I guess we're doing this, and without Jon Stewart this time. Hoorayyyyyyyyyy
So, are we not doing this?
I'm pretty much the least political person around, but I'm completely embarrassed by basically all candidates on both sides.
Certainly embarrassed by anyone who appears to have an actual chance (assuming Bernie doesn't actually have a chance and that, of anyone, I might not be completely revolted by him.)
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:10:23 AM
So, are we not doing this?
I'm pretty much the least political person around, but I'm completely embarrassed by basically all candidates on both sides.
Certainly embarrassed by anyone who appears to have an actual chance (assuming Bernie doesn't actually have a chance and that, of anyone, I might not be completely revolted by him.)
You aren't inspired by Lena Dunham doing Hillary's twitter feed for two hours?
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:10:23 AM
So, are we not doing this?
I'm pretty much the least political person around, but I'm completely embarrassed by basically all candidates on both sides.
Certainly embarrassed by anyone who appears to have an actual chance (assuming Bernie doesn't actually have a chance and that, of anyone, I might not be completely revolted by him.)
I feel the same way. Hillary is pretty awful. The guys on the right are just hopeless human beings.
What a country.
Quote from: Slaky on January 15, 2016, 10:19:32 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:10:23 AM
So, are we not doing this?
I'm pretty much the least political person around, but I'm completely embarrassed by basically all candidates on both sides.
Certainly embarrassed by anyone who appears to have an actual chance (assuming Bernie doesn't actually have a chance and that, of anyone, I might not be completely revolted by him.)
I feel the same way. Hillary is pretty awful. The guys on the right are just hopeless human beings.
What a country.
We're all looking for "least vile". 'Murica.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 15, 2016, 10:24:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 15, 2016, 10:19:32 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:10:23 AM
So, are we not doing this?
I'm pretty much the least political person around, but I'm completely embarrassed by basically all candidates on both sides.
Certainly embarrassed by anyone who appears to have an actual chance (assuming Bernie doesn't actually have a chance and that, of anyone, I might not be completely revolted by him.)
I feel the same way. Hillary is pretty awful. The guys on the right are just hopeless human beings.
What a country.
We're all looking for "least vile". 'Murica.
I haven't been super pleased with the Obama administration (maybe better as of late) but I'd have been very down with a Biden candidacy.
He appears to be a very decent man.
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:44:06 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 15, 2016, 10:24:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 15, 2016, 10:19:32 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:10:23 AM
So, are we not doing this?
I'm pretty much the least political person around, but I'm completely embarrassed by basically all candidates on both sides.
Certainly embarrassed by anyone who appears to have an actual chance (assuming Bernie doesn't actually have a chance and that, of anyone, I might not be completely revolted by him.)
I feel the same way. Hillary is pretty awful. The guys on the right are just hopeless human beings.
What a country.
We're all looking for "least vile". 'Murica.
I haven't been super pleased with the Obama administration (maybe better as of late) but I'd have been very down with a Biden candidacy.
He appears to be a very decent man.
There are rumors he may jump in if Hillary loses Iowa. I'm half tempted to caucus for Bernie just because of that. Biden's the guy I'd definitely hate least out of all of these candidates.
Quote from: SKO on January 15, 2016, 10:45:43 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:44:06 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 15, 2016, 10:24:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 15, 2016, 10:19:32 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:10:23 AM
So, are we not doing this?
I'm pretty much the least political person around, but I'm completely embarrassed by basically all candidates on both sides.
Certainly embarrassed by anyone who appears to have an actual chance (assuming Bernie doesn't actually have a chance and that, of anyone, I might not be completely revolted by him.)
I feel the same way. Hillary is pretty awful. The guys on the right are just hopeless human beings.
What a country.
We're all looking for "least vile". 'Murica.
I haven't been super pleased with the Obama administration (maybe better as of late) but I'd have been very down with a Biden candidacy.
He appears to be a very decent man.
There are rumors he may jump in if Hillary loses Iowa. I'm half tempted to caucus for Bernie just because of that. Biden's the guy I'd definitely hate least out of all of these candidates.
A Hillary/Trump general election would be satanic.
Feel the Bern, motherfuckers
I like Bernie, but the age issue concerns me. It find it kind of crazy that after the youth movement of 2008, most of the serious candidates are senior citizens. (Especially for the democrats.)
Quote from: Canadouche on January 15, 2016, 11:35:11 AM
I like Bernie, but the age issue concerns me. It find it kind of crazy that after the youth movement of 2008, most of the serious candidates are senior citizens. (Especially for the democrats.)
Why aren't you supporting your fellow Canadian?
Quote from: CBStew on January 15, 2016, 12:13:49 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 15, 2016, 11:35:11 AM
I like Bernie, but the age issue concerns me. It find it kind of crazy that after the youth movement of 2008, most of the serious candidates are senior citizens. (Especially for the democrats.)
Why aren't you supporting your fellow Canadian?
He has forsaken us. Like Conrad Black before him, he must now face the consequences.
Quote from: SKO on January 15, 2016, 10:45:43 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:44:06 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 15, 2016, 10:24:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 15, 2016, 10:19:32 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:10:23 AM
So, are we not doing this?
I'm pretty much the least political person around, but I'm completely embarrassed by basically all candidates on both sides.
Certainly embarrassed by anyone who appears to have an actual chance (assuming Bernie doesn't actually have a chance and that, of anyone, I might not be completely revolted by him.)
I feel the same way. Hillary is pretty awful. The guys on the right are just hopeless human beings.
What a country.
We're all looking for "least vile". 'Murica.
I haven't been super pleased with the Obama administration (maybe better as of late) but I'd have been very down with a Biden candidacy.
He appears to be a very decent man.
There are rumors he may jump in if Hillary loses Iowa. I'm half tempted to caucus for Bernie just because of that. Biden's the guy I'd definitely hate least out of all of these candidates.
Ship has sailed. He has missed the deadline in a number of states. Sorry!
Quote from: Brownie on January 15, 2016, 12:51:07 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 15, 2016, 10:45:43 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:44:06 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 15, 2016, 10:24:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 15, 2016, 10:19:32 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:10:23 AM
So, are we not doing this?
I'm pretty much the least political person around, but I'm completely embarrassed by basically all candidates on both sides.
Certainly embarrassed by anyone who appears to have an actual chance (assuming Bernie doesn't actually have a chance and that, of anyone, I might not be completely revolted by him.)
I feel the same way. Hillary is pretty awful. The guys on the right are just hopeless human beings.
What a country.
We're all looking for "least vile". 'Murica.
I haven't been super pleased with the Obama administration (maybe better as of late) but I'd have been very down with a Biden candidacy.
He appears to be a very decent man.
There are rumors he may jump in if Hillary loses Iowa. I'm half tempted to caucus for Bernie just because of that. Biden's the guy I'd definitely hate least out of all of these candidates.
Ship has sailed. He has missed the deadline in a number of states. Sorry!
So, I've been wondering -- what do you do, as a right-ward person who isn't a sociopath? What are you going to do if Trump is actually the nominee?
Quote from: Eli on January 15, 2016, 12:53:37 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 15, 2016, 12:51:07 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 15, 2016, 10:45:43 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:44:06 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 15, 2016, 10:24:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 15, 2016, 10:19:32 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:10:23 AM
So, are we not doing this?
I'm pretty much the least political person around, but I'm completely embarrassed by basically all candidates on both sides.
Certainly embarrassed by anyone who appears to have an actual chance (assuming Bernie doesn't actually have a chance and that, of anyone, I might not be completely revolted by him.)
I feel the same way. Hillary is pretty awful. The guys on the right are just hopeless human beings.
What a country.
We're all looking for "least vile". 'Murica.
I haven't been super pleased with the Obama administration (maybe better as of late) but I'd have been very down with a Biden candidacy.
He appears to be a very decent man.
There are rumors he may jump in if Hillary loses Iowa. I'm half tempted to caucus for Bernie just because of that. Biden's the guy I'd definitely hate least out of all of these candidates.
Ship has sailed. He has missed the deadline in a number of states. Sorry!
So, I've been wondering -- what do you do, as a right-ward person who isn't a sociopath? What are you going to do if Trump is actually the nominee?
Agreed - I'm trying to truly understand the best case for conservatives right now.
Even Morph has said he won't vote for Trump, and he's basically turned into a caricature.
Quote from: Brownie on January 15, 2016, 12:51:07 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 15, 2016, 10:45:43 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:44:06 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 15, 2016, 10:24:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 15, 2016, 10:19:32 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:10:23 AM
So, are we not doing this?
I'm pretty much the least political person around, but I'm completely embarrassed by basically all candidates on both sides.
Certainly embarrassed by anyone who appears to have an actual chance (assuming Bernie doesn't actually have a chance and that, of anyone, I might not be completely revolted by him.)
I feel the same way. Hillary is pretty awful. The guys on the right are just hopeless human beings.
What a country.
We're all looking for "least vile". 'Murica.
I haven't been super pleased with the Obama administration (maybe better as of late) but I'd have been very down with a Biden candidacy.
He appears to be a very decent man.
There are rumors he may jump in if Hillary loses Iowa. I'm half tempted to caucus for Bernie just because of that. Biden's the guy I'd definitely hate least out of all of these candidates.
Ship has sailed. He has missed the deadline in a number of states. Sorry!
Only way he gets in is if somehow he thinks he can force a second ballot at the Convention. Wasserman-Schultz is going to make shitsure the Hillary Coronation goes according to plan.
I wish O'Malley had gotten a bit more of a chance.
He seems like an okay guy, based on the little I know of him*
*Basically, his Wikipedia page.
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 12:58:46 PM
I wish O'Malley had gotten a bit more of a chance.
He seems like an okay guy, based on the little I know of him*
*Basically, his Wikipedia page.
I would have liked an Elizabeth Warren/O'Malley ticket, also based mostly on Wikipedia.
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 12:55:35 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 15, 2016, 12:53:37 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 15, 2016, 12:51:07 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 15, 2016, 10:45:43 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:44:06 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 15, 2016, 10:24:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 15, 2016, 10:19:32 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:10:23 AM
So, are we not doing this?
I'm pretty much the least political person around, but I'm completely embarrassed by basically all candidates on both sides.
Certainly embarrassed by anyone who appears to have an actual chance (assuming Bernie doesn't actually have a chance and that, of anyone, I might not be completely revolted by him.)
I feel the same way. Hillary is pretty awful. The guys on the right are just hopeless human beings.
What a country.
We're all looking for "least vile". 'Murica.
I haven't been super pleased with the Obama administration (maybe better as of late) but I'd have been very down with a Biden candidacy.
He appears to be a very decent man.
There are rumors he may jump in if Hillary loses Iowa. I'm half tempted to caucus for Bernie just because of that. Biden's the guy I'd definitely hate least out of all of these candidates.
Ship has sailed. He has missed the deadline in a number of states. Sorry!
So, I've been wondering -- what do you do, as a right-ward person who isn't a sociopath? What are you going to do if Trump is actually the nominee?
Agreed - I'm trying to truly understand the best case for conservatives right now.
Even Morph has said he won't vote for Trump, and he's basically turned into a caricature.
I still would describe myself as mostly a fiscally conservative, socially liberal person. I voted for Romney in 2012 and he was my candidate in 2008. The last few years have just been so unbelievably embarrassing that I really just want this election be like the death of the Whigs in the 1850s, with the splintering of fiscal conservatives and the religious right, and have a new, less crazy center-right party emerge from it.
Quote from: SKO on January 15, 2016, 01:07:05 PM
I still would describe myself as mostly a fiscally conservative, socially liberal person.
https://twitter.com/crushingbort/status/463132110006784000
Quote from: Eli on January 15, 2016, 12:53:37 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 15, 2016, 12:51:07 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 15, 2016, 10:45:43 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:44:06 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 15, 2016, 10:24:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 15, 2016, 10:19:32 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:10:23 AM
So, are we not doing this?
I'm pretty much the least political person around, but I'm completely embarrassed by basically all candidates on both sides.
Certainly embarrassed by anyone who appears to have an actual chance (assuming Bernie doesn't actually have a chance and that, of anyone, I might not be completely revolted by him.)
I feel the same way. Hillary is pretty awful. The guys on the right are just hopeless human beings.
What a country.
We're all looking for "least vile". 'Murica.
I haven't been super pleased with the Obama administration (maybe better as of late) but I'd have been very down with a Biden candidacy.
He appears to be a very decent man.
There are rumors he may jump in if Hillary loses Iowa. I'm half tempted to caucus for Bernie just because of that. Biden's the guy I'd definitely hate least out of all of these candidates.
Ship has sailed. He has missed the deadline in a number of states. Sorry!
So, I've been wondering -- what do you do, as a right-ward person who isn't a sociopath? What are you going to do if Trump is actually the nominee?
What's the best answer to this: I don't answer hypotheticals? Despite polling being what it is, I don't think Trump will ultimately get the nomination. I'm not sure how organized his ground game is, and his strength seems to be as an insult comic.
A Trump nomination would make Jim Webb's run much more interesting.
Cruz has traction, but I don't see him winning a general election. Rubio is probably going to outlast Jeb Bush (and inherit his support), and a strong performance in Iowa OR New Hampshire will make him the front-runner. Beyond that, Kasich has a strong organization but little energy, Christie hasn't found any momentum, and Fiorina is hanging around to get veep consideration. I think Rand Paul made a mistake not going to the undercard, as he would have been dominant there. Paul still should make it to Super Tuesday.
Carson, Santorum, Huckabee and Carson are toast.
Quote from: Eli on January 15, 2016, 01:37:11 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 15, 2016, 01:07:05 PM
I still would describe myself as mostly a fiscally conservative, socially liberal person.
https://twitter.com/crushingbort/status/463132110006784000
Yeah to be honest I'm not even sure how I would define either of those terms anymore. Frankly I prefer not to have to degrade myself by explaining anything about my personality or beliefs within the insane framework of american politics.
At this point I could care where you land on either side of the spectrum, I'll just vote for whoever actually seems like the better human being.
Quote from: SKO on January 15, 2016, 01:50:59 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 15, 2016, 01:37:11 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 15, 2016, 01:07:05 PM
I still would describe myself as mostly a fiscally conservative, socially liberal person.
https://twitter.com/crushingbort/status/463132110006784000
Yeah to be honest I'm not even sure how I would define either of those terms anymore. Frankly I prefer not to have to degrade myself by explaining anything about my personality or beliefs within the insane framework of american politics.
At this point I could care where you land on either side of the spectrum, I'll just vote for whoever actually seems like the better human being.
Heard Trueblood is on the spectrum.
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 01:51:58 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 15, 2016, 01:50:59 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 15, 2016, 01:37:11 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 15, 2016, 01:07:05 PM
I still would describe myself as mostly a fiscally conservative, socially liberal person.
https://twitter.com/crushingbort/status/463132110006784000
Yeah to be honest I'm not even sure how I would define either of those terms anymore. Frankly I prefer not to have to degrade myself by explaining anything about my personality or beliefs within the insane framework of american politics.
At this point I could care where you land on either side of the spectrum, I'll just vote for whoever actually seems like the better human being.
Heard Trueblood is on the spectrum.
I lol'd, like, really loudly.
Quote from: Brownie on January 15, 2016, 01:43:12 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 15, 2016, 12:53:37 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 15, 2016, 12:51:07 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 15, 2016, 10:45:43 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:44:06 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 15, 2016, 10:24:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 15, 2016, 10:19:32 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:10:23 AM
So, are we not doing this?
I'm pretty much the least political person around, but I'm completely embarrassed by basically all candidates on both sides.
Certainly embarrassed by anyone who appears to have an actual chance (assuming Bernie doesn't actually have a chance and that, of anyone, I might not be completely revolted by him.)
I feel the same way. Hillary is pretty awful. The guys on the right are just hopeless human beings.
What a country.
We're all looking for "least vile". 'Murica.
I haven't been super pleased with the Obama administration (maybe better as of late) but I'd have been very down with a Biden candidacy.
He appears to be a very decent man.
There are rumors he may jump in if Hillary loses Iowa. I'm half tempted to caucus for Bernie just because of that. Biden's the guy I'd definitely hate least out of all of these candidates.
Ship has sailed. He has missed the deadline in a number of states. Sorry!
So, I've been wondering -- what do you do, as a right-ward person who isn't a sociopath? What are you going to do if Trump is actually the nominee?
What's the best answer to this: I don't answer hypotheticals? Despite polling being what it is, I don't think Trump will ultimately get the nomination. I'm not sure how organized his ground game is, and his strength seems to be as an insult comic.
A Trump nomination would make Jim Webb's run much more interesting.
Cruz has traction, but I don't see him winning a general election. Rubio is probably going to outlast Jeb Bush (and inherit his support), and a strong performance in Iowa OR New Hampshire will make him the front-runner. Beyond that, Kasich has a strong organization but little energy, Christie hasn't found any momentum, and Fiorina is hanging around to get veep consideration. I think Rand Paul made a mistake not going to the undercard, as he would have been dominant there. Paul still should make it to Super Tuesday.
Carson, Santorum, Huckabee and Carson are toast.
Based on last night's debate, it's basically developing into a three horse race. I think the GOP's best shot would be Rubio getting the nomination and filling the ticket with Kasich.
That might be enough to hang onto all the Romney states and pick up Ohio and Florida.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 15, 2016, 02:49:30 PM
Based on last night's debate, it's basically developing into a three horse race. I think the GOP's best shot would be Rubio getting the nomination and filling the ticket with Kasich.
That might be enough to hang onto all the Romney states and pick up Ohio and Florida.
That all makes sense and the possibility makes me vaguely nervous.
Quote from: Brownie on January 15, 2016, 01:43:12 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 15, 2016, 12:53:37 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 15, 2016, 12:51:07 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 15, 2016, 10:45:43 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:44:06 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 15, 2016, 10:24:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 15, 2016, 10:19:32 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:10:23 AM
So, are we not doing this?
I'm pretty much the least political person around, but I'm completely embarrassed by basically all candidates on both sides.
Certainly embarrassed by anyone who appears to have an actual chance (assuming Bernie doesn't actually have a chance and that, of anyone, I might not be completely revolted by him.)
I feel the same way. Hillary is pretty awful. The guys on the right are just hopeless human beings.
What a country.
We're all looking for "least vile". 'Murica.
I haven't been super pleased with the Obama administration (maybe better as of late) but I'd have been very down with a Biden candidacy.
He appears to be a very decent man.
There are rumors he may jump in if Hillary loses Iowa. I'm half tempted to caucus for Bernie just because of that. Biden's the guy I'd definitely hate least out of all of these candidates.
Ship has sailed. He has missed the deadline in a number of states. Sorry!
So, I've been wondering -- what do you do, as a right-ward person who isn't a sociopath? What are you going to do if Trump is actually the nominee?
What's the best answer to this: I don't answer hypotheticals? Despite polling being what it is, I don't think Trump will ultimately get the nomination. I'm not sure how organized his ground game is, and his strength seems to be as an insult comic.
A Trump nomination would make Jim Webb's run much more interesting.
Cruz has traction, but I don't see him winning a general election. Rubio is probably going to outlast Jeb Bush (and inherit his support), and a strong performance in Iowa OR New Hampshire will make him the front-runner. Beyond that, Kasich has a strong organization but little energy, Christie hasn't found any momentum, and Fiorina is hanging around to get veep consideration. I think Rand Paul made a mistake not going to the undercard, as he would have been dominant there. Paul still should make it to Super Tuesday.
Carson, Santorum, Huckabee and Carson are toast.
TJ Brown--
Who (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=8694.msg277038#msg277038) are (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=8864.msg289110#msg289110) you (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=8736.msg294558#msg294558) crappin' (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=8969.msg294977#msg294977)?
Quote from: PANK! on January 15, 2016, 03:10:38 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 15, 2016, 01:43:12 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 15, 2016, 12:53:37 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 15, 2016, 12:51:07 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 15, 2016, 10:45:43 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:44:06 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 15, 2016, 10:24:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 15, 2016, 10:19:32 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:10:23 AM
So, are we not doing this?
I'm pretty much the least political person around, but I'm completely embarrassed by basically all candidates on both sides.
Certainly embarrassed by anyone who appears to have an actual chance (assuming Bernie doesn't actually have a chance and that, of anyone, I might not be completely revolted by him.)
I feel the same way. Hillary is pretty awful. The guys on the right are just hopeless human beings.
What a country.
We're all looking for "least vile". 'Murica.
I haven't been super pleased with the Obama administration (maybe better as of late) but I'd have been very down with a Biden candidacy.
He appears to be a very decent man.
There are rumors he may jump in if Hillary loses Iowa. I'm half tempted to caucus for Bernie just because of that. Biden's the guy I'd definitely hate least out of all of these candidates.
Ship has sailed. He has missed the deadline in a number of states. Sorry!
So, I've been wondering -- what do you do, as a right-ward person who isn't a sociopath? What are you going to do if Trump is actually the nominee?
What's the best answer to this: I don't answer hypotheticals? Despite polling being what it is, I don't think Trump will ultimately get the nomination. I'm not sure how organized his ground game is, and his strength seems to be as an insult comic.
A Trump nomination would make Jim Webb's run much more interesting.
Cruz has traction, but I don't see him winning a general election. Rubio is probably going to outlast Jeb Bush (and inherit his support), and a strong performance in Iowa OR New Hampshire will make him the front-runner. Beyond that, Kasich has a strong organization but little energy, Christie hasn't found any momentum, and Fiorina is hanging around to get veep consideration. I think Rand Paul made a mistake not going to the undercard, as he would have been dominant there. Paul still should make it to Super Tuesday.
Carson, Santorum, Huckabee and Carson are toast.
TJ Brown--
Who (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=8694.msg277038#msg277038) are (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=8864.msg289110#msg289110) you (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=8736.msg294558#msg294558) crappin' (http://www.desipio.com/messageboard/index.php?topic=8969.msg294977#msg294977)?
(https://media.giphy.com/media/wtPd4C6vy3VPq/giphy.gif)
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 15, 2016, 02:49:30 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 15, 2016, 01:43:12 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 15, 2016, 12:53:37 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 15, 2016, 12:51:07 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 15, 2016, 10:45:43 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:44:06 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 15, 2016, 10:24:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 15, 2016, 10:19:32 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:10:23 AM
So, are we not doing this?
I'm pretty much the least political person around, but I'm completely embarrassed by basically all candidates on both sides.
Certainly embarrassed by anyone who appears to have an actual chance (assuming Bernie doesn't actually have a chance and that, of anyone, I might not be completely revolted by him.)
I feel the same way. Hillary is pretty awful. The guys on the right are just hopeless human beings.
What a country.
We're all looking for "least vile". 'Murica.
I haven't been super pleased with the Obama administration (maybe better as of late) but I'd have been very down with a Biden candidacy.
He appears to be a very decent man.
There are rumors he may jump in if Hillary loses Iowa. I'm half tempted to caucus for Bernie just because of that. Biden's the guy I'd definitely hate least out of all of these candidates.
Ship has sailed. He has missed the deadline in a number of states. Sorry!
So, I've been wondering -- what do you do, as a right-ward person who isn't a sociopath? What are you going to do if Trump is actually the nominee?
What's the best answer to this: I don't answer hypotheticals? Despite polling being what it is, I don't think Trump will ultimately get the nomination. I'm not sure how organized his ground game is, and his strength seems to be as an insult comic.
A Trump nomination would make Jim Webb's run much more interesting.
Cruz has traction, but I don't see him winning a general election. Rubio is probably going to outlast Jeb Bush (and inherit his support), and a strong performance in Iowa OR New Hampshire will make him the front-runner. Beyond that, Kasich has a strong organization but little energy, Christie hasn't found any momentum, and Fiorina is hanging around to get veep consideration. I think Rand Paul made a mistake not going to the undercard, as he would have been dominant there. Paul still should make it to Super Tuesday.
Carson, Santorum, Huckabee and Carson are toast.
Based on last night's debate, it's basically developing into a three horse race. I think the GOP's best shot would be Rubio getting the nomination and filling the ticket with Kasich.
That might be enough to hang onto all the Romney states and pick up Ohio and Florida.
If Rubio survives, and I have a hard time seeing it, he beats Hillary (if she gets that far). Hillary beats the rest of the field. I actually think Sanders could beat just about anyone in the GOOP field accept Rubio or Bush.
Kasich is the only guy on the GOP side I could actually vote for. Cruz' Jew baiting makes me fucking despise him. "New York Values" has a meaning beyond "liberal." Fuck that asswipe.
Quote from: Brownie on January 15, 2016, 01:43:12 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 15, 2016, 12:53:37 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 15, 2016, 12:51:07 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 15, 2016, 10:45:43 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:44:06 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 15, 2016, 10:24:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 15, 2016, 10:19:32 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:10:23 AM
So, are we not doing this?
I'm pretty much the least political person around, but I'm completely embarrassed by basically all candidates on both sides.
Certainly embarrassed by anyone who appears to have an actual chance (assuming Bernie doesn't actually have a chance and that, of anyone, I might not be completely revolted by him.)
I feel the same way. Hillary is pretty awful. The guys on the right are just hopeless human beings.
What a country.
We're all looking for "least vile". 'Murica.
I haven't been super pleased with the Obama administration (maybe better as of late) but I'd have been very down with a Biden candidacy.
He appears to be a very decent man.
There are rumors he may jump in if Hillary loses Iowa. I'm half tempted to caucus for Bernie just because of that. Biden's the guy I'd definitely hate least out of all of these candidates.
Ship has sailed. He has missed the deadline in a number of states. Sorry!
So, I've been wondering -- what do you do, as a right-ward person who isn't a sociopath? What are you going to do if Trump is actually the nominee?
What's the best answer to this: I don't answer hypotheticals? Despite polling being what it is, I don't think Trump will ultimately get the nomination. I'm not sure how organized his ground game is, and his strength seems to be as an insult comic.
A Trump nomination would make Jim Webb's run much more interesting.
Cruz has traction, but I don't see him winning a general election. Rubio is probably going to outlast Jeb Bush (and inherit his support), and a strong performance in Iowa OR New Hampshire will make him the front-runner. Beyond that, Kasich has a strong organization but little energy, Christie hasn't found any momentum, and Fiorina is hanging around to get veep consideration. I think Rand Paul made a mistake not going to the undercard, as he would have been dominant there. Paul still should make it to Super Tuesday.
Carson, Santorum, Huckabee and Carson are toast.
Hedley Lamarr: You said "Carson" twice.
TJ: I like Carson!
Hedley Lamarr: Kinky!
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 15, 2016, 03:17:30 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 15, 2016, 01:43:12 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 15, 2016, 12:53:37 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 15, 2016, 12:51:07 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 15, 2016, 10:45:43 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:44:06 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 15, 2016, 10:24:37 AM
Quote from: Slaky on January 15, 2016, 10:19:32 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on January 15, 2016, 10:10:23 AM
So, are we not doing this?
I'm pretty much the least political person around, but I'm completely embarrassed by basically all candidates on both sides.
Certainly embarrassed by anyone who appears to have an actual chance (assuming Bernie doesn't actually have a chance and that, of anyone, I might not be completely revolted by him.)
I feel the same way. Hillary is pretty awful. The guys on the right are just hopeless human beings.
What a country.
We're all looking for "least vile". 'Murica.
I haven't been super pleased with the Obama administration (maybe better as of late) but I'd have been very down with a Biden candidacy.
He appears to be a very decent man.
There are rumors he may jump in if Hillary loses Iowa. I'm half tempted to caucus for Bernie just because of that. Biden's the guy I'd definitely hate least out of all of these candidates.
Ship has sailed. He has missed the deadline in a number of states. Sorry!
So, I've been wondering -- what do you do, as a right-ward person who isn't a sociopath? What are you going to do if Trump is actually the nominee?
What's the best answer to this: I don't answer hypotheticals? Despite polling being what it is, I don't think Trump will ultimately get the nomination. I'm not sure how organized his ground game is, and his strength seems to be as an insult comic.
A Trump nomination would make Jim Webb's run much more interesting.
Cruz has traction, but I don't see him winning a general election. Rubio is probably going to outlast Jeb Bush (and inherit his support), and a strong performance in Iowa OR New Hampshire will make him the front-runner. Beyond that, Kasich has a strong organization but little energy, Christie hasn't found any momentum, and Fiorina is hanging around to get veep consideration. I think Rand Paul made a mistake not going to the undercard, as he would have been dominant there. Paul still should make it to Super Tuesday.
Carson, Santorum, Huckabee and Carson are toast.
Hedley Lamarr: You said "Carson" twice.
TJ: I like Carson!
Hedley Lamarr: Kinky!
Toasting Carson twice is how you get him so dark.
New York Values.
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/ted-cruzs-new-york-values-moment-could-cost-him/2016/01/15/
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 15, 2016, 03:30:05 PM
New York Values.
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/ted-cruzs-new-york-values-moment-could-cost-him/2016/01/15/
After the full exploitation of 9/11 by conservatives, "New York values" was changed to "East Coast elites". Cruz is just old school.
I can't help but feel that the terribleness of the candidates is somewhat reflective of the election process.
Basically, we've made the process of running for President so terrible that having some sort of mental deficiency is practically a prerequisite.
How else to explain that the current front runners are a delusional, megalomaniacal troll like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, whose campaign is
so blatantly, cynically calculated that a 1960s tobacco executive would be taken aback by it.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 15, 2016, 04:00:23 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 15, 2016, 03:30:05 PM
New York Values.
http://www.jewishpress.com/news/ted-cruzs-new-york-values-moment-could-cost-him/2016/01/15/
After the full exploitation of 9/11 by conservatives, "New York values" was changed to "East Coast elites". Cruz is just old school.
The good thing about that exchange is that I started rewatching West Wing last night.
Quote from: CT III on January 15, 2016, 09:13:26 PM
I can't help but feel that the terribleness of the candidates is somewhat reflective of the election process.
Basically, we've made the process of running for President so terrible that having some sort of mental deficiency is practically a prerequisite.
How else to explain that the current front runners are a delusional, megalomaniacal troll like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, whose campaign is
so blatantly, cynically calculated that a 1960s tobacco executive would be taken aback by it.
The American system is broken for sure. Something I've come to appreciate about the Canadian system is how fast it is. This summer they had their longest election cycle in over 100 years... and it was for something like 54 days.
Quote from: CT III on January 15, 2016, 09:13:26 PM
I can't help but feel that the terribleness of the candidates is somewhat reflective of the election process.
Basically, we've made the process of running for President so terrible that having some sort of mental deficiency is practically a prerequisite.
How else to explain that the current front runners are a delusional, megalomaniacal troll like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, whose campaign is
so blatantly, cynically calculated that a 1960s tobacco executive would be taken aback by it.
Don't blame me: I voted for Bakunin.
Quote from: Bort on January 16, 2016, 07:48:09 AM
Quote from: CT III on January 15, 2016, 09:13:26 PM
I can't help but feel that the terribleness of the candidates is somewhat reflective of the election process.
Basically, we've made the process of running for President so terrible that having some sort of mental deficiency is practically a prerequisite.
How else to explain that the current front runners are a delusional, megalomaniacal troll like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, whose campaign is
so blatantly, cynically calculated that a 1960s tobacco executive would be taken aback by it.
Don't blame me: I voted for Bakunin.
I only truly support Franz of Bavaria, heir to the Stuart claim to the throne. Until those usurping bastard Windsors are overthrown and the true King brings these wayward colonies back into the realm I've got no real dog in this
Quote from: SKO on January 16, 2016, 11:19:09 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 16, 2016, 07:48:09 AM
Quote from: CT III on January 15, 2016, 09:13:26 PM
I can't help but feel that the terribleness of the candidates is somewhat reflective of the election process.
Basically, we've made the process of running for President so terrible that having some sort of mental deficiency is practically a prerequisite.
How else to explain that the current front runners are a delusional, megalomaniacal troll like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, whose campaign is
so blatantly, cynically calculated that a 1960s tobacco executive would be taken aback by it.
Don't blame me: I voted for Bakunin.
I only truly support Franz of Bavaria, heir to the Stuart claim to the throne. Until those usurping bastard Windsors are overthrown and the true King brings these wayward colonies back into the realm I've got no real dog in this
Any candidate without a dueling scar is too moderate.
Quote from: Bort on January 16, 2016, 11:36:54 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 16, 2016, 11:19:09 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 16, 2016, 07:48:09 AM
Quote from: CT III on January 15, 2016, 09:13:26 PM
I can't help but feel that the terribleness of the candidates is somewhat reflective of the election process.
Basically, we've made the process of running for President so terrible that having some sort of mental deficiency is practically a prerequisite.
How else to explain that the current front runners are a delusional, megalomaniacal troll like Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, whose campaign is
so blatantly, cynically calculated that a 1960s tobacco executive would be taken aback by it.
Don't blame me: I voted for Bakunin.
I only truly support Franz of Bavaria, heir to the Stuart claim to the throne. Until those usurping bastard Windsors are overthrown and the true King brings these wayward colonies back into the realm I've got no real dog in this
Any candidate without a dueling scar is too moderate.
I could get behind a candidate that made the Service Service wear uniforms like the guy on the Beafeater Gin bottle.
Just in case you were in any doubt: the rest of the World is half laughing, and half aghast at America. We used to think Slivio Berlusconi was a international embarrassment, and then along came the GOP nomination race.
Quote from: Tonker on January 16, 2016, 12:07:43 PM
Just in case you were in any doubt: the rest of the World is half laughing, and half aghast at America. We used to think Slivio Berlusconi was a international embarrassment, and then along came the GOP nomination race.
Frankly, anyone in America that isn't half-laughing, half-aghast is suspect in my book.
Quote from: Tonker on January 16, 2016, 12:07:43 PM
Just in case you were in any doubt: the rest of the World is half laughing, and half aghast at America. We used to think Slivio Berlusconi was a international embarrassment, and then along came the GOP nomination race.
No one cares what Australians think. Go USA!
Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 16, 2016, 01:06:48 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 16, 2016, 12:07:43 PM
Just in case you were in any doubt: the rest of the World is half laughing, and half aghast at America. We used to think Slivio Berlusconi was a international embarrassment, and then along came the GOP nomination race.
No one cares what Australians think. Go USA!
I wondered how long it would take for someone to get ever-so-slightly butthurt about what I'd said, and considering it's the weekend, that's quicker than I expected, so well done. My money was on SKO or Dubbs, though.
Quote from: Bort on January 16, 2016, 12:09:12 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 16, 2016, 12:07:43 PM
Just in case you were in any doubt: the rest of the World is half laughing, and half aghast at America. We used to think Slivio Berlusconi was a international embarrassment, and then along came the GOP nomination race.
Frankly, anyone in America that isn't half-laughing, half-aghast is suspect in my book.
I was there initially, but I'm starting to move more towards 1/3 laughing, 2/3 aghast levels.
Quote from: Tonker on January 16, 2016, 02:04:26 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 16, 2016, 01:06:48 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 16, 2016, 12:07:43 PM
Just in case you were in any doubt: the rest of the World is half laughing, and half aghast at America. We used to think Slivio Berlusconi was a international embarrassment, and then along came the GOP nomination race.
No one cares what Australians think. Go USA!
I wondered how long it would take for someone to get ever-so-slightly butthurt about what I'd said, and considering it's the weekend, that's quicker than I expected, so well done. My money was on SKO or Dubbs, though.
You completely misinterpret my faux jingoism. I merely nodded in shame when you said that.
Quote from: SKO on January 16, 2016, 03:31:39 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 16, 2016, 02:04:26 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 16, 2016, 01:06:48 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 16, 2016, 12:07:43 PM
Just in case you were in any doubt: the rest of the World is half laughing, and half aghast at America. We used to think Slivio Berlusconi was a international embarrassment, and then along came the GOP nomination race.
No one cares what Australians think. Go USA!
I wondered how long it would take for someone to get ever-so-slightly butthurt about what I'd said, and considering it's the weekend, that's quicker than I expected, so well done. My money was on SKO or Dubbs, though.
You completely misinterpret my faux jingoism. I merely nodded in shame when you said that.
Furthermore, I didn't sense any butthurt on Sterling Archer's part either.
I think Tonker has revealed himself as deliberately attempting to stickpoke and then responding with an itchy trigger finger as soon as he got
any reply. Pretty sure no American disagrees with the sentiment.
Quote from: PANK! on January 16, 2016, 04:15:40 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 16, 2016, 03:31:39 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 16, 2016, 02:04:26 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 16, 2016, 01:06:48 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 16, 2016, 12:07:43 PM
Just in case you were in any doubt: the rest of the World is half laughing, and half aghast at America. We used to think Slivio Berlusconi was a international embarrassment, and then along came the GOP nomination race.
No one cares what Australians think. Go USA!
I wondered how long it would take for someone to get ever-so-slightly butthurt about what I'd said, and considering it's the weekend, that's quicker than I expected, so well done. My money was on SKO or Dubbs, though.
You completely misinterpret my faux jingoism. I merely nodded in shame when you said that.
Furthermore, I didn't sense any butthurt on Sterling Archer's part either.
I think Tonker has revealed himself as deliberately attempting to stickpoke and then responding with an itchy trigger finger as soon as he got any reply. Pretty sure no American disagrees with the sentiment.
I wouldn't go that far.
Quote from: CT III on January 16, 2016, 04:18:03 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 16, 2016, 04:15:40 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 16, 2016, 03:31:39 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 16, 2016, 02:04:26 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 16, 2016, 01:06:48 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 16, 2016, 12:07:43 PM
Just in case you were in any doubt: the rest of the World is half laughing, and half aghast at America. We used to think Slivio Berlusconi was a international embarrassment, and then along came the GOP nomination race.
No one cares what Australians think. Go USA!
I wondered how long it would take for someone to get ever-so-slightly butthurt about what I'd said, and considering it's the weekend, that's quicker than I expected, so well done. My money was on SKO or Dubbs, though.
You completely misinterpret my faux jingoism. I merely nodded in shame when you said that.
Furthermore, I didn't sense any butthurt on Sterling Archer's part either.
I think Tonker has revealed himself as deliberately attempting to stickpoke and then responding with an itchy trigger finger as soon as he got any reply. Pretty sure no American disagrees with the sentiment.
I wouldn't go that far.
Sorry--I meant at this shit-for-brains messageboard.
Quote from: Tonker on January 16, 2016, 02:04:26 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on January 16, 2016, 01:06:48 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 16, 2016, 12:07:43 PM
Just in case you were in any doubt: the rest of the World is half laughing, and half aghast at America. We used to think Slivio Berlusconi was a international embarrassment, and then along came the GOP nomination race.
No one cares what Australians think. Go USA!
I wondered how long it would take for someone to get ever-so-slightly butthurt about what I'd said, and considering it's the weekend, that's quicker than I expected, so well done. My money was on SKO or Dubbs, though.
You're still waiting then. "Go USA" didn't tip you off?
(http://lwtc247.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/get-a-brain-morans.jpg)
YA BURNT, TONK.
There are various people on this board, and in the Shoutbox [*sad face*] who reply to criticism of the USA with "false jingoism" or "Go USA!" but whose inate patriotism is nonetheless just eversoslightly riled by it. When you've spent your entire life being told how awesome America is, and are sharing a country with millions of people who genuinely believe that it's the greatest place on Earth, it's not hard to see how some of that is going to rub off, regardless of how much of a realist you are. I just like to know who's who.
Hell, if somebody who's not British starts slagging off Britain, there's still something in me that doesn't like it, and I left that place sixteen years ago because I didn't like it. Don't be ashamed.
Quote from: Tonker on January 17, 2016, 02:11:32 AM
There are various people on this board, and in the Shoutbox [*sad face*] who reply to criticism of the USA with "false jingoism" or "Go USA!" but whose inate patriotism is nonetheless just eversoslightly riled by it. When you've spent your entire life being told how awesome America is, and are sharing a country with millions of people who genuinely believe that it's the greatest place on Earth, it's not hard to see how some of that is going to rub off, regardless of how much of a realist you are. I just like to know who's who.
Hell, if somebody who's not British starts slagging off Britain, there's still something in me that doesn't like it, and I left that place sixteen years ago because I didn't like it. Don't be ashamed.
Now you're just projecting.
Quote from: PANK! on January 17, 2016, 10:23:39 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 17, 2016, 02:11:32 AM
There are various people on this board, and in the Shoutbox [*sad face*] who reply to criticism of the USA with "false jingoism" or "Go USA!" but whose inate patriotism is nonetheless just eversoslightly riled by it. When you've spent your entire life being told how awesome America is, and are sharing a country with millions of people who genuinely believe that it's the greatest place on Earth, it's not hard to see how some of that is going to rub off, regardless of how much of a realist you are. I just like to know who's who.
Hell, if somebody who's not British starts slagging off Britain, there's still something in me that doesn't like it, and I left that place sixteen years ago because I didn't like it. Don't be ashamed.
Now you're just projecting.
Yeah. Relax, Clive. We don't care about your beloved queen.
Quote from: Tonker on January 17, 2016, 02:11:32 AM
There are various people on this board, and in the Shoutbox [*sad face*] who reply to criticism of the USA with "false jingoism" or "Go USA!" but whose inate patriotism is nonetheless just eversoslightly riled by it. When you've spent your entire life being told how awesome America is, and are sharing a country with millions of people who genuinely believe that it's the greatest place on Earth, it's not hard to see how some of that is going to rub off, regardless of how much of a realist you are. I just like to know who's who.
Hell, if somebody who's not British starts slagging off Britain, there's still something in me that doesn't like it, and I left that place sixteen years ago because I didn't like it. Don't be ashamed.
This kind of makes me sad...both because I'm not sure what Tonker means but also because of the people he's met in person, also being many of the same I know personally, don't strike me as that archetype. Is my inference off?
Quote from: Oleg on January 17, 2016, 08:38:16 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 17, 2016, 02:11:32 AM
There are various people on this board, and in the Shoutbox [*sad face*] who reply to criticism of the USA with "false jingoism" or "Go USA!" but whose inate patriotism is nonetheless just eversoslightly riled by it. When you've spent your entire life being told how awesome America is, and are sharing a country with millions of people who genuinely believe that it's the greatest place on Earth, it's not hard to see how some of that is going to rub off, regardless of how much of a realist you are. I just like to know who's who.
Hell, if somebody who's not British starts slagging off Britain, there's still something in me that doesn't like it, and I left that place sixteen years ago because I didn't like it. Don't be ashamed.
This kind of makes me sad...both because I'm not sure what Tonker means but also because of the people he's met in person, also being many of the same I know personally, don't strike me as that archetype. Is my inference off?
I don't see it either.
I mean we're all jerks but I haven't picked up on an overly sensitive love it or leave it vibe.
Am I misunderstanding you Tonk?
Quote from: flannj on January 17, 2016, 09:15:42 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 17, 2016, 08:38:16 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 17, 2016, 02:11:32 AM
There are various people on this board, and in the Shoutbox [*sad face*] who reply to criticism of the USA with "false jingoism" or "Go USA!" but whose inate patriotism is nonetheless just eversoslightly riled by it. When you've spent your entire life being told how awesome America is, and are sharing a country with millions of people who genuinely believe that it's the greatest place on Earth, it's not hard to see how some of that is going to rub off, regardless of how much of a realist you are. I just like to know who's who.
Hell, if somebody who's not British starts slagging off Britain, there's still something in me that doesn't like it, and I left that place sixteen years ago because I didn't like it. Don't be ashamed.
This kind of makes me sad...both because I'm not sure what Tonker means but also because of the people he's met in person, also being many of the same I know personally, don't strike me as that archetype. Is my inference off?
I don't see it either.
I mean we're all jerks but I haven't picked up on an overly sensitive love it or leave it vibe.
Am I misunderstanding you Tonk?
Ach, relax, chaps. Other than SKO, you're not overly sensitive about it at all - indeed, for Yanks, most of you are remarkably objective about your national failings. Nonetheless, it's human nature to react negatively to criticism from outsiders, and as one of those outsiders, I enjoy stickpoking that and seeing who bites.
Now, though, I feel bad for making you all so disappointed and sad.
I again say you've completely misinterpreted my absolutely tongue in cheek jingoism. At most I'm merely guilty of not being funny
I used to consider myself a fiscal conservative, social liberal and now I support Sanders, which means I'm nothing like the man I used to be when I left Buttpuddle for bluer pastures. I mostly support him because he's not Hillary or Biden though. I think he would at least ATTEMPT to shake up the financial sector and try to avoid the same catastrophic fiscal policies that the Clintons and Republicans rode with pom poms waving right into a global economic meltdown. I think he'd have about as much success as Trump would have putting up a giant fence around the country but that's where I stand.
