is a "save face" issue for anyone who favors it. I think politicians, like most Americans, have realized that the horse is out of the barn here. Opposition is just stupid, since 55% of the people support gay marriage in some form, and another 25% either don't care or don't think it's any of the government's business. So, unless you're beholden to that 15-20% of the country that falls under religious conservative moralists, there just isn't any reason at all to oppose it. I think she and Trump are being sincere in their support for gay marriage. Hillary is going to be more liberal on immigration, and a slew of social issues, that will probably keep her on Bush-Obama track of debt accumulation. The problem is that Trump doesn't offer much of a contrast there -- both candidates look very bad from a debt perspective, and Sanders would have been a disaster too. Why can't there be a candidate that would dump the many stupid social and moral causes of the religious Right AND the many stupid victim/entitlement causes of the Left; who has some governing experience; can balance an annual budget; has some foreign policy experience, can name a foreign policy leader, believes in science over Jesus, can be hawkish towards our enemies without nation-building interventions in shithole countries; respects women; respects police; respects veterans, and could calmly match wits with maniacs like Putin and Jong Un without flinching, all while keeping their personal sexual urges in check and generally behaving like a decent human being to others? Is that too much to ask? Yes. Sadly, yes.
|
|
|
Post by Fletcher on Oct 25, 2016 20:53:38 GMT
Just like two shitty parents will produce shitty kids, I think this election is a reflection of how dismal and uninformed the electorate is right now. I mean, complain all you want, but nothing is rigged -- these are the people 'we' chose. They are a reflection of us.
Everyone talks about how important the debt/deficit is, yet both sides chose a candidate that will expand the debt, according to almost every independent review.
Democrats rail against the influence of Wall St., banking, and corporations, but then choose the most shameless recipient of special interest money, specifically from those industries, they can find.
8 years ago, Republicans railed against a candidate with too little governing experience, foreign policy knowledge and a 'low moral character'. Then they nominate someone with no government or foreign policy experience who slanders everyone outside of his loyalty circle and brags about assaulting women.
We can't get out of our own way right now.
I recently saw a study showing approval ratings for Congress at around 10%, with most people stating that they "strongly disapprove". Okay. Two follow-ups, though: Can you name your own Senators/Reps?; and did you vote in the most recent congressional elections? The answers were around 20%, and 35% subsequently.
Is there any better indication of how entitled the electorate is than that? We want things to be better, but don't ask us to do anything, know anything, or be involved in any way. We're angry but we don't really know why, or what we want, and we have very few convictions that we'll actually stand by, except distant and irrational concepts of who's on our team and who isn't. But we're happy to complain. What's worse, is that the message is clear for the next election on what appeals to voters -- act like Trump and act like Hillary. That's what wins nominations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 20:54:45 GMT
She's pretty close to a neocon aside from a few women's issues like the ERA and abortion. The only progressive views she has are to save face, like gay marriage. Liberals are going to be very disappointed. I hope debt free college is a broken promise to appease the Sanders idiots. With the percentage of our budget going to entitlements and national debt (60/20 trillion) another goody and a war could be the financial ruin of America. I don't think gay marriage is a "save face" issue for anyone who favors it. I think politicians, like most Americans, have realized that the horse is out of the barn here. Opposition is just stupid, since 55% of the people support gay marriage in some form, and another 25% either don't care or don't think it's any of the government's business. So, unless you're beholden to that 15-20% of the country that falls under religious conservative moralists, there just isn't any reason at all to oppose it. I think she and Trump are being sincere in their support for gay marriage. Hillary is going to be more liberal on immigration, and a slew of social issues, that will probably keep her on Bush-Obama track of debt accumulation. The problem is that Trump doesn't offer much of a contrast there -- both candidates look very bad from a debt perspective, and Sanders would have been a disaster too. Why can't there be a candidate that would dump the many stupid social and moral causes of the religious Right AND the many stupid victim/entitlement causes of the Left; who has some governing experience; can balance an annual budget; has some foreign policy experience, can name a foreign policy leader, believes in science over Jesus, can be hawkish towards our enemies without nation-building interventions in shithole countries; respects women; respects police; respects veterans, and could calmly match wits with maniacs like Putin and Jong Un without flinching, all while keeping their personal sexual urges in check and generally behaving like a decent human being to others? Is that too much to ask? I voted for gay marriage in 2009 when it was a single question referendum on the ballots in Maine. What I mean about saving face is that Hillary was against it until she faced a backlash within her own party. Then, like TPP, all of a sudden she's a great champion for gays, and the whales, and the children on the March of Dimes donation cans in the grocery store. I think both parties have are having an issue that the interests they serve (because they fund campaigns) are out of line with the people. It makes perfect sense that a politician would be left socially/morally and right on defense and the budget because that's what most people think these days. Unfortunately, they don't have to repay the Bible thumpers, the Koch Brothers, Soros, or whatever aggrieved (no matter how small) group is throwing in with the rest of the Dems.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2016 20:57:15 GMT