I've often wondered why people despise Obama so much - besides just outright racism - when if you compare him to the current field of lackwits the prospect of begging him to stay 8 more years looks like our best bet. I'm sure he'd refuse with double barreled middle digits blazing and we're completely fucked through the floor.
You guys with kids are braver than I am. I have about 30-40 years left on this rock before I check out and I'm not really looking forward to them.
Quote from: SKO on January 18, 2016, 07:50:34 AM
I again say you've completely misinterpreted my absolutely tongue in cheek jingoism. At most I'm merely guilty of not being funny
As I can't possibly know what's going on inside your head, I take you at your word, and apologise for misjudging you.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 18, 2016, 09:28:58 AM
I used to consider myself a fiscal conservative, social liberal and now I support Sanders, which means I'm nothing like the man I used to be when I left Buttpuddle for bluer pastures. I mostly support him because he's not Hillary or Biden though. I think he would at least ATTEMPT to shake up the financial sector and try to avoid the same catastrophic fiscal policies that the Clintons and Republicans rode with pom poms waving right into a global economic meltdown. I think he'd have about as much success as Trump would have putting up a giant fence around the country but that's where I stand.
I've often wondered why people despise Obama so much - besides just outright racism - when if you compare him to the current field of lackwits the prospect of begging him to stay 8 more years looks like our best bet. I'm sure he'd refuse with double barreled middle digits blazing and we're completely fucked through the floor.
You guys with kids are braver than I am. I have about 30-40 years left on this rock before I check out and I'm not really looking forward to them.
DPD. From an outsider's point of view, I reckon Obama is by some distance the most well-thought of US president we've seen since... well, I'm struggling to think of a better one. Abraham Lincoln?
Quote from: Tonker on January 18, 2016, 10:03:08 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 18, 2016, 09:28:58 AM
I used to consider myself a fiscal conservative, social liberal and now I support Sanders, which means I'm nothing like the man I used to be when I left Buttpuddle for bluer pastures. I mostly support him because he's not Hillary or Biden though. I think he would at least ATTEMPT to shake up the financial sector and try to avoid the same catastrophic fiscal policies that the Clintons and Republicans rode with pom poms waving right into a global economic meltdown. I think he'd have about as much success as Trump would have putting up a giant fence around the country but that's where I stand.
I've often wondered why people despise Obama so much - besides just outright racism - when if you compare him to the current field of lackwits the prospect of begging him to stay 8 more years looks like our best bet. I'm sure he'd refuse with double barreled middle digits blazing and we're completely fucked through the floor.
You guys with kids are braver than I am. I have about 30-40 years left on this rock before I check out and I'm not really looking forward to them.
DPD. From an outsider's point of view, I reckon Obama is by some distance the most well-thought of US president we've seen since... well, I'm struggling to think of a better one. Abraham Lincoln?
Intrepid Readers: FDR and EisenhowerUngrateful bastards.
Quote from: Tonker on January 18, 2016, 09:57:22 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 18, 2016, 07:50:34 AM
I again say you've completely misinterpreted my absolutely tongue in cheek jingoism. At most I'm merely guilty of not being funny
As I can't possibly know what's going on inside your head, I take you at your word, and apologise for misjudging you.
This is now the second time I have lived in the state of Iowa during caucus season as all of the crazy whack job religious nutbags who think mexicans are hiding under every bed waiting to rape their daughters and ISIS is about to roll up in Islamo-Tanks any second and take away their bibles feel empowered and important and representative of "real 'merica".
I know multiple, actual people who are fine with boasting in public about voting for Trump. It'll be a long time before I say "GO USA" in any kind of sincerity.
Quote from: Tonker on January 18, 2016, 10:03:08 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 18, 2016, 09:28:58 AM
I used to consider myself a fiscal conservative, social liberal and now I support Sanders, which means I'm nothing like the man I used to be when I left Buttpuddle for bluer pastures. I mostly support him because he's not Hillary or Biden though. I think he would at least ATTEMPT to shake up the financial sector and try to avoid the same catastrophic fiscal policies that the Clintons and Republicans rode with pom poms waving right into a global economic meltdown. I think he'd have about as much success as Trump would have putting up a giant fence around the country but that's where I stand.
I've often wondered why people despise Obama so much - besides just outright racism - when if you compare him to the current field of lackwits the prospect of begging him to stay 8 more years looks like our best bet. I'm sure he'd refuse with double barreled middle digits blazing and we're completely fucked through the floor.
You guys with kids are braver than I am. I have about 30-40 years left on this rock before I check out and I'm not really looking forward to them.
DPD. From an outsider's point of view, I reckon Obama is by some distance the most well-thought of US president we've seen since... well, I'm struggling to think of a better one. Abraham Lincoln?
By some. But he's easily the most hated President ever by a unfortunately-sizeable contingent.
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2016, 08:24:48 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 18, 2016, 10:03:08 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 18, 2016, 09:28:58 AM
I used to consider myself a fiscal conservative, social liberal and now I support Sanders, which means I'm nothing like the man I used to be when I left Buttpuddle for bluer pastures. I mostly support him because he's not Hillary or Biden though. I think he would at least ATTEMPT to shake up the financial sector and try to avoid the same catastrophic fiscal policies that the Clintons and Republicans rode with pom poms waving right into a global economic meltdown. I think he'd have about as much success as Trump would have putting up a giant fence around the country but that's where I stand.
I've often wondered why people despise Obama so much - besides just outright racism - when if you compare him to the current field of lackwits the prospect of begging him to stay 8 more years looks like our best bet. I'm sure he'd refuse with double barreled middle digits blazing and we're completely fucked through the floor.
You guys with kids are braver than I am. I have about 30-40 years left on this rock before I check out and I'm not really looking forward to them.
DPD. From an outsider's point of view, I reckon Obama is by some distance the most well-thought of US president we've seen since... well, I'm struggling to think of a better one. Abraham Lincoln?
By some. But he's easily the most hated President ever by a unfortunately-sizeable contingent.
And both sides are wrong as hell!
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2016, 08:24:48 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 18, 2016, 10:03:08 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 18, 2016, 09:28:58 AM
I used to consider myself a fiscal conservative, social liberal and now I support Sanders, which means I'm nothing like the man I used to be when I left Buttpuddle for bluer pastures. I mostly support him because he's not Hillary or Biden though. I think he would at least ATTEMPT to shake up the financial sector and try to avoid the same catastrophic fiscal policies that the Clintons and Republicans rode with pom poms waving right into a global economic meltdown. I think he'd have about as much success as Trump would have putting up a giant fence around the country but that's where I stand.
I've often wondered why people despise Obama so much - besides just outright racism - when if you compare him to the current field of lackwits the prospect of begging him to stay 8 more years looks like our best bet. I'm sure he'd refuse with double barreled middle digits blazing and we're completely fucked through the floor.
You guys with kids are braver than I am. I have about 30-40 years left on this rock before I check out and I'm not really looking forward to them.
DPD. From an outsider's point of view, I reckon Obama is by some distance the most well-thought of US president we've seen since... well, I'm struggling to think of a better one. Abraham Lincoln?
By some. But he's easily the most hated President ever by a unfortunately-sizeable contingent.
And the depressing part is almost all of those people made up their minds that he was the WORST PRESIDENT EVAR before he had spent a day in office.
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2016, 08:24:48 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 18, 2016, 10:03:08 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 18, 2016, 09:28:58 AM
I used to consider myself a fiscal conservative, social liberal and now I support Sanders, which means I'm nothing like the man I used to be when I left Buttpuddle for bluer pastures. I mostly support him because he's not Hillary or Biden though. I think he would at least ATTEMPT to shake up the financial sector and try to avoid the same catastrophic fiscal policies that the Clintons and Republicans rode with pom poms waving right into a global economic meltdown. I think he'd have about as much success as Trump would have putting up a giant fence around the country but that's where I stand.
I've often wondered why people despise Obama so much - besides just outright racism - when if you compare him to the current field of lackwits the prospect of begging him to stay 8 more years looks like our best bet. I'm sure he'd refuse with double barreled middle digits blazing and we're completely fucked through the floor.
You guys with kids are braver than I am. I have about 30-40 years left on this rock before I check out and I'm not really looking forward to them.
DPD. From an outsider's point of view, I reckon Obama is by some distance the most well-thought of US president we've seen since... well, I'm struggling to think of a better one. Abraham Lincoln?
By some. But he's easily the most hated President ever by a unfortunately-sizeable contingent.
When making my (admittedly not deeply considered decision) to plump for Lincoln, it did indeed cross my mind to mention FDR or Ike, as Chuck Dickens suggested. Would those two be more or less universally admired within the States? If not, was there ever anybody that was? JFK, maybe?
Quote from: Tonker on January 19, 2016, 08:49:10 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2016, 08:24:48 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 18, 2016, 10:03:08 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 18, 2016, 09:28:58 AM
I used to consider myself a fiscal conservative, social liberal and now I support Sanders, which means I'm nothing like the man I used to be when I left Buttpuddle for bluer pastures. I mostly support him because he's not Hillary or Biden though. I think he would at least ATTEMPT to shake up the financial sector and try to avoid the same catastrophic fiscal policies that the Clintons and Republicans rode with pom poms waving right into a global economic meltdown. I think he'd have about as much success as Trump would have putting up a giant fence around the country but that's where I stand.
I've often wondered why people despise Obama so much - besides just outright racism - when if you compare him to the current field of lackwits the prospect of begging him to stay 8 more years looks like our best bet. I'm sure he'd refuse with double barreled middle digits blazing and we're completely fucked through the floor.
You guys with kids are braver than I am. I have about 30-40 years left on this rock before I check out and I'm not really looking forward to them.
DPD. From an outsider's point of view, I reckon Obama is by some distance the most well-thought of US president we've seen since... well, I'm struggling to think of a better one. Abraham Lincoln?
By some. But he's easily the most hated President ever by a unfortunately-sizeable contingent.
When making my (admittedly not deeply considered decision) to plump for Lincoln, it did indeed cross my mind to mention FDR or Ike, as Chuck Dickens suggested. Would those two be more or less universally admired within the States? If not, was there ever anybody that was? JFK, maybe?
I think FDR is remembered pretty fondly. You'll get a few conservatives saying he set us on the path to the welfare state blah blah but most of them even give him a pass for that becuase he gets credit for successfully steering us through WWII.
Ike is remembered more as the beloved general than president, weirdly enough. My impression is that his presidential administration is kind of remembered as kind of a laissez-faire caretaker. He was probably our last truly moderate republican, though. Nixon had some centrist policies but he was also pure fucking evil, so.
Quote from: Tonker on January 19, 2016, 08:49:10 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2016, 08:24:48 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 18, 2016, 10:03:08 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 18, 2016, 09:28:58 AM
I used to consider myself a fiscal conservative, social liberal and now I support Sanders, which means I'm nothing like the man I used to be when I left Buttpuddle for bluer pastures. I mostly support him because he's not Hillary or Biden though. I think he would at least ATTEMPT to shake up the financial sector and try to avoid the same catastrophic fiscal policies that the Clintons and Republicans rode with pom poms waving right into a global economic meltdown. I think he'd have about as much success as Trump would have putting up a giant fence around the country but that's where I stand.
I've often wondered why people despise Obama so much - besides just outright racism - when if you compare him to the current field of lackwits the prospect of begging him to stay 8 more years looks like our best bet. I'm sure he'd refuse with double barreled middle digits blazing and we're completely fucked through the floor.
You guys with kids are braver than I am. I have about 30-40 years left on this rock before I check out and I'm not really looking forward to them.
DPD. From an outsider's point of view, I reckon Obama is by some distance the most well-thought of US president we've seen since... well, I'm struggling to think of a better one. Abraham Lincoln?
By some. But he's easily the most hated President ever by a unfortunately-sizeable contingent.
When making my (admittedly not deeply considered decision) to plump for Lincoln, it did indeed cross my mind to mention FDR or Ike, as Chuck Dickens suggested. Would those two be more or less universally admired within the States? If not, was there ever anybody that was? JFK, maybe?
in Eisenhower's second term, he averaged a 60.5% approval rating according to Gallup's Website. That's unbelievably high by modern standards. He peaked at around 80% in 1957. So, holy shit did we like us some Ike. But more or less universally beloved for an entire term doesn't happen.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 19, 2016, 08:54:02 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 19, 2016, 08:49:10 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2016, 08:24:48 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 18, 2016, 10:03:08 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 18, 2016, 09:28:58 AM
I used to consider myself a fiscal conservative, social liberal and now I support Sanders, which means I'm nothing like the man I used to be when I left Buttpuddle for bluer pastures. I mostly support him because he's not Hillary or Biden though. I think he would at least ATTEMPT to shake up the financial sector and try to avoid the same catastrophic fiscal policies that the Clintons and Republicans rode with pom poms waving right into a global economic meltdown. I think he'd have about as much success as Trump would have putting up a giant fence around the country but that's where I stand.
I've often wondered why people despise Obama so much - besides just outright racism - when if you compare him to the current field of lackwits the prospect of begging him to stay 8 more years looks like our best bet. I'm sure he'd refuse with double barreled middle digits blazing and we're completely fucked through the floor.
You guys with kids are braver than I am. I have about 30-40 years left on this rock before I check out and I'm not really looking forward to them.
DPD. From an outsider's point of view, I reckon Obama is by some distance the most well-thought of US president we've seen since... well, I'm struggling to think of a better one. Abraham Lincoln?
By some. But he's easily the most hated President ever by a unfortunately-sizeable contingent.
When making my (admittedly not deeply considered decision) to plump for Lincoln, it did indeed cross my mind to mention FDR or Ike, as Chuck Dickens suggested. Would those two be more or less universally admired within the States? If not, was there ever anybody that was? JFK, maybe?
in Eisenhower's second term, he averaged a 60.5% approval rating according to Gallup's Website. That's unbelievably high by modern standards. He peaked at around 80% in 1957. So, holy shit did we like us some Ike. But more or less universally beloved for an entire term doesn't happen.
There was the story that Mamie ran the country for a few weeks in 1955 when Ike was recuperating from his heart attack. Better her than Nixon, I guess.
Quote from: Tonker on January 19, 2016, 08:49:10 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2016, 08:24:48 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 18, 2016, 10:03:08 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 18, 2016, 09:28:58 AM
I used to consider myself a fiscal conservative, social liberal and now I support Sanders, which means I'm nothing like the man I used to be when I left Buttpuddle for bluer pastures. I mostly support him because he's not Hillary or Biden though. I think he would at least ATTEMPT to shake up the financial sector and try to avoid the same catastrophic fiscal policies that the Clintons and Republicans rode with pom poms waving right into a global economic meltdown. I think he'd have about as much success as Trump would have putting up a giant fence around the country but that's where I stand.
I've often wondered why people despise Obama so much - besides just outright racism - when if you compare him to the current field of lackwits the prospect of begging him to stay 8 more years looks like our best bet. I'm sure he'd refuse with double barreled middle digits blazing and we're completely fucked through the floor.
You guys with kids are braver than I am. I have about 30-40 years left on this rock before I check out and I'm not really looking forward to them.
DPD. From an outsider's point of view, I reckon Obama is by some distance the most well-thought of US president we've seen since... well, I'm struggling to think of a better one. Abraham Lincoln?
By some. But he's easily the most hated President ever by a unfortunately-sizeable contingent.
When making my (admittedly not deeply considered decision) to plump for Lincoln, it did indeed cross my mind to mention FDR or Ike, as Chuck Dickens suggested. Would those two be more or less universally admired within the States? If not, was there ever anybody that was? JFK, maybe?
I think almost all presidents are remembered more fondly as time goes on. Hell, there are even people who wax nostalgic about W. now and he was a disaster and it's only been 7 years. FDR is thought of pretty well now, but I don't think that was so universal during his time.
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2016, 09:00:42 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 19, 2016, 08:49:10 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2016, 08:24:48 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 18, 2016, 10:03:08 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 18, 2016, 09:28:58 AM
I used to consider myself a fiscal conservative, social liberal and now I support Sanders, which means I'm nothing like the man I used to be when I left Buttpuddle for bluer pastures. I mostly support him because he's not Hillary or Biden though. I think he would at least ATTEMPT to shake up the financial sector and try to avoid the same catastrophic fiscal policies that the Clintons and Republicans rode with pom poms waving right into a global economic meltdown. I think he'd have about as much success as Trump would have putting up a giant fence around the country but that's where I stand.
I've often wondered why people despise Obama so much - besides just outright racism - when if you compare him to the current field of lackwits the prospect of begging him to stay 8 more years looks like our best bet. I'm sure he'd refuse with double barreled middle digits blazing and we're completely fucked through the floor.
You guys with kids are braver than I am. I have about 30-40 years left on this rock before I check out and I'm not really looking forward to them.
DPD. From an outsider's point of view, I reckon Obama is by some distance the most well-thought of US president we've seen since... well, I'm struggling to think of a better one. Abraham Lincoln?
By some. But he's easily the most hated President ever by a unfortunately-sizeable contingent.
When making my (admittedly not deeply considered decision) to plump for Lincoln, it did indeed cross my mind to mention FDR or Ike, as Chuck Dickens suggested. Would those two be more or less universally admired within the States? If not, was there ever anybody that was? JFK, maybe?
I think almost all presidents are remembered more fondly as time goes on. Hell, there are even people who wax nostalgic about W. now and he was a disaster and it's only been 7 years. FDR is thought of pretty well now, but I don't think that was so universal during his time.
Well he did win four consecutive elections, so my guess is he was as close as anybody got. I think probably like a 60% approval rating is about as close to universally beloved as you get. Feels like 40% of Americans are going to hate any president that's not from their chosen party regardless of what he does, so you if you can consistently keep that 20% in the middle you're as good as we've got.
And then yeah, nostalgia slowly raises most approval ratings until now you'd probably get about 75% or better to say that FDR was a good president.
Quote from: Tonker on January 19, 2016, 08:49:10 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2016, 08:24:48 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 18, 2016, 10:03:08 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 18, 2016, 09:28:58 AM
I used to consider myself a fiscal conservative, social liberal and now I support Sanders, which means I'm nothing like the man I used to be when I left Buttpuddle for bluer pastures. I mostly support him because he's not Hillary or Biden though. I think he would at least ATTEMPT to shake up the financial sector and try to avoid the same catastrophic fiscal policies that the Clintons and Republicans rode with pom poms waving right into a global economic meltdown. I think he'd have about as much success as Trump would have putting up a giant fence around the country but that's where I stand.
I've often wondered why people despise Obama so much - besides just outright racism - when if you compare him to the current field of lackwits the prospect of begging him to stay 8 more years looks like our best bet. I'm sure he'd refuse with double barreled middle digits blazing and we're completely fucked through the floor.
You guys with kids are braver than I am. I have about 30-40 years left on this rock before I check out and I'm not really looking forward to them.
DPD. From an outsider's point of view, I reckon Obama is by some distance the most well-thought of US president we've seen since... well, I'm struggling to think of a better one. Abraham Lincoln?
By some. But he's easily the most hated President ever by a unfortunately-sizeable contingent.
When making my (admittedly not deeply considered decision) to plump for Lincoln, it did indeed cross my mind to mention FDR or Ike, as Chuck Dickens suggested. Would those two be more or less universally admired within the States? If not, was there ever anybody that was? JFK, maybe?
If the esteemed collective Euro-conscience doesn't consider Bill Clinton one of the most effective Presidents of the last century, then fuckall. For the record, I was not a huge fan of Clinton at the time (only voted for him once), but in retrospect he was pretty goddamn good. I know a handful of thoughtful, intelligent conservatives who will concede that Clinton was a far better President than people were given him credit for in his time.
Quote from: PANK! on January 19, 2016, 09:28:59 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 19, 2016, 08:49:10 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2016, 08:24:48 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 18, 2016, 10:03:08 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 18, 2016, 09:28:58 AM
I used to consider myself a fiscal conservative, social liberal and now I support Sanders, which means I'm nothing like the man I used to be when I left Buttpuddle for bluer pastures. I mostly support him because he's not Hillary or Biden though. I think he would at least ATTEMPT to shake up the financial sector and try to avoid the same catastrophic fiscal policies that the Clintons and Republicans rode with pom poms waving right into a global economic meltdown. I think he'd have about as much success as Trump would have putting up a giant fence around the country but that's where I stand.
I've often wondered why people despise Obama so much - besides just outright racism - when if you compare him to the current field of lackwits the prospect of begging him to stay 8 more years looks like our best bet. I'm sure he'd refuse with double barreled middle digits blazing and we're completely fucked through the floor.
You guys with kids are braver than I am. I have about 30-40 years left on this rock before I check out and I'm not really looking forward to them.
DPD. From an outsider's point of view, I reckon Obama is by some distance the most well-thought of US president we've seen since... well, I'm struggling to think of a better one. Abraham Lincoln?
By some. But he's easily the most hated President ever by a unfortunately-sizeable contingent.
When making my (admittedly not deeply considered decision) to plump for Lincoln, it did indeed cross my mind to mention FDR or Ike, as Chuck Dickens suggested. Would those two be more or less universally admired within the States? If not, was there ever anybody that was? JFK, maybe?
If the esteemed collective Euro-conscience doesn't consider Bill Clinton one of the most effective Presidents of the last century, then fuckall. For the record, I was not a huge fan of Clinton at the time (only voted for him once), but in retrospect he was pretty goddamn good. I know a handful of thoughtful, intelligent conservatives who will concede that Clinton was a far better President than people were given him credit for in his time.
Politically speaking, his presidency is very well thought of. Like it or not, though, the whole Lewinsky thing tarnished an otherwise solid reputation. Clinton is still the punchline to jokes over here.
Quote from: Tonker on January 19, 2016, 09:44:56 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 19, 2016, 09:28:59 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 19, 2016, 08:49:10 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2016, 08:24:48 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 18, 2016, 10:03:08 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 18, 2016, 09:28:58 AM
I used to consider myself a fiscal conservative, social liberal and now I support Sanders, which means I'm nothing like the man I used to be when I left Buttpuddle for bluer pastures. I mostly support him because he's not Hillary or Biden though. I think he would at least ATTEMPT to shake up the financial sector and try to avoid the same catastrophic fiscal policies that the Clintons and Republicans rode with pom poms waving right into a global economic meltdown. I think he'd have about as much success as Trump would have putting up a giant fence around the country but that's where I stand.
I've often wondered why people despise Obama so much - besides just outright racism - when if you compare him to the current field of lackwits the prospect of begging him to stay 8 more years looks like our best bet. I'm sure he'd refuse with double barreled middle digits blazing and we're completely fucked through the floor.
You guys with kids are braver than I am. I have about 30-40 years left on this rock before I check out and I'm not really looking forward to them.
DPD. From an outsider's point of view, I reckon Obama is by some distance the most well-thought of US president we've seen since... well, I'm struggling to think of a better one. Abraham Lincoln?
By some. But he's easily the most hated President ever by a unfortunately-sizeable contingent.
When making my (admittedly not deeply considered decision) to plump for Lincoln, it did indeed cross my mind to mention FDR or Ike, as Chuck Dickens suggested. Would those two be more or less universally admired within the States? If not, was there ever anybody that was? JFK, maybe?
If the esteemed collective Euro-conscience doesn't consider Bill Clinton one of the most effective Presidents of the last century, then fuckall. For the record, I was not a huge fan of Clinton at the time (only voted for him once), but in retrospect he was pretty goddamn good. I know a handful of thoughtful, intelligent conservatives who will concede that Clinton was a far better President than people were given him credit for in his time.
Politically speaking, his presidency is very well thought of. Like it or not, though, the whole Lewinsky thing tarnished an otherwise solid reputation. Clinton is still the punchline to jokes over here.
His role in de-regulating the financial sector and the ensuing global economic meltdown is underrated. Republicans in congress were equally culpable so the right never goes after the Clintons for that. Therefore it continues to get brushed under the rug. There are those of us who never bought into his bullshit and those who hated him for the wrong reasons. He's a slippery fuck, that's for sure and one wonders what his legacy would look like if he weren't a dishonest rogue. Probably, he wouldn't have been President at all.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 19, 2016, 10:25:09 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 19, 2016, 09:44:56 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 19, 2016, 09:28:59 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 19, 2016, 08:49:10 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2016, 08:24:48 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 18, 2016, 10:03:08 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 18, 2016, 09:28:58 AM
I used to consider myself a fiscal conservative, social liberal and now I support Sanders, which means I'm nothing like the man I used to be when I left Buttpuddle for bluer pastures. I mostly support him because he's not Hillary or Biden though. I think he would at least ATTEMPT to shake up the financial sector and try to avoid the same catastrophic fiscal policies that the Clintons and Republicans rode with pom poms waving right into a global economic meltdown. I think he'd have about as much success as Trump would have putting up a giant fence around the country but that's where I stand.
I've often wondered why people despise Obama so much - besides just outright racism - when if you compare him to the current field of lackwits the prospect of begging him to stay 8 more years looks like our best bet. I'm sure he'd refuse with double barreled middle digits blazing and we're completely fucked through the floor.
You guys with kids are braver than I am. I have about 30-40 years left on this rock before I check out and I'm not really looking forward to them.
DPD. From an outsider's point of view, I reckon Obama is by some distance the most well-thought of US president we've seen since... well, I'm struggling to think of a better one. Abraham Lincoln?
By some. But he's easily the most hated President ever by a unfortunately-sizeable contingent.
When making my (admittedly not deeply considered decision) to plump for Lincoln, it did indeed cross my mind to mention FDR or Ike, as Chuck Dickens suggested. Would those two be more or less universally admired within the States? If not, was there ever anybody that was? JFK, maybe?
If the esteemed collective Euro-conscience doesn't consider Bill Clinton one of the most effective Presidents of the last century, then fuckall. For the record, I was not a huge fan of Clinton at the time (only voted for him once), but in retrospect he was pretty goddamn good. I know a handful of thoughtful, intelligent conservatives who will concede that Clinton was a far better President than people were given him credit for in his time.
Politically speaking, his presidency is very well thought of. Like it or not, though, the whole Lewinsky thing tarnished an otherwise solid reputation. Clinton is still the punchline to jokes over here.
His role in de-regulating the financial sector and the ensuing global economic meltdown is underrated. Republicans in congress were equally culpable so the right never goes after the Clintons for that. Therefore it continues to get brushed under the rug. There are those of us who never bought into his bullshit and those who hated him for the wrong reasons. He's a slippery fuck, that's for sure and one wonders what his legacy would look like if he weren't a dishonest rogue. Probably, he wouldn't have been President at all.
This is where I'm at with him. The deregulation of Wall Street, the criminal system reforms that brought us mandatory sentencing and three strikes laws, and the continues imperialism in the Middle East and parts of Europe...none of these are insignificant and make me not like him as much as I should like him. But, he was a centrist and that appeals to large swaths of the population, which is great, I suppose. At least he didn't bust any unions or turn back any environmental protections.
But the Lewinski shit is just stupid. The fucker got a hummer in the office. He then lied about it. Sort of. He'd done much, much worse to the American people and to much of the world.
Quote from: Oleg on January 19, 2016, 10:36:46 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 19, 2016, 10:25:09 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 19, 2016, 09:44:56 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 19, 2016, 09:28:59 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 19, 2016, 08:49:10 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2016, 08:24:48 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 18, 2016, 10:03:08 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 18, 2016, 09:28:58 AM
I used to consider myself a fiscal conservative, social liberal and now I support Sanders, which means I'm nothing like the man I used to be when I left Buttpuddle for bluer pastures. I mostly support him because he's not Hillary or Biden though. I think he would at least ATTEMPT to shake up the financial sector and try to avoid the same catastrophic fiscal policies that the Clintons and Republicans rode with pom poms waving right into a global economic meltdown. I think he'd have about as much success as Trump would have putting up a giant fence around the country but that's where I stand.
I've often wondered why people despise Obama so much - besides just outright racism - when if you compare him to the current field of lackwits the prospect of begging him to stay 8 more years looks like our best bet. I'm sure he'd refuse with double barreled middle digits blazing and we're completely fucked through the floor.
You guys with kids are braver than I am. I have about 30-40 years left on this rock before I check out and I'm not really looking forward to them.
DPD. From an outsider's point of view, I reckon Obama is by some distance the most well-thought of US president we've seen since... well, I'm struggling to think of a better one. Abraham Lincoln?
By some. But he's easily the most hated President ever by a unfortunately-sizeable contingent.
When making my (admittedly not deeply considered decision) to plump for Lincoln, it did indeed cross my mind to mention FDR or Ike, as Chuck Dickens suggested. Would those two be more or less universally admired within the States? If not, was there ever anybody that was? JFK, maybe?
If the esteemed collective Euro-conscience doesn't consider Bill Clinton one of the most effective Presidents of the last century, then fuckall. For the record, I was not a huge fan of Clinton at the time (only voted for him once), but in retrospect he was pretty goddamn good. I know a handful of thoughtful, intelligent conservatives who will concede that Clinton was a far better President than people were given him credit for in his time.
Politically speaking, his presidency is very well thought of. Like it or not, though, the whole Lewinsky thing tarnished an otherwise solid reputation. Clinton is still the punchline to jokes over here.
His role in de-regulating the financial sector and the ensuing global economic meltdown is underrated. Republicans in congress were equally culpable so the right never goes after the Clintons for that. Therefore it continues to get brushed under the rug. There are those of us who never bought into his bullshit and those who hated him for the wrong reasons. He's a slippery fuck, that's for sure and one wonders what his legacy would look like if he weren't a dishonest rogue. Probably, he wouldn't have been President at all.
This is where I'm at with him. The deregulation of Wall Street, the criminal system reforms that brought us mandatory sentencing and three strikes laws, and the continues imperialism in the Middle East and parts of Europe...none of these are insignificant and make me not like him as much as I should like him. But, he was a centrist and that appeals to large swaths of the population, which is great, I suppose. At least he didn't bust any unions or turn back any environmental protections.
But the Lewinski shit is just stupid. The fucker got a hummer in the office. He then lied about it. Sort of. He'd done much, much worse to the American people and to much of the world.
This goes back to my longstanding frustration with all the Republicans who hated Clinton in the 90s for all the wrong reasons.
How much of the love Clinton gets is just becuase the economy was awesome largely for reasons unrelated to him? I mean, the computer boom happened during his presidency. The single greatest invention/economic transformation of the century or in human history or whatever just conveniently occurred during his time in office. Of course people remember the decade of incredibly low unemployment and unsustainable economic growth fondly.
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 11:29:17 AM
How much of the love Clinton gets is just becuase the economy was awesome largely for reasons unrelated to him? I mean, the computer boom happened during his presidency. The single greatest invention/economic transformation of the century or in human history or whatever just conveniently occurred during his time in office. Of course people remember the decade of incredibly low unemployment and unsustainable economic growth fondly.
It was awesome on paper. We all learned soon enough how not awesome it was.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 19, 2016, 12:02:59 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 11:29:17 AM
How much of the love Clinton gets is just becuase the economy was awesome largely for reasons unrelated to him? I mean, the computer boom happened during his presidency. The single greatest invention/economic transformation of the century or in human history or whatever just conveniently occurred during his time in office. Of course people remember the decade of incredibly low unemployment and unsustainable economic growth fondly.
It was awesome on paper. We all learned soon enough how not awesome it was.
Yeah, I mean most Americans don't really do a critical analysis of cause and effect. Pretty much just a "hey was I happy with my life when that guy was president? He must have done OK" kinda thing. The 90s were definitely a decade of artificial hope, economy-wise.
By contrast, Obama has presided over the shittest eight years in living memory.
Quote from: Tonker on January 19, 2016, 12:14:42 PM
By contrast, Obama has presided over the shittest eight years in living memory.
My 95-year-old grandma would disagree. And then she would say a lot of not nice things about Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan... Shit, other than Truman or Ike I don't know who she rode for.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 19, 2016, 12:18:03 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 19, 2016, 12:14:42 PM
By contrast, Obama has presided over the shittest eight years in living memory.
My 95-year-old grandma would disagree. And then she would say a lot of not nice things about Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan... Shit, other than Truman or Ike I don't know who she rode for.
My Grandpa worshipped Harry Truman. Honestly that dude is one of the most underrated presidents in history.
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 12:19:27 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 19, 2016, 12:18:03 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 19, 2016, 12:14:42 PM
By contrast, Obama has presided over the shittest eight years in living memory.
My 95-year-old grandma would disagree. And then she would say a lot of not nice things about Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan... Shit, other than Truman or Ike I don't know who she rode for.
My Grandpa worshipped Harry Truman. Honestly that dude is one of the most underrated presidents in history.
My Grandfather worked for him in his press office while he was president. He pretty much walked on water from what I hear.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 19, 2016, 12:23:06 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 12:19:27 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 19, 2016, 12:18:03 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 19, 2016, 12:14:42 PM
By contrast, Obama has presided over the shittest eight years in living memory.
My 95-year-old grandma would disagree. And then she would say a lot of not nice things about Obama, Bush, Clinton, Reagan... Shit, other than Truman or Ike I don't know who she rode for.
My Grandpa worshipped Harry Truman. Honestly that dude is one of the most underrated presidents in history.
My Grandfather worked for him in his press office while he was president. He pretty much walked on water from what I hear.
Integrated the military, fought for Civil Rights despite being from Missouri and having to deal with the Dixiecrats in his own party, the Marshall Plan, Berlin Air Lift, stared down MacArthur and kept Korea from becoming a nuclear wasteland, then after he left office he refused to lobby or take money to be a corporate shill and ended up damn near broke and on welfare because of it.
Grandpa was a Korean War veteran and where many of them worshipped MacArthur and hated Truman, Grandpa always felt like Harry kept him and who knows how many others from being caught in a nuclear warzone, so that probably also contributed to Grandpa's favorable opinion of the man.
If you haven't read David McCullough's biography of Truman you need to get on that.
Quote from: PANK! on January 19, 2016, 12:33:11 PM
If you haven't read David McCullough's biography of Truman you need to get on that.
I was unaware such a thing existed but I do always enjoy McCullough.
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 19, 2016, 12:33:11 PM
If you haven't read David McCullough's biography of Truman you need to get on that.
I was unaware such a thing existed but I do always enjoy McCullough.
Likewise. Soon as I'm done with The Autobiography of Malcolm X, I'll get to it. So in like 2018 or so.
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 19, 2016, 12:33:11 PM
If you haven't read David McCullough's biography of Truman you need to get on that.
I was unaware such a thing existed but I do always enjoy McCullough.
It's great stuff. Truman's presidency is proof that anyone can be president, since he was not a spectacularly exceptional individual growing up. He was smart and hard-working, of course, but he did not come from money and was not an exceptional student. In fact, one unique thing about heads of the American State in general is they are just as likely--if not more likely--to come from humble origins as they are to come from money. There hasn't been a dominance of either--in fact, going back nearly 100 years, it seems we've had quite a few more Presidents come from relatively humble backgrounds than elite backgrounds, which in theory is at least a little reassuring.
Obama (humble)
W Bush (elite)
Clinton (humble)
HW Bush (elite)
Reagan (humble)
Carter (humble)
Ford (humble)
Nixon (humble)
LBJ (humble)
JFK (elite)
Eisenhower (humble)
Truman (humble)
FDR (elite)
Hoover (humble)
Going back to Hoover's election in 1928, 10 presidents came from simple backgrounds, while only 4 came from the established monied class--two Bushes, JFK and FDR--also proof that neither party has a dominance on the humble origin President. The 19th century has plenty of examples as well--Lincoln, of course, but also Grant and Jackson to name a couple more.
This of course would never happen in Tonker's beloved England. Suck it, UK boy*.
*How's that for some in-your-face jingoism?
Quote from: PANK! on January 19, 2016, 12:46:31 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 19, 2016, 12:33:11 PM
If you haven't read David McCullough's biography of Truman you need to get on that.
I was unaware such a thing existed but I do always enjoy McCullough.
It's great stuff. Truman's presidency is proof that anyone can be president, since he was not a spectacularly exceptional individual growing up. He was smart and hard-working, of course, but he did not come from money and was not an exceptional student. In fact, one unique thing about heads of the American State in general is they are just as likely--if not more likely--to come from humble origins as they are to come from money. There hasn't been a dominance of either--in fact, going back nearly 100 years, it seems we've had quite a few more Presidents come from relatively humble backgrounds than elite backgrounds, which in theory is at least a little reassuring.
Obama (humble)
W Bush (elite)
Clinton (humble)
HW Bush (elite)
Reagan (humble)
Carter (humble)
Ford (humble)
Nixon (humble)
LBJ (humble)
JFK (elite)
Eisenhower (humble)
Truman (humble)
FDR (elite)
Hoover (humble)
Going back to Hoover's election in 1928, 10 presidents came from simple backgrounds, while only 4 came from the established monied class--two Bushes, JFK and FDR--also proof that neither party has a dominance on the humble origin President. The 19th century has plenty of examples as well--Lincoln, of course, but also Grant and Jackson to name a couple more.
This of course would never happen in Tonker's beloved England. Suck it, UK boy*.
*How's that for some in-your-face jingoism?
Gordon Brown: father was a priest
Tony Blair: grandfather was a dockyard worker, father a University lecturer
John Major: father was a music hall performer
Maggie Thatcher: father was a grocer
Jim Callaghan: father was an NCO in the Royal Navy
Harold Wilson: father was a chemist
Ted Heath: father was a carpenter
So, Dave Cameron is an elitist cunt who was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but every other PM in my lifetime has had solid working-class credentials. Suck it, indeed.
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2016, 09:00:42 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 19, 2016, 08:49:10 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2016, 08:24:48 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 18, 2016, 10:03:08 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 18, 2016, 09:28:58 AM
I used to consider myself a fiscal conservative, social liberal and now I support Sanders, which means I'm nothing like the man I used to be when I left Buttpuddle for bluer pastures. I mostly support him because he's not Hillary or Biden though. I think he would at least ATTEMPT to shake up the financial sector and try to avoid the same catastrophic fiscal policies that the Clintons and Republicans rode with pom poms waving right into a global economic meltdown. I think he'd have about as much success as Trump would have putting up a giant fence around the country but that's where I stand.
I've often wondered why people despise Obama so much - besides just outright racism - when if you compare him to the current field of lackwits the prospect of begging him to stay 8 more years looks like our best bet. I'm sure he'd refuse with double barreled middle digits blazing and we're completely fucked through the floor.
You guys with kids are braver than I am. I have about 30-40 years left on this rock before I check out and I'm not really looking forward to them.
DPD. From an outsider's point of view, I reckon Obama is by some distance the most well-thought of US president we've seen since... well, I'm struggling to think of a better one. Abraham Lincoln?
By some. But he's easily the most hated President ever by a unfortunately-sizeable contingent.
When making my (admittedly not deeply considered decision) to plump for Lincoln, it did indeed cross my mind to mention FDR or Ike, as Chuck Dickens suggested. Would those two be more or less universally admired within the States? If not, was there ever anybody that was? JFK, maybe?
I think almost all presidents are remembered more fondly as time goes on. Hell, there are even people who wax nostalgic about W. now and he was a disaster and it's only been 7 years. FDR is thought of pretty well now, but I don't think that was so universal during his time.
I disagree. Certainly there were some Americans during his administration who thought that Roosevelt was the devil incarnate. (Many of them referred to him as "Rosenfeld". What could be a worse insult?) But people used to put his photo up in their homes. (As many did with JFK.) I must have been six or seven years old before I realized that he wasn't a member of my family. FDR was not just a wartime president, which elicited a patriotic devotion to him, he was also an aristocrat whom we believed empathized with us during the Depression and was trying all sorts of things to bring us out of it, including trying to "pack" the Supreme Court whose members seemed to not care about the national suffering. Wilkie and Dewey were strong candidates but we elected FDR four times. That his relatively unpopular successor was returned to office in 1948 indicates to me that had FDR lived he would have been elected to a 5th term.
I am not saying that Truman didn't accomplish anything during his presidency. Although he was liked, he was not well respected. He was always derided for a being a haberdasher whose business failed.
Quote from: CBStew on January 19, 2016, 01:45:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2016, 09:00:42 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 19, 2016, 08:49:10 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2016, 08:24:48 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 18, 2016, 10:03:08 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 18, 2016, 09:28:58 AM
I used to consider myself a fiscal conservative, social liberal and now I support Sanders, which means I'm nothing like the man I used to be when I left Buttpuddle for bluer pastures. I mostly support him because he's not Hillary or Biden though. I think he would at least ATTEMPT to shake up the financial sector and try to avoid the same catastrophic fiscal policies that the Clintons and Republicans rode with pom poms waving right into a global economic meltdown. I think he'd have about as much success as Trump would have putting up a giant fence around the country but that's where I stand.
I've often wondered why people despise Obama so much - besides just outright racism - when if you compare him to the current field of lackwits the prospect of begging him to stay 8 more years looks like our best bet. I'm sure he'd refuse with double barreled middle digits blazing and we're completely fucked through the floor.
You guys with kids are braver than I am. I have about 30-40 years left on this rock before I check out and I'm not really looking forward to them.
DPD. From an outsider's point of view, I reckon Obama is by some distance the most well-thought of US president we've seen since... well, I'm struggling to think of a better one. Abraham Lincoln?
By some. But he's easily the most hated President ever by a unfortunately-sizeable contingent.
When making my (admittedly not deeply considered decision) to plump for Lincoln, it did indeed cross my mind to mention FDR or Ike, as Chuck Dickens suggested. Would those two be more or less universally admired within the States? If not, was there ever anybody that was? JFK, maybe?
I think almost all presidents are remembered more fondly as time goes on. Hell, there are even people who wax nostalgic about W. now and he was a disaster and it's only been 7 years. FDR is thought of pretty well now, but I don't think that was so universal during his time.
I disagree. Certainly there were some Americans during his administration who thought that Roosevelt was the devil incarnate. (Many of them referred to him as "Rosenfeld". What could be a worse insult?) But people used to put his photo up in their homes. (As many did with JFK.) I must have been six or seven years old before I realized that he wasn't a member of my family. FDR was not just a wartime president, which elicited a patriotic devotion to him, he was also an aristocrat whom we believed empathized with us during the Depression and was trying all sorts of things to bring us out of it, including trying to "pack" the Supreme Court whose members seemed to not care about the national suffering. Wilkie and Dewey were strong candidates but we elected FDR four times. That his relatively unpopular successor was returned to office in 1948 indicates to me that had FDR lived he would have been elected to a 5th term.
Cool story, dad. (no sarcasm)
My parents used to tell me that my grandfather used to work for the president. And in my childlike mind, it sounded like they'd told me that he WAS the president. At age 5 I told some people at my school that my grandfather used to be president and I got in trouble for lying. It was fucked up. "But he was on TV and everything!" I said. He was on "Meet The Press" once on an episode which I think included a panel of reporters who were present when Truman was sworn in. It didn't take me too long to realize how off base I was and I was truly embarrassed.
/cool story, bro.
Quote from: CBStew on January 19, 2016, 01:51:43 PM
I am not saying that Truman didn't accomplish anything during his presidency. Although he was liked, he was not well respected. He was always derided for a being a haberdasher whose business failed.
Yeah, I was saying Truman is an underrated president, and even the appraisals of his term during the first decade after he left office were not favorable, but history has been far more kind to him than his contemporaries. Looking back objectively he certainly appears to have been one of the better presidents of the 20th century and certainly one of the better human beings to occupy that office, period.
Quote from: Tonker on January 19, 2016, 08:49:10 AM
Quote from: Eli on January 19, 2016, 08:24:48 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 18, 2016, 10:03:08 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 18, 2016, 09:28:58 AM
I used to consider myself a fiscal conservative, social liberal and now I support Sanders, which means I'm nothing like the man I used to be when I left Buttpuddle for bluer pastures. I mostly support him because he's not Hillary or Biden though. I think he would at least ATTEMPT to shake up the financial sector and try to avoid the same catastrophic fiscal policies that the Clintons and Republicans rode with pom poms waving right into a global economic meltdown. I think he'd have about as much success as Trump would have putting up a giant fence around the country but that's where I stand.
I've often wondered why people despise Obama so much - besides just outright racism - when if you compare him to the current field of lackwits the prospect of begging him to stay 8 more years looks like our best bet. I'm sure he'd refuse with double barreled middle digits blazing and we're completely fucked through the floor.
You guys with kids are braver than I am. I have about 30-40 years left on this rock before I check out and I'm not really looking forward to them.
DPD. From an outsider's point of view, I reckon Obama is by some distance the most well-thought of US president we've seen since... well, I'm struggling to think of a better one. Abraham Lincoln?
By some. But he's easily the most hated President ever by a unfortunately-sizeable contingent.
When making my (admittedly not deeply considered decision) to plump for Lincoln, it did indeed cross my mind to mention FDR or Ike, as Chuck Dickens suggested. Would those two be more or less universally admired within the States? If not, was there ever anybody that was? JFK, maybe?
No, nobody since Lincoln approaches Lincoln's public admiration within the states. But I figured Europeans might think highly of FDR/Ike for a few reasons.
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 01:54:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 19, 2016, 01:51:43 PM
I am not saying that Truman didn't accomplish anything during his presidency. Although he was liked, he was not well respected. He was always derided for a being a haberdasher whose business failed.
Yeah, I was saying Truman is an underrated president, and even the appraisals of his term during the first decade after he left office were not favorable, but history has been far more kind to him than his contemporaries. Looking back objectively he certainly appears to have been one of the better presidents of the 20th century and certainly one of the better human beings to occupy that office, period.
I definitely don't know nearly enough about Truman but he did drop two a-bombs on a bunch of civilians. I know there's a ton of gray area there but he still did it.
Quote from: Oleg on January 19, 2016, 02:42:15 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 01:54:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 19, 2016, 01:51:43 PM
I am not saying that Truman didn't accomplish anything during his presidency. Although he was liked, he was not well respected. He was always derided for a being a haberdasher whose business failed.
Yeah, I was saying Truman is an underrated president, and even the appraisals of his term during the first decade after he left office were not favorable, but history has been far more kind to him than his contemporaries. Looking back objectively he certainly appears to have been one of the better presidents of the 20th century and certainly one of the better human beings to occupy that office, period.
I definitely don't know nearly enough about Truman but he did drop two a-bombs on a bunch of civilians. I know there's a ton of gray area there but he still did it.
Jeez. You drop
two A-bombs...
Quote from: Oleg on January 19, 2016, 02:42:15 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 01:54:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 19, 2016, 01:51:43 PM
I am not saying that Truman didn't accomplish anything during his presidency. Although he was liked, he was not well respected. He was always derided for a being a haberdasher whose business failed.
Yeah, I was saying Truman is an underrated president, and even the appraisals of his term during the first decade after he left office were not favorable, but history has been far more kind to him than his contemporaries. Looking back objectively he certainly appears to have been one of the better presidents of the 20th century and certainly one of the better human beings to occupy that office, period.
I definitely don't know nearly enough about Truman but he did drop two a-bombs on a bunch of civilians. I know there's a ton of gray area there but he still did it.
True. I suppose it all comes down to where you stand on that grey area. I can honestly say, looking at how devastating that war was to begin with and questioning how many more millions would die if it went on conventionally, versus dropping two bombs and being done with it all, that I'm not sure what choice I would have made in his place.
I mean a lot of people looking back say "Japan was close to surrendering, it was the entry of the Russians into the war in the Pacific that made them surrender anyway, not the bomb, etc" but hindsight is 20/20. At the time the Japanese were pretty goddamn adamant publicly that they were going to fight to the last civilian. With the information Truman had at hand I don't know that I can condemn him. It's understandable to say you'd never drop an atom bomb on someone, period, but if you're a guy that inherited a war that had already killed 50 million people and you honestly believe you chose the route that leads to fewer deaths, are you a bad guy?
Short answer is don't be president. Just don't do it.
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 03:10:00 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 19, 2016, 02:42:15 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 01:54:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 19, 2016, 01:51:43 PM
I am not saying that Truman didn't accomplish anything during his presidency. Although he was liked, he was not well respected. He was always derided for a being a haberdasher whose business failed.
Yeah, I was saying Truman is an underrated president, and even the appraisals of his term during the first decade after he left office were not favorable, but history has been far more kind to him than his contemporaries. Looking back objectively he certainly appears to have been one of the better presidents of the 20th century and certainly one of the better human beings to occupy that office, period.
I definitely don't know nearly enough about Truman but he did drop two a-bombs on a bunch of civilians. I know there's a ton of gray area there but he still did it.
True. I suppose it all comes down to where you stand on that grey area. I can honestly say, looking at how devastating that war was to begin with and questioning how many more millions would die if it went on conventionally, versus dropping two bombs and being done with it all, that I'm not sure what choice I would have made in his place.
I mean a lot of people looking back say "Japan was close to surrendering, it was the entry of the Russians into the war in the Pacific that made them surrender anyway, not the bomb, etc" but hindsight is 20/20. At the time the Japanese were pretty goddamn adamant publicly that they were going to fight to the last civilian. With the information Truman had at hand I don't know that I can condemn him. It's understandable to say you'd never drop an atom bomb on someone, period, but if you're a guy that inherited a war that had already killed 50 million people and you honestly believe you chose the route that leads to fewer deaths, are you a bad guy?
Short answer is don't be president. Just don't do it.
Yeah...I don't know where I stand anymore. I wish there was a different option. On the other hand, that devastation probably led to others not using that sort of weaponry -- could an argument be made that the dropping of those bombs influenced the handling of the missile crisis in '63?
I also suppose the firebombing of Dresden was just as devastating to those civilians.
War is hell.
Quote from: Oleg on January 19, 2016, 03:32:36 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 03:10:00 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 19, 2016, 02:42:15 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 01:54:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 19, 2016, 01:51:43 PM
I am not saying that Truman didn't accomplish anything during his presidency. Although he was liked, he was not well respected. He was always derided for a being a haberdasher whose business failed.
Yeah, I was saying Truman is an underrated president, and even the appraisals of his term during the first decade after he left office were not favorable, but history has been far more kind to him than his contemporaries. Looking back objectively he certainly appears to have been one of the better presidents of the 20th century and certainly one of the better human beings to occupy that office, period.
I definitely don't know nearly enough about Truman but he did drop two a-bombs on a bunch of civilians. I know there's a ton of gray area there but he still did it.
True. I suppose it all comes down to where you stand on that grey area. I can honestly say, looking at how devastating that war was to begin with and questioning how many more millions would die if it went on conventionally, versus dropping two bombs and being done with it all, that I'm not sure what choice I would have made in his place.
I mean a lot of people looking back say "Japan was close to surrendering, it was the entry of the Russians into the war in the Pacific that made them surrender anyway, not the bomb, etc" but hindsight is 20/20. At the time the Japanese were pretty goddamn adamant publicly that they were going to fight to the last civilian. With the information Truman had at hand I don't know that I can condemn him. It's understandable to say you'd never drop an atom bomb on someone, period, but if you're a guy that inherited a war that had already killed 50 million people and you honestly believe you chose the route that leads to fewer deaths, are you a bad guy?
Short answer is don't be president. Just don't do it.
Yeah...I don't know where I stand anymore. I wish there was a different option. On the other hand, that devastation probably led to others not using that sort of weaponry -- could an argument be made that the dropping of those bombs influenced the handling of the missile crisis in '63?
I also suppose the firebombing of Dresden was just as devastating to those civilians.
War is hell.
Yeah the short answer is never use nuclear weapons, ever, and I don't blame anyone if they don't want to budge from that stance. But on the other hand in a war that saw the holocaust, the Russians clearing minefields by just marching their own civilians through them ahead of the troops, fire bombings, V2 rockets, etc...who comes out a good guy? No one, but I'm not sure the dude who decided to end it all with two A-Bombs comes out as a
bad guy.
Quote from: Oleg on January 19, 2016, 02:42:15 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 01:54:50 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 19, 2016, 01:51:43 PM
I am not saying that Truman didn't accomplish anything during his presidency. Although he was liked, he was not well respected. He was always derided for a being a haberdasher whose business failed.
Yeah, I was saying Truman is an underrated president, and even the appraisals of his term during the first decade after he left office were not favorable, but history has been far more kind to him than his contemporaries. Looking back objectively he certainly appears to have been one of the better presidents of the 20th century and certainly one of the better human beings to occupy that office, period.
I definitely don't know nearly enough about Truman but he did drop two a-bombs on a bunch of civilians. I know there's a ton of gray area there but he still did it.
If we are talking about how people felt in 1945, I think that the answer is that we were war weary and grateful for it ending. We had been taught for years that the Japanese (to whom we did NOT refer to as "Japanese") were subhuman and in any event were not innocent because they supported a war making government and deserved what they got (watch any movie about the war in the Pacific that was made during the first half of the '40s). We were so happy about the War being over we didn't dwell upon the enemy civilians.
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 19, 2016, 12:02:59 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 11:29:17 AM
How much of the love Clinton gets is just becuase the economy was awesome largely for reasons unrelated to him? I mean, the computer boom happened during his presidency. The single greatest invention/economic transformation of the century or in human history or whatever just conveniently occurred during his time in office. Of course people remember the decade of incredibly low unemployment and unsustainable economic growth fondly.
It was awesome on paper. We all learned soon enough how not awesome it was.
Yeah, I mean most Americans don't really do a critical analysis of cause and effect. Pretty much just a "hey was I happy with my life when that guy was president? He must have done OK" kinda thing. The 90s were definitely a decade of artificial hope, economy-wise.
I was poor as fuck in the Clinton era (I spent most of 1994-99 about two paychecks behind), and massively underemployed (admittedly, I was young, and didn't have a degree yet), so every time I hear about how great the economy was then I wonder how nice those clothes the emperor wore really were.
Not an endorsement of what is spoken here, but something I thought was interesting when I first read it 15 years ago.
QuoteYou keep talking also about collective punishment and killing innocent people to force governments to change their policies; you call this terrorism when someone would kill innocent people or civilians in order to force the government to change its policies. Well, when you were the first one who invented this terrorism.
You were the first one who killed innocent people, and you are the first one who introduced this type of terrorism to the history of mankind when you dropped an atomic bomb which killed tens of thousands of women and children in Japan and when you killed over a hundred thousand people, most of them civilians, in Tokyo with fire bombings. You killed them by burning them to death. And you killed civilians in Vietnam with chemicals as with the so- called Orange agent. You killed civilians and innocent people, not soldiers, innocent people every single war you went. You went to wars more than any other country in this century, and then you have the nerve to talk about killing innocent people.
That was said by Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, the architect of the first World Trade Center bombings.
Quote from: Canadouche on January 19, 2016, 04:15:19 PM
Not an endorsement of what is spoken here, but something I thought was interesting when I first read it 15 years ago.
QuoteYou keep talking also about collective punishment and killing innocent people to force governments to change their policies; you call this terrorism when someone would kill innocent people or civilians in order to force the government to change its policies. Well, when you were the first one who invented this terrorism.
You were the first one who killed innocent people, and you are the first one who introduced this type of terrorism to the history of mankind when you dropped an atomic bomb which killed tens of thousands of women and children in Japan and when you killed over a hundred thousand people, most of them civilians, in Tokyo with fire bombings. You killed them by burning them to death. And you killed civilians in Vietnam with chemicals as with the so- called Orange agent. You killed civilians and innocent people, not soldiers, innocent people every single war you went. You went to wars more than any other country in this century, and then you have the nerve to talk about killing innocent people.
That was said by Ramzi Ahmed Yousef, the architect of the first World Trade Center bombings.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KjKRQ_OqCCw
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2016, 04:13:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 19, 2016, 12:02:59 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 11:29:17 AM
How much of the love Clinton gets is just becuase the economy was awesome largely for reasons unrelated to him? I mean, the computer boom happened during his presidency. The single greatest invention/economic transformation of the century or in human history or whatever just conveniently occurred during his time in office. Of course people remember the decade of incredibly low unemployment and unsustainable economic growth fondly.
It was awesome on paper. We all learned soon enough how not awesome it was.
Yeah, I mean most Americans don't really do a critical analysis of cause and effect. Pretty much just a "hey was I happy with my life when that guy was president? He must have done OK" kinda thing. The 90s were definitely a decade of artificial hope, economy-wise.
I was poor as fuck in the Clinton era (I spent most of 1994-99 about two paychecks behind), and massively underemployed (admittedly, I was young, and didn't have a degree yet), so every time I hear about how great the economy was then I wonder how nice those clothes the emperor wore really were.
So you were in college. No offense, but isn't being poor a condition of college life?
It certainly was for me.
Quote from: PANK! on January 19, 2016, 04:40:28 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2016, 04:13:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 19, 2016, 12:02:59 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 11:29:17 AM
How much of the love Clinton gets is just becuase the economy was awesome largely for reasons unrelated to him? I mean, the computer boom happened during his presidency. The single greatest invention/economic transformation of the century or in human history or whatever just conveniently occurred during his time in office. Of course people remember the decade of incredibly low unemployment and unsustainable economic growth fondly.
It was awesome on paper. We all learned soon enough how not awesome it was.
Yeah, I mean most Americans don't really do a critical analysis of cause and effect. Pretty much just a "hey was I happy with my life when that guy was president? He must have done OK" kinda thing. The 90s were definitely a decade of artificial hope, economy-wise.
I was poor as fuck in the Clinton era (I spent most of 1994-99 about two paychecks behind), and massively underemployed (admittedly, I was young, and didn't have a degree yet), so every time I hear about how great the economy was then I wonder how nice those clothes the emperor wore really were.
So you were in college. No offense, but isn't being poor a condition of college life?
It certainly was for me.
Hence the disclaimer, you potato-headed lunk. However, even at the time, the people I knew with money were already in credit card debt up to their tits. I think "good economy" is almost always based on who you're valuing. I mean, when I asked my rural Southern relatives about the Great Depression for a school project, every one of them said the Roaring 20s were just as bad for them as the 30s.
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2016, 07:51:46 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 19, 2016, 04:40:28 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2016, 04:13:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 19, 2016, 12:02:59 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 11:29:17 AM
How much of the love Clinton gets is just becuase the economy was awesome largely for reasons unrelated to him? I mean, the computer boom happened during his presidency. The single greatest invention/economic transformation of the century or in human history or whatever just conveniently occurred during his time in office. Of course people remember the decade of incredibly low unemployment and unsustainable economic growth fondly.
It was awesome on paper. We all learned soon enough how not awesome it was.
Yeah, I mean most Americans don't really do a critical analysis of cause and effect. Pretty much just a "hey was I happy with my life when that guy was president? He must have done OK" kinda thing. The 90s were definitely a decade of artificial hope, economy-wise.
I was poor as fuck in the Clinton era (I spent most of 1994-99 about two paychecks behind), and massively underemployed (admittedly, I was young, and didn't have a degree yet), so every time I hear about how great the economy was then I wonder how nice those clothes the emperor wore really were.
So you were in college. No offense, but isn't being poor a condition of college life?
It certainly was for me.
Hence the disclaimer, you potato-headed lunk. However, even at the time, the people I knew with money were already in credit card debt up to their tits. I think "good economy" is almost always based on who you're valuing. I mean, when I asked my rural Southern relatives about the Great Depression for a school project, every one of them said the Roaring 20s were just as bad for them as the 30s.
"Oh but those 1850s..." *spits on Spittin' Portrait of Abe Lincoln*
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2016, 07:51:46 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 19, 2016, 04:40:28 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2016, 04:13:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 19, 2016, 12:02:59 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 11:29:17 AM
How much of the love Clinton gets is just becuase the economy was awesome largely for reasons unrelated to him? I mean, the computer boom happened during his presidency. The single greatest invention/economic transformation of the century or in human history or whatever just conveniently occurred during his time in office. Of course people remember the decade of incredibly low unemployment and unsustainable economic growth fondly.
It was awesome on paper. We all learned soon enough how not awesome it was.
Yeah, I mean most Americans don't really do a critical analysis of cause and effect. Pretty much just a "hey was I happy with my life when that guy was president? He must have done OK" kinda thing. The 90s were definitely a decade of artificial hope, economy-wise.
I was poor as fuck in the Clinton era (I spent most of 1994-99 about two paychecks behind), and massively underemployed (admittedly, I was young, and didn't have a degree yet), so every time I hear about how great the economy was then I wonder how nice those clothes the emperor wore really were.
So you were in college. No offense, but isn't being poor a condition of college life?
It certainly was for me.
Hence the disclaimer, you potato-headed lunk. However, even at the time, the people I knew with money were already in credit card debt up to their tits. I think "good economy" is almost always based on who you're valuing. I mean, when I asked my rural Southern relatives about the Great Depression for a school project, every one of them said the Roaring 20s were just as bad for them as the 30s.
Maybe your whore of a grandmother sould've put out more.
Quote from: PANK! on January 20, 2016, 09:28:24 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2016, 07:51:46 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 19, 2016, 04:40:28 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2016, 04:13:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 19, 2016, 12:02:59 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 11:29:17 AM
How much of the love Clinton gets is just becuase the economy was awesome largely for reasons unrelated to him? I mean, the computer boom happened during his presidency. The single greatest invention/economic transformation of the century or in human history or whatever just conveniently occurred during his time in office. Of course people remember the decade of incredibly low unemployment and unsustainable economic growth fondly.
It was awesome on paper. We all learned soon enough how not awesome it was.
Yeah, I mean most Americans don't really do a critical analysis of cause and effect. Pretty much just a "hey was I happy with my life when that guy was president? He must have done OK" kinda thing. The 90s were definitely a decade of artificial hope, economy-wise.
I was poor as fuck in the Clinton era (I spent most of 1994-99 about two paychecks behind), and massively underemployed (admittedly, I was young, and didn't have a degree yet), so every time I hear about how great the economy was then I wonder how nice those clothes the emperor wore really were.
So you were in college. No offense, but isn't being poor a condition of college life?
It certainly was for me.
Hence the disclaimer, you potato-headed lunk. However, even at the time, the people I knew with money were already in credit card debt up to their tits. I think "good economy" is almost always based on who you're valuing. I mean, when I asked my rural Southern relatives about the Great Depression for a school project, every one of them said the Roaring 20s were just as bad for them as the 30s.
Maybe your whore of a grandmother sould've put out more.
Maybe she sould've, but take it somewhere else of that's how younger about it
Tank is a Trump voter? (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-guest-trumps-alt-right-fans-childless-single-men-who-masturbate-to-anime/)
Quote from: PANK! on January 20, 2016, 09:28:24 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2016, 07:51:46 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 19, 2016, 04:40:28 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2016, 04:13:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 19, 2016, 12:02:59 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 11:29:17 AM
How much of the love Clinton gets is just becuase the economy was awesome largely for reasons unrelated to him? I mean, the computer boom happened during his presidency. The single greatest invention/economic transformation of the century or in human history or whatever just conveniently occurred during his time in office. Of course people remember the decade of incredibly low unemployment and unsustainable economic growth fondly.
It was awesome on paper. We all learned soon enough how not awesome it was.
Yeah, I mean most Americans don't really do a critical analysis of cause and effect. Pretty much just a "hey was I happy with my life when that guy was president? He must have done OK" kinda thing. The 90s were definitely a decade of artificial hope, economy-wise.
I was poor as fuck in the Clinton era (I spent most of 1994-99 about two paychecks behind), and massively underemployed (admittedly, I was young, and didn't have a degree yet), so every time I hear about how great the economy was then I wonder how nice those clothes the emperor wore really were.
So you were in college. No offense, but isn't being poor a condition of college life?
It certainly was for me.
Hence the disclaimer, you potato-headed lunk. However, even at the time, the people I knew with money were already in credit card debt up to their tits. I think "good economy" is almost always based on who you're valuing. I mean, when I asked my rural Southern relatives about the Great Depression for a school project, every one of them said the Roaring 20s were just as bad for them as the 30s.
Maybe your whore of a grandmother sould've put out more.
She was Midwestern, you bog-soaked cabbage-muncher.
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2016, 11:15:09 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 20, 2016, 09:28:24 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2016, 07:51:46 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 19, 2016, 04:40:28 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2016, 04:13:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 19, 2016, 12:02:59 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 11:29:17 AM
How much of the love Clinton gets is just becuase the economy was awesome largely for reasons unrelated to him? I mean, the computer boom happened during his presidency. The single greatest invention/economic transformation of the century or in human history or whatever just conveniently occurred during his time in office. Of course people remember the decade of incredibly low unemployment and unsustainable economic growth fondly.
It was awesome on paper. We all learned soon enough how not awesome it was.
Yeah, I mean most Americans don't really do a critical analysis of cause and effect. Pretty much just a "hey was I happy with my life when that guy was president? He must have done OK" kinda thing. The 90s were definitely a decade of artificial hope, economy-wise.
I was poor as fuck in the Clinton era (I spent most of 1994-99 about two paychecks behind), and massively underemployed (admittedly, I was young, and didn't have a degree yet), so every time I hear about how great the economy was then I wonder how nice those clothes the emperor wore really were.
So you were in college. No offense, but isn't being poor a condition of college life?
It certainly was for me.
Hence the disclaimer, you potato-headed lunk. However, even at the time, the people I knew with money were already in credit card debt up to their tits. I think "good economy" is almost always based on who you're valuing. I mean, when I asked my rural Southern relatives about the Great Depression for a school project, every one of them said the Roaring 20s were just as bad for them as the 30s.
Maybe your whore of a grandmother sould've put out more.
She was Midwestern, you bog-soaked cabbage-muncher.
OH FOR GOD'S SAKE. HUEY DOES (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2013-03-15&highlight=p150293566#p150293566). NOT (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2015-02-20&highlight=p221004880#p221004880). LIKE (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2015-02-20&highlight=p221004925#p221004925). CABBAGE (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2015-04-17&highlight=p222209377#p222209377).
Quote from: Tonker on January 20, 2016, 11:31:01 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2016, 11:15:09 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 20, 2016, 09:28:24 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2016, 07:51:46 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 19, 2016, 04:40:28 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2016, 04:13:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 19, 2016, 12:02:59 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 11:29:17 AM
How much of the love Clinton gets is just becuase the economy was awesome largely for reasons unrelated to him? I mean, the computer boom happened during his presidency. The single greatest invention/economic transformation of the century or in human history or whatever just conveniently occurred during his time in office. Of course people remember the decade of incredibly low unemployment and unsustainable economic growth fondly.
It was awesome on paper. We all learned soon enough how not awesome it was.
Yeah, I mean most Americans don't really do a critical analysis of cause and effect. Pretty much just a "hey was I happy with my life when that guy was president? He must have done OK" kinda thing. The 90s were definitely a decade of artificial hope, economy-wise.
I was poor as fuck in the Clinton era (I spent most of 1994-99 about two paychecks behind), and massively underemployed (admittedly, I was young, and didn't have a degree yet), so every time I hear about how great the economy was then I wonder how nice those clothes the emperor wore really were.
So you were in college. No offense, but isn't being poor a condition of college life?
It certainly was for me.
Hence the disclaimer, you potato-headed lunk. However, even at the time, the people I knew with money were already in credit card debt up to their tits. I think "good economy" is almost always based on who you're valuing. I mean, when I asked my rural Southern relatives about the Great Depression for a school project, every one of them said the Roaring 20s were just as bad for them as the 30s.
Maybe your whore of a grandmother sould've put out more.
She was Midwestern, you bog-soaked cabbage-muncher.
OH FOR GOD'S SAKE. HUEY DOES (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2013-03-15&highlight=p150293566#p150293566). NOT (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2015-02-20&highlight=p221004880#p221004880). LIKE (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2015-02-20&highlight=p221004925#p221004925). CABBAGE (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2015-04-17&highlight=p222209377#p222209377).
I'm willing to let the meme live so long as we can agree to let the meme that
both of Bort's grandmothers were whores live.
Quote from: R-V on January 20, 2016, 10:20:21 AM
Tank is a Trump voter? (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/msnbc-guest-trumps-alt-right-fans-childless-single-men-who-masturbate-to-anime/)
When Mrs. Cubbieblue and I heard him say that last night ("masturbate to anime") we gave him all of our attention. Unfortunately, he never explained what it meant. But the imagery is quite imaginative.
I'm completely and utterly not asshurt over Parliament ripping on an American: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/british-parliament-condemns-trump-but-remains-split-over-banning-him/
Quote from: PANK! on January 20, 2016, 11:57:01 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 20, 2016, 11:31:01 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2016, 11:15:09 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 20, 2016, 09:28:24 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2016, 07:51:46 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 19, 2016, 04:40:28 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2016, 04:13:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 19, 2016, 12:02:59 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 11:29:17 AM
How much of the love Clinton gets is just becuase the economy was awesome largely for reasons unrelated to him? I mean, the computer boom happened during his presidency. The single greatest invention/economic transformation of the century or in human history or whatever just conveniently occurred during his time in office. Of course people remember the decade of incredibly low unemployment and unsustainable economic growth fondly.
It was awesome on paper. We all learned soon enough how not awesome it was.
Yeah, I mean most Americans don't really do a critical analysis of cause and effect. Pretty much just a "hey was I happy with my life when that guy was president? He must have done OK" kinda thing. The 90s were definitely a decade of artificial hope, economy-wise.
I was poor as fuck in the Clinton era (I spent most of 1994-99 about two paychecks behind), and massively underemployed (admittedly, I was young, and didn't have a degree yet), so every time I hear about how great the economy was then I wonder how nice those clothes the emperor wore really were.
So you were in college. No offense, but isn't being poor a condition of college life?
It certainly was for me.
Hence the disclaimer, you potato-headed lunk. However, even at the time, the people I knew with money were already in credit card debt up to their tits. I think "good economy" is almost always based on who you're valuing. I mean, when I asked my rural Southern relatives about the Great Depression for a school project, every one of them said the Roaring 20s were just as bad for them as the 30s.
Maybe your whore of a grandmother sould've put out more.
She was Midwestern, you bog-soaked cabbage-muncher.
OH FOR GOD'S SAKE. HUEY DOES (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2013-03-15&highlight=p150293566#p150293566). NOT (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2015-02-20&highlight=p221004880#p221004880). LIKE (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2015-02-20&highlight=p221004925#p221004925). CABBAGE (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2015-04-17&highlight=p222209377#p222209377).
I'm willing to let the meme live so long as we can agree to let the meme that both of Bort's grandmothers were whores live.
Fuck off and die you spectrum-dwelling corned beef meatball.
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2016, 02:36:21 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 20, 2016, 11:57:01 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 20, 2016, 11:31:01 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2016, 11:15:09 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 20, 2016, 09:28:24 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2016, 07:51:46 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 19, 2016, 04:40:28 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2016, 04:13:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 19, 2016, 12:02:59 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 11:29:17 AM
How much of the love Clinton gets is just becuase the economy was awesome largely for reasons unrelated to him? I mean, the computer boom happened during his presidency. The single greatest invention/economic transformation of the century or in human history or whatever just conveniently occurred during his time in office. Of course people remember the decade of incredibly low unemployment and unsustainable economic growth fondly.
It was awesome on paper. We all learned soon enough how not awesome it was.
Yeah, I mean most Americans don't really do a critical analysis of cause and effect. Pretty much just a "hey was I happy with my life when that guy was president? He must have done OK" kinda thing. The 90s were definitely a decade of artificial hope, economy-wise.
I was poor as fuck in the Clinton era (I spent most of 1994-99 about two paychecks behind), and massively underemployed (admittedly, I was young, and didn't have a degree yet), so every time I hear about how great the economy was then I wonder how nice those clothes the emperor wore really were.
So you were in college. No offense, but isn't being poor a condition of college life?
It certainly was for me.
Hence the disclaimer, you potato-headed lunk. However, even at the time, the people I knew with money were already in credit card debt up to their tits. I think "good economy" is almost always based on who you're valuing. I mean, when I asked my rural Southern relatives about the Great Depression for a school project, every one of them said the Roaring 20s were just as bad for them as the 30s.
Maybe your whore of a grandmother sould've put out more.
She was Midwestern, you bog-soaked cabbage-muncher.
OH FOR GOD'S SAKE. HUEY DOES (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2013-03-15&highlight=p150293566#p150293566). NOT (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2015-02-20&highlight=p221004880#p221004880). LIKE (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2015-02-20&highlight=p221004925#p221004925). CABBAGE (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2015-04-17&highlight=p222209377#p222209377).
I'm willing to let the meme live so long as we can agree to let the meme that both of Bort's grandmothers were whores live.
Fuck off and die you spectrum-dwelling corned beef meatball.
I can't tell if you guys are being serious.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 20, 2016, 02:42:48 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2016, 02:36:21 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 20, 2016, 11:57:01 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 20, 2016, 11:31:01 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2016, 11:15:09 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 20, 2016, 09:28:24 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2016, 07:51:46 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 19, 2016, 04:40:28 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2016, 04:13:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 19, 2016, 12:02:59 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 11:29:17 AM
How much of the love Clinton gets is just becuase the economy was awesome largely for reasons unrelated to him? I mean, the computer boom happened during his presidency. The single greatest invention/economic transformation of the century or in human history or whatever just conveniently occurred during his time in office. Of course people remember the decade of incredibly low unemployment and unsustainable economic growth fondly.
It was awesome on paper. We all learned soon enough how not awesome it was.
Yeah, I mean most Americans don't really do a critical analysis of cause and effect. Pretty much just a "hey was I happy with my life when that guy was president? He must have done OK" kinda thing. The 90s were definitely a decade of artificial hope, economy-wise.
I was poor as fuck in the Clinton era (I spent most of 1994-99 about two paychecks behind), and massively underemployed (admittedly, I was young, and didn't have a degree yet), so every time I hear about how great the economy was then I wonder how nice those clothes the emperor wore really were.
So you were in college. No offense, but isn't being poor a condition of college life?
It certainly was for me.
Hence the disclaimer, you potato-headed lunk. However, even at the time, the people I knew with money were already in credit card debt up to their tits. I think "good economy" is almost always based on who you're valuing. I mean, when I asked my rural Southern relatives about the Great Depression for a school project, every one of them said the Roaring 20s were just as bad for them as the 30s.
Maybe your whore of a grandmother sould've put out more.
She was Midwestern, you bog-soaked cabbage-muncher.
OH FOR GOD'S SAKE. HUEY DOES (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2013-03-15&highlight=p150293566#p150293566). NOT (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2015-02-20&highlight=p221004880#p221004880). LIKE (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2015-02-20&highlight=p221004925#p221004925). CABBAGE (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2015-04-17&highlight=p222209377#p222209377).
I'm willing to let the meme live so long as we can agree to let the meme that both of Bort's grandmothers were whores live.
Fuck off and die you spectrum-dwelling corned beef meatball.
I can't tell if you guys are being serious.
I am. I've told that shithead not to talk about my other grandmother.
I haven't seen Desipio this red and mad since the last time Tonk insulted the Fatherland.
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2016, 02:51:41 PM
I haven't seen Desipio this red and mad since the last time Tonk insulted the Fatherland.
I still don't know if this shit is real.
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2016, 02:47:27 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 20, 2016, 02:42:48 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2016, 02:36:21 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 20, 2016, 11:57:01 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 20, 2016, 11:31:01 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2016, 11:15:09 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 20, 2016, 09:28:24 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2016, 07:51:46 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 19, 2016, 04:40:28 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2016, 04:13:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 19, 2016, 12:02:59 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 11:29:17 AM
How much of the love Clinton gets is just becuase the economy was awesome largely for reasons unrelated to him? I mean, the computer boom happened during his presidency. The single greatest invention/economic transformation of the century or in human history or whatever just conveniently occurred during his time in office. Of course people remember the decade of incredibly low unemployment and unsustainable economic growth fondly.
It was awesome on paper. We all learned soon enough how not awesome it was.
Yeah, I mean most Americans don't really do a critical analysis of cause and effect. Pretty much just a "hey was I happy with my life when that guy was president? He must have done OK" kinda thing. The 90s were definitely a decade of artificial hope, economy-wise.
I was poor as fuck in the Clinton era (I spent most of 1994-99 about two paychecks behind), and massively underemployed (admittedly, I was young, and didn't have a degree yet), so every time I hear about how great the economy was then I wonder how nice those clothes the emperor wore really were.
So you were in college. No offense, but isn't being poor a condition of college life?
It certainly was for me.
Hence the disclaimer, you potato-headed lunk. However, even at the time, the people I knew with money were already in credit card debt up to their tits. I think "good economy" is almost always based on who you're valuing. I mean, when I asked my rural Southern relatives about the Great Depression for a school project, every one of them said the Roaring 20s were just as bad for them as the 30s.
Maybe your whore of a grandmother sould've put out more.
She was Midwestern, you bog-soaked cabbage-muncher.
OH FOR GOD'S SAKE. HUEY DOES (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2013-03-15&highlight=p150293566#p150293566). NOT (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2015-02-20&highlight=p221004880#p221004880). LIKE (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2015-02-20&highlight=p221004925#p221004925). CABBAGE (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2015-04-17&highlight=p222209377#p222209377).
I'm willing to let the meme live so long as we can agree to let the meme that both of Bort's grandmothers were whores live.
Fuck off and die you spectrum-dwelling corned beef meatball.
I can't tell if you guys are being serious.
I am. I've told that shithead not to talk about my other grandmother.
Oh my. Who put the muscle in Bort's Superman cereal?
It took us 5 days to get to this point in the "Fuck It's Silent" thread. We really have matured.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 20, 2016, 02:42:48 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2016, 02:36:21 PM
Quote from: PANK! on January 20, 2016, 11:57:01 AM
Quote from: Tonker on January 20, 2016, 11:31:01 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2016, 11:15:09 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 20, 2016, 09:28:24 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 20, 2016, 07:51:46 AM
Quote from: PANK! on January 19, 2016, 04:40:28 PM
Quote from: Bort on January 19, 2016, 04:13:26 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 12:06:23 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 19, 2016, 12:02:59 PM
Quote from: SKO on January 19, 2016, 11:29:17 AM
How much of the love Clinton gets is just becuase the economy was awesome largely for reasons unrelated to him? I mean, the computer boom happened during his presidency. The single greatest invention/economic transformation of the century or in human history or whatever just conveniently occurred during his time in office. Of course people remember the decade of incredibly low unemployment and unsustainable economic growth fondly.
It was awesome on paper. We all learned soon enough how not awesome it was.
Yeah, I mean most Americans don't really do a critical analysis of cause and effect. Pretty much just a "hey was I happy with my life when that guy was president? He must have done OK" kinda thing. The 90s were definitely a decade of artificial hope, economy-wise.
I was poor as fuck in the Clinton era (I spent most of 1994-99 about two paychecks behind), and massively underemployed (admittedly, I was young, and didn't have a degree yet), so every time I hear about how great the economy was then I wonder how nice those clothes the emperor wore really were.
So you were in college. No offense, but isn't being poor a condition of college life?
It certainly was for me.
Hence the disclaimer, you potato-headed lunk. However, even at the time, the people I knew with money were already in credit card debt up to their tits. I think "good economy" is almost always based on who you're valuing. I mean, when I asked my rural Southern relatives about the Great Depression for a school project, every one of them said the Roaring 20s were just as bad for them as the 30s.
Maybe your whore of a grandmother sould've put out more.
She was Midwestern, you bog-soaked cabbage-muncher.
OH FOR GOD'S SAKE. HUEY DOES (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2013-03-15&highlight=p150293566#p150293566). NOT (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2015-02-20&highlight=p221004880#p221004880). LIKE (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2015-02-20&highlight=p221004925#p221004925). CABBAGE (http://hje.me/sbox/dlog.php?date=2015-04-17&highlight=p222209377#p222209377).
I'm willing to let the meme live so long as we can agree to let the meme that both of Bort's grandmothers were whores live.
Fuck off and die you spectrum-dwelling corned beef meatball.
I can't tell if you guys are being serious.
For the record I'm not being serious, and the fact that I actually have to go on record with that statement strikes me as troubling. Has Desipio gone topsy-turvy? This is the last bastion of which I'm aware that doesn't have sacred cows*...or so I thought.
*Don't get your undies in a bunch, Bort. I wasn't calling your grandmother a cow.
I got a little cranky for reasons best not elaborated on.
Going back to an earlier point: if people just said "well, my life is good therefore I like the President" a lot more of my family would like Obama.
Quote from: Slaky on January 20, 2016, 04:11:24 PM
Going back to an earlier point: if people just said "well, my life is good therefore I like the President" a lot more of my family would like Obama.
True, I guess this comes with the usual caveat of:
1) Hardcore conservatives are going to hate any liberal
2) Hardcore democrats are going to hate any conservative
3) Lots of people are going to hate the black guy
But that middle group of people who actually allow their opinions of presidents to be shaped by something other than pure party line probably are basing that opinion on how good their life was during that president's term.
Welcome back.
(http://i482.photobucket.com/albums/rr186/wolfsorra/winkinpalinmu1.gif)
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2016, 04:13:36 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 20, 2016, 04:11:24 PM
Going back to an earlier point: if people just said "well, my life is good therefore I like the President" a lot more of my family would like Obama.
True, I guess this comes with the usual caveat of:
1) Hardcore conservatives are going to hate any liberal
2) Hardcore democrats are going to hate any conservative
3) Lots of people are going to hate the black guy
But that middle group of people who actually allow their opinions of presidents to be shaped by something other than pure party line probably are basing that opinion on how good their life was during that president's term.
I'm not sure it's party line as much as ideology. There are plenty of Democrats for whom I have at least a little disdain. Not that ideology is a good excuse for anything...
Quote from: Yeti on January 21, 2016, 07:49:28 AM
Welcome back.
(http://i482.photobucket.com/albums/rr186/wolfsorra/winkinpalinmu1.gif)
Her performance yesterday was scary, to say the least.
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 08:38:41 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 20, 2016, 04:13:36 PM
Quote from: Slaky on January 20, 2016, 04:11:24 PM
Going back to an earlier point: if people just said "well, my life is good therefore I like the President" a lot more of my family would like Obama.
True, I guess this comes with the usual caveat of:
1) Hardcore conservatives are going to hate any liberal
2) Hardcore democrats are going to hate any conservative
3) Lots of people are going to hate the black guy
But that middle group of people who actually allow their opinions of presidents to be shaped by something other than pure party line probably are basing that opinion on how good their life was during that president's term.
I'm not sure it's party line as much as ideology. There are plenty of Democrats for whom I have at least a little disdain. Not that ideology is a good excuse for anything...
Yeah, my dad's family mostly worked for Caterpillar in Peoria and they were all UAW members. They pretty much judge presidents based solely on how they think that president treated the unions. Ronald Reagan is basically the fucking devil.
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
Just show them the Canadian Donald Trump South Park episode and all their questions will be answered. Maybe.
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PMThe media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz
Is this a saying?
I think there's a secret plan at GOP headquarters to rob trump of the nomination if it gets to Cleveland with him in the lead. The ensuing shitstorm would undoubtedly cost the GOP the election. But the approval ratings for HRC figure to be in the low teens from the outset and she'll be a sitting duck in 2020. They'll punt four years and just stay in the same obstructionist contrarian mode that has marked their last eight years. They're comfortable in that role and they'll save a portion of their dignity after having stopped Trump.
Insanity should ensue.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 21, 2016, 04:52:55 PM
I think there's a secret plan at GOP headquarters to rob trump of the nomination if it gets to Cleveland with him in the lead. The ensuing shitstorm would undoubtedly cost the GOP the election. But the approval ratings for HRC figure to be in the low teens from the outset and she'll be a sitting duck in 2020. They'll punt four years and just stay in the same obstructionist contrarian mode that has marked their last eight years. They're comfortable in that role and they'll save a portion of their dignity after having stopped Trump.
Insanity should ensue.
There's greater than a zero chance that the Dems can take back both houses. Especially if the HRC machine gets out the vote and the GOPers stay home.
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 05:03:58 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 21, 2016, 04:52:55 PM
I think there's a secret plan at GOP headquarters to rob trump of the nomination if it gets to Cleveland with him in the lead. The ensuing shitstorm would undoubtedly cost the GOP the election. But the approval ratings for HRC figure to be in the low teens from the outset and she'll be a sitting duck in 2020. They'll punt four years and just stay in the same obstructionist contrarian mode that has marked their last eight years. They're comfortable in that role and they'll save a portion of their dignity after having stopped Trump.
Insanity should ensue.
There's greater than a zero chance that the Dems can take back both houses. Especially if the HRC machine gets out the vote and the GOPers stay home.
Could be but the mid-terms would be their usual rabid cunt with pointy teeth.
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 05:03:58 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 21, 2016, 04:52:55 PM
I think there's a secret plan at GOP headquarters to rob trump of the nomination if it gets to Cleveland with him in the lead. The ensuing shitstorm would undoubtedly cost the GOP the election. But the approval ratings for HRC figure to be in the low teens from the outset and she'll be a sitting duck in 2020. They'll punt four years and just stay in the same obstructionist contrarian mode that has marked their last eight years. They're comfortable in that role and they'll save a portion of their dignity after having stopped Trump.
Insanity should ensue.
There's greater than a zero chance that the Dems can take back both houses. Especially if the HRC machine gets out the vote and the GOPers stay home.
Elbridge Gerry personally designed the Congressional Districts in over half the States.
Quote from: CBStew on January 21, 2016, 05:15:02 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 05:03:58 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 21, 2016, 04:52:55 PM
I think there's a secret plan at GOP headquarters to rob trump of the nomination if it gets to Cleveland with him in the lead. The ensuing shitstorm would undoubtedly cost the GOP the election. But the approval ratings for HRC figure to be in the low teens from the outset and she'll be a sitting duck in 2020. They'll punt four years and just stay in the same obstructionist contrarian mode that has marked their last eight years. They're comfortable in that role and they'll save a portion of their dignity after having stopped Trump.
Insanity should ensue.
There's greater than a zero chance that the Dems can take back both houses. Especially if the HRC machine gets out the vote and the GOPers stay home.
Elbridge Gerry personally designed the Congressional Districts in over half the States.
He also personally invented the "B-Boy Stance" popularized by the early pioneers of hip hop culture.
(http://www.nndb.com/people/640/000050490/elbridge-gerry-crop.jpg)
Quote from: InternetApex on January 21, 2016, 05:37:36 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 21, 2016, 05:15:02 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 05:03:58 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 21, 2016, 04:52:55 PM
I think there's a secret plan at GOP headquarters to rob trump of the nomination if it gets to Cleveland with him in the lead. The ensuing shitstorm would undoubtedly cost the GOP the election. But the approval ratings for HRC figure to be in the low teens from the outset and she'll be a sitting duck in 2020. They'll punt four years and just stay in the same obstructionist contrarian mode that has marked their last eight years. They're comfortable in that role and they'll save a portion of their dignity after having stopped Trump.
Insanity should ensue.
There's greater than a zero chance that the Dems can take back both houses. Especially if the HRC machine gets out the vote and the GOPers stay home.
Elbridge Gerry personally designed the Congressional Districts in over half the States.
He also personally invented the "B-Boy Stance" popularized by the early pioneers of hip hop culture.
(http://www.nndb.com/people/640/000050490/elbridge-gerry-crop.jpg)
Rhyming "Gerry" is easy, but "Elbridge" presents a challenge.
Quote from: CBStew on January 21, 2016, 05:45:07 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 21, 2016, 05:37:36 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 21, 2016, 05:15:02 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 05:03:58 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 21, 2016, 04:52:55 PM
I think there's a secret plan at GOP headquarters to rob trump of the nomination if it gets to Cleveland with him in the lead. The ensuing shitstorm would undoubtedly cost the GOP the election. But the approval ratings for HRC figure to be in the low teens from the outset and she'll be a sitting duck in 2020. They'll punt four years and just stay in the same obstructionist contrarian mode that has marked their last eight years. They're comfortable in that role and they'll save a portion of their dignity after having stopped Trump.
Insanity should ensue.
There's greater than a zero chance that the Dems can take back both houses. Especially if the HRC machine gets out the vote and the GOPers stay home.
Elbridge Gerry personally designed the Congressional Districts in over half the States.
He also personally invented the "B-Boy Stance" popularized by the early pioneers of hip hop culture.
(http://www.nndb.com/people/640/000050490/elbridge-gerry-crop.jpg)
Rhyming "Gerry" is easy, but "Elbridge" presents a challenge.
Fortunately for he and his cohorts, he went by the moniker "El-Boogie" whilst manifesting the five elements.
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
Yeah, in a stunning development, Chuck is wrong. If they ain't drug it up yet, it ain't there to drag.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
I hope you're right. I try to remind myself often that Santorum and Huckabee won the last two Iowa Caucuses.
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandale could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
Against Trump? Probably not. But against Rubio, or even Kasich (who is a relative grown up in that field), anything could tip the scales against her.
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
Trump-Hillary is a couple orders of magnitude more likely than Brewers-A's in the World Series.
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 10:49:10 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
I hope you're right. I try to remind myself often that Santorum and Huckabee won the last two Iowa Caucuses.
Since 1976, Bob Dole and W are the only Iowa winners to get the nomination that weren't the incumbent.
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
I keep thinking the GOP will wake up at the last minute like the Dems did in 2004 when they dumped Howard YEEEARG Dean from a lead to 3rd in about a week. Dunno...
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 10:58:58 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 10:49:10 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
I hope you're right. I try to remind myself often that Santorum and Huckabee won the last two Iowa Caucuses.
Since 1976, Bob Dole and W are the only Iowa winners to get the nomination that weren't the incumbent.