She's pretty close to a neocon aside from a few women's issues like the ERA and abortion. The only progressive views she has are to save face, like gay marriage. Liberals are going to be very disappointed. I hope debt free college is a broken promise to appease the Sanders idiots. With the percentage of our budget going to entitlements and national debt (60/20 trillion) another goody and a war could be the financial ruin of America. As long as she plans on getting reelected she'll pander to their issues and blame the republicans for undermining progress. Progressives will turn to Lizzie Warren because she's their hero and the Bern will be too old, too compromised by his sellout to the DNC and possibly too dead by then. They don't like old Hillz now and they won't like her as prez. The bulk of the dems might be a bit disappointed in her but I don't think it will matter much. They will stay behind her, maybe somewhat grudgingly, though. Unless the party steers even further left she's their gal for the next run. I'll read about it from my new home somewhere in the UK or BC. That's something I've always admired about the Democrats, even if it speaks to a complete lack of principle: they never break ranks unless there's something crazy like an Anthony Weiner situation. Even with Bill banging a 19 year old intern, the feminists got in line behind him like a dog that licking his nuts on the carpet, as Nite would say.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Oct 25, 2016 21:15:59 GMT
Ayotte: 'I made a mistake' calling Trump a role model' LoL She's a token in the GOP. The GOP needs to show its policies work and are a solution instead of pandering to tribal voters if they're going to be a factor in national elections. If Ayotte loses, NH voters will have noticed that she only pandered to defense contractors. She goofed up over the past few years backing carpet bagger Scott Brown and Dumpster.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Oct 25, 2016 21:33:47 GMT
She's pretty close to a neocon aside from a few women's issues like the ERA and abortion. The only progressive views she has are to save face, like gay marriage. Liberals are going to be very disappointed. I hope debt free college is a broken promise to appease the Sanders idiots. With the percentage of our budget going to entitlements and national debt (60/20 trillion) another goody and a war could be the financial ruin of America. Why can't there be a candidate that would dump the many stupid social and moral causes of the religious Right AND the many stupid victim/entitlement causes of the Left; who has some governing experience; can balance an annual budget; has some foreign policy experience, can name a foreign policy leader, believes in science over Jesus, can be hawkish towards our enemies without nation-building interventions in shithole countries; respects women; respects police; respects veterans, and could calmly match wits with maniacs like Putin and Jong Un without flinching, all while keeping their personal sexual urges in check and generally behaving like a decent human being to others? Is that too much to ask? They Republicans and democrats throw bones to the poor occasionally. www.alternet.org/story/152284/4_ways_government_policy_favors_the_rich_and_keeps_the_rest_of_us_poor/But ^that^ is mainly how the system is meant to really work. Most are too busy being mislead by main stream media, so they get lulled to sleep. How much tax money gets kicked up to the the rich in the US ? Corporate welfare is a huge tax subsidy. The reason Republtards don't want to raise the minimum wage is because then they won't be able to complain about food stamps and welfare. Having a $20 an hour minimum wage would force "no excuses" for those scumbags, who sit on welfare, "no more excuses" but to work. Last thing conservatives want to see work is what is happening in Seattle after the raised the minimum in the city. Bernie Sanders running as independent and how many donors he had, so quickly, scared the shiite out of both parties. My answer to your question is, any Independent that could go and shake up Washington, have momentum like Bernie, would be killed before that years Novemeber election was finalized.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2016 18:56:25 GMT
FBI reopens their investigation on The Hag, hardened criminal. From the article: "Law enforcement sources say the newly discovered emails are not related to WikiLeaks or the Clinton Foundation. They would not describe in further detail the content of the emails. It's also unclear whether the emails in question are from Clinton herself." So that means there's more?!!!?! How corrupt can one person be? The Hag is like that filthy slut we've all dated, the one that cheats 50 times and you find out about the different dudes for five years after the end of the relationship. Regardless of Trump, being under a second FBI investigation in under a year is no way to begin a Presidency. What's being described between the Foundation, the Clintons, the DNC, and the media belongs in court on a RiCO Statute case, not the White House. Dare I say... President Trump? www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/fbi-reviewing-new-emails-in-clinton-probe-director-tells-senate-judiciary-committee/index.html
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Oct 28, 2016 19:14:40 GMT