And yet Iowans still pretend they matter. I really wish some other state would jump ahead of them and do theirs first becuase f--k me these ads are killing me. There was one earlier today with Duck Dynasty endorsing Ted Cruz. This is the hell I'm living.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 11:01:26 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
I keep thinking the GOP will wake up at the last minute like the Dems did in 2004 when they dumped Howard YEEEARG Dean from a lead to 3rd in about a week. Dunno...
Well, they made a lateral move to John I AM INCAPABLE OF MAKING ANYONE EXCITED ABOUT VOTING FOR ME Kerry.
Quote from: Bort on January 25, 2016, 11:19:16 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 11:01:26 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
I keep thinking the GOP will wake up at the last minute like the Dems did in 2004 when they dumped Howard YEEEARG Dean from a lead to 3rd in about a week. Dunno...
Well, they made a lateral move to John I AM INCAPABLE OF MAKING ANYONE EXCITED ABOUT VOTING FOR ME Kerry.
Amazing that one scream sank Howard Dean and Trump is over here gaining voters on the "Hey Hitler had some good ideas" platform.
Quote from: Bort on January 25, 2016, 11:19:16 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 11:01:26 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
I keep thinking the GOP will wake up at the last minute like the Dems did in 2004 when they dumped Howard YEEEARG Dean from a lead to 3rd in about a week. Dunno...
Well, they made a lateral move to John I AM INCAPABLE OF MAKING ANYONE EXCITED ABOUT VOTING FOR ME Kerry.
59,500 Ohioans switch votes and we don't have Obama 4 years later.
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 11:29:34 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 25, 2016, 11:19:16 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 11:01:26 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
I keep thinking the GOP will wake up at the last minute like the Dems did in 2004 when they dumped Howard YEEEARG Dean from a lead to 3rd in about a week. Dunno...
Well, they made a lateral move to John I AM INCAPABLE OF MAKING ANYONE EXCITED ABOUT VOTING FOR ME Kerry.
Amazing that one scream sank Howard Dean and Trump is over here gaining voters on the "Hey Hitler had some good ideas" platform.
Dean was polling at 30% or more in the days leading up to the caucus. He was the definite front-runner. Then he finished third in Iowa, let out that scream, and was unable to counter the reservations various wings of his party had about him. He was toast.
I'm unconvinced Trump will win Iowa. Iowa's a must-win for him, but not for anyone else. He loses Iowa and you can perform the autopsy. It's over.
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 11:45:20 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 11:29:34 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 25, 2016, 11:19:16 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 11:01:26 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
I keep thinking the GOP will wake up at the last minute like the Dems did in 2004 when they dumped Howard YEEEARG Dean from a lead to 3rd in about a week. Dunno...
Well, they made a lateral move to John I AM INCAPABLE OF MAKING ANYONE EXCITED ABOUT VOTING FOR ME Kerry.
Amazing that one scream sank Howard Dean and Trump is over here gaining voters on the "Hey Hitler had some good ideas" platform.
Dean was polling at 30% or more in the days leading up to the caucus. He was the definite front-runner. Then he finished third in Iowa, let out that scream, and was unable to counter the reservations various wings of his party had about him. He was toast.
I'm unconvinced Trump will win Iowa. Iowa's a must-win for him, but not for anyone else. He loses Iowa and you can perform the autopsy. It's over.
Denial is a helluva drug.
Quote from: Tonker on January 25, 2016, 01:51:23 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
Yeah, in a stunning development, Chuck is wrong. If they ain't drug it up yet, it ain't there to drag.
Back in the day, a Washington insider wrote a novel titled "Primary Colors" about a political family suspiciously like Bill and Hillary in which the President's wife has an affair. It raised some eyebrows and caused some chuckles (no pun intended), but never really went anywhere.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 10:58:58 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 10:49:10 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
I hope you're right. I try to remind myself often that Santorum and Huckabee won the last two Iowa Caucuses.
Since 1976, Bob Dole and W are the only Iowa winners to get the nomination that weren't the incumbent.
Thus proving the "blind squirrel" theory.
Quote from: CBStew on January 25, 2016, 12:02:29 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 25, 2016, 01:51:23 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
Yeah, in a stunning development, Chuck is wrong. If they ain't drug it up yet, it ain't there to drag.
Back in the day, a Washington insider wrote a novel titled "Primary Colors" about a political family suspiciously like Bill and Hillary in which the President's wife has an affair. It raised some eyebrows and caused some chuckles (no pun intended), but never really went anywhere.
Written by "Anonymous" who turned out to be fellow by the name of Joe Klein and this book had already been made into a movie with John Travolta. Pretty sure it's been picked over pretty good.
I'd love to see Trump get to Cleveland with any kind of lead, just because I can't remember the last time we've seen a convention where the nominee wasn't already a foregone conclusion.
Quote from: PANK! on January 25, 2016, 12:05:31 PM
Quote from: CBStew on January 25, 2016, 12:02:29 PM
Quote from: Tonker on January 25, 2016, 01:51:23 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
Yeah, in a stunning development, Chuck is wrong. If they ain't drug it up yet, it ain't there to drag.
Back in the day, a Washington insider wrote a novel titled "Primary Colors" about a political family suspiciously like Bill and Hillary in which the President's wife has an affair. It raised some eyebrows and caused some chuckles (no pun intended), but never really went anywhere.
Written by "Anonymous" who turned out to be fellow by the name of Joe Klein and this book had already been made into a movie with John Travolta. Pretty sure it's been picked over pretty good.
I read it back in the day. (I'm pretty sure I read most of the books written about the Clintons.) It was an interesting read. Too bad Klein turned into an anti-Obama hack.
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 11:45:20 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 11:29:34 AM
Quote from: Bort on January 25, 2016, 11:19:16 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 11:01:26 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
I keep thinking the GOP will wake up at the last minute like the Dems did in 2004 when they dumped Howard YEEEARG Dean from a lead to 3rd in about a week. Dunno...
Well, they made a lateral move to John I AM INCAPABLE OF MAKING ANYONE EXCITED ABOUT VOTING FOR ME Kerry.
Amazing that one scream sank Howard Dean and Trump is over here gaining voters on the "Hey Hitler had some good ideas" platform.
Dean was polling at 30% or more in the days leading up to the caucus. He was the definite front-runner. Then he finished third in Iowa, let out that scream, and was unable to counter the reservations various wings of his party had about him. He was toast.
I'm unconvinced Trump will win Iowa. Iowa's New Hampshire's a must-win for him, but not for anyone else except Ted Cruz. He loses Iowa New Hampshire and you can perform the autopsy. It's over.
There you go.
I keep thinking the Trump candidacy is all a ruse of some sort.
Maybe he's using a PAC for tax free funds, and we're all witnessing a political version of "The Producers".
It makes more sense than The Donald actually thinking he can be elected running as a Fascist.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:52:49 PM
I keep thinking the Trump candidacy is all a ruse of some sort.
Maybe he's using a PAC for tax free funds, and we're all witnessing a political version of "The Producers".
It makes more sense than The Donald actually thinking he can be elected running as a Fascist.
He's toned down a lot of that fascist rhetoric of late, in debates and in the interviews I've seen. He was once a liberal and friend of the Clintons. I think he feels that if he reaches the general he can morph into whatever he has to be to prey on the HRC hate that so many of us harbor and still seem electable. That plan may not be fully formed yet.
The GOP establishment is completely terrified of him. The fact that a goof like him and an independent like Sanders can seriously compete at this point in an election cycle may be excellent news for those of us who can't tolerate either party for very long. Of course, what comes after is extremely important. But sometimes things have to fall apart completely before they can be rebuilt.
We may be seeing that.
Jesus, Ted Cruz is a fucking eel.
Quote from: InternetApex on January 25, 2016, 02:11:10 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:52:49 PM
I keep thinking the Trump candidacy is all a ruse of some sort.
Maybe he's using a PAC for tax free funds, and we're all witnessing a political version of "The Producers".
It makes more sense than The Donald actually thinking he can be elected running as a Fascist.
He's toned down a lot of that fascist rhetoric of late, in debates and in the interviews I've seen. He was once a liberal and friend of the Clintons. I think he feels that if he reaches the general he can morph into whatever he has to be to prey on the HRC hate that so many of us harbor and still seem electable. That plan may not be fully formed yet.
The GOP establishment is completely terrified of him. The fact that a goof like him and an independent like Sanders can seriously compete at this point in an election cycle may be excellent news for those of us who can't tolerate either party for very long. Of course, what comes after is extremely important. But sometimes things have to fall apart completely before they can be rebuilt.
We may be seeing that.
What we saw yesterday with Trump is that his complete lack of a ground game will ensure he never makes the General, and probably won't be a factor by Super Tuesday. His numbers have been dropping at a rapid pace as soon as the rubber started hitting the road.
The money is starting to trend toward Rubio, and he'll start separating from the field fairly soon.
On the other side, Sanders has the same type of organization and volunteers that Obama had in 2008. Funny thing is, the last financials showed no PAC money spent on him, but since MoveOn endorsed him, Soros' money is coming into play in his favor.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 02, 2016, 11:08:24 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 25, 2016, 02:11:10 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:52:49 PM
I keep thinking the Trump candidacy is all a ruse of some sort.
Maybe he's using a PAC for tax free funds, and we're all witnessing a political version of "The Producers".
It makes more sense than The Donald actually thinking he can be elected running as a Fascist.
He's toned down a lot of that fascist rhetoric of late, in debates and in the interviews I've seen. He was once a liberal and friend of the Clintons. I think he feels that if he reaches the general he can morph into whatever he has to be to prey on the HRC hate that so many of us harbor and still seem electable. That plan may not be fully formed yet.
The GOP establishment is completely terrified of him. The fact that a goof like him and an independent like Sanders can seriously compete at this point in an election cycle may be excellent news for those of us who can't tolerate either party for very long. Of course, what comes after is extremely important. But sometimes things have to fall apart completely before they can be rebuilt.
We may be seeing that.
What we saw yesterday with Trump is that his complete lack of a ground game will ensure he never makes the General, and probably won't be a factor by Super Tuesday. His numbers have been dropping at a rapid pace as soon as the rubber started hitting the road.
The money is starting to trend toward Rubio, and he'll start separating from the field fairly soon.
On the other side, Sanders has the same type of organization and volunteers that Obama had in 2008. Funny thing is, the last financials showed no PAC money spent on him, but since MoveOn endorsed him, Soros' money is coming into play in his favor.
Agreed on Rubio. As the lagging candidates begin to drop, they'll probably do whatever they're told to do with regard to hurting Trump, that means supporting either Cruz or Rubio. Since nobody likes Cruz including his own ugly, fucked up family, I'm betting that helps Marco pull in that type of support. The establishment clearly likes him and I think smaller fields at debates will show Cruz is not in Rubio's class intellectually.
All of that is a problem for Hillary obviously, because she can't beat Rubio off of the sheer lunacy of his personality and ideas. I hate nearly every word that comes out of his mouth, but I can't say I particularly dislike HIM. He's entitled to his ugly, fucked-up opinions, I guess. But Hillary I do not like. Personally. As an independent, I'd have to leave the top line blank on my ballot, which won't mean dick in Illinois, but you see what I did there? It will happen elsewhere.
Tom Brokaw compared Bernie to Howard Dean on Meet The Press Sunday, saying he was just a blip on the radar, a temporary distraction, his supporters, while LOUD were not numerous. Iowa was a shitburger for Brokaw, but when this primary hits the Red/Southern States I just don't see those Democrats going for him. It seems the Centerism is Strong with them.
I may be wrong. Hope so in fact.
Quote from: InternetApex on February 02, 2016, 05:57:19 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 02, 2016, 11:08:24 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 25, 2016, 02:11:10 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:52:49 PM
I keep thinking the Trump candidacy is all a ruse of some sort.
Maybe he's using a PAC for tax free funds, and we're all witnessing a political version of "The Producers".
It makes more sense than The Donald actually thinking he can be elected running as a Fascist.
He's toned down a lot of that fascist rhetoric of late, in debates and in the interviews I've seen. He was once a liberal and friend of the Clintons. I think he feels that if he reaches the general he can morph into whatever he has to be to prey on the HRC hate that so many of us harbor and still seem electable. That plan may not be fully formed yet.
The GOP establishment is completely terrified of him. The fact that a goof like him and an independent like Sanders can seriously compete at this point in an election cycle may be excellent news for those of us who can't tolerate either party for very long. Of course, what comes after is extremely important. But sometimes things have to fall apart completely before they can be rebuilt.
We may be seeing that.
What we saw yesterday with Trump is that his complete lack of a ground game will ensure he never makes the General, and probably won't be a factor by Super Tuesday. His numbers have been dropping at a rapid pace as soon as the rubber started hitting the road.
The money is starting to trend toward Rubio, and he'll start separating from the field fairly soon.
On the other side, Sanders has the same type of organization and volunteers that Obama had in 2008. Funny thing is, the last financials showed no PAC money spent on him, but since MoveOn endorsed him, Soros' money is coming into play in his favor.
Agreed on Rubio. As the lagging candidates begin to drop, they'll probably do whatever they're told to do with regard to hurting Trump, that means supporting either Cruz or Rubio. Since nobody likes Cruz including his own ugly, fucked up family, I'm betting that helps Marco pull in that type of support. The establishment clearly likes him and I think smaller fields at debates will show Cruz is not in Rubio's class intellectually.
All of that is a problem for Hillary obviously, because she can't beat Rubio off of the sheer lunacy of his personality and ideas. I hate nearly every word that comes out of his mouth, but I can't say I particularly dislike HIM. He's entitled to his ugly, fucked-up opinions, I guess. But Hillary I do not like. Personally. As an independent, I'd have to leave the top line blank on my ballot, which won't mean dick in Illinois, but you see what I did there? It will happen elsewhere.
Tom Brokaw compared Bernie to Howard Dean on Meet The Press Sunday, saying he was just a blip on the radar, a temporary distraction, his supporters, while LOUD were not numerous. Iowa was a shitburger for Brokaw, but when this primary hits the Red/Southern States I just don't see those Democrats going for him. It seems the Centerism is Strong with them.
I may be wrong. Hope so in fact.
I'm a relative noob when it comes to American politics but I can't see Bernie getting anywhere near the support he needs. He's way, way, WAY too far left to be elected in America right now. He should come to Europe, he'd be a shoo-in.
Quote from: InternetApex on February 02, 2016, 05:57:19 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 02, 2016, 11:08:24 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 25, 2016, 02:11:10 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:52:49 PM
I keep thinking the Trump candidacy is all a ruse of some sort.
Maybe he's using a PAC for tax free funds, and we're all witnessing a political version of "The Producers".
It makes more sense than The Donald actually thinking he can be elected running as a Fascist.
He's toned down a lot of that fascist rhetoric of late, in debates and in the interviews I've seen. He was once a liberal and friend of the Clintons. I think he feels that if he reaches the general he can morph into whatever he has to be to prey on the HRC hate that so many of us harbor and still seem electable. That plan may not be fully formed yet.
The GOP establishment is completely terrified of him. The fact that a goof like him and an independent like Sanders can seriously compete at this point in an election cycle may be excellent news for those of us who can't tolerate either party for very long. Of course, what comes after is extremely important. But sometimes things have to fall apart completely before they can be rebuilt.
We may be seeing that.
What we saw yesterday with Trump is that his complete lack of a ground game will ensure he never makes the General, and probably won't be a factor by Super Tuesday. His numbers have been dropping at a rapid pace as soon as the rubber started hitting the road.
The money is starting to trend toward Rubio, and he'll start separating from the field fairly soon.
On the other side, Sanders has the same type of organization and volunteers that Obama had in 2008. Funny thing is, the last financials showed no PAC money spent on him, but since MoveOn endorsed him, Soros' money is coming into play in his favor.
Agreed on Rubio. As the lagging candidates begin to drop, they'll probably do whatever they're told to do with regard to hurting Trump, that means supporting either Cruz or Rubio. Since nobody likes Cruz including his own ugly, fucked up family, I'm betting that helps Marco pull in that type of support. The establishment clearly likes him and I think smaller fields at debates will show Cruz is not in Rubio's class intellectually.
All of that is a problem for Hillary obviously, because she can't beat Rubio off of the sheer lunacy of his personality and ideas. I hate nearly every word that comes out of his mouth, but I can't say I particularly dislike HIM. He's entitled to his ugly, fucked-up opinions, I guess. But Hillary I do not like. Personally. As an independent, I'd have to leave the top line blank on my ballot, which won't mean dick in Illinois, but you see what I did there? It will happen elsewhere.
Tom Brokaw compared Bernie to Howard Dean on Meet The Press Sunday, saying he was just a blip on the radar, a temporary distraction, his supporters, while LOUD were not numerous. Iowa was a shitburger for Brokaw, but when this primary hits the Red/Southern States I just don't see those Democrats going for him. It seems the Centerism is Strong with them.
I may be wrong. Hope so in fact.
It's funny that the red states hold so much sway within the Democratic primaries, since they mean fuckall to them during the general election.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 03, 2016, 05:05:36 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on February 02, 2016, 05:57:19 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 02, 2016, 11:08:24 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on January 25, 2016, 02:11:10 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:52:49 PM
I keep thinking the Trump candidacy is all a ruse of some sort.
Maybe he's using a PAC for tax free funds, and we're all witnessing a political version of "The Producers".
It makes more sense than The Donald actually thinking he can be elected running as a Fascist.
He's toned down a lot of that fascist rhetoric of late, in debates and in the interviews I've seen. He was once a liberal and friend of the Clintons. I think he feels that if he reaches the general he can morph into whatever he has to be to prey on the HRC hate that so many of us harbor and still seem electable. That plan may not be fully formed yet.
The GOP establishment is completely terrified of him. The fact that a goof like him and an independent like Sanders can seriously compete at this point in an election cycle may be excellent news for those of us who can't tolerate either party for very long. Of course, what comes after is extremely important. But sometimes things have to fall apart completely before they can be rebuilt.
We may be seeing that.
What we saw yesterday with Trump is that his complete lack of a ground game will ensure he never makes the General, and probably won't be a factor by Super Tuesday. His numbers have been dropping at a rapid pace as soon as the rubber started hitting the road.
The money is starting to trend toward Rubio, and he'll start separating from the field fairly soon.
On the other side, Sanders has the same type of organization and volunteers that Obama had in 2008. Funny thing is, the last financials showed no PAC money spent on him, but since MoveOn endorsed him, Soros' money is coming into play in his favor.
Agreed on Rubio. As the lagging candidates begin to drop, they'll probably do whatever they're told to do with regard to hurting Trump, that means supporting either Cruz or Rubio. Since nobody likes Cruz including his own ugly, fucked up family, I'm betting that helps Marco pull in that type of support. The establishment clearly likes him and I think smaller fields at debates will show Cruz is not in Rubio's class intellectually.
All of that is a problem for Hillary obviously, because she can't beat Rubio off of the sheer lunacy of his personality and ideas. I hate nearly every word that comes out of his mouth, but I can't say I particularly dislike HIM. He's entitled to his ugly, fucked-up opinions, I guess. But Hillary I do not like. Personally. As an independent, I'd have to leave the top line blank on my ballot, which won't mean dick in Illinois, but you see what I did there? It will happen elsewhere.
Tom Brokaw compared Bernie to Howard Dean on Meet The Press Sunday, saying he was just a blip on the radar, a temporary distraction, his supporters, while LOUD were not numerous. Iowa was a shitburger for Brokaw, but when this primary hits the Red/Southern States I just don't see those Democrats going for him. It seems the Centerism is Strong with them.
I may be wrong. Hope so in fact.
It's funny that the red states hold so much sway within the Democratic primaries, since they mean fuckall to them during the general election.
That's a feature, not a bug.
Quote from: Tonker on February 03, 2016, 03:35:06 AM
I'm a relative noob when it comes to American politics but I can't see Bernie getting anywhere near the support he needs. He's way, way, WAY too far left to be elected in America right now. He should come to Europe, he'd be a shoo-in.
America is moving left, but probably not in time to stop Hillary. It's not for lack of progressive sentiment that conservative technocrats like Obama and the Clintons have gained power recently. People actually think they're liberals because they talk a good game. Bernie's out here telling us to look into what Obama has done and what Hillary has signed off on but hardly anybody really does. They hear Republicans cry from the pulpit that these people are not conservative enough, when if one digs just a little bit they'll be open-mouth agape at what Obama's policies really mean.
I've been reading progressive takes on his first term from before the 2012 election and I'm now more depressed than ever. This one in particular had me shaken up.
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/27/the_progressive_case_against_obama/
QuoteHome equity levels and corporate profits have simply never diverged in this way; what was good for GM had always, until recently, been good, if not for America, for the balance sheet of homeowners. Obama's policies severed this link, completely.
This split represents more than money. It represents a new kind of politics, one where Obama, and yes, he did this, officially enshrined rights for the elite in our constitutional order and removed rights from everyone else (see "The Housing Crash and the End of American Citizenship" in the Fordham Urban Law Journal for a more complete discussion of the problem). The bailouts and the associated Federal Reserve actions were not primarily shifts of funds to bankers; they were a guarantee that property rights for a certain class of creditors were immune from challenge or market forces. The foreclosure crisis, with its rampant criminality, predatory lending, and document forgeries, represents the flip side. Property rights for debtors simply increasingly exist solely at the pleasure of the powerful. The lack of prosecution of Wall Street executives, the ability of banks to borrow at 0 percent from the Federal Reserve while most of us face credit card rates of 15-30 percent, and the bailouts are all part of the re-creation of the American system of law around Obama's oligarchy.
The policy continuity with Bush is a stark contrast to what Obama offered as a candidate.
I mean...
Quote from: InternetApex on February 03, 2016, 08:26:34 AM
America is moving left
No it isn't. It's moving slightly right because the left has mostly won. When rightees scream, "DON'T TOUCH MY MEDICARE!" you know who has won. A large chunk of the GOOP base is over 60. They are the post-New Dealers who will not give up any of the social services net FDR invented. Hard to blame them having paid into them for 40+ years and now they want their (deserved) return.
Where the left has a few wins remaining is on the social issues, mostly because younger people see these social advances as, ultimately, a conservative thing. For example, gay marriage is a very pro-conservative issue (keep the gubbermint outta my bedroom!). There's room here for some advancement on the left.
Economically, the fight is at the margins. "Is the right tax rate 33% or 37%?" "Capital gains at 20% or 25%?" We're just haggling over price here.
... Welcome to Chicago Democratic Machine Politics right? That's what we all signed up for and had to know we were getting on some level but why does it hurt so bad to discover that the long-dick to the fanny has been punishing us so malevolently for all these years? "Smart" independents like myself who migrated from the center-right and mistrusted the Dems all along really ought to have known better. But I fell into the "Obama tried but politics are hard :0(" malaise just long enough to pull a lever for the guy. I didn't know anything about economics anyway and I told myself I'd be damned if I had to look in the mirror 50 years from now and say I didn't vote for the first Black president.
But I voted for this:
QuoteI find Obama likable when I see him on TV. He is a caring husband and father, a thoughtful speaker, and possessed of an inspirational biography. On stage, as he smiles into the camera, using words to evoke some of the best sentiments within us, it's hard to believe certain facts about him:
Obama terrorizes innocent Pakistanis on an almost daily basis. The drone war he is waging in North Waziristan isn't "precise" or "surgical" as he would have Americans believe. It kills hundreds of innocents, including children. And for thousands of more innocents who live in the targeted communities, the drone war makes their lives into a nightmare worthy of dystopian novels. People are always afraid. Women cower in their homes. Children are kept out of school. The stress they endure gives them psychiatric disorders. Men are driven crazy by an inability to sleep as drones buzz overhead 24 hours a day, a deadly strike possible at any moment. At worst, this policy creates more terrorists than it kills; at best, America is ruining the lives of thousands of innocent people and killing hundreds of innocents for a small increase in safety from terrorists. It is a cowardly, immoral, and illegal policy, deliberately cloaked in opportunistic secrecy. And Democrats who believe that it is the most moral of all responsible policy alternatives are as misinformed and blinded by partisanship as any conservative ideologue.
Obama established one of the most reckless precedents imaginable: that any president can secretly order and oversee the extrajudicial killing of American citizens. Obama's kill list transgresses against the Constitution as egregiously as anything George W. Bush ever did. It is as radical an invocation of executive power as anything Dick Cheney championed. The fact that the Democrats rebelled against those men before enthusiastically supporting Obama is hackery every bit as blatant and shameful as anything any talk radio host has done.
Contrary to his own previously stated understanding of what the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution demand, President Obama committed U.S. forces to war in Libya without Congressional approval, despite the lack of anything like an imminent threat to national security.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/why-i-refuse-to-vote-for-barack-obama/262861/
And now I'm sad. But I've nobody to blame but myself.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 03, 2016, 08:57:03 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on February 03, 2016, 08:26:34 AM
America is moving left
No it isn't. It's moving slightly right because the left has mostly won. When rightees scream, "DON'T TOUCH MY MEDICARE!" you know who has won. A large chunk of the GOOP base is over 60. They are the post-New Dealers who will not give up any of the social services net FDR invented. Hard to blame them having paid into them for 40+ years and now they want their (deserved) return.
Where the left has a few wins remaining is on the social issues, mostly because younger people see these social advances as, ultimately, a conservative thing. For example, gay marriage is a very pro-conservative issue (keep the gubbermint outta my bedroom!). There's room here for some advancement on the left.
Economically, the fight is at the margins. "Is the right tax rate 33% or 37%?" "Capital gains at 20% or 25%?" We're just haggling over price here.
I can agree with most of this but I think you see it stagnated on the center-left while I hear the rhetoric of Obama, Clinton and Sanders moving harder to the left than anything you heard from Bill or his contemporaries who were so spooked by the Reagan Revolution that they figured rightly that they would never win another national election without demonizing the far left as radical hippie burnouts. That tough talk Clinton had on crime and going head up with female rappers on the news is unthinkable in this Democratic primary.
What has not changed, and I think you've recognized is the machinary of the government itself. Nothing's really changing and yes, the fight is in the margins.
Quote from: InternetApex on February 03, 2016, 09:04:50 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 03, 2016, 08:57:03 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on February 03, 2016, 08:26:34 AM
America is moving left
No it isn't. It's moving slightly right because the left has mostly won. When rightees scream, "DON'T TOUCH MY MEDICARE!" you know who has won. A large chunk of the GOOP base is over 60. They are the post-New Dealers who will not give up any of the social services net FDR invented. Hard to blame them having paid into them for 40+ years and now they want their (deserved) return.
Where the left has a few wins remaining is on the social issues, mostly because younger people see these social advances as, ultimately, a conservative thing. For example, gay marriage is a very pro-conservative issue (keep the gubbermint outta my bedroom!). There's room here for some advancement on the left.
Economically, the fight is at the margins. "Is the right tax rate 33% or 37%?" "Capital gains at 20% or 25%?" We're just haggling over price here.
I can agree with most of this but I think you see it stagnated on the center-left while I hear the rhetoric of Obama, Clinton and Sanders moving harder to the left than anything you heard from Bill or his contemporaries who were so spooked by the Reagan Revolution that they figured rightly that they would never win another national election without demonizing the far left as radical hippie burnouts. That tough talk Clinton had on crime and going head up with female rappers on the news is unthinkable in this Democratic primary.
What has not changed, and I think you've recognized is the machinary of the government itself. Nothing's really changing and yes, the fight is in the margins.
I'd say we still sit comfortably center-right with some basic leftist social safety nets. I mean when you compare what we have to any standard European country it's pretty laughable to look at America and say the left has won.
Quote from: InternetApex on February 03, 2016, 09:04:50 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 03, 2016, 08:57:03 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on February 03, 2016, 08:26:34 AM
America is moving left
No it isn't. It's moving slightly right because the left has mostly won. When rightees scream, "DON'T TOUCH MY MEDICARE!" you know who has won. A large chunk of the GOOP base is over 60. They are the post-New Dealers who will not give up any of the social services net FDR invented. Hard to blame them having paid into them for 40+ years and now they want their (deserved) return.
Where the left has a few wins remaining is on the social issues, mostly because younger people see these social advances as, ultimately, a conservative thing. For example, gay marriage is a very pro-conservative issue (keep the gubbermint outta my bedroom!). There's room here for some advancement on the left.
Economically, the fight is at the margins. "Is the right tax rate 33% or 37%?" "Capital gains at 20% or 25%?" We're just haggling over price here.
I can agree with most of this but I think you see it stagnated on the center-left while I hear the rhetoric of Obama, Clinton and Sanders moving harder to the left than anything you heard from Bill or his contemporaries who were so spooked by the Reagan Revolution that they figured rightly that they would never win another national election without demonizing the far left as radical hippie burnouts. That tough talk Clinton had on crime and going head up with female rappers on the news is unthinkable in this Democratic primary.
What has not changed, and I think you've recognized is the machinary of the government itself. Nothing's really changing and yes, the fight is in the margins.
The rhetoric has changed because of the reality TV nature of modern politics. Ted Cruz may be a loathsome bigot, but he does understand that the crazier shit you say gets you more attention. More attention means more people will give you money. More money means you can buy more TV ads and keep getting re-elected. Oh, and more money to buy more TV ads props up the profit at CNN, MSNBC and Faux News. Which makes them look for even crazier people to put on TV to attract eyeballs. Which attracts crazier politicians. And... back to the top of the circle.
Were the country to move to the Chicago mayoral election model: Open primary (all parties on a single ballot), no one wins without a 50%+1 vote total, our politics would become far more centrist. A stage that had Cruz, Trump, Hillary, Bernie, Bush, Rubio all at once vying for all our vote would not only be fascinating, but it would cull the ability of the fringe to get the fringe elected.
The only reason shitbags like Joe Walsh even get a chance for a public paycheck is because the Dems and GOOPs keep their duopoly on the ballot. Imagine where Illinois might be right now if, 5 years ago, the two top vote getters in the Gubernatorial primary made the finals? Instead of Quinn-Brady, you'd have had Quinn-Hynes. And Hynes would have crushed Quinn. You'd have had a professional as governor for 4 years, not a gadfly.
Sometimes I wonder if it's the politician, or the machine. It's entirely possible that most politicians are sociopaths who'll say whatever it takes to get into office (I think there are even some quotes of Abe Lincoln advocating for slavery on the campaign trail, if I recall correctly), but I sort of wonder if they just don't understand the mechanism until they're caught up in it. They have goals and ideals, and then they get into office and are faced with the realities of what it means to dictate law and policy. Their advisors are often people who have been "in the machine" for decades, who are probably very good at persuading them to stick with what works.
Or, maybe their first Top Secret meetings are real eye-openers, and their idealism dies at that moment.
Or, maybe it's like what Bill Hicks said.
Quote from: Bill HicksI have this feeling man, 'cause you know, it's just a handful of people who run everything, you know ... that's true, it's provable. It's not ... I'm not a fucking conspiracy nut, it's provable. A handful, a very small elite, run and own these corporations, which include the mainstream media. I have this feeling that whoever is elected president, like Clinton was, no matter what you promise on the campaign trail – blah, blah, blah – when you win, you go into this smoke-filled room with the twelve industrialist capitalist scum-fucks who got you in there. And you're in this smoky room, and this little film screen comes down ... and a big guy with a cigar goes, "Roll the film." And it's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before ... that looks suspiciously like it's from the grassy knoll. And then the screen goes up and the lights come up, and they go to the new president, "Any questions?" "Er, just what my agenda is." "First we bomb Baghdad." "You got it ..."
Quote from: Canadouche on February 03, 2016, 09:39:58 AM
Sometimes I wonder if it's the politician, or the machine. It's entirely possible that most politicians are sociopaths who'll say whatever it takes to get into office (I think there are even some quotes of Abe Lincoln advocating for slavery on the campaign trail, if I recall correctly), but I sort of wonder if they just don't understand the mechanism until they're caught up in it. They have goals and ideals, and then they get into office and are faced with the realities of what it means to dictate law and policy. Their advisors are often people who have been "in the machine" for decades, who are probably very good at persuading them to stick with what works.
Or, maybe their first Top Secret meetings are real eye-openers, and their idealism dies at that moment.
Or, maybe it's like what Bill Hicks said.
Quote from: Bill HicksI have this feeling man, 'cause you know, it's just a handful of people who run everything, you know ... that's true, it's provable. It's not ... I'm not a fucking conspiracy nut, it's provable. A handful, a very small elite, run and own these corporations, which include the mainstream media. I have this feeling that whoever is elected president, like Clinton was, no matter what you promise on the campaign trail – blah, blah, blah – when you win, you go into this smoke-filled room with the twelve industrialist capitalist scum-fucks who got you in there. And you're in this smoky room, and this little film screen comes down ... and a big guy with a cigar goes, "Roll the film." And it's a shot of the Kennedy assassination from an angle you've never seen before ... that looks suspiciously like it's from the grassy knoll. And then the screen goes up and the lights come up, and they go to the new president, "Any questions?" "Er, just what my agenda is." "First we bomb Baghdad." "You got it ..."
He didn't advocate for slavery, per se, but he repeated loudly and as often as possible that he was not going to abolish slavery. At worst (from a slaveowner's perspective) his intention was merely to keep slavery where it was and prevent it from expanding to the territories. The south still deemed that too radical, seceded, started the war, and ended up getting more support for abolition than would ever have been possible without the war.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 03, 2016, 08:57:03 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on February 03, 2016, 08:26:34 AM
America is moving left
No it isn't. It's moving slightly right because the left has mostly won.
No, it's in the middle where it usually is. Roughly 40% of the population will always vote GOP and 40% will always vote Democratic, and the other 20% are what decides who wins and loses.
What's changed is philosophy. The Progressives used to be visionaries and the Conservatives used to be functionaries. So after some Progressive "big idea" became law, the Conservatives would figure out how to make it work.
Now the Progressives want every idea to be a big one, and the Conservatives merely want to stop it all.
So it's either a home run or a strikeout on everything. Our government has become Adam Dunn.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 03, 2016, 09:46:40 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 03, 2016, 08:57:03 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on February 03, 2016, 08:26:34 AM
America is moving left
No it isn't. It's moving slightly right because the left has mostly won.
No, it's in the middle where it usually is. Roughly 40% of the population will always vote GOP and 40% will always vote Democratic, and the other 20% are what decides who wins and loses.
What's changed is philosophy. The Progressives used to be visionaries and the Conservatives used to be functionaries. So after some Progressive "big idea" became law, the Conservatives would figure out how to make it work.
Now the Progressives want every idea to be a big one, and the Conservatives merely want to stop it all.
So it's either a home run or a strikeout on everything. Our government has become Adam Dunn Paul Bako.
Been a while since that last dinger'd.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 03, 2016, 08:57:03 AM
Economically, the fight is at the margins. "Is the right tax rate 33% or 37%?" "Capital gains at 20% or 25%?" We're just haggling over price here.
Not exactly. If you're paying attention to what is happening in Springfield, you would see that what Rauner and Madigan are fighting over are not "on the margins."
The Simpson-Bowles Panel came up with some serious ideas at deficit reduction. It would have produced major changes to tax law.
Obamacare was not a fight at the margins. Neither was Hillarycare, or Bush's Social Security plan.
There are a couple phenomena happening outside of politics that is affecting the way politics is done:
1) The abundant choices of media today. I can access about a dozen online publications that cover a wide political spectrum every day with next to no effort. If I want to read everything right, I can. If I want to read everything left, I can. We know, unfortunately, that baseball fans can spend all their free time reading information about the Cubs, and they'll have a warped perspective if all they read is Al Yellon and Gordon Wittenmeyer. In the old days, you'd get your news by listening to 10 minutes of WBBM waiting for a traffic report, read the Tribune or the Sun-Times (rarely both), maybe the Wall Street Journal or New York Times, and maybe a periodical like Time, Newsweek or US News & World Report. Sure, you'd know those people who would subscribe to the Atlantic, or the Economist or the Nation or Mother Jones or National Review or the Weekly Standard, but again, those were much smaller audiences. And I didn't even talk about social media. Twitter and Facebook might have made more influential opinion-makers among us. Where in the past, there might have been one guy on the block that might be able to get half the neighborhood to vote a certain way, now a guy on Twitter with a solid list of followers can build a little bit of a movement.
The challenge of breaking through the noise keeps advertisers, marketers, media types, and anyone who needs the attention up at night. Come up with a good way to attract attention, and you have some legs for awhile. Problem is, the competition for attention has shortened the news cycle dramatically. So the battle to cut through noise has created... more noise.
2) The triumph of data in targeted marketing. Again, this is generally a good thing, but it has allowed a candidate to focus his message on just the things you care about (and that you agree with him on), thus allowing you to tolerate differences in opinion in various candidates less. The way districts are mapped (and we know two can play this game if you look at the legislative districts in this state) have added to the problem.
The solution to the problem is that there is no solution. The runoff idea sounds good until you consider that you could have 25 candidates running, and the two top vote getters are Trump and Sanders at 9% each because they have the most loyal following. Instead, let us find our way as we adjust to our own advancements.
Quote from: Brownie on February 03, 2016, 10:10:53 AM
1) The abundant choices of media today.
This right here...while it's easy to dismiss those who read Breitbart or HuffPo as "low information voters", but the correct phrase is probably "specific information voters". People want affirmation that they are well-informed, and every media source of this sort is only too happy to blame every other media source as being untrustworthy.
Quote from: SKO on February 03, 2016, 09:18:33 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on February 03, 2016, 09:04:50 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 03, 2016, 08:57:03 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on February 03, 2016, 08:26:34 AM
America is moving left
No it isn't. It's moving slightly right because the left has mostly won. When rightees scream, "DON'T TOUCH MY MEDICARE!" you know who has won. A large chunk of the GOOP base is over 60. They are the post-New Dealers who will not give up any of the social services net FDR invented. Hard to blame them having paid into them for 40+ years and now they want their (deserved) return.
Where the left has a few wins remaining is on the social issues, mostly because younger people see these social advances as, ultimately, a conservative thing. For example, gay marriage is a very pro-conservative issue (keep the gubbermint outta my bedroom!). There's room here for some advancement on the left.
Economically, the fight is at the margins. "Is the right tax rate 33% or 37%?" "Capital gains at 20% or 25%?" We're just haggling over price here.
I can agree with most of this but I think you see it stagnated on the center-left while I hear the rhetoric of Obama, Clinton and Sanders moving harder to the left than anything you heard from Bill or his contemporaries who were so spooked by the Reagan Revolution that they figured rightly that they would never win another national election without demonizing the far left as radical hippie burnouts. That tough talk Clinton had on crime and going head up with female rappers on the news is unthinkable in this Democratic primary.
What has not changed, and I think you've recognized is the machinary of the government itself. Nothing's really changing and yes, the fight is in the margins.
I'd say we still sit comfortably center-right with some basic leftist social safety nets. I mean when you compare what we have to any standard European country it's pretty laughable to look at America and say the left has won.
This. Even America's left is right.
Quote from: Brownie on February 03, 2016, 10:10:53 AM
The solution to the problem is that there is no solution. The runoff idea sounds good until you consider that you could have 25 candidates running, and the two top vote getters are Trump and Sanders at 9% each because they have the most loyal following. Instead, let us find our way as we adjust to our own advancements.
I don't agree that there is no solution. We already had 22 candidates this cycle. Part of the problem is you can pick a side and narrow your odds to guarantee a berth in the finals. One of the reasons Quinn won 5 years ago is that his opponent "won" his primary with 78% of the voters in that primary voting against him.
And one more thing: Why does Taxpayer Chuck have to pay for the Dems and GOOPs to hold their primary? I might be more inclined to pay if I could vote in both. But why can't I tell the Dems that I think Schneider is less of a loony than Rotering AND tell the GOOPs that I think Kasich is better than Cruz? Because I have an opinion on Schneider they aren't interested in my opinion on Kasich? An opinion I am paying to be able to cast?
Open primary with all on one ballot, open primary where I can vote all around, or let the parties pay for it themselves.
Quote from: Brownie on February 03, 2016, 10:10:53 AM
Not exactly. If you're paying attention to what is happening in Springfield, you would see that what Rauner and Madigan are fighting over are not "on the margins."
But it is at the margins. Unless Rauner is talking about cancelling pensions (if he is, I've missed this), it's about how to pay them going forward and how much to pay new entrants. The issue of retirement pay for public employees is settled: It's staying.
The union thing, that one you might say it's outside the margins, but again, it's ultimately a how to pay issue. Not a should we pay issue.
You want a real outside the margins fight, let's privatize education. Let's make state college tuition included in your taxes for state residents. Those kind of fever dreams aren't happening.
Obummer selecting a new justice will be fun.
Quote from: Yeti on February 13, 2016, 04:52:37 PM
Obummer selecting a new justice will be fun.
My general outlook when this development occurred:
(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/3/33224/662814-simpsons_homer_eating_popcorn.jpg)
Quote from: Yeti on February 13, 2016, 04:52:37 PM
Obummer selecting a new justice will be fun.
The irony* of Scalia being so originalist and Republicans trying to block Obama from performing his Constitutional duty will be less fun.
* I'm pretty confident in this one, CT.
Quote from: Eli on February 14, 2016, 08:55:10 AM
Quote from: Yeti on February 13, 2016, 04:52:37 PM
Obummer selecting a new justice will be fun.
The irony* of Scalia being so originalist and Republicans trying to block Obama from performing his Constitutional duty will be less fun.
* I'm pretty confident in this one, CT.
(http://i.imgur.com/jZOM0Fs.png)
Totally agree, Mitch. (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president)
Quote from: ChuckD on February 14, 2016, 09:37:57 AM
Quote from: Eli on February 14, 2016, 08:55:10 AM
Quote from: Yeti on February 13, 2016, 04:52:37 PM
Obummer selecting a new justice will be fun.
The irony* of Scalia being so originalist and Republicans trying to block Obama from performing his Constitutional duty will be less fun.
* I'm pretty confident in this one, CT.
(http://i.imgur.com/jZOM0Fs.png)
Totally agree, Mitch. (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president)
That was our
old voice, voices expire after like three years, how do you not know that.
Quote from: Eli on February 14, 2016, 08:55:10 AM
Quote from: Yeti on February 13, 2016, 04:52:37 PM
Obummer selecting a new justice will be fun.
The irony* of Scalia being so originalist and Republicans trying to block Obama from performing his Constitutional duty will be less fun.
* I'm pretty confident in this one, CT.
Your confidence was not misplaced.
Quote from: ChuckD on February 14, 2016, 09:37:57 AM
Quote from: Eli on February 14, 2016, 08:55:10 AM
Quote from: Yeti on February 13, 2016, 04:52:37 PM
Obummer selecting a new justice will be fun.
The irony* of Scalia being so originalist and Republicans trying to block Obama from performing his Constitutional duty will be less fun.
* I'm pretty confident in this one, CT.
(http://i.imgur.com/jZOM0Fs.png)
Totally agree, Mitch. (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president)
We do have a voice. We use it be selecting a president, one of whose functions is to nominate a person to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. You would think that a Senator would know that.
(http://i.imgur.com/jZOM0Fs.png)
Nice of him to admit that the Senate doesn't provide a voice of the people.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 14, 2016, 05:35:38 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/jZOM0Fs.png)
Nice of him to admit that the Senate doesn't provide a voice of the people.
Well... (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/congressional_job_approval-903.html)
Quote from: CBStew on February 14, 2016, 04:35:46 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on February 14, 2016, 09:37:57 AM
Quote from: Eli on February 14, 2016, 08:55:10 AM
Quote from: Yeti on February 13, 2016, 04:52:37 PM
Obummer selecting a new justice will be fun.
The irony* of Scalia being so originalist and Republicans trying to block Obama from performing his Constitutional duty will be less fun.
* I'm pretty confident in this one, CT.
(http://i.imgur.com/jZOM0Fs.png)
Totally agree, Mitch. (http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/president)
We do have a voice. We use it be selecting a president, one of whose functions is to nominate a person to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court. You would think that a Senator would know that.
I wouldn't expect most senators to know their mistresses last names, much less the constitution.
Jeb!
Quote from: Saul Goodman on February 21, 2016, 12:12:26 PM
Jeb!
Doesn't this belong in the Single Most Silent Thread Ever thread?
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
I'm beginning to think TJ is in denial.
Quote from: SKO on February 22, 2016, 09:40:58 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
I'm beginning to think TJ is in denial.
It's a terrible thing when political parties allow the public to make decisions for them.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 22, 2016, 10:04:08 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 22, 2016, 09:40:58 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
I'm beginning to think TJ is in denial.
It's a terrible thing when political parties allow the public to make decisions for them.
Not sure the Democrats fully apply here.
Quote from: Eli on February 22, 2016, 10:04:48 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 22, 2016, 10:04:08 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 22, 2016, 09:40:58 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
I'm beginning to think TJ is in denial.
It's a terrible thing when political parties allow the public to make decisions for them.
Not sure the Democrats fully apply here.
yeah, DWS has pretty effectively rigged the game for Hillary.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 22, 2016, 10:27:20 AM
Quote from: Eli on February 22, 2016, 10:04:48 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 22, 2016, 10:04:08 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 22, 2016, 09:40:58 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
I'm beginning to think TJ is in denial.
It's a terrible thing when political parties allow the public to make decisions for them.
Not sure the Democrats fully apply here.
yeah, DWS has pretty effectively rigged the game for Hillary.
Considering she's the only Democrat left in the race...
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 22, 2016, 10:27:20 AM
Quote from: Eli on February 22, 2016, 10:04:48 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 22, 2016, 10:04:08 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 22, 2016, 09:40:58 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
I'm beginning to think TJ is in denial.
It's a terrible thing when political parties allow the public to make decisions for them.
Not sure the Democrats fully apply here.
yeah, DWS has pretty effectively rigged the game for Hillary.
DWS?
Quote from: PANK! on February 22, 2016, 10:32:10 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 22, 2016, 10:27:20 AM
Quote from: Eli on February 22, 2016, 10:04:48 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 22, 2016, 10:04:08 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 22, 2016, 09:40:58 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
I'm beginning to think TJ is in denial.
It's a terrible thing when political parties allow the public to make decisions for them.
Not sure the Democrats fully apply here.
yeah, DWS has pretty effectively rigged the game for Hillary.
DWS?
It's Fork, so I assume he means Dancing With the Stars.
Quote from: PANK! on February 22, 2016, 10:32:10 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 22, 2016, 10:27:20 AM
Quote from: Eli on February 22, 2016, 10:04:48 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 22, 2016, 10:04:08 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 22, 2016, 09:40:58 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
I'm beginning to think TJ is in denial.
It's a terrible thing when political parties allow the public to make decisions for them.
Not sure the Democrats fully apply here.
yeah, DWS has pretty effectively rigged the game for Hillary.
DWS?
Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
Quote from: Eli on February 22, 2016, 10:37:41 AM
Quote from: PANK! on February 22, 2016, 10:32:10 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 22, 2016, 10:27:20 AM
Quote from: Eli on February 22, 2016, 10:04:48 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 22, 2016, 10:04:08 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 22, 2016, 09:40:58 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
I'm beginning to think TJ is in denial.
It's a terrible thing when political parties allow the public to make decisions for them.
Not sure the Democrats fully apply here.
yeah, DWS has pretty effectively rigged the game for Hillary.
DWS?
Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
I had to look this up to determine whether or not you were making a joke.
Quote from: CT III on February 22, 2016, 10:39:48 AM
Quote from: Eli on February 22, 2016, 10:37:41 AM
Quote from: PANK! on February 22, 2016, 10:32:10 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 22, 2016, 10:27:20 AM
Quote from: Eli on February 22, 2016, 10:04:48 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 22, 2016, 10:04:08 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 22, 2016, 09:40:58 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
I'm beginning to think TJ is in denial.
It's a terrible thing when political parties allow the public to make decisions for them.
Not sure the Democrats fully apply here.
yeah, DWS has pretty effectively rigged the game for Hillary.
DWS?
Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
I had to look this up to determine whether or not you were making a joke.
This is no joking matter.
Quote from: CT III on February 22, 2016, 10:39:48 AM
Quote from: Eli on February 22, 2016, 10:37:41 AM
Quote from: PANK! on February 22, 2016, 10:32:10 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 22, 2016, 10:27:20 AM
Quote from: Eli on February 22, 2016, 10:04:48 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 22, 2016, 10:04:08 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 22, 2016, 09:40:58 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
I'm beginning to think TJ is in denial.
It's a terrible thing when political parties allow the public to make decisions for them.
Not sure the Democrats fully apply here.
yeah, DWS has pretty effectively rigged the game for Hillary.
DWS?
Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
I had to look this up to determine whether or not you were making a joke.
And you're still not totally sure, right?
Quote from: Eli on February 22, 2016, 11:15:44 AM
Quote from: CT III on February 22, 2016, 10:39:48 AM
Quote from: Eli on February 22, 2016, 10:37:41 AM
Quote from: PANK! on February 22, 2016, 10:32:10 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 22, 2016, 10:27:20 AM
Quote from: Eli on February 22, 2016, 10:04:48 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 22, 2016, 10:04:08 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 22, 2016, 09:40:58 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
I'm beginning to think TJ is in denial.
It's a terrible thing when political parties allow the public to make decisions for them.
Not sure the Democrats fully apply here.
yeah, DWS has pretty effectively rigged the game for Hillary.
DWS?
Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
I had to look this up to determine whether or not you were making a joke.
And you're still not totally sure, right?
Will this help?
(http://www.addictinginfo.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/debbie_wasserman_schultz_scott.jpg)
Quote from: Eli on February 22, 2016, 11:15:44 AM
Quote from: CT III on February 22, 2016, 10:39:48 AM
Quote from: Eli on February 22, 2016, 10:37:41 AM
Quote from: PANK! on February 22, 2016, 10:32:10 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 22, 2016, 10:27:20 AM
Quote from: Eli on February 22, 2016, 10:04:48 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 22, 2016, 10:04:08 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 22, 2016, 09:40:58 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
I'm beginning to think TJ is in denial.
It's a terrible thing when political parties allow the public to make decisions for them.
Not sure the Democrats fully apply here.
yeah, DWS has pretty effectively rigged the game for Hillary.
DWS?
Debbie Wasserman Schultz.
I had to look this up to determine whether or not you were making a joke.
And you're still not totally sure, right?
No, your answer appears to be both correct and sincere.
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
Holy shit. The Brewers are going to win the pennant.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcKJ7-VXEAAIxYW?format=pjpg&name=large)
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 26, 2016, 11:57:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
Holy shit. The Brewers are going to win the pennant.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcKJ7-VXEAAIxYW?format=pjpg&name=large)
This headline (http://gawker.com/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump-for-president-1761518844) says it all.
Quote from: Bort on February 26, 2016, 01:12:44 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 26, 2016, 11:57:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
Holy shit. The Brewers are going to win the pennant.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcKJ7-VXEAAIxYW?format=pjpg&name=large)
This headline (http://gawker.com/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump-for-president-1761518844) says it all.
The GOP is what the Democrats would have been if Clinton hadn't had his Sister Souljah Moment.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 26, 2016, 01:36:01 PM
Quote from: Bort on February 26, 2016, 01:12:44 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 26, 2016, 11:57:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
Holy shit. The Brewers are going to win the pennant.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcKJ7-VXEAAIxYW?format=pjpg&name=large)
This headline (http://gawker.com/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump-for-president-1761518844) says it all.
The GOP is what the Democrats would have been if Clinton hadn't had his Sister Souljah Moment.
Zuh?
Quote from: CT III on February 26, 2016, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 26, 2016, 01:36:01 PM
Quote from: Bort on February 26, 2016, 01:12:44 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 26, 2016, 11:57:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
Holy shit. The Brewers are going to win the pennant.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcKJ7-VXEAAIxYW?format=pjpg&name=large)
This headline (http://gawker.com/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump-for-president-1761518844) says it all.
The GOP is what the Democrats would have been if Clinton hadn't had his Sister Souljah Moment.
Zuh?
If Clinton hadn't repudiated Sister Souljah's comments about black people killing white people, the Democrats would be on the verge of nominating Donald Trump on a platform of bronzer, jingoism, and xenophobia.
Quote from: ChuckD on February 26, 2016, 03:15:11 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 26, 2016, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 26, 2016, 01:36:01 PM
Quote from: Bort on February 26, 2016, 01:12:44 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 26, 2016, 11:57:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
Holy shit. The Brewers are going to win the pennant.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcKJ7-VXEAAIxYW?format=pjpg&name=large)
This headline (http://gawker.com/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump-for-president-1761518844) says it all.
The GOP is what the Democrats would have been if Clinton hadn't had his Sister Souljah Moment.
Zuh?
If Clinton hadn't repudiated Sister Souljah's comments about black people killing white people, the Democrats would be on the verge of nominating Donald Trump on a platform of bronzer, jingoism, and xenophobia.
The Democratic party would have become ruled by their radical elements. The Republican establishment never took for granted the extreme fringe was going to vote for them anyway, like Clinton did. So now they're being eaten by their own Frankenstein.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 26, 2016, 03:57:39 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on February 26, 2016, 03:15:11 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 26, 2016, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 26, 2016, 01:36:01 PM
Quote from: Bort on February 26, 2016, 01:12:44 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 26, 2016, 11:57:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
Holy shit. The Brewers are going to win the pennant.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcKJ7-VXEAAIxYW?format=pjpg&name=large)
This headline (http://gawker.com/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump-for-president-1761518844) says it all.
The GOP is what the Democrats would have been if Clinton hadn't had his Sister Souljah Moment.
Zuh?
If Clinton hadn't repudiated Sister Souljah's comments about black people killing white people, the Democrats would be on the verge of nominating Donald Trump on a platform of bronzer, jingoism, and xenophobia.
The Democratic party would have become ruled by their radical elements. The Republican establishment never took for granted the extreme fringe was going to vote for them anyway, like Clinton did. So now they're being eaten by their own Frankenstein.
I'm not loving the myriad of polls and projections that give Trump a clear line to the presidency. And yet, I hope he gets the nomination because, deep down, I just don't believe he will have the support.
But ... if he in fact gets the support he needs, and somehow manages to win, then a big part of me thinks that America gets what it deserves.
I clearly overestimated the power that the GOP establishment maintains. Nixon's coalition between the segregationist south and the country club elite has fallen and become the habitation of devils, in the hold of every foul spirit and a cage of very unclean and hateful men. Those old boys have pulled out every stop except for the open convention, which would be their death knell if attempted now.
Bernie's support stops south of the Mason-Dixon just as surely as it starts with the young and energetic liberal students propping him up. I figured his radical policies would be problematic for the more conservative democrats in the South, but I did not figure on the anti-semitism still held by members of all ethnic groups in that part of the country. So his run is nearly at its logical conclusion - though I hope he stays in just to spite the hateful cunts and promote his message, which may need another election cycle or two before it takes root.
Now the worry for those of you who would rather see Hillary than Trump is that the time has never been better for an independent candidate to enter the fray, with both major parties in disarray, losing support by the day. A Bloomberg entry could serve to split the anti-Trump vote and deliver the White House to the Donald.
So... the Cubs are looking good, eh?
Quote from: InternetApex on February 29, 2016, 08:02:28 AM
I clearly overestimated the power that the GOP establishment maintains. Nixon's coalition between the segregationist south and the country club elite has fallen and become the habitation of devils, in the hold of every foul spirit and a cage of very unclean and hateful men. Those old boys have pulled out every stop except for the open convention, which would be their death knell if attempted now.
Bernie's support stops south of the Mason-Dixon just as surely as it starts with the young and energetic liberal students propping him up. I figured his radical policies would be problematic for the more conservative democrats in the South, but I did not figure on the anti-semitism still held by members of all ethnic groups in that part of the country. So his run is nearly at its logical conclusion - though I hope he stays in just to spite the hateful cunts and promote his message, which may need another election cycle or two before it takes root.
Now the worry for those of you who would rather see Hillary than Trump is that the time has never been better for an independent candidate to enter the fray, with both major parties in disarray, losing support by the day. A Bloomberg entry could serve to split the anti-Trump vote and deliver the White House to the Donald.
So... the Cubs are looking good, eh?
I feel like the Bloomberg thing is really overrated. Outside of New York does
anyone give a fuck about Bloomberg? I just asked my office if any of them had any fucking idea who Bloomberg was. Two of ten got it right. This is a non-factor. Remember when people thought Giuliani might be a thing? The man was a national hero after 9/11 and his election was basically the Jeb! preview. Nobody cares.
Quote from: SKO on February 29, 2016, 08:05:11 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on February 29, 2016, 08:02:28 AM
I clearly overestimated the power that the GOP establishment maintains. Nixon's coalition between the segregationist south and the country club elite has fallen and become the habitation of devils, in the hold of every foul spirit and a cage of very unclean and hateful men. Those old boys have pulled out every stop except for the open convention, which would be their death knell if attempted now.
Bernie's support stops south of the Mason-Dixon just as surely as it starts with the young and energetic liberal students propping him up. I figured his radical policies would be problematic for the more conservative democrats in the South, but I did not figure on the anti-semitism still held by members of all ethnic groups in that part of the country. So his run is nearly at its logical conclusion - though I hope he stays in just to spite the hateful cunts and promote his message, which may need another election cycle or two before it takes root.
Now the worry for those of you who would rather see Hillary than Trump is that the time has never been better for an independent candidate to enter the fray, with both major parties in disarray, losing support by the day. A Bloomberg entry could serve to split the anti-Trump vote and deliver the White House to the Donald.
So... the Cubs are looking good, eh?
I feel like the Bloomberg thing is really overrated. Outside of New York does anyone give a fuck about Bloomberg? I just asked my office if any of them had any fucking idea who Bloomberg was. Two of ten got it right. This is a non-factor. Remember when people thought Giuliani might be a thing? The man was a national hero after 9/11 and his election was basically the Jeb! preview. Nobody cares.
Probably so. But he controls enough media to get his name and message out there as the anti-establishment alternative in short order.
Quote from: InternetApex on February 29, 2016, 08:27:13 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 29, 2016, 08:05:11 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on February 29, 2016, 08:02:28 AM
I clearly overestimated the power that the GOP establishment maintains. Nixon's coalition between the segregationist south and the country club elite has fallen and become the habitation of devils, in the hold of every foul spirit and a cage of very unclean and hateful men. Those old boys have pulled out every stop except for the open convention, which would be their death knell if attempted now.
Bernie's support stops south of the Mason-Dixon just as surely as it starts with the young and energetic liberal students propping him up. I figured his radical policies would be problematic for the more conservative democrats in the South, but I did not figure on the anti-semitism still held by members of all ethnic groups in that part of the country. So his run is nearly at its logical conclusion - though I hope he stays in just to spite the hateful cunts and promote his message, which may need another election cycle or two before it takes root.
Now the worry for those of you who would rather see Hillary than Trump is that the time has never been better for an independent candidate to enter the fray, with both major parties in disarray, losing support by the day. A Bloomberg entry could serve to split the anti-Trump vote and deliver the White House to the Donald.
So... the Cubs are looking good, eh?
I feel like the Bloomberg thing is really overrated. Outside of New York does anyone give a fuck about Bloomberg? I just asked my office if any of them had any fucking idea who Bloomberg was. Two of ten got it right. This is a non-factor. Remember when people thought Giuliani might be a thing? The man was a national hero after 9/11 and his election was basically the Jeb! preview. Nobody cares.
Probably so. But he controls enough media to get his name and message out there as the anti-establishment alternative in short order.
Bloomberg won't run. But if he did, he'd be a non-factor, even in NYC.
Quote from: SKO on February 29, 2016, 08:05:11 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on February 29, 2016, 08:02:28 AM
I clearly overestimated the power that the GOP establishment maintains. Nixon's coalition between the segregationist south and the country club elite has fallen and become the habitation of devils, in the hold of every foul spirit and a cage of very unclean and hateful men. Those old boys have pulled out every stop except for the open convention, which would be their death knell if attempted now.
Bernie's support stops south of the Mason-Dixon just as surely as it starts with the young and energetic liberal students propping him up. I figured his radical policies would be problematic for the more conservative democrats in the South, but I did not figure on the anti-semitism still held by members of all ethnic groups in that part of the country. So his run is nearly at its logical conclusion - though I hope he stays in just to spite the hateful cunts and promote his message, which may need another election cycle or two before it takes root.
Now the worry for those of you who would rather see Hillary than Trump is that the time has never been better for an independent candidate to enter the fray, with both major parties in disarray, losing support by the day. A Bloomberg entry could serve to split the anti-Trump vote and deliver the White House to the Donald.
So... the Cubs are looking good, eh?
I feel like the Bloomberg thing is really overrated. Outside of New York does anyone give a fuck about Bloomberg? I just asked my office if any of them had any fucking idea who Bloomberg was. Two of ten got it right. This is a non-factor. Remember when people thought Giuliani might be a thing? The man was a national hero after 9/11 and his election was basically the Jeb! preview. Nobody cares.
Uh... yes.
The Bloomberg thing is a pipe dream created by people who don't want to admit Trump is the logical conclusion of the endless 24-7 horse race ratings grab nature of American political reporting.
Quote from: Bort on February 29, 2016, 09:47:16 AM
The Bloomberg thing is a pipe dream created by people who don't want to admit Trump is the logical conclusion of the endless 24-7 horse race ratings grab nature of American political reporting.
Indeed. I still think Clinton will defeat Trump in the general election, in which case we all get to spend roughly 15 minutes being moderately relieved we stopped the fascist asshole before we wake up to the very marginally better reality of electing Hillary and reaping the benefits of 4-8 years of her realpolitik bullshit.
Quote from: SKO on February 29, 2016, 09:57:11 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 29, 2016, 09:47:16 AM
The Bloomberg thing is a pipe dream created by people who don't want to admit Trump is the logical conclusion of the endless 24-7 horse race ratings grab nature of American political reporting.
Indeed. I still think Clinton will defeat Trump in the general election, in which case we all get to spend roughly 15 minutes being moderately relieved we stopped the fascist asshole before we wake up to the very marginally better reality of electing Hillary and reaping the benefits of 4-8 years of her realpolitik bullshit.
I think Hillary would be a lot better than "very marginally" compared to Trump, but it would still eat way more ass than McStiff.
Quote from: Canadouche on February 26, 2016, 05:16:43 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 26, 2016, 03:57:39 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on February 26, 2016, 03:15:11 PM
Quote from: CT III on February 26, 2016, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 26, 2016, 01:36:01 PM
Quote from: Bort on February 26, 2016, 01:12:44 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 26, 2016, 11:57:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
Holy shit. The Brewers are going to win the pennant.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcKJ7-VXEAAIxYW?format=pjpg&name=large)
This headline (http://gawker.com/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump-for-president-1761518844) says it all.
The GOP is what the Democrats would have been if Clinton hadn't had his Sister Souljah Moment.
Zuh?
If Clinton hadn't repudiated Sister Souljah's comments about black people killing white people, the Democrats would be on the verge of nominating Donald Trump on a platform of bronzer, jingoism, and xenophobia.
The Democratic party would have become ruled by their radical elements. The Republican establishment never took for granted the extreme fringe was going to vote for them anyway, like Clinton did. So now they're being eaten by their own Frankenstein.
I'm not loving the myriad of polls and projections that give Trump a clear line to the presidency. And yet, I hope he gets the nomination because, deep down, I just don't believe he will have the support.
But ... if he in fact gets the support he needs, and somehow manages to win, then a big part of me thinks that America gets what it deserves.
By the way. That photo is great!
Quote from: ChuckD on February 29, 2016, 10:11:42 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 29, 2016, 09:57:11 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 29, 2016, 09:47:16 AM
The Bloomberg thing is a pipe dream created by people who don't want to admit Trump is the logical conclusion of the endless 24-7 horse race ratings grab nature of American political reporting.
Indeed. I still think Clinton will defeat Trump in the general election, in which case we all get to spend roughly 15 minutes being moderately relieved we stopped the fascist asshole before we wake up to the very marginally better reality of electing Hillary and reaping the benefits of 4-8 years of her realpolitik bullshit.
I think Hillary would be a lot better than "very marginally" compared to Trump, but it would still eat way more ass than McStiff.
Agreed.
Quote from: SKO on February 29, 2016, 09:57:11 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 29, 2016, 09:47:16 AM
The Bloomberg thing is a pipe dream created by people who don't want to admit Trump is the logical conclusion of the endless 24-7 horse race ratings grab nature of American political reporting.
Indeed. I still think Clinton will defeat Trump in the general election, in which case we all get to spend roughly 15 minutes being moderately relieved we stopped the fascist asshole before we wake up to the very marginally better reality of electing Hillary and reaping the benefits of 4-8 years of her realpolitik bullshit.
A Hillary win would do really only one thing: Lock in a left leaning SCOTUS for a long time. You'd see Citizen's United overturned. Possibly Hobby Lobby as well. And Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder would also likely be overturned.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 26, 2016, 11:57:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
Holy shit. The Brewers are going to win the pennant.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcKJ7-VXEAAIxYW?format=pjpg&name=large)
Anybody with half a brain knows that this is as surprising as Gabby Giffords endorsing Hillary.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 29, 2016, 10:29:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 29, 2016, 09:57:11 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 29, 2016, 09:47:16 AM
The Bloomberg thing is a pipe dream created by people who don't want to admit Trump is the logical conclusion of the endless 24-7 horse race ratings grab nature of American political reporting.
Indeed. I still think Clinton will defeat Trump in the general election, in which case we all get to spend roughly 15 minutes being moderately relieved we stopped the fascist asshole before we wake up to the very marginally better reality of electing Hillary and reaping the benefits of 4-8 years of her realpolitik bullshit.
A Hillary win would do really only one thing: Lock in a left leaning SCOTUS for a long time. You'd see Citizen's United overturned. Possibly Hobby Lobby as well. And Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder would also likely be overturned.
Also another 4-year NRA bonanza because "ZOMG! HITLERY'S TAKING OUR GUNS!!!"
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 29, 2016, 11:15:28 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 29, 2016, 10:29:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 29, 2016, 09:57:11 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 29, 2016, 09:47:16 AM
The Bloomberg thing is a pipe dream created by people who don't want to admit Trump is the logical conclusion of the endless 24-7 horse race ratings grab nature of American political reporting.
Indeed. I still think Clinton will defeat Trump in the general election, in which case we all get to spend roughly 15 minutes being moderately relieved we stopped the fascist asshole before we wake up to the very marginally better reality of electing Hillary and reaping the benefits of 4-8 years of her realpolitik bullshit.
A Hillary win would do really only one thing: Lock in a left leaning SCOTUS for a long time. You'd see Citizen's United overturned. Possibly Hobby Lobby as well. And Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder would also likely be overturned.
Also another 4-year NRA bonanza because "ZOMG! HITLERY'S TAKING OUR GUNS!!!"
Which is hilarious, since she's gotten more donations from arms manufacturers than any other candidate.
Quote from: SKO on February 29, 2016, 11:16:40 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 29, 2016, 11:15:28 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 29, 2016, 10:29:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 29, 2016, 09:57:11 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 29, 2016, 09:47:16 AM
The Bloomberg thing is a pipe dream created by people who don't want to admit Trump is the logical conclusion of the endless 24-7 horse race ratings grab nature of American political reporting.
Indeed. I still think Clinton will defeat Trump in the general election, in which case we all get to spend roughly 15 minutes being moderately relieved we stopped the fascist asshole before we wake up to the very marginally better reality of electing Hillary and reaping the benefits of 4-8 years of her realpolitik bullshit.
A Hillary win would do really only one thing: Lock in a left leaning SCOTUS for a long time. You'd see Citizen's United overturned. Possibly Hobby Lobby as well. And Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder would also likely be overturned.
Also another 4-year NRA bonanza because "ZOMG! HITLERY'S TAKING OUR GUNS!!!"
Which is hilarious, since she's gotten more donations from arms manufacturers than any other candidate.
And they'll benefit the most from a Hillary Presidency. Look at how many guns people have bought in the last 8 years believing Obama was coming for them.
DPD.
The effects of Scalia's death (http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Justice-Clarence-Thomas-asks-questions-in-court-1st-time-in-10-years-370509211.html) are already being felt.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 29, 2016, 10:29:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 29, 2016, 09:57:11 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 29, 2016, 09:47:16 AM
The Bloomberg thing is a pipe dream created by people who don't want to admit Trump is the logical conclusion of the endless 24-7 horse race ratings grab nature of American political reporting.
Indeed. I still think Clinton will defeat Trump in the general election, in which case we all get to spend roughly 15 minutes being moderately relieved we stopped the fascist asshole before we wake up to the very marginally better reality of electing Hillary and reaping the benefits of 4-8 years of her realpolitik bullshit.
A Hillary win would do really only one thing: Lock in a left leaning SCOTUS for a long time. You'd see Citizen's United overturned. Possibly Hobby Lobby as well. And Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder would also likely be overturned.
Most importantly, if somebody issued a legal challenge to the gerrymandering concocted by the State Republicans, then even
that might get reversed, and Republican power in the United States would diminish forever.
Or, at least, it would diminish until they expelled the fanatics from their party and began catering to the moderates who left the party long ago.
Quote from: flannj on February 29, 2016, 10:38:24 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 26, 2016, 11:57:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
Holy shit. The Brewers are going to win the pennant.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcKJ7-VXEAAIxYW?format=pjpg&name=large)
Anybody with half a brain knows that this is as surprising as Gabby Giffords endorsing Hillary.
Really? Nothing?
You guys are slipping.
Quote from: flannj on February 29, 2016, 12:24:24 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 29, 2016, 10:38:24 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 26, 2016, 11:57:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
Holy shit. The Brewers are going to win the pennant.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcKJ7-VXEAAIxYW?format=pjpg&name=large)
Anybody with half a brain knows that this is as surprising as Gabby Giffords endorsing Hillary.
Really? Nothing?
You guys are slipping.
Just hit me. Man, you're so wrong. I've got half a mind to block your posts for awhile.
Quote from: InternetApex on February 29, 2016, 12:37:00 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 29, 2016, 12:24:24 PM
Quote from: flannj on February 29, 2016, 10:38:24 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 26, 2016, 11:57:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
Holy shit. The Brewers are going to win the pennant.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcKJ7-VXEAAIxYW?format=pjpg&name=large)
Anybody with half a brain knows that this is as surprising as Gabby Giffords endorsing Hillary.
Really? Nothing?
You guys are slipping.
Just hit me. Man, you're so wrong. I've got half a mind to block your posts for awhile.
And BANG... Pex gets it.
Quote from: Canadouche on February 29, 2016, 12:02:50 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 29, 2016, 10:29:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 29, 2016, 09:57:11 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 29, 2016, 09:47:16 AM
The Bloomberg thing is a pipe dream created by people who don't want to admit Trump is the logical conclusion of the endless 24-7 horse race ratings grab nature of American political reporting.
Indeed. I still think Clinton will defeat Trump in the general election, in which case we all get to spend roughly 15 minutes being moderately relieved we stopped the fascist asshole before we wake up to the very marginally better reality of electing Hillary and reaping the benefits of 4-8 years of her realpolitik bullshit.
A Hillary win would do really only one thing: Lock in a left leaning SCOTUS for a long time. You'd see Citizen's United overturned. Possibly Hobby Lobby as well. And Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder would also likely be overturned.
Most importantly, if somebody issued a legal challenge to the gerrymandering concocted by the State Republicans, then even that might get reversed, and Republican power in the United States would diminish forever.
Or, at least, it would diminish until they expelled the fanatics from their party and began catering to the moderates who left the party long ago.
Yeah, that's not a Goop only issue. This is Luis Gutierez's district. Just a wee bit Jerry Mandered.
(http://www.changinggears.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Screen-Shot-2012-03-30-at-11.59.59-AM.png)
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 29, 2016, 01:39:13 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on February 29, 2016, 12:02:50 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 29, 2016, 10:29:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 29, 2016, 09:57:11 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 29, 2016, 09:47:16 AM
The Bloomberg thing is a pipe dream created by people who don't want to admit Trump is the logical conclusion of the endless 24-7 horse race ratings grab nature of American political reporting.
Indeed. I still think Clinton will defeat Trump in the general election, in which case we all get to spend roughly 15 minutes being moderately relieved we stopped the fascist asshole before we wake up to the very marginally better reality of electing Hillary and reaping the benefits of 4-8 years of her realpolitik bullshit.
A Hillary win would do really only one thing: Lock in a left leaning SCOTUS for a long time. You'd see Citizen's United overturned. Possibly Hobby Lobby as well. And Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder would also likely be overturned.
Most importantly, if somebody issued a legal challenge to the gerrymandering concocted by the State Republicans, then even that might get reversed, and Republican power in the United States would diminish forever.
Or, at least, it would diminish until they expelled the fanatics from their party and began catering to the moderates who left the party long ago.
Yeah, that's not a Goop only issue. This is Luis Gutierez's district. Just a wee bit Jerry Mandered.
(http://www.changinggears.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Screen-Shot-2012-03-30-at-11.59.59-AM.png)
It looks like he has US294 well represented for about a quarter mile. Who uses 294 for a residence address?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 29, 2016, 01:39:13 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on February 29, 2016, 12:02:50 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 29, 2016, 10:29:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 29, 2016, 09:57:11 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 29, 2016, 09:47:16 AM
The Bloomberg thing is a pipe dream created by people who don't want to admit Trump is the logical conclusion of the endless 24-7 horse race ratings grab nature of American political reporting.
Indeed. I still think Clinton will defeat Trump in the general election, in which case we all get to spend roughly 15 minutes being moderately relieved we stopped the fascist asshole before we wake up to the very marginally better reality of electing Hillary and reaping the benefits of 4-8 years of her realpolitik bullshit.
A Hillary win would do really only one thing: Lock in a left leaning SCOTUS for a long time. You'd see Citizen's United overturned. Possibly Hobby Lobby as well. And Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder would also likely be overturned.
Most importantly, if somebody issued a legal challenge to the gerrymandering concocted by the State Republicans, then even that might get reversed, and Republican power in the United States would diminish forever.
Or, at least, it would diminish until they expelled the fanatics from their party and began catering to the moderates who left the party long ago.
Yeah, that's not a Goop only issue. This is Luis Gutierez's district. Just a wee bit Jerry Mandered.
(http://www.changinggears.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Screen-Shot-2012-03-30-at-11.59.59-AM.png)
What does the annoying Gwyneth Paltrow's blog have to do with any of this?
Quote from: PANK! on February 29, 2016, 02:05:03 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 29, 2016, 01:39:13 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on February 29, 2016, 12:02:50 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 29, 2016, 10:29:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 29, 2016, 09:57:11 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 29, 2016, 09:47:16 AM
The Bloomberg thing is a pipe dream created by people who don't want to admit Trump is the logical conclusion of the endless 24-7 horse race ratings grab nature of American political reporting.
Indeed. I still think Clinton will defeat Trump in the general election, in which case we all get to spend roughly 15 minutes being moderately relieved we stopped the fascist asshole before we wake up to the very marginally better reality of electing Hillary and reaping the benefits of 4-8 years of her realpolitik bullshit.
A Hillary win would do really only one thing: Lock in a left leaning SCOTUS for a long time. You'd see Citizen's United overturned. Possibly Hobby Lobby as well. And Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder would also likely be overturned.
Most importantly, if somebody issued a legal challenge to the gerrymandering concocted by the State Republicans, then even that might get reversed, and Republican power in the United States would diminish forever.
Or, at least, it would diminish until they expelled the fanatics from their party and began catering to the moderates who left the party long ago.
Yeah, that's not a Goop only issue. This is Luis Gutierez's district. Just a wee bit Jerry Mandered.
(http://www.changinggears.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Screen-Shot-2012-03-30-at-11.59.59-AM.png)
What does the annoying Gwyneth Paltrow's blog have to do with any of this?
Why do you know what Gwyneth Paltrow's blog is called?
Quote from: Oleg on February 29, 2016, 03:23:46 PM
Quote from: PANK! on February 29, 2016, 02:05:03 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 29, 2016, 01:39:13 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on February 29, 2016, 12:02:50 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 29, 2016, 10:29:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on February 29, 2016, 09:57:11 AM
Quote from: Bort on February 29, 2016, 09:47:16 AM
The Bloomberg thing is a pipe dream created by people who don't want to admit Trump is the logical conclusion of the endless 24-7 horse race ratings grab nature of American political reporting.
Indeed. I still think Clinton will defeat Trump in the general election, in which case we all get to spend roughly 15 minutes being moderately relieved we stopped the fascist asshole before we wake up to the very marginally better reality of electing Hillary and reaping the benefits of 4-8 years of her realpolitik bullshit.
A Hillary win would do really only one thing: Lock in a left leaning SCOTUS for a long time. You'd see Citizen's United overturned. Possibly Hobby Lobby as well. And Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder would also likely be overturned.
Most importantly, if somebody issued a legal challenge to the gerrymandering concocted by the State Republicans, then even that might get reversed, and Republican power in the United States would diminish forever.
Or, at least, it would diminish until they expelled the fanatics from their party and began catering to the moderates who left the party long ago.
Yeah, that's not a Goop only issue. This is Luis Gutierez's district. Just a wee bit Jerry Mandered.
(http://www.changinggears.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Screen-Shot-2012-03-30-at-11.59.59-AM.png)
What does the annoying Gwyneth Paltrow's blog have to do with any of this?
Why do you know what Gwyneth Paltrow's blog is called?
I feel I've done a good job of tackling the insensitive, immature doof of my younger days who would have said "what are you, gay?" and then Huey posted that and the only response that ran through my mind was "what are you, gay?"
Why are white people in the south still allowed to vote? How much longer do we have to tolerate them?
Quote from: InternetApex on February 29, 2016, 03:50:54 PM
Why are white people in the south still allowed to vote? How much longer do we have to tolerate them?
We should secede!
Quote from: Saul Goodman on February 29, 2016, 03:56:54 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on February 29, 2016, 03:50:54 PM
Why are white people in the south still allowed to vote? How much longer do we have to tolerate them?
We should secede!
You and me?
Quote from: InternetApex on February 29, 2016, 04:19:28 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on February 29, 2016, 03:56:54 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on February 29, 2016, 03:50:54 PM
Why are white people in the south still allowed to vote? How much longer do we have to tolerate them?
We should secede!
You and me?
I meant the north, but maybe we should unpack that first.
We're all doomed.
Jerry Mandered?
Quote from: CT III on February 26, 2016, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on February 26, 2016, 01:36:01 PM
Quote from: Bort on February 26, 2016, 01:12:44 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 26, 2016, 11:57:05 AM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
Holy shit. The Brewers are going to win the pennant.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CcKJ7-VXEAAIxYW?format=pjpg&name=large)
This headline (http://gawker.com/chris-christie-endorses-donald-trump-for-president-1761518844) says it all.
The GOP is what the Democrats would have been if Clinton hadn't had his Sister Souljah Moment.
Zuh?
No, Fork.
Quote from: PANK! on March 01, 2016, 01:20:29 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 01, 2016, 01:13:19 PM
Quote from: morpheus on August 15, 2011, 09:03:25 AM
Quote from: PANK! on August 14, 2011, 10:12:11 PM
DPD. And when President GiffordsTrump hosts the team in the White House Rose Garden, Carlos will be off the hook.
Sensible Moderate'd.
(http://i.imgur.com/Z59eH.jpg)
Was wandering the backlogs of this thread when this extremely prescient MorphShop appeared.
Not to quibble with a quality turd mine, but, shouldn't this be in the "Fuck It's Silent" thread?
Sure why not
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
I think we're in Cubs-Royals territory now.
TIME TO HOP ONTO THE H-TRAIN!
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 08:35:17 AM
TIME TO HOP ONTO THE H-TRAIN!
I agree: heroin is basically the only way to cope with this election.
Quote from: Bort on March 02, 2016, 08:36:22 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 08:35:17 AM
TIME TO HOP ONTO THE H-TRAIN!
I agree: heroin is basically the only way to cope with this election.
I'm doing very nicely on ketamine, thank you.
I hate that not only have I been reduced to voting for Hillary Clinton, whom I despise, I basically see it as a moral imperative to vote for her and not the fascist demagogue. Good work, America. You're fucking great.
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 08:51:15 AM
I hate that not only have I been reduced to voting for Hillary Clinton, whom I despise, I basically see it as a moral imperative to vote for her and not the fascist demagogue. Good work, America. You're fucking great.
Or you can be like that gay Indian dude on Twitter and not vote for Hillary because she's apparently a war-mongerer, take your vote and go home and let the fascist demagogue win by default. Yay America.
Quote from: PANK! on March 02, 2016, 08:53:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 08:51:15 AM
I hate that not only have I been reduced to voting for Hillary Clinton, whom I despise, I basically see it as a moral imperative to vote for her and not the fascist demagogue. Good work, America. You're fucking great.
Or you can be like that gay Indian dude on Twitter and not vote for Hillary because she's apparently a war-mongerer, take your vote and go home and let the fascist demagogue win by default. Yay America.
I understand loathing Hillary, I do. I generally understand taking the Bortist stance of not voting in any election because the two party system is a joke, but yeah when you have one guy saying internment camps were a good idea and we need to ban entire religions and flaunting the support of white supremacists I think we can agree to choose the lesser evil and THEN start picking bones with her.
Quote from: PANK! on March 02, 2016, 08:53:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 08:51:15 AM
I hate that not only have I been reduced to voting for Hillary Clinton, whom I despise, I basically see it as a moral imperative to vote for her and not the fascist demagogue. Good work, America. You're fucking great.
Or you can be like that gay Indian dude on Twitter and not vote for Hillary because she's apparently a war-mongerer, take your vote and go home and let the fascist demagogue win by default. Yay America.
Manu?
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 09:11:26 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 02, 2016, 08:53:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 08:51:15 AM
I hate that not only have I been reduced to voting for Hillary Clinton, whom I despise, I basically see it as a moral imperative to vote for her and not the fascist demagogue. Good work, America. You're fucking great.
Or you can be like that gay Indian dude on Twitter and not vote for Hillary because she's apparently a war-mongerer, take your vote and go home and let the fascist demagogue win by default. Yay America.
I understand loathing Hillary, I do. I generally understand taking the Bortist stance of not voting in any election because the two party system is a joke, but yeah when you have one guy saying internment camps were a good idea and we need to ban entire religions and flaunting the support of white supremacists I think we can agree to choose the lesser evil and THEN start picking bones with her.
It only matters in a handful of states. Illinois isn't one of those. I can leave the top line blank if I want. There is no moral imperative for me to participate in that. If I lived in Ohio, well, fuck.
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 09:37:54 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 09:11:26 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 02, 2016, 08:53:48 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 08:51:15 AM
I hate that not only have I been reduced to voting for Hillary Clinton, whom I despise, I basically see it as a moral imperative to vote for her and not the fascist demagogue. Good work, America. You're fucking great.
Or you can be like that gay Indian dude on Twitter and not vote for Hillary because she's apparently a war-mongerer, take your vote and go home and let the fascist demagogue win by default. Yay America.
I understand loathing Hillary, I do. I generally understand taking the Bortist stance of not voting in any election because the two party system is a joke, but yeah when you have one guy saying internment camps were a good idea and we need to ban entire religions and flaunting the support of white supremacists I think we can agree to choose the lesser evil and THEN start picking bones with her.
It only matters in a handful of states. Illinois isn't one of those. I can leave the top line blank if I want. There is no moral imperative for me to participate in that. If I lived in Ohio, well, fuck.
Yeah that's fair. Iowa is far more of a battleground (although I think we'd go for Hillary since we went Obama both times and Trump didn't even win the caucus) so I think I'd have to vote.
I probably already posted this here, but...
My theory is that Trump is wholly unelectable. He appeals to a particular -- admittedly, fairly large -- segment of the population that seek a certain kind of leader to protect their values and way of life. Those people dominate the Republican party, because Republican politicians have done a very effective job at pushing out "RINOs" over the past 40 years.
While I dread the possibility that non-Trump supporters will not be inspired enough to vote, giving him a chance of capturing the presidency, I truly believe that any opponent in a general election will triumph in a landslide because I just can't accept that there are enough idiots out there to get Trump in there.
I also suspect that, if Trump gets the nomination, McConnell and the other Republicans in the senate will reverse course on considering an Obama nominee for SCOTUS. They might get a moderate from Obama. They can't begin to predict who they would get if Trump was the one doing the selecting.
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 09:54:43 AM
I probably already posted this here, but...
My theory is that Trump is wholly unelectable. He appeals to a particular -- admittedly, fairly large -- segment of the population that seek a certain kind of leader to protect their values and way of life. Those people dominate the Republican party, because Republican politicians have done a very effective job at pushing out "RINOs" over the past 40 years.
While I dread the possibility that non-Trump supporters will not be inspired enough to vote, giving him a chance of capturing the presidency, I truly believe that any opponent in a general election will triumph in a landslide because I just can't accept that there are enough idiots out there to get Trump in there.
I also suspect that, if Trump gets the nomination, McConnell and the other Republicans in the senate will reverse course on considering an Obama nominee for SCOTUS. They might get a moderate from Obama. They can't begin to predict who they would get if Trump was the one doing the selecting.
Again, it only matters in a handful of states. Florida is one of those. Have you ever been there? One would hope the Hispanic vote would propel his opponent to victory but what about the anti-Hispanic vote?
Look at this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton-5635.html
Don't get complacent. This threat is real.
Trump vs. Clinton
South Carolina: Trump +5 (November '15)
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/sc/south_carolina_trump_vs_clinton-5748.html
Virginia: Clinton +13
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/va/virginia_trump_vs_clinton-5542.html
Ohio: Trump +2
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_trump_vs_clinton-5634.html
Pennsylvania: Tie.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton-5633.html
We're in for the fight of our lives out here. One major scandal for Hillary - and boy, wheresoever will they find one of those - and we're throwing rocks at the Brown Shirts in the streets for four years.
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 09:58:20 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 09:54:43 AM
I probably already posted this here, but...
My theory is that Trump is wholly unelectable. He appeals to a particular -- admittedly, fairly large -- segment of the population that seek a certain kind of leader to protect their values and way of life. Those people dominate the Republican party, because Republican politicians have done a very effective job at pushing out "RINOs" over the past 40 years.
While I dread the possibility that non-Trump supporters will not be inspired enough to vote, giving him a chance of capturing the presidency, I truly believe that any opponent in a general election will triumph in a landslide because I just can't accept that there are enough idiots out there to get Trump in there.
I also suspect that, if Trump gets the nomination, McConnell and the other Republicans in the senate will reverse course on considering an Obama nominee for SCOTUS. They might get a moderate from Obama. They can't begin to predict who they would get if Trump was the one doing the selecting.
Again, it only matters in a handful of states. Florida is one of those. Have you ever been there? One would hope the Hispanic vote would propel his opponent to victory but what about the anti-Hispanic vote?
Look at this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton-5635.html
Don't get complacent. This threat is real.
I've seen those numbers. My solace is that most people still aren't following the election cycle, and polling this early is hard to take seriously.
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 10:10:51 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 09:58:20 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 09:54:43 AM
I probably already posted this here, but...
My theory is that Trump is wholly unelectable. He appeals to a particular -- admittedly, fairly large -- segment of the population that seek a certain kind of leader to protect their values and way of life. Those people dominate the Republican party, because Republican politicians have done a very effective job at pushing out "RINOs" over the past 40 years.
While I dread the possibility that non-Trump supporters will not be inspired enough to vote, giving him a chance of capturing the presidency, I truly believe that any opponent in a general election will triumph in a landslide because I just can't accept that there are enough idiots out there to get Trump in there.
I also suspect that, if Trump gets the nomination, McConnell and the other Republicans in the senate will reverse course on considering an Obama nominee for SCOTUS. They might get a moderate from Obama. They can't begin to predict who they would get if Trump was the one doing the selecting.
Again, it only matters in a handful of states. Florida is one of those. Have you ever been there? One would hope the Hispanic vote would propel his opponent to victory but what about the anti-Hispanic vote?
Look at this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton-5635.html
Don't get complacent. This threat is real.
I've seen those numbers. My solace is that most people still aren't following the election cycle, and polling this early is hard to take seriously.
I agree that the national polls are too early.
Also, I'm confused about the inclusion of South Carolina on the list above. Were you thinking there was a chance that the Dems would win that one?
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 10:13:37 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 10:10:51 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 09:58:20 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 09:54:43 AM
I probably already posted this here, but...
My theory is that Trump is wholly unelectable. He appeals to a particular -- admittedly, fairly large -- segment of the population that seek a certain kind of leader to protect their values and way of life. Those people dominate the Republican party, because Republican politicians have done a very effective job at pushing out "RINOs" over the past 40 years.
While I dread the possibility that non-Trump supporters will not be inspired enough to vote, giving him a chance of capturing the presidency, I truly believe that any opponent in a general election will triumph in a landslide because I just can't accept that there are enough idiots out there to get Trump in there.
I also suspect that, if Trump gets the nomination, McConnell and the other Republicans in the senate will reverse course on considering an Obama nominee for SCOTUS. They might get a moderate from Obama. They can't begin to predict who they would get if Trump was the one doing the selecting.
Again, it only matters in a handful of states. Florida is one of those. Have you ever been there? One would hope the Hispanic vote would propel his opponent to victory but what about the anti-Hispanic vote?