FBI reopens their investigation on The Hag, hardened criminal. From the article: "Law enforcement sources say the newly discovered emails are not related to WikiLeaks or the Clinton Foundation. They would not describe in further detail the content of the emails. It's also unclear whether the emails in question are from Clinton herself." So that means there's more?!!!?! How corrupt can one person be? The Hag is like that filthy slut we've all dated, the one that cheats 50 times and you find out about the different dudes for five years after the end of the relationship. Regardless of Trump, being under a second FBI investigation in under a year is no way to begin a Presidency. What's being described between the Foundation, the Clintons, the DNC, and the media belongs in court on a RiCO Statute case, not the White House. Dare I say... President Trump? www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/fbi-reviewing-new-emails-in-clinton-probe-director-tells-senate-judiciary-committee/index.html"is like that filthy slut we've all dated, the one that cheats 50 times and you find out about the different dudes for five years after the end of the relationship." No. No. We haven't all dated her. No. This explains a lot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2016 19:27:49 GMT
FBI reopens their investigation on The Hag, hardened criminal. From the article: "Law enforcement sources say the newly discovered emails are not related to WikiLeaks or the Clinton Foundation. They would not describe in further detail the content of the emails. It's also unclear whether the emails in question are from Clinton herself." So that means there's more?!!!?! How corrupt can one person be? The Hag is like that filthy slut we've all dated, the one that cheats 50 times and you find out about the different dudes for five years after the end of the relationship. Regardless of Trump, being under a second FBI investigation in under a year is no way to begin a Presidency. What's being described between the Foundation, the Clintons, the DNC, and the media belongs in court on a RiCO Statute case, not the White House. Dare I say... President Trump? www.cnn.com/2016/10/28/politics/fbi-reviewing-new-emails-in-clinton-probe-director-tells-senate-judiciary-committee/index.html"is like that filthy slut we've all dated, the one that cheats 50 times and you find out about the different dudes for five years after the end of the relationship." No. No. We haven't all dated her. No. This explains a lot. Well, I guess people that get laid once every five years don't run into this thing. Maybe it's your politics? Weakness and brownosing don't play well with the skirts.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Oct 28, 2016 19:47:31 GMT
"is like that filthy slut we've all dated, the one that cheats 50 times and you find out about the different dudes for five years after the end of the relationship." No. No. We haven't all dated her. No. This explains a lot. Well, I guess people that get laid once every five years don't run into this thing. Maybe it's your politics? Weakness and brownosing don't play well with the skirts. 50 times is a lot by my standard. Anyways, fuck it. If there is a negative substance to this and Trump is elected, we're in deep shit. I would be shocked if he got through a year without getting impeached for doing something - any one of a lot of things he seems to think is legal, but is not. If he's elected we're all going to get fucked way worse than the slut girlfriend ever did.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Oct 28, 2016 20:17:23 GMT
Damn we are fucked. If Trump gets it, we're fucked. If Hillary gets it, the Trump base is whipped up into a fury and some are calling for open revolution. Either way. We're fucked. Now about those new found emails... www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/10/emailgate-takes-yet-another-dismal-turnFBI is playing politics - for the Republicans, which should be no surprise to anyone. The military and police tend to swing to the right.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2016 20:23:24 GMT
Got to be a YUGE deal. Comey let her slide in the first place, imo, because he didn't want the FBI to decide the election. I think that was the right call, btw. There's no way they would revisit this close to the election without something explosive. On the other hand, this is a pretty strong indictment of early voting, which is a Democratic turnout/voter recruitment scheme to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by 50belowzero on Oct 28, 2016 20:28:10 GMT
Oh oh, the FBI were looking at a Weiner, and these e-mails popped up. Shame.
|
|
|
Post by badhabitude on Oct 28, 2016 20:30:12 GMT
Got to be a YUGE deal. Comey let her slide in the first place, imo, because he didn't want the FBI to decide the election. I think that was the right call, btw. There's no way they would revisit thus close to the election. On the other hand, this is a pretty strong indictment of early voting, which is a Democratic turnout/voter recruitment scheme to begin with. Did you see the mother jones article? This is total bullshit. Comey is playing politics * NBC's Pete Williams reports that the e-mails Comey announced today were NOT originally withheld by Clinton or campaign. * Pete Williams sources say in course of a separate investigation, FBI came across "a device." found emails there. but emails NOT from HRC The public has been completely misled by Comey's letter.
|
|
|
Post by UtahGetMeTwo on Oct 28, 2016 21:01:09 GMT
"We must not let her take her criminal scheme to the Oval Office," Trump
Yes Dumpster, we must let you take your criminal scheme to office!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2016 21:07:42 GMT
Got to be a YUGE deal. Comey let her slide in the first place, imo, because he didn't want the FBI to decide the election. I think that was the right call, btw. There's no way they would revisit thus close to the election. On the other hand, this is a pretty strong indictment of early voting, which is a Democratic turnout/voter recruitment scheme to begin with. Did you see the mother jones article? This is total bullshit. Comey is playing politics * NBC's Pete Williams reports that the e-mails Comey announced today were NOT originally withheld by Clinton or campaign. * Pete Williams sources say in course of a separate investigation, FBI came across "a device." found emails there. but emails NOT from HRC The public has been completely misled by Comey's letter. He's not playing politics. If he were, he would have indicted her in the first place. Nobody knows what's going on yet.
|
|