Look at this:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton-5635.html
Don't get complacent. This threat is real.
I've seen those numbers. My solace is that most people still aren't following the election cycle, and polling this early is hard to take seriously.
I agree that the national polls are too early.
Also, I'm confused about the inclusion of South Carolina on the list above. Were you thinking there was a chance that the Dems would win that one?
Romney took it by less than 5% in 2012. I was looking at only states within that margin. Yes, that's 9 certain points in the Red.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/ElectoralCollege2012.svg/640px-ElectoralCollege2012.svg.png)
Those are the states Obama won in 2012. You need 270 to win and he got 332. So let's say all the red states go for Trump (and I don't think that's a certainty), and even give him Florida. That's still the Dems at 303-235. Trump would probably need to steal both Ohio and Virginia to win the GE, and I don't think he will take both. Virginia went for Obama both times, I doubt they'd go Trump.
And I'll grant you that it's well early for general election polling. But every single factor that was supposed to spell Trump's undoing has proven incorrect so far. Time to wake up.
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 10:22:46 AM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/ElectoralCollege2012.svg/640px-ElectoralCollege2012.svg.png)
Those are the states Obama won in 2012. You need 270 to win and he got 332. So let's say all the red states go for Trump (and I don't think that's a certainty), and even give him Florida. That's still the Dems at 303-235. Trump would probably need to steal both Ohio and Virginia to win the GE, and I don't think he will take both. Virginia went for Obama both times, I doubt they'd go Trump.
He needs Ohio AND EITHER Pennsylvania or Virginia. Are you comfortable with that?
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 10:26:23 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 10:22:46 AM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/ElectoralCollege2012.svg/640px-ElectoralCollege2012.svg.png)
Those are the states Obama won in 2012. You need 270 to win and he got 332. So let's say all the red states go for Trump (and I don't think that's a certainty), and even give him Florida. That's still the Dems at 303-235. Trump would probably need to steal both Ohio and Virginia to win the GE, and I don't think he will take both. Virginia went for Obama both times, I doubt they'd go Trump.
He needs Ohio AND EITHER Pennsylvania or Virginia. Are you comfortable with that?
I'll concede that I'm not comfortable with any of this.
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 10:28:50 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 10:26:23 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 10:22:46 AM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/ElectoralCollege2012.svg/640px-ElectoralCollege2012.svg.png)
Those are the states Obama won in 2012. You need 270 to win and he got 332. So let's say all the red states go for Trump (and I don't think that's a certainty), and even give him Florida. That's still the Dems at 303-235. Trump would probably need to steal both Ohio and Virginia to win the GE, and I don't think he will take both. Virginia went for Obama both times, I doubt they'd go Trump.
He needs Ohio AND EITHER Pennsylvania or Virginia. Are you comfortable with that?
I'll concede that I'm not comfortable with any of this.
I don't think he'd get Pennsylvania. They haven't gone red since 1988.
Yes, the thought that he might actually win this is terrifying and people need to actively go out and vote and stop it but I don't think it's "complacency" to say he still probably
won't win a general election if it hinges on Ohio and Virginia, which both went for Obama twice, or Pennsylvania, which hasn't gone red in 20 years.
I see Trump as the inevitable conclusion of the 8 years of OBAMA IS A SECRET KENYAN MOOSLIM frothy tea party outrage. If his supporters are mostly Obama reactionaries I don't think states that supported Obama will flip for him.
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 10:33:40 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 10:28:50 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 10:26:23 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 10:22:46 AM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/ElectoralCollege2012.svg/640px-ElectoralCollege2012.svg.png)
Those are the states Obama won in 2012. You need 270 to win and he got 332. So let's say all the red states go for Trump (and I don't think that's a certainty), and even give him Florida. That's still the Dems at 303-235. Trump would probably need to steal both Ohio and Virginia to win the GE, and I don't think he will take both. Virginia went for Obama both times, I doubt they'd go Trump.
He needs Ohio AND EITHER Pennsylvania or Virginia. Are you comfortable with that?
I'll concede that I'm not comfortable with any of this.
I don't think he'd get Pennsylvania. They haven't gone red since 1988.
It's a flat-footed tie right now.
And it's Hillary fucking Clinton.
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 10:35:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 10:33:40 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 10:28:50 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 10:26:23 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 10:22:46 AM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/44/ElectoralCollege2012.svg/640px-ElectoralCollege2012.svg.png)
Those are the states Obama won in 2012. You need 270 to win and he got 332. So let's say all the red states go for Trump (and I don't think that's a certainty), and even give him Florida. That's still the Dems at 303-235. Trump would probably need to steal both Ohio and Virginia to win the GE, and I don't think he will take both. Virginia went for Obama both times, I doubt they'd go Trump.
He needs Ohio AND EITHER Pennsylvania or Virginia. Are you comfortable with that?
I'll concede that I'm not comfortable with any of this.
I don't think he'd get Pennsylvania. They haven't gone red since 1988.
It's a flat-footed tie right now.
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 10:36:53 AM
And it's Hillary fucking Clinton.
For what it's worth Obama led Romney by less than 2% in polls in PA in February, 2012, and then won the state 52-46.
I also think you in general Hillary opponents underestimate how popular she is (although her supporters also kind of overrate it). She couldn't beat Obama head-to-head but her strategy of running as basically a third Obama term will probably carry states that supported Obama.
Also John Kerry carried that state and you think Hillary can't? I am willing to bet Hillary has more support than Kerry ever had.
Actually according to SKO's count Ohio and Virgina only gives Trump 266.
So we're good. Phew.
I heard Kris Bryant on The Score this morning. He sounded great. Talked about pitch recognition and how that's been the key for him getting better. I got hard.
Anyone want to guess what would happen if it was Obama running against Trump?
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 11:22:41 AM
Anyone want to guess what would happen if it was Obama running against Drumpf?
Obama now seeking another term or Obama 2008
Quote from: Slaky on March 02, 2016, 11:24:04 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 11:22:41 AM
Anyone want to guess what would happen if it was Obama running against Drumpf?
Obama now seeking another term or Obama 2008
Obama today, if a third term was legal.
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 11:25:31 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 02, 2016, 11:24:04 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 11:22:41 AM
Anyone want to guess what would happen if it was Obama running against Drumpf?
Obama now seeking another term or Obama 2008
Obama today, if a third term was legal.
I think once we got to the debates it would be pretty goddamn entertaining.
Quote from: Slaky on March 02, 2016, 11:26:06 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 11:25:31 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 02, 2016, 11:24:04 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 11:22:41 AM
Anyone want to guess what would happen if it was Obama running against Drumpf?
Obama now seeking another term or Obama 2008
Obama today, if a third term was legal.
I think once we got to the debates it would be pretty goddamn entertaining.
2008: Obama 365, McCain 173
2012: Obama 332, Romney 206
2016: Obama 336, Trump 202 (Obama wins back NC, Trump wins Indiana.)
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 11:47:31 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 02, 2016, 11:26:06 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 11:25:31 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 02, 2016, 11:24:04 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 11:22:41 AM
Anyone want to guess what would happen if it was Obama running against Drumpf?
Obama now seeking another term or Obama 2008
Obama today, if a third term was legal.
I think once we got to the debates it would be pretty goddamn entertaining.
2008: Obama 365, McCain 173
2012: Obama 332, Romney 206
2016: Obama 336, Trump 202 (Obama wins back NC, Trump wins Indiana.)
Oh, how humiliating.
I just don't believe Trump has won over anyone who wasn't already against Obama, and he's ensured the moderates who would usually be fooled by previous GOP euphemisms will probably not vote for him.
I mean the difference between Trump and the previous GOP candidates is that he just says out loud all of the stuff they've merely implied. Previous candidates will say they need to "strengthen the border", Trump will just come out and say they need to do it because Mexicans are drug pushers and rapists. He hasn't added to the GOP base, he's just empowered them to say out loud all the stuff they were thinking, and stolen them from the GOP guys who hid behind comfortable euphemisms.
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 11:57:48 AM
I just don't believe Trump has won over anyone who wasn't already against Obama, and he's ensured the moderates who would usually be fooled by previous GOP euphemisms will probably not vote for him.
I mean the difference between Trump and the previous GOP candidates is that he just says out loud all of the stuff they've merely implied. Previous candidates will say they need to "strengthen the border", Trump will just come out and say they need to do it because Mexicans are drug pushers and rapists. He hasn't added to the GOP base, he's just empowered them to say out loud all the stuff they were thinking, and stolen them from the GOP guys who hid behind comfortable euphemisms.
Conversely, what Obama did for the Democratic base, bringing huge numbers of Blacks into the electorate for the first time ever is unlikely to continue for Clinton. We'll have to hope that the anti-Trump center turns out for her (and not someone else yet to be determined) in the battleground states we've mentioned.
And I disagree with the notion that Trump is not bringing people into the party who were disconnected previously. There are poor whites everywhere who don't vote and he's got their attention.
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 12:14:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 11:57:48 AM
I just don't believe Trump has won over anyone who wasn't already against Obama, and he's ensured the moderates who would usually be fooled by previous GOP euphemisms will probably not vote for him.
I mean the difference between Trump and the previous GOP candidates is that he just says out loud all of the stuff they've merely implied. Previous candidates will say they need to "strengthen the border", Trump will just come out and say they need to do it because Mexicans are drug pushers and rapists. He hasn't added to the GOP base, he's just empowered them to say out loud all the stuff they were thinking, and stolen them from the GOP guys who hid behind comfortable euphemisms.
Conversely, what Obama did for the Democratic base, bringing huge numbers of Blacks into the electorate for the first time ever is unlikely to continue for Clinton. We'll have to hope that the anti-Trump center turns out for her (and not someone else yet to be determined) in the battleground states we've mentioned.
And I disagree with the notion that Trump is not bringing people into the party who were disconnected previously. There are poor whites everywhere who don't vote and he's got their attention.
20,000 people in Massachusetts switched from Democrat to either Independent (16.5K) or GOP (3.5K) in the lead-up to the primary yesterday, and then Trump won just shy of 50% of the vote yesterday.
Pretty sure they weren't switching over to vote for Kasich.
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 12:14:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 11:57:48 AM
I just don't believe Trump has won over anyone who wasn't already against Obama, and he's ensured the moderates who would usually be fooled by previous GOP euphemisms will probably not vote for him.
I mean the difference between Trump and the previous GOP candidates is that he just says out loud all of the stuff they've merely implied. Previous candidates will say they need to "strengthen the border", Trump will just come out and say they need to do it because Mexicans are drug pushers and rapists. He hasn't added to the GOP base, he's just empowered them to say out loud all the stuff they were thinking, and stolen them from the GOP guys who hid behind comfortable euphemisms.
Conversely, what Obama did for the Democratic base, bringing huge numbers of Blacks into the electorate for the first time ever is unlikely to continue for Clinton. We'll have to hope that the anti-Trump center turns out for her (and not someone else yet to be determined) in the battleground states we've mentioned.
And I disagree with the notion that Trump is not bringing people into the party who were disconnected previously. There are poor whites everywhere who don't vote and he's got their attention.
Clinton seems to be doing very, very well among minorities so far in the primaries, and while mobilizing them
for Clinton might be difficult, it's easier if you think of it as mobilizing them
against Trump. It would be easy to show them Trump's twitter page, the videos of his supporters attacking black people, and refuse to let the whole "Trump likes the KKK thing" die.
I just think that Trump basically has the Angry White People vote and that's it. Angry White People were already doing everything they could to vote against Obama and lost, and the "poor whites" that Trump is getting to turn out are mostly doing so in states that are already red states.
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 12:18:46 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 12:14:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 11:57:48 AM
I just don't believe Trump has won over anyone who wasn't already against Obama, and he's ensured the moderates who would usually be fooled by previous GOP euphemisms will probably not vote for him.
I mean the difference between Trump and the previous GOP candidates is that he just says out loud all of the stuff they've merely implied. Previous candidates will say they need to "strengthen the border", Trump will just come out and say they need to do it because Mexicans are drug pushers and rapists. He hasn't added to the GOP base, he's just empowered them to say out loud all the stuff they were thinking, and stolen them from the GOP guys who hid behind comfortable euphemisms.
Conversely, what Obama did for the Democratic base, bringing huge numbers of Blacks into the electorate for the first time ever is unlikely to continue for Clinton. We'll have to hope that the anti-Trump center turns out for her (and not someone else yet to be determined) in the battleground states we've mentioned.
And I disagree with the notion that Trump is not bringing people into the party who were disconnected previously. There are poor whites everywhere who don't vote and he's got their attention.
Clinton seems to be doing very, very well among minorities so far in the primaries, and while mobilizing them for Clinton might be difficult, it's easier if you think of it as mobilizing them against Trump. It would be easy to show them Trump's twitter page, the videos of his supporters attacking black people, and refuse to let the whole "Trump likes the KKK thing" die.
I just think that Trump basically has the Angry White People vote and that's it. Angry White People were already doing everything they could to vote against Obama and lost, and the "poor whites" that Trump is getting to turn out are mostly doing so in states that are already red states.
Well, I hope you're right and it's President Rodham-Clinton! All we'll get is four years of banking scandals and another recession. That beats the shit out of WWIII.
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 12:20:40 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 12:18:46 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 12:14:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 11:57:48 AM
I just don't believe Trump has won over anyone who wasn't already against Obama, and he's ensured the moderates who would usually be fooled by previous GOP euphemisms will probably not vote for him.
I mean the difference between Trump and the previous GOP candidates is that he just says out loud all of the stuff they've merely implied. Previous candidates will say they need to "strengthen the border", Trump will just come out and say they need to do it because Mexicans are drug pushers and rapists. He hasn't added to the GOP base, he's just empowered them to say out loud all the stuff they were thinking, and stolen them from the GOP guys who hid behind comfortable euphemisms.
Conversely, what Obama did for the Democratic base, bringing huge numbers of Blacks into the electorate for the first time ever is unlikely to continue for Clinton. We'll have to hope that the anti-Trump center turns out for her (and not someone else yet to be determined) in the battleground states we've mentioned.
And I disagree with the notion that Trump is not bringing people into the party who were disconnected previously. There are poor whites everywhere who don't vote and he's got their attention.
Clinton seems to be doing very, very well among minorities so far in the primaries, and while mobilizing them for Clinton might be difficult, it's easier if you think of it as mobilizing them against Trump. It would be easy to show them Trump's twitter page, the videos of his supporters attacking black people, and refuse to let the whole "Trump likes the KKK thing" die.
I just think that Trump basically has the Angry White People vote and that's it. Angry White People were already doing everything they could to vote against Obama and lost, and the "poor whites" that Trump is getting to turn out are mostly doing so in states that are already red states.
Well, I hope you're right and it's President Rodham-Clinton!
She's the Mike Quade to Trump's Sandberg! In the end we still suck.
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 12:22:29 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 12:20:40 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 12:18:46 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 12:14:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 11:57:48 AM
I just don't believe Trump has won over anyone who wasn't already against Obama, and he's ensured the moderates who would usually be fooled by previous GOP euphemisms will probably not vote for him.
I mean the difference between Trump and the previous GOP candidates is that he just says out loud all of the stuff they've merely implied. Previous candidates will say they need to "strengthen the border", Trump will just come out and say they need to do it because Mexicans are drug pushers and rapists. He hasn't added to the GOP base, he's just empowered them to say out loud all the stuff they were thinking, and stolen them from the GOP guys who hid behind comfortable euphemisms.
Conversely, what Obama did for the Democratic base, bringing huge numbers of Blacks into the electorate for the first time ever is unlikely to continue for Clinton. We'll have to hope that the anti-Trump center turns out for her (and not someone else yet to be determined) in the battleground states we've mentioned.
And I disagree with the notion that Trump is not bringing people into the party who were disconnected previously. There are poor whites everywhere who don't vote and he's got their attention.
Clinton seems to be doing very, very well among minorities so far in the primaries, and while mobilizing them for Clinton might be difficult, it's easier if you think of it as mobilizing them against Trump. It would be easy to show them Trump's twitter page, the videos of his supporters attacking black people, and refuse to let the whole "Trump likes the KKK thing" die.
I just think that Trump basically has the Angry White People vote and that's it. Angry White People were already doing everything they could to vote against Obama and lost, and the "poor whites" that Trump is getting to turn out are mostly doing so in states that are already red states.
Well, I hope you're right and it's President Rodham-Clinton!
She's the Mike Quade to Trump's Sandberg! In the end we still suck.
More like the Mike Quade to Trump's Hawk Harrelson.
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 12:23:33 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 12:22:29 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 12:20:40 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 12:18:46 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 12:14:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 11:57:48 AM
I just don't believe Trump has won over anyone who wasn't already against Obama, and he's ensured the moderates who would usually be fooled by previous GOP euphemisms will probably not vote for him.
I mean the difference between Trump and the previous GOP candidates is that he just says out loud all of the stuff they've merely implied. Previous candidates will say they need to "strengthen the border", Trump will just come out and say they need to do it because Mexicans are drug pushers and rapists. He hasn't added to the GOP base, he's just empowered them to say out loud all the stuff they were thinking, and stolen them from the GOP guys who hid behind comfortable euphemisms.
Conversely, what Obama did for the Democratic base, bringing huge numbers of Blacks into the electorate for the first time ever is unlikely to continue for Clinton. We'll have to hope that the anti-Trump center turns out for her (and not someone else yet to be determined) in the battleground states we've mentioned.
And I disagree with the notion that Trump is not bringing people into the party who were disconnected previously. There are poor whites everywhere who don't vote and he's got their attention.
Clinton seems to be doing very, very well among minorities so far in the primaries, and while mobilizing them for Clinton might be difficult, it's easier if you think of it as mobilizing them against Trump. It would be easy to show them Trump's twitter page, the videos of his supporters attacking black people, and refuse to let the whole "Trump likes the KKK thing" die.
I just think that Trump basically has the Angry White People vote and that's it. Angry White People were already doing everything they could to vote against Obama and lost, and the "poor whites" that Trump is getting to turn out are mostly doing so in states that are already red states.
Well, I hope you're right and it's President Rodham-Clinton!
She's the Mike Quade to Trump's Sandberg! In the end we still suck.
More like the Mike Quade to Trump's Phil Rogers.
Or is she the Mike Quade to Trump's
(http://www.desipio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/stone.jpg)
Nice choice, JimAmerica
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 12:25:09 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 12:23:33 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 12:22:29 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 12:20:40 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 12:18:46 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 12:14:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 11:57:48 AM
I just don't believe Trump has won over anyone who wasn't already against Obama, and he's ensured the moderates who would usually be fooled by previous GOP euphemisms will probably not vote for him.
I mean the difference between Trump and the previous GOP candidates is that he just says out loud all of the stuff they've merely implied. Previous candidates will say they need to "strengthen the border", Trump will just come out and say they need to do it because Mexicans are drug pushers and rapists. He hasn't added to the GOP base, he's just empowered them to say out loud all the stuff they were thinking, and stolen them from the GOP guys who hid behind comfortable euphemisms.
Conversely, what Obama did for the Democratic base, bringing huge numbers of Blacks into the electorate for the first time ever is unlikely to continue for Clinton. We'll have to hope that the anti-Trump center turns out for her (and not someone else yet to be determined) in the battleground states we've mentioned.
And I disagree with the notion that Trump is not bringing people into the party who were disconnected previously. There are poor whites everywhere who don't vote and he's got their attention.
Clinton seems to be doing very, very well among minorities so far in the primaries, and while mobilizing them for Clinton might be difficult, it's easier if you think of it as mobilizing them against Trump. It would be easy to show them Trump's twitter page, the videos of his supporters attacking black people, and refuse to let the whole "Trump likes the KKK thing" die.
I just think that Trump basically has the Angry White People vote and that's it. Angry White People were already doing everything they could to vote against Obama and lost, and the "poor whites" that Trump is getting to turn out are mostly doing so in states that are already red states.
Well, I hope you're right and it's President Rodham-Clinton!
She's the Mike Quade to Trump's Sandberg! In the end we still suck.
More like the Mike Quade to Trump's Phil Rogers.
Or is she the Mike Quade to Trump's
(http://www.desipio.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/stone.jpg)
I changed my comparison to Hawk Harrelson above but this works too.
I know what the polls say, that Trump is comfortably ahead in Florida. He was also comfortably ahead in Virginia until Rubio shaved that 20 points down to 3. If Kasich can pull out OH and Rubio wins FL, and IL elects some Rubio delegates, the fight is not over. If it gets to Cleveland, you'll have a floor fight, and the delegates may just line up behind a guy who's not a candidate right now. Trump can then say he's running third party, but guess what: sore loser laws in states like IL eliminate him from running in Nov. as anything other than a Republican.
Apex is correct in that Trump defies conventional wisdom. GOP Turnout is up like crazy in these primaries, at levels not seen before. Are they ex-Democrats? Some are. Are they traditional non-voters? Some are. But to look at Illinois, for example, and say that it's safely Dem based on historical trends, but this guy appeals to people outside the conservative movement. In my opinion, three things are driving his phenomena:
1) Immigration issues, as a majority of people are frustrated that they feel current immigration law isn't being enforced. (Yes, it's a complicated issue, and my candidate is a Gang of 8 guy, but the perception is that going 45 in a 35 is a more harshly-enforced crime than immigrating here illegally.
2) Trade. Trump's view on trade is not far from Bernie Sanders'. Again, I am on the side of free trade, so I look at NAFTA, CAFTA, and the idea (if not the details and the process of) TPP appealing. However, protectionism is appealing, and Pat Buchanan, Ross Perot, and Ralph Nader were all protectionist doves next to Trump.
3) Celebrity/Personality. Trump is something people haven't seen before on the political stage. Perot was a little goofy, but even he would be a little more restrained from Trump. I don't even like Trump, but I wanted to watch his "press conference" yesterday just to hear what he had to say. Hillary, Cruz, and Rubio all had feel-good messages and fired up their crowds, but Iowa-Indiana won over those three in my home. So I groan and shake my head, but even I want to hear what inane things he's going to say. We have experience in this. Which is more captivating, shows more FIRE AND PASSION? This (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFRyRzLkUHY)? Or this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0XUWE0_J7Q)?
Last night was a solid, but not a great night for Trump. The ground is beginning to move beneath him, and Ricketts' money is beginning to be spent against him in Florida, Illinois and Ohio. Rubio is concentrating on Florida, Cruz is going to be here a lot and Kasich will be in OH and MI. We'll see how and where Trump plays well here.
Sure, those things, also probably virulent racism. That would have been in my top 3. I mean 20% of his supporters said they thought the goddamn Emancipation Proclamation was a mistake, but let's assume they're just really passionate about free trade issues.
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 12:45:49 PM
Sure, those things, also probably virulent racism. That would have been in my top 3. I mean 20% of his supporters said they thought the goddamn Emancipation Proclamation was a mistake, but let's assume they're just really passionate about free trade issues.
No, they're passionate about closed borders and passionately against free trade. I mean the obsession with the size and shape of the wall that Mexico is somehow paying for and the eagerness Trump has for starting a trade war with China on Janaury 20 might be a window into some of the supporters' (and Trump's) soul, but starting out and castigating political opponents as all virulent racists tends to be an ineffective way to bring them around.
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 12:58:04 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 12:45:49 PM
Sure, those things, also probably virulent racism. That would have been in my top 3. I mean 20% of his supporters said they thought the goddamn Emancipation Proclamation was a mistake, but let's assume they're just really passionate about free trade issues.
No, they're passionate about closed borders and passionately against free trade. I mean the obsession with the size and shape of the wall that Mexico is somehow paying for and the eagerness Trump has for starting a trade war with China on Janaury 20 might be a window into some of the supporters' (and Trump's) soul, but starting out and castigating political opponents as all virulent racists tends to be an ineffective way to bring them around.
If you think Trump's supporters aren't largely racist, or that their objection to immigration isn't based more on racial than economic reasons (remember when he condemned all immigrants as rapists?), or that calling for a ban on literally anyone who professes the Islamic faith isn't racist, or the fact that he retweets white supremacist groups, and hired white supremacists to provide security at his rallies isn't racist, there's no point in having this discussion.
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
No one is trying to "bring around Trump supporters". They are radicals, and every rational argument made against him has been denounced by them as an attack by the "lying media" or "lying politicians". They can't be brought around, the only argument is keeping more people from falling into his fold.
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.
I will say this: if I lived in a battleground state, even I would consider voting. And I hate Hilary with the kind of passion I usually reserve for Snork.
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.
I want to copy and paste it into the feed of a handful of conservative friends on FB who are bemoaning Trump's ascension.
I would probably pay decent money to hear 5 Drumph supporters try to articulate the nuances of free trade agreements.
Quote from: PANK! on March 02, 2016, 01:11:44 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.
I want to copy and paste it into the feed of a handful of conservative friends on FB who are bemoaning Trump's ascension.
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/03/02/newly-elected-gop-chair-texas-capitol/
Quote
When the Tribune asked about the content of some of Morrow's social media posts, without using the specific racial slur Morrow had employed, Morrow seized on the omission as an example of corruption within the media.
"You are a perfect example of what the Trump movement is revolting against because you can't even pronounce the word n----- when you are talking about a Facebook post," Morrow said. "What a pathetic excuse for a reporter you are."
That's the head of the GOP in the county where Austin, Texas, the most liberal city in Texas! is. That's him pointing out that nobody can stop Trump because we're all afraid to say the n-word while he cruises to the head of the pack by courting racists, and TJ wants to pretend we're the ones erring by not agreeing to go along with this NAFTA nonsense.
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
Anyone stoking those fires doesn't sound like much of a moderate anything.
Quote from: flannj on March 02, 2016, 01:16:51 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
Anyone stoking those fires doesn't sound like much of a moderate anything.
True, moderate is the wrong word. "Electable Republicans" like Mitt Romney who were willing to take Trump's money back in 2012 and go to fundraisers he hosted and tacitly endorse his support of the birther movement are now shocked that Trump figured out he can just come right and say whatever he wants and get the support of the people other Republicans just winked at in the past.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=torCmNfkvuM
Clearly this lady was espousing the virtues of NAFTA. That's gotta be it.
Triple posting douche alert, but I like TJ a lot and he's a good human being. I buy that his conservatism is principled and rooted in an honest belief in the free market and all that, but the refusal of guys like him to admit they share a party with a bunch of racists and authoritarians is exactly why it's not really TJ's party anymore. Clearly it belongs to them.
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 12:58:04 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 12:45:49 PM
Sure, those things, also probably virulent racism. That would have been in my top 3. I mean 20% of his supporters said they thought the goddamn Emancipation Proclamation was a mistake, but let's assume they're just really passionate about free trade issues.
No, they're passionate about closed borders and passionately against free trade. I mean the obsession with the size and shape of the wall that Mexico is somehow paying for and the eagerness Trump has for starting a trade war with China on Janaury 20 might be a window into some of the supporters' (and Trump's) soul, but starting out and castigating political opponents as all virulent racists tends to be an ineffective way to bring them around.
If you think Trump's supporters aren't largely racist, or that their objection to immigration isn't based more on racial than economic reasons (remember when he condemned all immigrants as rapists?), or that calling for a ban on literally anyone who professes the Islamic faith isn't racist, or the fact that he retweets white supremacist groups, and hired white supremacists to provide security at his rallies isn't racist, there's no point in having this discussion.
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
No one is trying to "bring around Trump supporters". They are radicals, and every rational argument made against him has been denounced by them as an attack by the "lying media" or "lying politicians". They can't be brought around, the only argument is keeping more people from falling into his fold.
That is a total strawman argument. Show me where me and my "moderate Republican friends" have been stoking that fire. Who has been stoking that fire and where has it gotten them? What are the most influential conservative groups out there? National Review? They were always critical of birthers. Weekly Standard? Wall Street Journal? AEI? Heritage? The Kochs?
Have they all been critical of Obama? Yes, because there's much to be critical of.
Trump is winning because of two reasons:
1) Everyone underestimated his ability to organize and run a successful campaign. Most thought he would lose interest (was doing this for some sort of publicity stunt), would implode, and/or would simply not be able to get the vote out among his traditionally non-voting constituents.
2) A crowded field split the vote 10-plus ways.
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.
Me too.
Also, TJ. Come on out into the great wide world of Independence with me. It feels so good not to have to defend any of these assclowns ever again. And I even started going back to church after like 25 years of atheism/agnosticism/devil worship. It's right here for you man. It doesn't make you a quitter. Far from it.
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 12:18:46 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 12:14:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 11:57:48 AM
I just don't believe Trump has won over anyone who wasn't already against Obama, and he's ensured the moderates who would usually be fooled by previous GOP euphemisms will probably not vote for him.
I mean the difference between Trump and the previous GOP candidates is that he just says out loud all of the stuff they've merely implied. Previous candidates will say they need to "strengthen the border", Trump will just come out and say they need to do it because Mexicans are drug pushers and rapists. He hasn't added to the GOP base, he's just empowered them to say out loud all the stuff they were thinking, and stolen them from the GOP guys who hid behind comfortable euphemisms.
Conversely, what Obama did for the Democratic base, bringing huge numbers of Blacks into the electorate for the first time ever is unlikely to continue for Clinton. We'll have to hope that the anti-Trump center turns out for her (and not someone else yet to be determined) in the battleground states we've mentioned.
And I disagree with the notion that Trump is not bringing people into the party who were disconnected previously. There are poor whites everywhere who don't vote and he's got their attention.
Clinton seems to be doing very, very well among minorities so far in the primaries, and while mobilizing them for Clinton might be difficult, it's easier if you think of it as mobilizing them against Trump. It would be easy to show them Trump's twitter page, the videos of his supporters attacking black people, and refuse to let the whole "Trump likes the KKK thing" die.
I just think that Trump basically has the Angry White People vote and that's it. Angry White People were already doing everything they could to vote against Obama and lost, and the "poor whites" that Trump is getting to turn out are mostly doing so in states that are already red states.
She's attracting the minority voters more than Sanders, of course, but I haven't seen anyone publish numbers on how many people are voting in the Democratic primary this time around, as opposed to in 2008. What I
have noticed is that, so far, more Republicans are voting in the primaries than Democrats.
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 01:32:12 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 12:18:46 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 12:14:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 11:57:48 AM
I just don't believe Trump has won over anyone who wasn't already against Obama, and he's ensured the moderates who would usually be fooled by previous GOP euphemisms will probably not vote for him.
I mean the difference between Trump and the previous GOP candidates is that he just says out loud all of the stuff they've merely implied. Previous candidates will say they need to "strengthen the border", Trump will just come out and say they need to do it because Mexicans are drug pushers and rapists. He hasn't added to the GOP base, he's just empowered them to say out loud all the stuff they were thinking, and stolen them from the GOP guys who hid behind comfortable euphemisms.
Conversely, what Obama did for the Democratic base, bringing huge numbers of Blacks into the electorate for the first time ever is unlikely to continue for Clinton. We'll have to hope that the anti-Trump center turns out for her (and not someone else yet to be determined) in the battleground states we've mentioned.
And I disagree with the notion that Trump is not bringing people into the party who were disconnected previously. There are poor whites everywhere who don't vote and he's got their attention.
Clinton seems to be doing very, very well among minorities so far in the primaries, and while mobilizing them for Clinton might be difficult, it's easier if you think of it as mobilizing them against Trump. It would be easy to show them Trump's twitter page, the videos of his supporters attacking black people, and refuse to let the whole "Trump likes the KKK thing" die.
I just think that Trump basically has the Angry White People vote and that's it. Angry White People were already doing everything they could to vote against Obama and lost, and the "poor whites" that Trump is getting to turn out are mostly doing so in states that are already red states.
She's attracting the minority voters more than Sanders, of course, but I haven't seen anyone publish numbers on how many people are voting in the Democratic primary this time around, as opposed to in 2008. What I have noticed is that, so far, more Republicans are voting in the primaries than Democrats.
Hot off the press:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/02/democratic-turnout-down-32-in-super-tuesday-states-compared-to-2008/
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.
Me too.
Also, TJ. Come on out into the great wide world of Independence with me. It feels so good not to have to defend any of these assclowns ever again. And I even started going back to church after like 25 years of atheism/agnosticism/devil worship. It's right here for you man. It doesn't make you a quitter. Far from it.
Yup, pwng
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:33:39 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 01:32:12 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 12:18:46 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 12:14:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 11:57:48 AM
I just don't believe Trump has won over anyone who wasn't already against Obama, and he's ensured the moderates who would usually be fooled by previous GOP euphemisms will probably not vote for him.
I mean the difference between Trump and the previous GOP candidates is that he just says out loud all of the stuff they've merely implied. Previous candidates will say they need to "strengthen the border", Trump will just come out and say they need to do it because Mexicans are drug pushers and rapists. He hasn't added to the GOP base, he's just empowered them to say out loud all the stuff they were thinking, and stolen them from the GOP guys who hid behind comfortable euphemisms.
Conversely, what Obama did for the Democratic base, bringing huge numbers of Blacks into the electorate for the first time ever is unlikely to continue for Clinton. We'll have to hope that the anti-Trump center turns out for her (and not someone else yet to be determined) in the battleground states we've mentioned.
And I disagree with the notion that Trump is not bringing people into the party who were disconnected previously. There are poor whites everywhere who don't vote and he's got their attention.
Clinton seems to be doing very, very well among minorities so far in the primaries, and while mobilizing them for Clinton might be difficult, it's easier if you think of it as mobilizing them against Trump. It would be easy to show them Trump's twitter page, the videos of his supporters attacking black people, and refuse to let the whole "Trump likes the KKK thing" die.
I just think that Trump basically has the Angry White People vote and that's it. Angry White People were already doing everything they could to vote against Obama and lost, and the "poor whites" that Trump is getting to turn out are mostly doing so in states that are already red states.
She's attracting the minority voters more than Sanders, of course, but I haven't seen anyone publish numbers on how many people are voting in the Democratic primary this time around, as opposed to in 2008. What I have noticed is that, so far, more Republicans are voting in the primaries than Democrats.
Hot off the press:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/02/democratic-turnout-down-32-in-super-tuesday-states-compared-to-2008/
Yeah there's no denying that I think the feeling of the majority of democrats I know is "meh, Hillary's going to be the nominee, whatever", I just don't know how that'll translate to turnout in November. It's not really a surprise that caucus turnout is low when most people have accepted the presumptive nominee as a fait accompli since, what, 2013?
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 01:29:15 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 12:58:04 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 12:45:49 PM
Sure, those things, also probably virulent racism. That would have been in my top 3. I mean 20% of his supporters said they thought the goddamn Emancipation Proclamation was a mistake, but let's assume they're just really passionate about free trade issues.
No, they're passionate about closed borders and passionately against free trade. I mean the obsession with the size and shape of the wall that Mexico is somehow paying for and the eagerness Trump has for starting a trade war with China on Janaury 20 might be a window into some of the supporters' (and Trump's) soul, but starting out and castigating political opponents as all virulent racists tends to be an ineffective way to bring them around.
If you think Trump's supporters aren't largely racist, or that their objection to immigration isn't based more on racial than economic reasons (remember when he condemned all immigrants as rapists?), or that calling for a ban on literally anyone who professes the Islamic faith isn't racist, or the fact that he retweets white supremacist groups, and hired white supremacists to provide security at his rallies isn't racist, there's no point in having this discussion.
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
No one is trying to "bring around Trump supporters". They are radicals, and every rational argument made against him has been denounced by them as an attack by the "lying media" or "lying politicians". They can't be brought around, the only argument is keeping more people from falling into his fold.
That is a total strawman argument. Show me where me and my "moderate Republican friends" have been stoking that fire. Who has been stoking that fire and where has it gotten them? What are the most influential conservative groups out there? National Review? They were always critical of birthers. Weekly Standard? Wall Street Journal? AEI? Heritage? The Kochs?
Have they all been critical of Obama? Yes, because there's much to be critical of.
Trump is winning because of two reasons:
1) Everyone underestimated his ability to organize and run a successful campaign. Most thought he would lose interest (was doing this for some sort of publicity stunt), would implode, and/or would simply not be able to get the vote out among his traditionally non-voting constituents.
2) A crowded field split the vote 10-plus ways.
Denial is a helluva drug.
Sure, the establishment underestimated him, but that's not why the GOP primaries are getting record turnout. Sure, he might lose one-on-one against Cruz or Rubio, but we'll well past that point.
He's winning because there is a sizable population that believes in him and what he's saying. He's articulating their anger and doing it in a manner that feels liberating after all this time where society has told them they have to be PC about immigrants, gays, Muslims, women, etc.
If Hillary fails to inspire her base enough to vote for her...
If Trump has a greater crossover appeal than what we thought possible...
If Republican efforts to suppress minority votes pays off...
...if Trump ends up elected, I kind of think America gets what it deserves. It's like being in a relationship with a mentally unstable person. You can care tremendously for that person, and bust your ass to help him out and keep his life stable, but sooner or later it'll be time to give up and let go while trying to shelter yourself from the inevitable fallout.
With that in mind, I'll be stocking my bunker.
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.
Me too.
Also, TJ. Come on out into the great wide world of Independence with me. It feels so good not to have to defend any of these assclowns ever again. And I even started going back to church after like 25 years of atheism/agnosticism/devil worship. It's right here for you man. It doesn't make you a quitter. Far from it.
Independence is admirable, but are you suggesting I just surrender the controls of AA Flight 11 peacefully and let the Trumpers take it into the North Tower without a fight? At least right now, you have Kasich and Rubio and even Carson and Cruz from which to choose.
I am interested to hear more about your return to church sometime in person, preferably in between pitches. I won't even wear tasseled loafers
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 01:42:58 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.
Me too.
Also, TJ. Come on out into the great wide world of Independence with me. It feels so good not to have to defend any of these assclowns ever again. And I even started going back to church after like 25 years of atheism/agnosticism/devil worship. It's right here for you man. It doesn't make you a quitter. Far from it.
Independence is admirable, but are you suggesting I just surrender the controls of AA Flight 11 peacefully and let the Trumpers take it into the North Tower without a fight? At least right now, you have Kasich and Rubio and even Carson and Cruz from which to choose.
I am interested to hear more about your return to church sometime in person, preferably in between pitches. I won't even wear tasseled loafers
The best outcome for Republicans might be that the party splinters. The wackos leave, moderate Republicans resume control, and perhaps pull in a lot of the moderate independents and conservative minorities who are currently unwelcome in the GOP.
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 01:42:58 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.
Me too.
Also, TJ. Come on out into the great wide world of Independence with me. It feels so good not to have to defend any of these assclowns ever again. And I even started going back to church after like 25 years of atheism/agnosticism/devil worship. It's right here for you man. It doesn't make you a quitter. Far from it.
Independence is admirable, but are you suggesting I just surrender the controls of AA Flight 11 peacefully and let the Trumpers take it into the North Tower without a fight? At least right now, you have Kasich and Rubio and even Carson and Cruz from which to choose.
I am interested to hear more about your return to church sometime in person, preferably in between pitches. I won't even wear tasseled loafers
FWIW, Carson just dropped out.
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 01:44:15 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 01:42:58 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.
Me too.
Also, TJ. Come on out into the great wide world of Independence with me. It feels so good not to have to defend any of these assclowns ever again. And I even started going back to church after like 25 years of atheism/agnosticism/devil worship. It's right here for you man. It doesn't make you a quitter. Far from it.
Independence is admirable, but are you suggesting I just surrender the controls of AA Flight 11 peacefully and let the Trumpers take it into the North Tower without a fight? At least right now, you have Kasich and Rubio and even Carson and Cruz from which to choose.
I am interested to hear more about your return to church sometime in person, preferably in between pitches. I won't even wear tasseled loafers
The best outcome for Republicans might be that the party splinters. The wackos leave, moderate Republicans resume control, and perhaps pull in a lot of the moderate independents and conservative minorities who are currently unwelcome in the GOP.
Neither of those two groups (wackos, or white, male elites) would have enough votes to win an election.
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:40:22 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 01:29:15 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 12:58:04 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 12:45:49 PM
Sure, those things, also probably virulent racism. That would have been in my top 3. I mean 20% of his supporters said they thought the goddamn Emancipation Proclamation was a mistake, but let's assume they're just really passionate about free trade issues.
No, they're passionate about closed borders and passionately against free trade. I mean the obsession with the size and shape of the wall that Mexico is somehow paying for and the eagerness Trump has for starting a trade war with China on Janaury 20 might be a window into some of the supporters' (and Trump's) soul, but starting out and castigating political opponents as all virulent racists tends to be an ineffective way to bring them around.
If you think Trump's supporters aren't largely racist, or that their objection to immigration isn't based more on racial than economic reasons (remember when he condemned all immigrants as rapists?), or that calling for a ban on literally anyone who professes the Islamic faith isn't racist, or the fact that he retweets white supremacist groups, and hired white supremacists to provide security at his rallies isn't racist, there's no point in having this discussion.
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
No one is trying to "bring around Trump supporters". They are radicals, and every rational argument made against him has been denounced by them as an attack by the "lying media" or "lying politicians". They can't be brought around, the only argument is keeping more people from falling into his fold.
That is a total strawman argument. Show me where me and my "moderate Republican friends" have been stoking that fire. Who has been stoking that fire and where has it gotten them? What are the most influential conservative groups out there? National Review? They were always critical of birthers. Weekly Standard? Wall Street Journal? AEI? Heritage? The Kochs?
Have they all been critical of Obama? Yes, because there's much to be critical of.
Trump is winning because of two reasons:
1) Everyone underestimated his ability to organize and run a successful campaign. Most thought he would lose interest (was doing this for some sort of publicity stunt), would implode, and/or would simply not be able to get the vote out among his traditionally non-voting constituents.
2) A crowded field split the vote 10-plus ways.
Denial is a helluva drug.
Sure, the establishment underestimated him, but that's not why the GOP primaries are getting record turnout. Sure, he might lose one-on-one against Cruz or Rubio, but we'll well past that point.
He's winning because there is a sizable population that believes in him and what he's saying. He's articulating their anger and doing it in a manner that feels liberating after all this time where society has told them they have to be PC about immigrants, gays, Muslims, women, etc.
If 1 and 2 didn't happen, Trump doesn't make it out of Iowa.
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:44:19 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 01:42:58 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.
Me too.
Also, TJ. Come on out into the great wide world of Independence with me. It feels so good not to have to defend any of these assclowns ever again. And I even started going back to church after like 25 years of atheism/agnosticism/devil worship. It's right here for you man. It doesn't make you a quitter. Far from it.
Independence is admirable, but are you suggesting I just surrender the controls of AA Flight 11 peacefully and let the Trumpers take it into the North Tower without a fight? At least right now, you have Kasich and Rubio and even Carson and Cruz from which to choose.
I am interested to hear more about your return to church sometime in person, preferably in between pitches. I won't even wear tasseled loafers
FWIW, Carson just dropped out.
Best news I've heard all day. I can't imagine any Carson supporters would support Trump, but weirder things have happened.
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:45:12 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 01:44:15 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 01:42:58 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.
Me too.
Also, TJ. Come on out into the great wide world of Independence with me. It feels so good not to have to defend any of these assclowns ever again. And I even started going back to church after like 25 years of atheism/agnosticism/devil worship. It's right here for you man. It doesn't make you a quitter. Far from it.
Independence is admirable, but are you suggesting I just surrender the controls of AA Flight 11 peacefully and let the Trumpers take it into the North Tower without a fight? At least right now, you have Kasich and Rubio and even Carson and Cruz from which to choose.
I am interested to hear more about your return to church sometime in person, preferably in between pitches. I won't even wear tasseled loafers
The best outcome for Republicans might be that the party splinters. The wackos leave, moderate Republicans resume control, and perhaps pull in a lot of the moderate independents and conservative minorities who are currently unwelcome in the GOP.
Neither of those two groups (wackos, or white, male elites) would have enough votes to win an election.
They shouldn't have enough votes to win an election
now, except the GOP has allowed them to hijack their process. I have to believe that there are a lot of reasonable conservatives out there who feel powerless and sick to their stomachs over what's happening right now. I even think some of those people might vote for Hillary when push comes to shove. Certainly, it doesn't seem that many established Republicans are happy over how things are turning out right now.
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 01:46:40 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:44:19 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 01:42:58 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.
Me too.
Also, TJ. Come on out into the great wide world of Independence with me. It feels so good not to have to defend any of these assclowns ever again. And I even started going back to church after like 25 years of atheism/agnosticism/devil worship. It's right here for you man. It doesn't make you a quitter. Far from it.
Independence is admirable, but are you suggesting I just surrender the controls of AA Flight 11 peacefully and let the Trumpers take it into the North Tower without a fight? At least right now, you have Kasich and Rubio and even Carson and Cruz from which to choose.
I am interested to hear more about your return to church sometime in person, preferably in between pitches. I won't even wear tasseled loafers
FWIW, Carson just dropped out.
Best news I've heard all day. I can't imagine any Carson supporters would support Trump, but weirder things have happened.
Ben Carson's entire candidacy is proof of weirder things happening.
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 01:44:15 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 01:42:58 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.
Me too.
Also, TJ. Come on out into the great wide world of Independence with me. It feels so good not to have to defend any of these assclowns ever again. And I even started going back to church after like 25 years of atheism/agnosticism/devil worship. It's right here for you man. It doesn't make you a quitter. Far from it.
Independence is admirable, but are you suggesting I just surrender the controls of AA Flight 11 peacefully and let the Trumpers take it into the North Tower without a fight? At least right now, you have Kasich and Rubio and even Carson and Cruz from which to choose.
I am interested to hear more about your return to church sometime in person, preferably in between pitches. I won't even wear tasseled loafers
The best outcome for Republicans might be that the party splinters. The wackos leave, moderate Republicans resume control, and perhaps pull in a lot of the moderate independents and conservative minorities who are currently unwelcome in the GOP.
A Hillary presidency would seem to be a boon for somebody because disaffected voters will turn where they will. Moderate Republicans though? I mean, they'd have to centerist, realists and inclusive to offset the Tea/Trump Partiers. Those people would seem to be kind of ok with whatever Hillary has cooking. Liberal Democrats who support Bernie and at once belived in Obama/Change/Hope/BLACKPRESIDENTZOMG are not going that way. There aren't enough rich people left, the upper middle class is evaporating. That ship has sailed.
So to answer TJ's question, yes. I think he should let the plane fly into the mountain. If he wants to stick around and hope for a miracle, ok... I'll still be here with my growing group of friends when he's ready. I'll have some scissors for the loafers too. Snip-snip, problem over.
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:53:29 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 01:44:15 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 01:42:58 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.
Me too.
Also, TJ. Come on out into the great wide world of Independence with me. It feels so good not to have to defend any of these assclowns ever again. And I even started going back to church after like 25 years of atheism/agnosticism/devil worship. It's right here for you man. It doesn't make you a quitter. Far from it.
Independence is admirable, but are you suggesting I just surrender the controls of AA Flight 11 peacefully and let the Trumpers take it into the North Tower without a fight? At least right now, you have Kasich and Rubio and even Carson and Cruz from which to choose.
I am interested to hear more about your return to church sometime in person, preferably in between pitches. I won't even wear tasseled loafers
The best outcome for Republicans might be that the party splinters. The wackos leave, moderate Republicans resume control, and perhaps pull in a lot of the moderate independents and conservative minorities who are currently unwelcome in the GOP.
A Hillary presidency would seem to be a boon for somebody because disaffected voters will turn where they will. Moderate Republicans though? I mean, they'd have to centerist, realists and inclusive to offset the Tea/Trump Partiers. Those people would seem to be kind of ok with whatever Hillary has cooking. Liberal Democrats who support Bernie and at once belived in Obama/Change/Hope/BLACKPRESIDENTZOMG are not going that way. There aren't enough rich people left, the upper middle class is evaporating. That ship has sailed.
So to answer TJ's question, yes. I think he should let the plane fly into the mountain. If he wants to stick around and hope for a miracle, ok... I'll still be here with my growing group of friends when he's ready. I'll have some scissors for the loafers too. Snip-snip, problem over.
Someone show me anyone currently in the Republican party that's willing to vote for Hillary.
If 8 years of Obama gave us Trump, I can't imagine what 4-8 years of Hillary is going to spawn.
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 02:03:22 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:53:29 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 01:44:15 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 01:42:58 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.
Me too.
Also, TJ. Come on out into the great wide world of Independence with me. It feels so good not to have to defend any of these assclowns ever again. And I even started going back to church after like 25 years of atheism/agnosticism/devil worship. It's right here for you man. It doesn't make you a quitter. Far from it.
Independence is admirable, but are you suggesting I just surrender the controls of AA Flight 11 peacefully and let the Trumpers take it into the North Tower without a fight? At least right now, you have Kasich and Rubio and even Carson and Cruz from which to choose.
I am interested to hear more about your return to church sometime in person, preferably in between pitches. I won't even wear tasseled loafers
The best outcome for Republicans might be that the party splinters. The wackos leave, moderate Republicans resume control, and perhaps pull in a lot of the moderate independents and conservative minorities who are currently unwelcome in the GOP.
A Hillary presidency would seem to be a boon for somebody because disaffected voters will turn where they will. Moderate Republicans though? I mean, they'd have to centerist, realists and inclusive to offset the Tea/Trump Partiers. Those people would seem to be kind of ok with whatever Hillary has cooking. Liberal Democrats who support Bernie and at once belived in Obama/Change/Hope/BLACKPRESIDENTZOMG are not going that way. There aren't enough rich people left, the upper middle class is evaporating. That ship has sailed.
So to answer TJ's question, yes. I think he should let the plane fly into the mountain. If he wants to stick around and hope for a miracle, ok... I'll still be here with my growing group of friends when he's ready. I'll have some scissors for the loafers too. Snip-snip, problem over.
Someone show me anyone currently in the Republican party that's willing to vote for Hillary.
If 8 years of Obama gave us Trump, I can't imagine what 4-8 years of Hillary is going to spawn.
I have actually seen a few Republicans on Facebook say they'll vote for Clinton over Trump. I won't pretend there'll be millions like them, but I have seen it.
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 02:08:38 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 02:03:22 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:53:29 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 01:44:15 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 01:42:58 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.
Me too.
Also, TJ. Come on out into the great wide world of Independence with me. It feels so good not to have to defend any of these assclowns ever again. And I even started going back to church after like 25 years of atheism/agnosticism/devil worship. It's right here for you man. It doesn't make you a quitter. Far from it.
Independence is admirable, but are you suggesting I just surrender the controls of AA Flight 11 peacefully and let the Trumpers take it into the North Tower without a fight? At least right now, you have Kasich and Rubio and even Carson and Cruz from which to choose.
I am interested to hear more about your return to church sometime in person, preferably in between pitches. I won't even wear tasseled loafers
The best outcome for Republicans might be that the party splinters. The wackos leave, moderate Republicans resume control, and perhaps pull in a lot of the moderate independents and conservative minorities who are currently unwelcome in the GOP.
A Hillary presidency would seem to be a boon for somebody because disaffected voters will turn where they will. Moderate Republicans though? I mean, they'd have to centerist, realists and inclusive to offset the Tea/Trump Partiers. Those people would seem to be kind of ok with whatever Hillary has cooking. Liberal Democrats who support Bernie and at once belived in Obama/Change/Hope/BLACKPRESIDENTZOMG are not going that way. There aren't enough rich people left, the upper middle class is evaporating. That ship has sailed.
So to answer TJ's question, yes. I think he should let the plane fly into the mountain. If he wants to stick around and hope for a miracle, ok... I'll still be here with my growing group of friends when he's ready. I'll have some scissors for the loafers too. Snip-snip, problem over.
Someone show me anyone currently in the Republican party that's willing to vote for Hillary.
If 8 years of Obama gave us Trump, I can't imagine what 4-8 years of Hillary is going to spawn.
I have actually seen a few Republicans on Facebook say they'll vote for Clinton over Trump. I won't pretend there'll be millions like them, but I have seen it.
And I wasn't really saying that would be a thing. I don't feel like the moderate GOP are going to migrate to her. But they will probably back some loser like Romney and ride off into the sunset for the next few cycles while the far right continues to seeth, the far left builds strength with the youth and the center-left spins its wheels trying to prop up Hillary's dead ass. That leaves us with Kanye versus Hitler in 2024.
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 02:12:15 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 02:08:38 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 02:03:22 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:53:29 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 01:44:15 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 01:42:58 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.
Me too.
Also, TJ. Come on out into the great wide world of Independence with me. It feels so good not to have to defend any of these assclowns ever again. And I even started going back to church after like 25 years of atheism/agnosticism/devil worship. It's right here for you man. It doesn't make you a quitter. Far from it.
Independence is admirable, but are you suggesting I just surrender the controls of AA Flight 11 peacefully and let the Trumpers take it into the North Tower without a fight? At least right now, you have Kasich and Rubio and even Carson and Cruz from which to choose.
I am interested to hear more about your return to church sometime in person, preferably in between pitches. I won't even wear tasseled loafers
The best outcome for Republicans might be that the party splinters. The wackos leave, moderate Republicans resume control, and perhaps pull in a lot of the moderate independents and conservative minorities who are currently unwelcome in the GOP.
A Hillary presidency would seem to be a boon for somebody because disaffected voters will turn where they will. Moderate Republicans though? I mean, they'd have to centerist, realists and inclusive to offset the Tea/Trump Partiers. Those people would seem to be kind of ok with whatever Hillary has cooking. Liberal Democrats who support Bernie and at once belived in Obama/Change/Hope/BLACKPRESIDENTZOMG are not going that way. There aren't enough rich people left, the upper middle class is evaporating. That ship has sailed.
So to answer TJ's question, yes. I think he should let the plane fly into the mountain. If he wants to stick around and hope for a miracle, ok... I'll still be here with my growing group of friends when he's ready. I'll have some scissors for the loafers too. Snip-snip, problem over.
Someone show me anyone currently in the Republican party that's willing to vote for Hillary.
If 8 years of Obama gave us Trump, I can't imagine what 4-8 years of Hillary is going to spawn.
I have actually seen a few Republicans on Facebook say they'll vote for Clinton over Trump. I won't pretend there'll be millions like them, but I have seen it.
And I wasn't really saying that would be a thing. I don't feel like the moderate GOP are going to migrate to her. But they will probably back some loser like Romney and ride off into the sunset for the next few cycles while the far right continues to seeth, the far left builds strength with the youth and the center-left spins its wheels trying to prop up Hillary's dead ass. That leaves us with Kanye versus Hitler in 2024.
I mean, we're already seeing it with the GOP saying they won't approve any Supreme Court nominee from Obama.
What happens if Hillary wins? Do they just completely stop doing their job entirely?
This is a legit concern for me, that nothing will ever get accomplished.
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 02:17:13 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 02:12:15 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 02:08:38 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 02:03:22 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:53:29 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 01:44:15 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 01:42:58 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.
Me too.
Also, TJ. Come on out into the great wide world of Independence with me. It feels so good not to have to defend any of these assclowns ever again. And I even started going back to church after like 25 years of atheism/agnosticism/devil worship. It's right here for you man. It doesn't make you a quitter. Far from it.
Independence is admirable, but are you suggesting I just surrender the controls of AA Flight 11 peacefully and let the Trumpers take it into the North Tower without a fight? At least right now, you have Kasich and Rubio and even Carson and Cruz from which to choose.
I am interested to hear more about your return to church sometime in person, preferably in between pitches. I won't even wear tasseled loafers
The best outcome for Republicans might be that the party splinters. The wackos leave, moderate Republicans resume control, and perhaps pull in a lot of the moderate independents and conservative minorities who are currently unwelcome in the GOP.
A Hillary presidency would seem to be a boon for somebody because disaffected voters will turn where they will. Moderate Republicans though? I mean, they'd have to centerist, realists and inclusive to offset the Tea/Trump Partiers. Those people would seem to be kind of ok with whatever Hillary has cooking. Liberal Democrats who support Bernie and at once belived in Obama/Change/Hope/BLACKPRESIDENTZOMG are not going that way. There aren't enough rich people left, the upper middle class is evaporating. That ship has sailed.
So to answer TJ's question, yes. I think he should let the plane fly into the mountain. If he wants to stick around and hope for a miracle, ok... I'll still be here with my growing group of friends when he's ready. I'll have some scissors for the loafers too. Snip-snip, problem over.
Someone show me anyone currently in the Republican party that's willing to vote for Hillary.
If 8 years of Obama gave us Trump, I can't imagine what 4-8 years of Hillary is going to spawn.
I have actually seen a few Republicans on Facebook say they'll vote for Clinton over Trump. I won't pretend there'll be millions like them, but I have seen it.
And I wasn't really saying that would be a thing. I don't feel like the moderate GOP are going to migrate to her. But they will probably back some loser like Romney and ride off into the sunset for the next few cycles while the far right continues to seeth, the far left builds strength with the youth and the center-left spins its wheels trying to prop up Hillary's dead ass. That leaves us with Kanye versus Hitler in 2024.
I mean, we're already seeing it with the GOP saying they won't approve any Supreme Court nominee from Obama.
What happens if Hillary wins? Do they just completely stop doing their job entirely?
This is a legit concern for me, that nothing will ever get accomplished.
And that's our best-case scenario right this minute.
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 02:17:13 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 02:12:15 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 02:08:38 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 02:03:22 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:53:29 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 01:44:15 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 01:42:58 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.
Me too.
Also, TJ. Come on out into the great wide world of Independence with me. It feels so good not to have to defend any of these assclowns ever again. And I even started going back to church after like 25 years of atheism/agnosticism/devil worship. It's right here for you man. It doesn't make you a quitter. Far from it.
Independence is admirable, but are you suggesting I just surrender the controls of AA Flight 11 peacefully and let the Trumpers take it into the North Tower without a fight? At least right now, you have Kasich and Rubio and even Carson and Cruz from which to choose.
I am interested to hear more about your return to church sometime in person, preferably in between pitches. I won't even wear tasseled loafers
The best outcome for Republicans might be that the party splinters. The wackos leave, moderate Republicans resume control, and perhaps pull in a lot of the moderate independents and conservative minorities who are currently unwelcome in the GOP.
A Hillary presidency would seem to be a boon for somebody because disaffected voters will turn where they will. Moderate Republicans though? I mean, they'd have to centerist, realists and inclusive to offset the Tea/Trump Partiers. Those people would seem to be kind of ok with whatever Hillary has cooking. Liberal Democrats who support Bernie and at once belived in Obama/Change/Hope/BLACKPRESIDENTZOMG are not going that way. There aren't enough rich people left, the upper middle class is evaporating. That ship has sailed.
So to answer TJ's question, yes. I think he should let the plane fly into the mountain. If he wants to stick around and hope for a miracle, ok... I'll still be here with my growing group of friends when he's ready. I'll have some scissors for the loafers too. Snip-snip, problem over.
Someone show me anyone currently in the Republican party that's willing to vote for Hillary.
If 8 years of Obama gave us Trump, I can't imagine what 4-8 years of Hillary is going to spawn.
I have actually seen a few Republicans on Facebook say they'll vote for Clinton over Trump. I won't pretend there'll be millions like them, but I have seen it.
And I wasn't really saying that would be a thing. I don't feel like the moderate GOP are going to migrate to her. But they will probably back some loser like Romney and ride off into the sunset for the next few cycles while the far right continues to seeth, the far left builds strength with the youth and the center-left spins its wheels trying to prop up Hillary's dead ass. That leaves us with Kanye versus Hitler in 2024.
I mean, we're already seeing it with the GOP saying they won't approve any Supreme Court nominee from Obama.
What happens if Hillary wins? Do they just completely stop doing their job entirely?
This is a legit concern for me, that nothing will ever get accomplished.
The big concern among the Republican Establishment appears to be that pushback against Trump could spill over into costing them their majority in the senate, too. I haven't been paying attention to how polls are going in those races but there's legitimate reason for the Republicans to think they may lose congress as well.
There's a lot of baseball left to be played. This is not like Bill Clinton coming out of Super Tuesday in 1992 with Tsongas and Gephardt types just shrugging their shoulders, or Bush beating Dole here in Illinois in 1988. Trump won't be the nominee.
Actually I used to be a moderate Republican about eight years, 220 miles and 15 pounds ago. And if I felt like it was necessary to stop Trump, I'd vote for Hillary. So... you know it could happen.
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 02:21:10 PM
There's a lot of baseball left to be played. This is not like Bill Clinton coming out of Super Tuesday in 1992 with Tsongas and Gephardt types just shrugging their shoulders, or Bush beating Dole here in Illinois in 1988. Trump won't be the nominee.
God I hope you're right TJ but how do you think that would be possible?
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 02:21:10 PM
There's a lot of baseball left to be played. This is not like Bill Clinton coming out of Super Tuesday in 1992 with Tsongas and Gephardt types just shrugging their shoulders, or Bush beating Dole here in Illinois in 1988. Drumpf won't be the nominee.
They seem to be willing to ignore all this at the convention and go with someone else even if Drumpf takes care of business.
I just don't understand how reasonable people can summon up the ability to even type, let alone actually vote, for guys like Cruz and Rubio. MAYBE I could see Rubio but Ted Cruz is so fucking gross. I want to beat the shit out of him. It would be the best thing I ever did in my whole goddamn life.
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 02:21:10 PM
There's a lot of baseball left to be played. This is not like Bill Clinton coming out of Super Tuesday in 1992 with Tsongas and Gephardt types just shrugging their shoulders, or Bush beating Dole here in Illinois in 1988. Trump won't be the nominee.
(http://i.imgur.com/Q5PhOBU.gif)
Quote from: Slaky on March 02, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 02:21:10 PM
There's a lot of baseball left to be played. This is not like Bill Clinton coming out of Super Tuesday in 1992 with Tsongas and Gephardt types just shrugging their shoulders, or Bush beating Dole here in Illinois in 1988. Drumpf won't be the nominee.
They seem to be willing to ignore all this at the convention and go with someone else even if Drumpf takes care of business.
I just don't understand how reasonable people can summon up the ability to even type, let alone actually vote, for guys like Cruz and Rubio. MAYBE I could see Rubio but Ted Cruz is so fucking gross. I want to beat the shit out of him. It would be the best thing I ever did in my whole goddamn life.
Seriously. Motherfucker is the biggest fucking fist magnet I've ever seen in my life.
Quote from: Slaky on March 02, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 02:21:10 PM
There's a lot of baseball left to be played. This is not like Bill Clinton coming out of Super Tuesday in 1992 with Tsongas and Gephardt types just shrugging their shoulders, or Bush beating Dole here in Illinois in 1988. Drumpf won't be the nominee.
They seem to be willing to ignore all this at the convention and go with someone else even if Drumpf takes care of business.
I just don't understand how reasonable people can summon up the ability to even type, let alone actually vote, for guys like Cruz and Rubio. MAYBE I could see Rubio but Ted Cruz is so fucking gross. I want to beat the shit out of him. It would be the best thing I ever did in my whole goddamn life.
I lol'd.
Quote from: Slaky on March 02, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 02:21:10 PM
There's a lot of baseball left to be played. This is not like Bill Clinton coming out of Super Tuesday in 1992 with Tsongas and Gephardt types just shrugging their shoulders, or Bush beating Dole here in Illinois in 1988. Drumpf won't be the nominee.
They seem to be willing to ignore all this at the convention and go with someone else even if Drumpf takes care of business.
I just don't understand how reasonable people can summon up the ability to even type, let alone actually vote, for guys like Cruz and Rubio. MAYBE I could see Rubio but Ted Cruz is so fucking gross. I want to beat the shit out of him. It would be the best thing I ever did in my whole goddamn life.
The question is how would Trump supporters handle the brokered convention. Would Trump run as a third party? Would the Trump supporters be so pissed off they didn't bother to turn out to vote Republican?
You'd think it'd be a pretty big PR win for the Democrats to be able to say that the Republicans don't even want their own people to be able to pick the president.
Quote from: Bort on March 02, 2016, 02:26:07 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 02, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 02:21:10 PM
There's a lot of baseball left to be played. This is not like Bill Clinton coming out of Super Tuesday in 1992 with Tsongas and Gephardt types just shrugging their shoulders, or Bush beating Dole here in Illinois in 1988. Drumpf won't be the nominee.
They seem to be willing to ignore all this at the convention and go with someone else even if Drumpf takes care of business.
I just don't understand how reasonable people can summon up the ability to even type, let alone actually vote, for guys like Cruz and Rubio. MAYBE I could see Rubio but Ted Cruz is so fucking gross. I want to beat the shit out of him. It would be the best thing I ever did in my whole goddamn life.
Seriously. Motherfucker is the biggest fucking fist magnet I've ever seen in my life.
Both of you sound like my younger son. He wants to punch him so bad it makes me purposely pretend like I'm thinking about voting for Cruz just to get a rise out of him.
And then I laugh because Dad is such a dick.
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 02:27:26 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 02, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 02:21:10 PM
There's a lot of baseball left to be played. This is not like Bill Clinton coming out of Super Tuesday in 1992 with Tsongas and Gephardt types just shrugging their shoulders, or Bush beating Dole here in Illinois in 1988. Drumpf won't be the nominee.
They seem to be willing to ignore all this at the convention and go with someone else even if Drumpf takes care of business.
I just don't understand how reasonable people can summon up the ability to even type, let alone actually vote, for guys like Cruz and Rubio. MAYBE I could see Rubio but Ted Cruz is so fucking gross. I want to beat the shit out of him. It would be the best thing I ever did in my whole goddamn life.
The question is how would Trump supporters handle the brokered convention. Would Trump run as a third party? Would the Trump supporters be so pissed off they didn't bother to turn out to vote Republican?
You'd think it'd be a pretty big PR win for the Democrats to be able to say that the Republicans don't even want their own people to be able to pick the president.
At least we know the origin of all of those super optimistic TJ Cubs posts.
Quote from: flannj on March 02, 2016, 02:29:23 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 02, 2016, 02:26:07 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 02, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 02:21:10 PM
There's a lot of baseball left to be played. This is not like Bill Clinton coming out of Super Tuesday in 1992 with Tsongas and Gephardt types just shrugging their shoulders, or Bush beating Dole here in Illinois in 1988. Drumpf won't be the nominee.
They seem to be willing to ignore all this at the convention and go with someone else even if Drumpf takes care of business.
I just don't understand how reasonable people can summon up the ability to even type, let alone actually vote, for guys like Cruz and Rubio. MAYBE I could see Rubio but Ted Cruz is so fucking gross. I want to beat the shit out of him. It would be the best thing I ever did in my whole goddamn life.
Seriously. Motherfucker is the biggest fucking fist magnet I've ever seen in my life.
Both of you sound like my younger son. He wants to punch him so bad it makes me purposely pretend like I'm thinking about voting for Cruz just to get a rise out of him.
And then I laugh because Dad is such a dick.
This is truly fantastic.
But seriously, I would take President Trump over President Cruz.
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 02:32:10 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 02, 2016, 02:29:23 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 02, 2016, 02:26:07 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 02, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 02:21:10 PM
There's a lot of baseball left to be played. This is not like Bill Clinton coming out of Super Tuesday in 1992 with Tsongas and Gephardt types just shrugging their shoulders, or Bush beating Dole here in Illinois in 1988. Drumpf won't be the nominee.
They seem to be willing to ignore all this at the convention and go with someone else even if Drumpf takes care of business.
I just don't understand how reasonable people can summon up the ability to even type, let alone actually vote, for guys like Cruz and Rubio. MAYBE I could see Rubio but Ted Cruz is so fucking gross. I want to beat the shit out of him. It would be the best thing I ever did in my whole goddamn life.
Seriously. Motherfucker is the biggest fucking fist magnet I've ever seen in my life.
Both of you sound like my younger son. He wants to punch him so bad it makes me purposely pretend like I'm thinking about voting for Cruz just to get a rise out of him.
And then I laugh because Dad is such a dick.
This is truly fantastic.
But seriously, I would take President Trump over President Cruz.
(http://eatslikeaduck.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Mountain-Dew-or-Crab-Juice-Screenshot.png)
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 02:32:10 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 02, 2016, 02:29:23 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 02, 2016, 02:26:07 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 02, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 02:21:10 PM
There's a lot of baseball left to be played. This is not like Bill Clinton coming out of Super Tuesday in 1992 with Tsongas and Gephardt types just shrugging their shoulders, or Bush beating Dole here in Illinois in 1988. Drumpf won't be the nominee.
They seem to be willing to ignore all this at the convention and go with someone else even if Drumpf takes care of business.
I just don't understand how reasonable people can summon up the ability to even type, let alone actually vote, for guys like Cruz and Rubio. MAYBE I could see Rubio but Ted Cruz is so fucking gross. I want to beat the shit out of him. It would be the best thing I ever did in my whole goddamn life.
Seriously. Motherfucker is the biggest fucking fist magnet I've ever seen in my life.
Both of you sound like my younger son. He wants to punch him so bad it makes me purposely pretend like I'm thinking about voting for Cruz just to get a rise out of him.
And then I laugh because Dad is such a dick.
This is truly fantastic.
But seriously, I would take President Trump over President Cruz.
I probably would, too. There's a tiny piece of me that still thinks maybe Donald would immediately repudiate every awful thing he's said, admit he was just being a showman to get the job, and then govern like the friend of the Clintons/SENSIBLE MODERATE young Huard desperately believed him to be.
Ted Cruz would just be the tea party president.
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 02:37:59 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 02:32:10 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 02, 2016, 02:29:23 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 02, 2016, 02:26:07 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 02, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 02:21:10 PM
There's a lot of baseball left to be played. This is not like Bill Clinton coming out of Super Tuesday in 1992 with Tsongas and Gephardt types just shrugging their shoulders, or Bush beating Dole here in Illinois in 1988. Drumpf won't be the nominee.
They seem to be willing to ignore all this at the convention and go with someone else even if Drumpf takes care of business.
I just don't understand how reasonable people can summon up the ability to even type, let alone actually vote, for guys like Cruz and Rubio. MAYBE I could see Rubio but Ted Cruz is so fucking gross. I want to beat the shit out of him. It would be the best thing I ever did in my whole goddamn life.
Seriously. Motherfucker is the biggest fucking fist magnet I've ever seen in my life.
Both of you sound like my younger son. He wants to punch him so bad it makes me purposely pretend like I'm thinking about voting for Cruz just to get a rise out of him.
And then I laugh because Dad is such a dick.
This is truly fantastic.
But seriously, I would take President Trump over President Cruz.
I probably would, too. There's a tiny piece of me that still thinks maybe Donald would immediately repudiate every awful thing he's said, admit he was just being a showman to get the job, and then govern like the friend of the Clintons/SENSIBLE MODERATE young Huard desperately believed him to be.
Ted Cruz would just be the tea party president.
I sort of suspect this too, but I'd rather not find out.
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 02:37:59 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 02:32:10 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 02, 2016, 02:29:23 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 02, 2016, 02:26:07 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 02, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 02:21:10 PM
There's a lot of baseball left to be played. This is not like Bill Clinton coming out of Super Tuesday in 1992 with Tsongas and Gephardt types just shrugging their shoulders, or Bush beating Dole here in Illinois in 1988. Drumpf won't be the nominee.
They seem to be willing to ignore all this at the convention and go with someone else even if Drumpf takes care of business.
I just don't understand how reasonable people can summon up the ability to even type, let alone actually vote, for guys like Cruz and Rubio. MAYBE I could see Rubio but Ted Cruz is so fucking gross. I want to beat the shit out of him. It would be the best thing I ever did in my whole goddamn life.
Seriously. Motherfucker is the biggest fucking fist magnet I've ever seen in my life.
Both of you sound like my younger son. He wants to punch him so bad it makes me purposely pretend like I'm thinking about voting for Cruz just to get a rise out of him.
And then I laugh because Dad is such a dick.
This is truly fantastic.
But seriously, I would take President Trump over President Cruz.
I probably would, too. There's a tiny piece of me that still thinks maybe Donald would immediately repudiate every awful thing he's said, admit he was just being a showman to get the job, and then govern like the friend of the Clintons/SENSIBLE MODERATE young Huard desperately believed him to be.
Ted Cruz would just be the tea party president.
We've seen him on television acting a certain way for decades. And somehow, after he's been gifted the highest office in the entire world, he's going to stop being a pompous, self-serving, confrontational dick-bag? That tiny piece of you that thinks that needs to be sloughed off with a pumice stone and rubbed over with a very powerful ointment.
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 02:46:19 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 02:37:59 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 02:32:10 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 02, 2016, 02:29:23 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 02, 2016, 02:26:07 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 02, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 02:21:10 PM
There's a lot of baseball left to be played. This is not like Bill Clinton coming out of Super Tuesday in 1992 with Tsongas and Gephardt types just shrugging their shoulders, or Bush beating Dole here in Illinois in 1988. Drumpf won't be the nominee.
They seem to be willing to ignore all this at the convention and go with someone else even if Drumpf takes care of business.
I just don't understand how reasonable people can summon up the ability to even type, let alone actually vote, for guys like Cruz and Rubio. MAYBE I could see Rubio but Ted Cruz is so fucking gross. I want to beat the shit out of him. It would be the best thing I ever did in my whole goddamn life.
Seriously. Motherfucker is the biggest fucking fist magnet I've ever seen in my life.
Both of you sound like my younger son. He wants to punch him so bad it makes me purposely pretend like I'm thinking about voting for Cruz just to get a rise out of him.
And then I laugh because Dad is such a dick.
This is truly fantastic.
But seriously, I would take President Trump over President Cruz.
I probably would, too. There's a tiny piece of me that still thinks maybe Donald would immediately repudiate every awful thing he's said, admit he was just being a showman to get the job, and then govern like the friend of the Clintons/SENSIBLE MODERATE young Huard desperately believed him to be.
Ted Cruz would just be the tea party president.
We've seen him on television acting a certain way for decades. And somehow, after he's been gifted the highest office in the entire world, he's going to stop being a pompous, self-serving, confrontational dick-bag? That tiny piece of you that thinks that needs to be sloughed off with a pumice stone and rubbed over with a very powerful ointment.
You can be a pompous, self-serving, confrontational dick-bag without being a
complete fascist, but again, God knows I don't want this to happen. I'm voting against both Trump and Cruz. I just don't see anyway whatsoever Cruz isn't just as bad, if not worse, than Trump.
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 02:49:09 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 02:46:19 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 02:37:59 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 02:32:10 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 02, 2016, 02:29:23 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 02, 2016, 02:26:07 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 02, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 02:21:10 PM
There's a lot of baseball left to be played. This is not like Bill Clinton coming out of Super Tuesday in 1992 with Tsongas and Gephardt types just shrugging their shoulders, or Bush beating Dole here in Illinois in 1988. Drumpf won't be the nominee.
They seem to be willing to ignore all this at the convention and go with someone else even if Drumpf takes care of business.
I just don't understand how reasonable people can summon up the ability to even type, let alone actually vote, for guys like Cruz and Rubio. MAYBE I could see Rubio but Ted Cruz is so fucking gross. I want to beat the shit out of him. It would be the best thing I ever did in my whole goddamn life.
Seriously. Motherfucker is the biggest fucking fist magnet I've ever seen in my life.
Both of you sound like my younger son. He wants to punch him so bad it makes me purposely pretend like I'm thinking about voting for Cruz just to get a rise out of him.
And then I laugh because Dad is such a dick.
This is truly fantastic.
But seriously, I would take President Trump over President Cruz.
I probably would, too. There's a tiny piece of me that still thinks maybe Donald would immediately repudiate every awful thing he's said, admit he was just being a showman to get the job, and then govern like the friend of the Clintons/SENSIBLE MODERATE young Huard desperately believed him to be.
Ted Cruz would just be the tea party president.
We've seen him on television acting a certain way for decades. And somehow, after he's been gifted the highest office in the entire world, he's going to stop being a pompous, self-serving, confrontational dick-bag? That tiny piece of you that thinks that needs to be sloughed off with a pumice stone and rubbed over with a very powerful ointment.
You can be a pompous, self-serving, confrontational dick-bag without being a complete fascist, but again, God knows I don't want this to happen. I'm voting against both Trump and Cruz. I just don't see anyway whatsoever Cruz isn't just as bad, if not worse, than Trump.
You're thinking he'd run for re-election on a different platform then? Or not run? Because all that power wouldn't get to his head and make him even more desperate to hold onto it for four more precious years? Nope. Me neither.
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 02:37:59 PM
Ted Cruz would just be the tea party president.
Cruz would be worse than Trump. Maybe Trump would be so bad that the country would hit rock bottom and the entire system changes for the better. Cruz would just be bad.
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 02:57:29 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 02:49:09 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 02:46:19 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 02:37:59 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 02:32:10 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 02, 2016, 02:29:23 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 02, 2016, 02:26:07 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 02, 2016, 02:24:05 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 02:21:10 PM
There's a lot of baseball left to be played. This is not like Bill Clinton coming out of Super Tuesday in 1992 with Tsongas and Gephardt types just shrugging their shoulders, or Bush beating Dole here in Illinois in 1988. Drumpf won't be the nominee.
They seem to be willing to ignore all this at the convention and go with someone else even if Drumpf takes care of business.
I just don't understand how reasonable people can summon up the ability to even type, let alone actually vote, for guys like Cruz and Rubio. MAYBE I could see Rubio but Ted Cruz is so fucking gross. I want to beat the shit out of him. It would be the best thing I ever did in my whole goddamn life.
Seriously. Motherfucker is the biggest fucking fist magnet I've ever seen in my life.
Both of you sound like my younger son. He wants to punch him so bad it makes me purposely pretend like I'm thinking about voting for Cruz just to get a rise out of him.
And then I laugh because Dad is such a dick.
This is truly fantastic.
But seriously, I would take President Trump over President Cruz.
I probably would, too. There's a tiny piece of me that still thinks maybe Donald would immediately repudiate every awful thing he's said, admit he was just being a showman to get the job, and then govern like the friend of the Clintons/SENSIBLE MODERATE young Huard desperately believed him to be.
Ted Cruz would just be the tea party president.
We've seen him on television acting a certain way for decades. And somehow, after he's been gifted the highest office in the entire world, he's going to stop being a pompous, self-serving, confrontational dick-bag? That tiny piece of you that thinks that needs to be sloughed off with a pumice stone and rubbed over with a very powerful ointment.
You can be a pompous, self-serving, confrontational dick-bag without being a complete fascist, but again, God knows I don't want this to happen. I'm voting against both Trump and Cruz. I just don't see anyway whatsoever Cruz isn't just as bad, if not worse, than Trump.
You're thinking he'd run for re-election on a different platform then? Or not run? Because all that power wouldn't get to his head and make him even more desperate to hold onto it for four more precious years? Nope. Me neither.
Ehh, whatever policies he'd pass he'd managed to spin come election time. I mean people throw out his direct quotes from the past that contradict his stated policies, his friendship with the Clinton, etc. and his supporters just denounce them as lies and manipulation from the media and career politicians. He'd just make sure everyone knew that whatever people don't like wasn't on him. He's pretty good at that.
But I mean I hate the guy, I do not want him to be president, but what about Ted Cruz makes him seem any better?
Cruz is a stubborn (but brilliant) son of a bitch who gets admirers because he stakes himself to a difficult position and sticks to it. There's a saying that the squishy "establishment" types can't identify a hill to die on, while people like Cruz are all too willing to die. Personality-wise he's unlikable, but he has true believers because he takes his job seriously. Maybe too much so.
As far as Trump's platform, it is whatever will benefit him the most at the given moment.
There's resistance to Rubio as being too inexperienced because he'd be the first post-baby boom generation president. The Boomers are seeing their time pass. Heck, even Obama is on the tail end of the Baby Boom. In 12 years, you'll see millennials in the Presidential race. Hopefully, they'll be less amenable to socialism by then.
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 03:17:36 PM
Cruz is a stubborn (but brilliant) son of a bitch who gets admirers because he stakes himself to a difficult position and sticks to it. There's a saying that the squishy "establishment" types can't identify a hill to die on, while people like Cruz are all too willing to die. Personality-wise he's unlikable, but he has true believers because he takes his job seriously. Maybe too much so.
As far as Trump's platform, it is whatever will benefit him the most at the given moment.
There's resistance to Rubio as being too inexperienced because he'd be the first post-baby boom generation president. The Boomers are seeing their time pass. Heck, even Obama is on the tail end of the Baby Boom. In 12 years, you'll see millennials in the Presidential race. Hopefully, they'll be less amenable to socialism by then.
Yeah Socialism has really torn this country apart.
Quote from: PANK! on March 02, 2016, 03:21:17 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 03:17:36 PM
Cruz is a stubborn (but brilliant) son of a bitch who gets admirers because he stakes himself to a difficult position and sticks to it. There's a saying that the squishy "establishment" types can't identify a hill to die on, while people like Cruz are all too willing to die. Personality-wise he's unlikable, but he has true believers because he takes his job seriously. Maybe too much so.
As far as Trump's platform, it is whatever will benefit him the most at the given moment.
There's resistance to Rubio as being too inexperienced because he'd be the first post-baby boom generation president. The Boomers are seeing their time pass. Heck, even Obama is on the tail end of the Baby Boom. In 12 years, you'll see millennials in the Presidential race. Hopefully, they'll be less amenable to socialism by then.
Yeah Socialism has really torn this country apart.
We'll be less amenable to socialism provided "trickle down economics" somehow brings back liveable wages. Maybe the fourth straight decade of that is when we start to see the results? Fingers crossed.
For the record I'm not even a Bernie supporter, but the condescending attitude that my generation either A) "only wants free shit or B)Doesn't actually know what socialism is really annoys the piss out of me.
Look at the current economic situation for most of my generation, the jobs available, the housing market, and really ask why the hell they wouldn't drift toward socialism.
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 01:46:40 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:44:19 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 01:42:58 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.
Me too.
Also, TJ. Come on out into the great wide world of Independence with me. It feels so good not to have to defend any of these assclowns ever again. And I even started going back to church after like 25 years of atheism/agnosticism/devil worship. It's right here for you man. It doesn't make you a quitter. Far from it.
Independence is admirable, but are you suggesting I just surrender the controls of AA Flight 11 peacefully and let the Trumpers take it into the North Tower without a fight? At least right now, you have Kasich and Rubio and even Carson and Cruz from which to choose.
I am interested to hear more about your return to church sometime in person, preferably in between pitches. I won't even wear tasseled loafers
FWIW, Carson just dropped out.
Best news I've heard all day. I can't imagine any Carson supporters would support Trump, but weirder things have happened.
If they were stupid enough to support Carson...
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 03:27:37 PM
For the record I'm not even a Bernie supporter, but the condescending attitude that my generation either A) "only wants free shit or B)Doesn't actually know what socialism is really annoys the piss out of me.
Look at the current economic situation for most of my generation, the jobs available, the housing market, and really ask why the hell they wouldn't drift toward socialism.
Everyone wants free shit and the politicians know it. Dems offer actual goods and services and charge undermarket prices. Goops offer free cash (in the form of tax cuts) and don't bother to pay for it with good and service roll backs.
The reason government doesn't shrink is because for a Candidate to say, "You elected me! Look what goods and services I took away from you!" is a really bad platform on which to get reelected.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 02, 2016, 03:36:50 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 03:27:37 PM
For the record I'm not even a Bernie supporter, but the condescending attitude that my generation either A) "only wants free shit or B)Doesn't actually know what socialism is really annoys the piss out of me.
Look at the current economic situation for most of my generation, the jobs available, the housing market, and really ask why the hell they wouldn't drift toward socialism.
Everyone wants free shit and the politicians know it. Dems offer actual goods and services and charge undermarket prices. Goops offer free cash (in the form of tax cuts) and don't bother to pay for it with good and service roll backs.
The reason government doesn't shrink is because for a Candidate to say, "You elected me! Look what goods and services I took away from you!" is a really bad platform on which to get reelected.
Right, and tax cuts won't do shit for people my age who can't even dream of getting into a bracket high enough for that to matter. So they're going to keep drifting to the left until either party finds a way to restore the middle class.
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 03:27:37 PM
For the record I'm not even a Bernie supporter, but the condescending attitude that my generation either A) "only wants free shit or B)Doesn't actually know what socialism is really annoys the piss out of me.
Look at the current economic situation for most of my generation, the jobs available, the housing market, and really ask why the hell they wouldn't drift toward socialism.
It's not just your generation.
And I say this honestly with three kids just about your age.
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 02:03:22 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:53:29 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 01:44:15 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 01:42:58 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.
Me too.
Also, TJ. Come on out into the great wide world of Independence with me. It feels so good not to have to defend any of these assclowns ever again. And I even started going back to church after like 25 years of atheism/agnosticism/devil worship. It's right here for you man. It doesn't make you a quitter. Far from it.
Independence is admirable, but are you suggesting I just surrender the controls of AA Flight 11 peacefully and let the Trumpers take it into the North Tower without a fight? At least right now, you have Kasich and Rubio and even Carson and Cruz from which to choose.
I am interested to hear more about your return to church sometime in person, preferably in between pitches. I won't even wear tasseled loafers
The best outcome for Republicans might be that the party splinters. The wackos leave, moderate Republicans resume control, and perhaps pull in a lot of the moderate independents and conservative minorities who are currently unwelcome in the GOP.
A Hillary presidency would seem to be a boon for somebody because disaffected voters will turn where they will. Moderate Republicans though? I mean, they'd have to centerist, realists and inclusive to offset the Tea/Trump Partiers. Those people would seem to be kind of ok with whatever Hillary has cooking. Liberal Democrats who support Bernie and at once belived in Obama/Change/Hope/BLACKPRESIDENTZOMG are not going that way. There aren't enough rich people left, the upper middle class is evaporating. That ship has sailed.
So to answer TJ's question, yes. I think he should let the plane fly into the mountain. If he wants to stick around and hope for a miracle, ok... I'll still be here with my growing group of friends when he's ready. I'll have some scissors for the loafers too. Snip-snip, problem over.
Someone show me anyone currently in the Republican party that's willing to vote for Hillary.
If 8 years of Obama gave us Trump, I can't imagine what 4-8 years of Hillary is going to spawn.
For years, the big knock on the Clintons was their whole "triangulation" method of government. They are populists, which makes them centrists/moderates. I truly believe that Republicans who won't back Trump in the primaries, who are alarmed by his candidacy and rise to relevance would certainly either stay home on Election Day or cast a vote for Hillary over Trump. Certainly they'd vote for Hillary over Bernie.
Quote from: flannj on March 02, 2016, 03:44:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 03:27:37 PM
For the record I'm not even a Bernie supporter, but the condescending attitude that my generation either A) "only wants free shit or B)Doesn't actually know what socialism is really annoys the piss out of me.
Look at the current economic situation for most of my generation, the jobs available, the housing market, and really ask why the hell they wouldn't drift toward socialism.
It's not just your generation.
And I say this honestly with three kids just about your age.
Right. I went for an archivist job a few years back. It was an entry level position. I was one of the finalists, but I lost out to a guy who got the job because he'd been laid off from his other archivist position and had 15+ years of experience.
I sure as hell can't compete with 15+ years of experience for a position like that, and the company just gets to laugh all of the way to the bank because that poor sonofabitch is forced to work at an entry level salary despite all of his experience. They win, and both of us lose, and that includes the one who got the damn job. Is it any real question as to why people are drifting toward literally anything other than what we've done for 30+ years?
It's not because we're lazy and entitled, that's for damn sure.
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 03:45:11 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 02:03:22 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:53:29 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 01:44:15 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 01:42:58 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.
Me too.
Also, TJ. Come on out into the great wide world of Independence with me. It feels so good not to have to defend any of these assclowns ever again. And I even started going back to church after like 25 years of atheism/agnosticism/devil worship. It's right here for you man. It doesn't make you a quitter. Far from it.
Independence is admirable, but are you suggesting I just surrender the controls of AA Flight 11 peacefully and let the Trumpers take it into the North Tower without a fight? At least right now, you have Kasich and Rubio and even Carson and Cruz from which to choose.
I am interested to hear more about your return to church sometime in person, preferably in between pitches. I won't even wear tasseled loafers
The best outcome for Republicans might be that the party splinters. The wackos leave, moderate Republicans resume control, and perhaps pull in a lot of the moderate independents and conservative minorities who are currently unwelcome in the GOP.
A Hillary presidency would seem to be a boon for somebody because disaffected voters will turn where they will. Moderate Republicans though? I mean, they'd have to centerist, realists and inclusive to offset the Tea/Trump Partiers. Those people would seem to be kind of ok with whatever Hillary has cooking. Liberal Democrats who support Bernie and at once belived in Obama/Change/Hope/BLACKPRESIDENTZOMG are not going that way. There aren't enough rich people left, the upper middle class is evaporating. That ship has sailed.
So to answer TJ's question, yes. I think he should let the plane fly into the mountain. If he wants to stick around and hope for a miracle, ok... I'll still be here with my growing group of friends when he's ready. I'll have some scissors for the loafers too. Snip-snip, problem over.
Someone show me anyone currently in the Republican party that's willing to vote for Hillary.
If 8 years of Obama gave us Trump, I can't imagine what 4-8 years of Hillary is going to spawn.
For years, the big knock on the Clintons was their whole "triangulation" method of government. They are populists, which makes them centrists/moderates. I truly believe that Republicans who won't back Trump in the primaries, who are alarmed by his candidacy and rise to relevance would certainly either stay home on Election Day or cast a vote for Hillary over Trump. Certainly they'd vote for Hillary over Bernie.
They, like all currently running aren't populists / moderates / centrists or whatever political flavor of the day you want to label them with.
None of them.
They are ego driven
politicians first, foremost and always.
This isn't about policy. They don't care about you.
Just get elected baby.
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 03:48:02 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 02, 2016, 03:44:16 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 03:27:37 PM
For the record I'm not even a Bernie supporter, but the condescending attitude that my generation either A) "only wants free shit or B)Doesn't actually know what socialism is really annoys the piss out of me.
Look at the current economic situation for most of my generation, the jobs available, the housing market, and really ask why the hell they wouldn't drift toward socialism.
It's not just your generation.
And I say this honestly with three kids just about your age.
Right. I went for an archivist job a few years back. It was an entry level position. I was one of the finalists, but I lost out to a guy who got the job because he'd been laid off from his other archivist position and had 15+ years of experience.
I sure as hell can't compete with 15+ years of experience for a position like that, and the company just gets to laugh all of the way to the bank because that poor sonofabitch is forced to work at an entry level salary despite all of his experience. They win, and both of us lose, and that includes the one who got the damn job. Is it any real question as to why people are drifting toward literally anything other than what we've done for 30+ years?
It's not because we're lazy and entitled, that's for damn sure.
Agreed. And what exactly is the POTUS or Congress or Mike Madigan or Tammy Duckworth or Mark Kirk any other douchebag politician going to do about it?
Zilch.
And presuming they were competent, should that be their job?
(ht Chuck)
Quote from: flannj on March 02, 2016, 03:54:49 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 03:45:11 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 02:03:22 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:53:29 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 01:44:15 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 01:42:58 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.
Me too.
Also, TJ. Come on out into the great wide world of Independence with me. It feels so good not to have to defend any of these assclowns ever again. And I even started going back to church after like 25 years of atheism/agnosticism/devil worship. It's right here for you man. It doesn't make you a quitter. Far from it.
Independence is admirable, but are you suggesting I just surrender the controls of AA Flight 11 peacefully and let the Trumpers take it into the North Tower without a fight? At least right now, you have Kasich and Rubio and even Carson and Cruz from which to choose.
I am interested to hear more about your return to church sometime in person, preferably in between pitches. I won't even wear tasseled loafers
The best outcome for Republicans might be that the party splinters. The wackos leave, moderate Republicans resume control, and perhaps pull in a lot of the moderate independents and conservative minorities who are currently unwelcome in the GOP.
A Hillary presidency would seem to be a boon for somebody because disaffected voters will turn where they will. Moderate Republicans though? I mean, they'd have to centerist, realists and inclusive to offset the Tea/Trump Partiers. Those people would seem to be kind of ok with whatever Hillary has cooking. Liberal Democrats who support Bernie and at once belived in Obama/Change/Hope/BLACKPRESIDENTZOMG are not going that way. There aren't enough rich people left, the upper middle class is evaporating. That ship has sailed.
So to answer TJ's question, yes. I think he should let the plane fly into the mountain. If he wants to stick around and hope for a miracle, ok... I'll still be here with my growing group of friends when he's ready. I'll have some scissors for the loafers too. Snip-snip, problem over.
Someone show me anyone currently in the Republican party that's willing to vote for Hillary.
If 8 years of Obama gave us Trump, I can't imagine what 4-8 years of Hillary is going to spawn.
For years, the big knock on the Clintons was their whole "triangulation" method of government. They are populists, which makes them centrists/moderates. I truly believe that Republicans who won't back Trump in the primaries, who are alarmed by his candidacy and rise to relevance would certainly either stay home on Election Day or cast a vote for Hillary over Trump. Certainly they'd vote for Hillary over Bernie.
They, like all currently running aren't populists / moderates / centrists or whatever political flavor of the day you want to label them with.
None of them.
They are ego driven politicians first, foremost and always.
This isn't about policy. They don't care about you.
Just get elected baby.
No doubt, but "do whatever it takes" is often reflected by appealing to the largest group of people. The Clintons poll (or in Bill's case "pole") the shit out of Americans and doing what gets them the biggest political win. This isn't necessarily the best way to govern, but it means that popular initiatives will get accomplished, and she's safer than Trump.
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:33:39 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 01:32:12 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 12:18:46 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 12:14:02 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 11:57:48 AM
I just don't believe Trump has won over anyone who wasn't already against Obama, and he's ensured the moderates who would usually be fooled by previous GOP euphemisms will probably not vote for him.
I mean the difference between Trump and the previous GOP candidates is that he just says out loud all of the stuff they've merely implied. Previous candidates will say they need to "strengthen the border", Trump will just come out and say they need to do it because Mexicans are drug pushers and rapists. He hasn't added to the GOP base, he's just empowered them to say out loud all the stuff they were thinking, and stolen them from the GOP guys who hid behind comfortable euphemisms.
Conversely, what Obama did for the Democratic base, bringing huge numbers of Blacks into the electorate for the first time ever is unlikely to continue for Clinton. We'll have to hope that the anti-Trump center turns out for her (and not someone else yet to be determined) in the battleground states we've mentioned.
And I disagree with the notion that Trump is not bringing people into the party who were disconnected previously. There are poor whites everywhere who don't vote and he's got their attention.
Clinton seems to be doing very, very well among minorities so far in the primaries, and while mobilizing them for Clinton might be difficult, it's easier if you think of it as mobilizing them against Trump. It would be easy to show them Trump's twitter page, the videos of his supporters attacking black people, and refuse to let the whole "Trump likes the KKK thing" die.
I just think that Trump basically has the Angry White People vote and that's it. Angry White People were already doing everything they could to vote against Obama and lost, and the "poor whites" that Trump is getting to turn out are mostly doing so in states that are already red states.
She's attracting the minority voters more than Sanders, of course, but I haven't seen anyone publish numbers on how many people are voting in the Democratic primary this time around, as opposed to in 2008. What I have noticed is that, so far, more Republicans are voting in the primaries than Democrats.
Hot off the press:
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/02/democratic-turnout-down-32-in-super-tuesday-states-compared-to-2008/
Trump on the ballot in November would bring out yuuuge numbers of Democratic voters for Hilary.
If the Republican establishment manages to get someone other than Trump nominated, I believe that it is likely that Trump will run as a third party candidate. He has almost promised to do so.
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 04:08:07 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 02, 2016, 03:54:49 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 03:45:11 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 02:03:22 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:53:29 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 02, 2016, 01:44:15 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 01:42:58 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 02, 2016, 01:29:45 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.
Me too.
Also, TJ. Come on out into the great wide world of Independence with me. It feels so good not to have to defend any of these assclowns ever again. And I even started going back to church after like 25 years of atheism/agnosticism/devil worship. It's right here for you man. It doesn't make you a quitter. Far from it.
Independence is admirable, but are you suggesting I just surrender the controls of AA Flight 11 peacefully and let the Trumpers take it into the North Tower without a fight? At least right now, you have Kasich and Rubio and even Carson and Cruz from which to choose.
I am interested to hear more about your return to church sometime in person, preferably in between pitches. I won't even wear tasseled loafers
The best outcome for Republicans might be that the party splinters. The wackos leave, moderate Republicans resume control, and perhaps pull in a lot of the moderate independents and conservative minorities who are currently unwelcome in the GOP.
A Hillary presidency would seem to be a boon for somebody because disaffected voters will turn where they will. Moderate Republicans though? I mean, they'd have to centerist, realists and inclusive to offset the Tea/Trump Partiers. Those people would seem to be kind of ok with whatever Hillary has cooking. Liberal Democrats who support Bernie and at once belived in Obama/Change/Hope/BLACKPRESIDENTZOMG are not going that way. There aren't enough rich people left, the upper middle class is evaporating. That ship has sailed.
So to answer TJ's question, yes. I think he should let the plane fly into the mountain. If he wants to stick around and hope for a miracle, ok... I'll still be here with my growing group of friends when he's ready. I'll have some scissors for the loafers too. Snip-snip, problem over.
Someone show me anyone currently in the Republican party that's willing to vote for Hillary.
If 8 years of Obama gave us Trump, I can't imagine what 4-8 years of Hillary is going to spawn.
For years, the big knock on the Clintons was their whole "triangulation" method of government. They are populists, which makes them centrists/moderates. I truly believe that Republicans who won't back Trump in the primaries, who are alarmed by his candidacy and rise to relevance would certainly either stay home on Election Day or cast a vote for Hillary over Trump. Certainly they'd vote for Hillary over Bernie.
They, like all currently running aren't populists / moderates / centrists or whatever political flavor of the day you want to label them with.
None of them.
They are ego driven politicians first, foremost and always.
This isn't about policy. They don't care about you.
Just get elected baby.
No doubt, but "do whatever it takes" is often reflected by appealing to the largest group of people. The Clintons poll (or in Bill's case "pole") the shit out of Americans and doing what gets them the biggest political win. This isn't necessarily the best way to govern, but it means that popular initiatives will get accomplished, and she's safer than Trump.
It's not about "governing" or popular initiatives. It's about getting elected.
And once in office the only policy they care about enacting is the one that's going to get them elected next term.
If popularity dictated that Hillary should become a Juggalette she'd fucking do it.
There's a visual for you.
Of all the shocking things to come from this thread I think the most surprising is that Flannj knows what the hell a juggalette is.
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 04:21:50 PM
Of all the shocking things to come from this thread I think the most surprising is that Flannj knows what the hell a juggalette is.
Flannj is down with the clown.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 02, 2016, 04:24:03 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 04:21:50 PM
Of all the shocking things to come from this thread I think the most surprising is that Flannj knows what the hell a juggalette is.
Flannj is down with the clown.
Flannj is just glad somebody finally sympathizes with his confusion about magnets.
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 04:25:10 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 02, 2016, 04:24:03 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 04:21:50 PM
Of all the shocking things to come from this thread I think the most surprising is that Flannj knows what the hell a juggalette is.
Flannj is down with the clown.
Flannj is just glad somebody finally sympathizes with his confusion about magnets.
Sometimes this bald old man has got to flash a wicked clown.
Trump appeals to the stupid, something this country has a nearly endless supply of. I was hoping they were too stupid to figure out how to register to vote and when to show up to vote, but that is proving not to be true. He makes shit up (The Daily Show played a clip of him claiming the unemployment rate was as high as 42%), and his supporters don't hear (or care to hear) the actual facts. Given the widespread distaste for Hillary (even from the left), I won't be comfortable until all of the ballots are counted.
Quote from: Shooter on March 02, 2016, 07:26:19 PM
Trump appeals to the stupid, something this country has a nearly endless supply of. I was hoping they were too stupid to figure out how to register to vote and when to show up to vote, but that is proving not to be true. He makes shit up (The Daily Show played a clip of him claiming the unemployment rate was as high as 42%), and his supporters don't hear (or care to hear) the actual facts. Given the widespread distaste for Hillary (even from the left), I won't be comfortable until all of the ballots are counted.
Low information voters or those who choose to be low information voters.
In other words as you said, stupid.
Quote from: Shooter on March 02, 2016, 07:26:19 PM
Trump appeals to the stupid, something this country has a nearly endless supply of. I was hoping they were too stupid to figure out how to register to vote and when to show up to vote, but that is proving not to be true. He makes shit up (The Daily Show played a clip of him claiming the unemployment rate was as high as 42%), and his supporters don't hear (or care to hear) the actual facts. Given the widespread distaste for Hillary (even from the left), I won't be comfortable until all of the ballots are counted.
You probably mean "especially," because she has never been close to a leftist in her entire career, despite the mad fantasies of the Right.
Quote from: PenFoe on March 02, 2016, 01:09:53 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 02, 2016, 01:03:17 PM
You and your moderate republican friends are losing solely because you refuse to admit out loud, with the facts very loudly staring you in the face, that spending 8 years slowly stoking the fires of birthers and paranoid fears that Obama is a secret muslim who wants to take your guns was a bad idea and it created a base of radicals you can't control.
I don't know how we got here, but I want to elope with this SKOpost.
I might need the concept of "loudly" staring facts explained, but other than that it's hard to argue with. And yeah, the GOP is a 757 with "TRUMP" emblazoned on the fuselage in a steep nosedive that's about to bury itself into the dirt at about 700 mph. Did I mention both engines are on fire?
Quote from: flannj on March 02, 2016, 07:43:35 PM
Quote from: Shooter on March 02, 2016, 07:26:19 PM
Trump appeals to the stupid, something this country has a nearly endless supply of. I was hoping they were too stupid to figure out how to register to vote and when to show up to vote, but that is proving not to be true. He makes shit up (The Daily Show played a clip of him claiming the unemployment rate was as high as 42%), and his supporters don't hear (or care to hear) the actual facts. Given the widespread distaste for Hillary (even from the left), I won't be comfortable until all of the ballots are counted.
Low information voters or those who choose to be low information voters.
In other words as you said, stupid.
Don't think it's "low information" as much as "specific information". Finding only items fitting into their worldview, so they aren't being informed as much as feeling informed.
I want Ted Cruz to somehow get the nod because I want to see the country's referendum on his very fucking existence. I want to see his career go down the shitter. I want to be the one who flushes.
Quote from: Slaky on March 03, 2016, 10:38:21 AM
I want Ted Cruz to somehow get the nod because I want to see the country's referendum on his very fucking existence. I want to see his career go down the shitter. I want to be the one who flushes.
If the head Republicans in charge continue to oppose Trump, and manage to steal the nomination from him, then you may very well get your wishes.
Honestly, as the drama unfolds, I can't help but feel giddy. I hope reality doesn't make me regret this feeling in November.
Mitt Romney calling out Trump for greed is my new favorite thing ever.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 03, 2016, 12:20:49 PM
Mitt Romney calling out Trump for greed is my new favorite thing ever.
It's a real wise move on the Republicans' part to send someone as inspiring as Romney to bring a message of clarity to the base.
Quote from: Bort on March 03, 2016, 01:59:02 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 03, 2016, 12:20:49 PM
Mitt Romney calling out Trump for greed is my new favorite thing ever.
It's a real wise move on the Republicans' part to send someone as inspiring as Romney to bring a message of clarity to the base.
It's hilarious that they think sending anyone from the Republican Party establishment that Trump has (accurately) painted as a bunch of failures to dissuade people from voting Trump will work. He'll just double down and his followers will love him more.
They'd be better off asking the Duck Dynasty dude to condemn him.
Quote from: SKO on March 03, 2016, 02:03:12 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 03, 2016, 01:59:02 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 03, 2016, 12:20:49 PM
Mitt Romney calling out Trump for greed is my new favorite thing ever.
It's a real wise move on the Republicans' part to send someone as inspiring as Romney to bring a message of clarity to the base.
It's hilarious that they think sending anyone from the Republican Party establishment that Trump has (accurately) painted as a bunch of failures to dissuade people from voting Trump will work. He'll just double down and his followers will love him more.
They'd be better off asking the Duck Dynasty dude to condemn him.
Frankly, they'll be best suited assassinating him just before the election and focusing on midterms and beyond.
Quote from: Bort on March 03, 2016, 01:59:02 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 03, 2016, 12:20:49 PM
Mitt Romney calling out Trump for greed is my new favorite thing ever.
It's a real wise move on the Republicans' part to send someone as inspiring as Romney to bring a message of clarity to the base.
Pretty confident Romney sent himself out. He used his magic sunglasses to read the magic plates while wearing his magic underwear to know he was the magic savior of the party he was previously unable to save.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 03, 2016, 02:33:56 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 03, 2016, 01:59:02 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 03, 2016, 12:20:49 PM
Mitt Romney calling out Trump for greed is my new favorite thing ever.
It's a real wise move on the Republicans' part to send someone as inspiring as Romney to bring a message of clarity to the base.
Pretty confident Romney sent himself out. He used his magic sunglasses to read the magic plates while wearing his magic underwear to know he was the magic savior of the party he was previously unable to save.
For someone who was really quick to call out Ted Cruz for "New York Values" being slang for anti-semitism, that's nice hypocrisy.
Quote from: PenFoe on March 03, 2016, 02:38:44 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 03, 2016, 02:33:56 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 03, 2016, 01:59:02 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 03, 2016, 12:20:49 PM
Mitt Romney calling out Trump for greed is my new favorite thing ever.
It's a real wise move on the Republicans' part to send someone as inspiring as Romney to bring a message of clarity to the base.
Pretty confident Romney sent himself out. He used his magic sunglasses to read the magic plates while wearing his magic underwear to know he was the magic savior of the party he was previously unable to save.
For someone who was really quick to call out Ted Cruz for "New York Values" being slang for anti-semitism, that's nice hypocrisy.
Was I hiding my distaste?
(http://33.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lo81mikb2V1qmn7mjo1_500.gif)
Yeah to be fair to Chuck I think most Americans for whatever reason have decided Mormonism is kinda fair game to mock. Like Scientology.
Quote from: SKO on March 03, 2016, 02:45:40 PM
Yeah to be fair to Chuck I think most Americans for whatever reason have decided Mormonism is kinda fair game to mock. Like Scientology.
I think the tithing for being a Mormon is a bit cheaper than being a Scientologist.
And instead of a billion year contract, you get to be Jesus to a whole planet when you die!
Quote from: SKO on March 03, 2016, 02:45:40 PM
Yeah to be fair to Chuck I think most Americans for whatever reason have decided Mormonism is kinda fair game to mock. Like Scientology.
When it comes to organized religion, this one has them all beat!
http://www.venganza.org/about/
I swear to God I am going to disconnect every phone I own.
And knock over my mailbox.
Quote from: Bort on March 03, 2016, 01:59:02 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 03, 2016, 12:20:49 PM
Mitt Romney calling out Trump for greed is my new favorite thing ever.
It's a real wise move on the Republicans' part to send someone as inspiring as Romney to bring a message of clarity to the base.
A friend of mine described it as the rich monkeys at the GOP zoo flinging shit at each other.
I think that the strategy to beat Trump is clear. Attack him about pointless things and let him rant about it on tv and during the debates. People attack his hand size, and he starts talking about how beautiful they are and how he's well hung during a debate. Why is nobody talking about his hair? His awful "tan"?
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 07:59:43 AM
I think that the strategy to beat Trump is clear. Attack him about pointless things and let him rant about it on tv and during the debates. People attack his hand size, and he starts talking about how beautiful they are and how he's well hung during a debate. Why is nobody talking about his hair? His awful "tan"?
We'll see if it beats him, I doubt it. Him and his supporters thrive off the fact that the establishment hates him, what was obviously an incredibly well coordinated conspiracy to attack him and him alone will only feed the paranoia of his supporters.
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 08:00:54 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 07:59:43 AM
I think that the strategy to beat Trump is clear. Attack him about pointless things and let him rant about it on tv and during the debates. People attack his hand size, and he starts talking about how beautiful they are and how he's well hung during a debate. Why is nobody talking about his hair? His awful "tan"?
We'll see if it beats him, I doubt it. Him and his supporters thrive off the fact that the establishment hates him, what was obviously an incredibly well coordinated conspiracy to attack him and him alone will only feed the paranoia of his supporters.
I'm disappointed that he passed the perfect opportunity to say YUUUUUUUUGE.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 08:02:06 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 08:00:54 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 07:59:43 AM
I think that the strategy to beat Trump is clear. Attack him about pointless things and let him rant about it on tv and during the debates. People attack his hand size, and he starts talking about how beautiful they are and how he's well hung during a debate. Why is nobody talking about his hair? His awful "tan"?
We'll see if it beats him, I doubt it. Him and his supporters thrive off the fact that the establishment hates him, what was obviously an incredibly well coordinated conspiracy to attack him and him alone will only feed the paranoia of his supporters.
I'm disappointed that he passed the perfect opportunity to say YUUUUUUUUGE.
Trumps' too big for a brokered convention.
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 08:00:54 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 07:59:43 AM
I think that the strategy to beat Trump is clear. Attack him about pointless things and let him rant about it on tv and during the debates. People attack his hand size, and he starts talking about how beautiful they are and how he's well hung during a debate. Why is nobody talking about his hair? His awful "tan"?
We'll see if it beats him, I doubt it. Him and his supporters thrive off the fact that the establishment hates him, what was obviously an incredibly well coordinated conspiracy to attack him and him alone will only feed the paranoia of his supporters.
I think "Trump feeds on the establishment's hate" is a myth that he has cultivated. From what I've read, his numbers go down every time he participates in a debate, as people see more and more of the clown revealed. He still has a sizeable following, no doubt, and there's a certain segment of the population that loves to see him knock people down, but nobody looks good when they demonstrate how butthurt they are in front of a wide audience. I would love to see a candidate say something like, "your hair looks like a rat's nest that was formed in the corpse of a dead cat." It would get him off message immediately, and make him look like a buffoon.
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 08:30:07 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 08:00:54 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 07:59:43 AM
I think that the strategy to beat Trump is clear. Attack him about pointless things and let him rant about it on tv and during the debates. People attack his hand size, and he starts talking about how beautiful they are and how he's well hung during a debate. Why is nobody talking about his hair? His awful "tan"?
We'll see if it beats him, I doubt it. Him and his supporters thrive off the fact that the establishment hates him, what was obviously an incredibly well coordinated conspiracy to attack him and him alone will only feed the paranoia of his supporters.
I think "Trump feeds on the establishment's hate" is a myth that he has cultivated. From what I've read, his numbers go down every time he participates in a debate, as people see more and more of the clown revealed. He still has a sizeable following, no doubt, and there's a certain segment of the population that loves to see him knock people down, but nobody looks good when they demonstrate how butthurt they are in front of a wide audience. I would love to see a candidate say something like, "your hair looks like a rat's nest that was formed in the corpse of a dead cat." It would get him off message immediately, and make him look like a buffoon.
Ted Cruz ate a booger last night, and that still only made him the second most ridiculous guy up there.
The hope for this country is that the support for Trump all resides within the Republican voters, so he's getting maybe 40% during the general election.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 10:04:13 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 08:30:07 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 08:00:54 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 07:59:43 AM
I think that the strategy to beat Trump is clear. Attack him about pointless things and let him rant about it on tv and during the debates. People attack his hand size, and he starts talking about how beautiful they are and how he's well hung during a debate. Why is nobody talking about his hair? His awful "tan"?
We'll see if it beats him, I doubt it. Him and his supporters thrive off the fact that the establishment hates him, what was obviously an incredibly well coordinated conspiracy to attack him and him alone will only feed the paranoia of his supporters.
I think "Trump feeds on the establishment's hate" is a myth that he has cultivated. From what I've read, his numbers go down every time he participates in a debate, as people see more and more of the clown revealed. He still has a sizeable following, no doubt, and there's a certain segment of the population that loves to see him knock people down, but nobody looks good when they demonstrate how butthurt they are in front of a wide audience. I would love to see a candidate say something like, "your hair looks like a rat's nest that was formed in the corpse of a dead cat." It would get him off message immediately, and make him look like a buffoon.
Ted Cruz ate a booger last night, and that still only made him the second most ridiculous guy up there.
The hope for this country is that the support for Trump all resides within the Republican voters, so he's getting maybe 40% during the general election.
If Trump gets as much as 40% of the popular vote, which I admit is likely (if not even below what he'll actually do), then the United States needs an enema even worse than we thought. That's an awfully high number of blithering idiots for one country to sustain.
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 10:35:11 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 10:04:13 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 08:30:07 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 08:00:54 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 07:59:43 AM
I think that the strategy to beat Trump is clear. Attack him about pointless things and let him rant about it on tv and during the debates. People attack his hand size, and he starts talking about how beautiful they are and how he's well hung during a debate. Why is nobody talking about his hair? His awful "tan"?
We'll see if it beats him, I doubt it. Him and his supporters thrive off the fact that the establishment hates him, what was obviously an incredibly well coordinated conspiracy to attack him and him alone will only feed the paranoia of his supporters.
I think "Trump feeds on the establishment's hate" is a myth that he has cultivated. From what I've read, his numbers go down every time he participates in a debate, as people see more and more of the clown revealed. He still has a sizeable following, no doubt, and there's a certain segment of the population that loves to see him knock people down, but nobody looks good when they demonstrate how butthurt they are in front of a wide audience. I would love to see a candidate say something like, "your hair looks like a rat's nest that was formed in the corpse of a dead cat." It would get him off message immediately, and make him look like a buffoon.
Ted Cruz ate a booger last night, and that still only made him the second most ridiculous guy up there.
The hope for this country is that the support for Trump all resides within the Republican voters, so he's getting maybe 40% during the general election.
If Trump gets as much as 40% of the popular vote, which I admit is likely (if not even below what he'll actually do), then the United States needs an enema even worse than we thought. That's an awfully high number of blithering idiots for one country to sustain.
I'd agree if the Democrats were running anybody but Hillary.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 10:54:04 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 10:35:11 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 10:04:13 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 08:30:07 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 08:00:54 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 07:59:43 AM
I think that the strategy to beat Trump is clear. Attack him about pointless things and let him rant about it on tv and during the debates. People attack his hand size, and he starts talking about how beautiful they are and how he's well hung during a debate. Why is nobody talking about his hair? His awful "tan"?
We'll see if it beats him, I doubt it. Him and his supporters thrive off the fact that the establishment hates him, what was obviously an incredibly well coordinated conspiracy to attack him and him alone will only feed the paranoia of his supporters.
I think "Trump feeds on the establishment's hate" is a myth that he has cultivated. From what I've read, his numbers go down every time he participates in a debate, as people see more and more of the clown revealed. He still has a sizeable following, no doubt, and there's a certain segment of the population that loves to see him knock people down, but nobody looks good when they demonstrate how butthurt they are in front of a wide audience. I would love to see a candidate say something like, "your hair looks like a rat's nest that was formed in the corpse of a dead cat." It would get him off message immediately, and make him look like a buffoon.
Ted Cruz ate a booger last night, and that still only made him the second most ridiculous guy up there.
The hope for this country is that the support for Trump all resides within the Republican voters, so he's getting maybe 40% during the general election.
If Trump gets as much as 40% of the popular vote, which I admit is likely (if not even below what he'll actually do), then the United States needs an enema even worse than we thought. That's an awfully high number of blithering idiots for one country to sustain.
I'd agree if the Democrats were running anybody but Hillary.
He'd probably get that against Bernie as well.
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 07:59:43 AM
I think that the strategy to beat Trump is clear. Attack him about pointless things and let him rant about it on tv and during the debates. People attack his hand size, and he starts talking about how beautiful they are and how he's well hung during a debate. Why is nobody talking about his hair? His awful "tan"?
I am convinced that he has that thing on top of his head as a deliberate distraction. I find it so fascinating that I pay no attention to anything that he says.
Quote from: flannj on March 04, 2016, 11:18:16 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 10:54:04 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 10:35:11 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 10:04:13 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 08:30:07 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 08:00:54 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 07:59:43 AM
I think that the strategy to beat Trump is clear. Attack him about pointless things and let him rant about it on tv and during the debates. People attack his hand size, and he starts talking about how beautiful they are and how he's well hung during a debate. Why is nobody talking about his hair? His awful "tan"?
We'll see if it beats him, I doubt it. Him and his supporters thrive off the fact that the establishment hates him, what was obviously an incredibly well coordinated conspiracy to attack him and him alone will only feed the paranoia of his supporters.
I think "Trump feeds on the establishment's hate" is a myth that he has cultivated. From what I've read, his numbers go down every time he participates in a debate, as people see more and more of the clown revealed. He still has a sizeable following, no doubt, and there's a certain segment of the population that loves to see him knock people down, but nobody looks good when they demonstrate how butthurt they are in front of a wide audience. I would love to see a candidate say something like, "your hair looks like a rat's nest that was formed in the corpse of a dead cat." It would get him off message immediately, and make him look like a buffoon.
Ted Cruz ate a booger last night, and that still only made him the second most ridiculous guy up there.
The hope for this country is that the support for Trump all resides within the Republican voters, so he's getting maybe 40% during the general election.
If Trump gets as much as 40% of the popular vote, which I admit is likely (if not even below what he'll actually do), then the United States needs an enema even worse than we thought. That's an awfully high number of blithering idiots for one country to sustain.
I'd agree if the Democrats were running anybody but Hillary.
He'd probably get that against Bernie as well.
Bernie isn't running against two decades of people hating him with white-hot intensity.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 12:08:30 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 04, 2016, 11:18:16 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 10:54:04 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 10:35:11 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 10:04:13 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 08:30:07 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 08:00:54 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 07:59:43 AM
I think that the strategy to beat Trump is clear. Attack him about pointless things and let him rant about it on tv and during the debates. People attack his hand size, and he starts talking about how beautiful they are and how he's well hung during a debate. Why is nobody talking about his hair? His awful "tan"?
We'll see if it beats him, I doubt it. Him and his supporters thrive off the fact that the establishment hates him, what was obviously an incredibly well coordinated conspiracy to attack him and him alone will only feed the paranoia of his supporters.
I think "Trump feeds on the establishment's hate" is a myth that he has cultivated. From what I've read, his numbers go down every time he participates in a debate, as people see more and more of the clown revealed. He still has a sizeable following, no doubt, and there's a certain segment of the population that loves to see him knock people down, but nobody looks good when they demonstrate how butthurt they are in front of a wide audience. I would love to see a candidate say something like, "your hair looks like a rat's nest that was formed in the corpse of a dead cat." It would get him off message immediately, and make him look like a buffoon.
Ted Cruz ate a booger last night, and that still only made him the second most ridiculous guy up there.
The hope for this country is that the support for Trump all resides within the Republican voters, so he's getting maybe 40% during the general election.
If Trump gets as much as 40% of the popular vote, which I admit is likely (if not even below what he'll actually do), then the United States needs an enema even worse than we thought. That's an awfully high number of blithering idiots for one country to sustain.
I'd agree if the Democrats were running anybody but Hillary.
He'd probably get that against Bernie as well.
Bernie isn't running against two decades of people hating him with white-hot intensity.
But he is running against like 8 decades of Americans being told that socialism means the government takes everything you own and then also tells you God is dead while creepy leftists like Bort come in with their jackboots and piss on your bibles.
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 12:13:48 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 12:08:30 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 04, 2016, 11:18:16 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 10:54:04 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 10:35:11 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 10:04:13 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 08:30:07 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 08:00:54 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 07:59:43 AM
I think that the strategy to beat Trump is clear. Attack him about pointless things and let him rant about it on tv and during the debates. People attack his hand size, and he starts talking about how beautiful they are and how he's well hung during a debate. Why is nobody talking about his hair? His awful "tan"?
We'll see if it beats him, I doubt it. Him and his supporters thrive off the fact that the establishment hates him, what was obviously an incredibly well coordinated conspiracy to attack him and him alone will only feed the paranoia of his supporters.
I think "Trump feeds on the establishment's hate" is a myth that he has cultivated. From what I've read, his numbers go down every time he participates in a debate, as people see more and more of the clown revealed. He still has a sizeable following, no doubt, and there's a certain segment of the population that loves to see him knock people down, but nobody looks good when they demonstrate how butthurt they are in front of a wide audience. I would love to see a candidate say something like, "your hair looks like a rat's nest that was formed in the corpse of a dead cat." It would get him off message immediately, and make him look like a buffoon.
Ted Cruz ate a booger last night, and that still only made him the second most ridiculous guy up there.
The hope for this country is that the support for Trump all resides within the Republican voters, so he's getting maybe 40% during the general election.
If Trump gets as much as 40% of the popular vote, which I admit is likely (if not even below what he'll actually do), then the United States needs an enema even worse than we thought. That's an awfully high number of blithering idiots for one country to sustain.
I'd agree if the Democrats were running anybody but Hillary.
He'd probably get that against Bernie as well.
Bernie isn't running against two decades of people hating him with white-hot intensity.
But he is running against like 8 decades of Americans being told that socialism means the government takes everything you own and then also tells you God is dead while creepy leftists like Bort come in with their jackboots and piss on your bibles.
Fork I think you underestimate how much so many Americans would despise Bernie once they woke up during the general.
Quote from: flannj on March 04, 2016, 12:32:48 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 12:13:48 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 12:08:30 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 04, 2016, 11:18:16 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 10:54:04 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 10:35:11 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 10:04:13 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 08:30:07 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 08:00:54 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 07:59:43 AM
I think that the strategy to beat Trump is clear. Attack him about pointless things and let him rant about it on tv and during the debates. People attack his hand size, and he starts talking about how beautiful they are and how he's well hung during a debate. Why is nobody talking about his hair? His awful "tan"?
We'll see if it beats him, I doubt it. Him and his supporters thrive off the fact that the establishment hates him, what was obviously an incredibly well coordinated conspiracy to attack him and him alone will only feed the paranoia of his supporters.
I think "Trump feeds on the establishment's hate" is a myth that he has cultivated. From what I've read, his numbers go down every time he participates in a debate, as people see more and more of the clown revealed. He still has a sizeable following, no doubt, and there's a certain segment of the population that loves to see him knock people down, but nobody looks good when they demonstrate how butthurt they are in front of a wide audience. I would love to see a candidate say something like, "your hair looks like a rat's nest that was formed in the corpse of a dead cat." It would get him off message immediately, and make him look like a buffoon.
Ted Cruz ate a booger last night, and that still only made him the second most ridiculous guy up there.
The hope for this country is that the support for Trump all resides within the Republican voters, so he's getting maybe 40% during the general election.
If Trump gets as much as 40% of the popular vote, which I admit is likely (if not even below what he'll actually do), then the United States needs an enema even worse than we thought. That's an awfully high number of blithering idiots for one country to sustain.
I'd agree if the Democrats were running anybody but Hillary.
He'd probably get that against Bernie as well.
Bernie isn't running against two decades of people hating him with white-hot intensity.
But he is running against like 8 decades of Americans being told that socialism means the government takes everything you own and then also tells you God is dead while creepy leftists like Bort come in with their jackboots and piss on your bibles.
Fork I think you underestimate how much so many Americans would despise Bernie once they woke up during the general.
Right, the man's a wild-haired, bespectacled Jewish socialist. The right would have him successfully painted as a godless Trotsky in about two seconds while CNN is still trying to "hear both sides" on whether or not the KKK is bad.
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 12:35:45 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 04, 2016, 12:32:48 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 12:13:48 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 12:08:30 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 04, 2016, 11:18:16 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 10:54:04 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 10:35:11 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 10:04:13 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 08:30:07 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 08:00:54 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 07:59:43 AM
I think that the strategy to beat Trump is clear. Attack him about pointless things and let him rant about it on tv and during the debates. People attack his hand size, and he starts talking about how beautiful they are and how he's well hung during a debate. Why is nobody talking about his hair? His awful "tan"?
We'll see if it beats him, I doubt it. Him and his supporters thrive off the fact that the establishment hates him, what was obviously an incredibly well coordinated conspiracy to attack him and him alone will only feed the paranoia of his supporters.
I think "Trump feeds on the establishment's hate" is a myth that he has cultivated. From what I've read, his numbers go down every time he participates in a debate, as people see more and more of the clown revealed. He still has a sizeable following, no doubt, and there's a certain segment of the population that loves to see him knock people down, but nobody looks good when they demonstrate how butthurt they are in front of a wide audience. I would love to see a candidate say something like, "your hair looks like a rat's nest that was formed in the corpse of a dead cat." It would get him off message immediately, and make him look like a buffoon.
Ted Cruz ate a booger last night, and that still only made him the second most ridiculous guy up there.
The hope for this country is that the support for Trump all resides within the Republican voters, so he's getting maybe 40% during the general election.
If Trump gets as much as 40% of the popular vote, which I admit is likely (if not even below what he'll actually do), then the United States needs an enema even worse than we thought. That's an awfully high number of blithering idiots for one country to sustain.
I'd agree if the Democrats were running anybody but Hillary.
He'd probably get that against Bernie as well.
Bernie isn't running against two decades of people hating him with white-hot intensity.
But he is running against like 8 decades of Americans being told that socialism means the government takes everything you own and then also tells you God is dead while creepy leftists like Bort come in with their jackboots and piss on your bibles.
Fork I think you underestimate how much so many Americans would despise Bernie once they woke up during the general.
Right, the man's a wild-haired, bespectacled Jewish socialist. The right would have him successfully painted as a godless Trotsky in about two seconds while CNN is still trying to "hear both sides" on whether or not the KKK is bad.
Well, he kinda is.
Quote from: flannj on March 04, 2016, 12:40:12 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 12:35:45 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 04, 2016, 12:32:48 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 12:13:48 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 12:08:30 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 04, 2016, 11:18:16 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 10:54:04 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 10:35:11 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 10:04:13 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 08:30:07 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 08:00:54 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 07:59:43 AM
I think that the strategy to beat Trump is clear. Attack him about pointless things and let him rant about it on tv and during the debates. People attack his hand size, and he starts talking about how beautiful they are and how he's well hung during a debate. Why is nobody talking about his hair? His awful "tan"?
We'll see if it beats him, I doubt it. Him and his supporters thrive off the fact that the establishment hates him, what was obviously an incredibly well coordinated conspiracy to attack him and him alone will only feed the paranoia of his supporters.
I think "Trump feeds on the establishment's hate" is a myth that he has cultivated. From what I've read, his numbers go down every time he participates in a debate, as people see more and more of the clown revealed. He still has a sizeable following, no doubt, and there's a certain segment of the population that loves to see him knock people down, but nobody looks good when they demonstrate how butthurt they are in front of a wide audience. I would love to see a candidate say something like, "your hair looks like a rat's nest that was formed in the corpse of a dead cat." It would get him off message immediately, and make him look like a buffoon.
Ted Cruz ate a booger last night, and that still only made him the second most ridiculous guy up there.
The hope for this country is that the support for Trump all resides within the Republican voters, so he's getting maybe 40% during the general election.
If Trump gets as much as 40% of the popular vote, which I admit is likely (if not even below what he'll actually do), then the United States needs an enema even worse than we thought. That's an awfully high number of blithering idiots for one country to sustain.
I'd agree if the Democrats were running anybody but Hillary.
He'd probably get that against Bernie as well.
Bernie isn't running against two decades of people hating him with white-hot intensity.
But he is running against like 8 decades of Americans being told that socialism means the government takes everything you own and then also tells you God is dead while creepy leftists like Bort come in with their jackboots and piss on your bibles.
Fork I think you underestimate how much so many Americans would despise Bernie once they woke up during the general.
Right, the man's a wild-haired, bespectacled Jewish socialist. The right would have him successfully painted as a godless Trotsky in about two seconds while CNN is still trying to "hear both sides" on whether or not the KKK is bad.
Well, he kinda is.
Oh yeah no I didn't mean that part as exaggeration. I was just pointing out that he already fits the stereotype, using his own words against him and exploiting the fact that socialism is a horrifying dirty word millions of Americans don't actually understand would be a very easy thing to do.
Quote from: flannj on March 04, 2016, 12:40:12 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 12:35:45 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 04, 2016, 12:32:48 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 12:13:48 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 12:08:30 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 04, 2016, 11:18:16 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 10:54:04 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 10:35:11 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 10:04:13 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 08:30:07 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 08:00:54 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 07:59:43 AM
I think that the strategy to beat Trump is clear. Attack him about pointless things and let him rant about it on tv and during the debates. People attack his hand size, and he starts talking about how beautiful they are and how he's well hung during a debate. Why is nobody talking about his hair? His awful "tan"?
We'll see if it beats him, I doubt it. Him and his supporters thrive off the fact that the establishment hates him, what was obviously an incredibly well coordinated conspiracy to attack him and him alone will only feed the paranoia of his supporters.
I think "Trump feeds on the establishment's hate" is a myth that he has cultivated. From what I've read, his numbers go down every time he participates in a debate, as people see more and more of the clown revealed. He still has a sizeable following, no doubt, and there's a certain segment of the population that loves to see him knock people down, but nobody looks good when they demonstrate how butthurt they are in front of a wide audience. I would love to see a candidate say something like, "your hair looks like a rat's nest that was formed in the corpse of a dead cat." It would get him off message immediately, and make him look like a buffoon.
Ted Cruz ate a booger last night, and that still only made him the second most ridiculous guy up there.
The hope for this country is that the support for Trump all resides within the Republican voters, so he's getting maybe 40% during the general election.
If Trump gets as much as 40% of the popular vote, which I admit is likely (if not even below what he'll actually do), then the United States needs an enema even worse than we thought. That's an awfully high number of blithering idiots for one country to sustain.
I'd agree if the Democrats were running anybody but Hillary.
He'd probably get that against Bernie as well.
Bernie isn't running against two decades of people hating him with white-hot intensity.
But he is running against like 8 decades of Americans being told that socialism means the government takes everything you own and then also tells you God is dead while creepy leftists like Bort come in with their jackboots and piss on your bibles.
Fork I think you underestimate how much so many Americans would despise Bernie once they woke up during the general.
Right, the man's a wild-haired, bespectacled Jewish socialist. The right would have him successfully painted as a godless Trotsky in about two seconds while CNN is still trying to "hear both sides" on whether or not the KKK is bad.
Well, he kinda is.
He's basically Stew with worse hair.
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 12:46:49 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 04, 2016, 12:40:12 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 12:35:45 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 04, 2016, 12:32:48 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 12:13:48 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 12:08:30 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 04, 2016, 11:18:16 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 10:54:04 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 10:35:11 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 10:04:13 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 08:30:07 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 08:00:54 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 07:59:43 AM
I think that the strategy to beat Trump is clear. Attack him about pointless things and let him rant about it on tv and during the debates. People attack his hand size, and he starts talking about how beautiful they are and how he's well hung during a debate. Why is nobody talking about his hair? His awful "tan"?
We'll see if it beats him, I doubt it. Him and his supporters thrive off the fact that the establishment hates him, what was obviously an incredibly well coordinated conspiracy to attack him and him alone will only feed the paranoia of his supporters.
I think "Trump feeds on the establishment's hate" is a myth that he has cultivated. From what I've read, his numbers go down every time he participates in a debate, as people see more and more of the clown revealed. He still has a sizeable following, no doubt, and there's a certain segment of the population that loves to see him knock people down, but nobody looks good when they demonstrate how butthurt they are in front of a wide audience. I would love to see a candidate say something like, "your hair looks like a rat's nest that was formed in the corpse of a dead cat." It would get him off message immediately, and make him look like a buffoon.
Ted Cruz ate a booger last night, and that still only made him the second most ridiculous guy up there.
The hope for this country is that the support for Trump all resides within the Republican voters, so he's getting maybe 40% during the general election.
If Trump gets as much as 40% of the popular vote, which I admit is likely (if not even below what he'll actually do), then the United States needs an enema even worse than we thought. That's an awfully high number of blithering idiots for one country to sustain.
I'd agree if the Democrats were running anybody but Hillary.
He'd probably get that against Bernie as well.
Bernie isn't running against two decades of people hating him with white-hot intensity.
But he is running against like 8 decades of Americans being told that socialism means the government takes everything you own and then also tells you God is dead while creepy leftists like Bort come in with their jackboots and piss on your bibles.
Fork I think you underestimate how much so many Americans would despise Bernie once they woke up during the general.
Right, the man's a wild-haired, bespectacled Jewish socialist. The right would have him successfully painted as a godless Trotsky in about two seconds while CNN is still trying to "hear both sides" on whether or not the KKK is bad.
Well, he kinda is.
Oh yeah no I didn't mean that part as exaggeration. I was just pointing out that he already fits the stereotype, using his own words against him and exploiting the fact that socialism is a horrifying dirty word millions of Americans don't actually understand would be a very easy thing to do.
I understand. I'm a no-haired, bespectacled fallen Catholic political skeptic. And the majority of people hate me too.
EDIT: I'm going outside, I love you all but it's too nice a day to do this. See you crumb-bums later.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 12:54:08 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 04, 2016, 12:40:12 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 12:35:45 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 04, 2016, 12:32:48 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 12:13:48 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 12:08:30 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 04, 2016, 11:18:16 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 10:54:04 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 10:35:11 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 10:04:13 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 08:30:07 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 08:00:54 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 07:59:43 AM
I think that the strategy to beat Trump is clear. Attack him about pointless things and let him rant about it on tv and during the debates. People attack his hand size, and he starts talking about how beautiful they are and how he's well hung during a debate. Why is nobody talking about his hair? His awful "tan"?
We'll see if it beats him, I doubt it. Him and his supporters thrive off the fact that the establishment hates him, what was obviously an incredibly well coordinated conspiracy to attack him and him alone will only feed the paranoia of his supporters.
I think "Trump feeds on the establishment's hate" is a myth that he has cultivated. From what I've read, his numbers go down every time he participates in a debate, as people see more and more of the clown revealed. He still has a sizeable following, no doubt, and there's a certain segment of the population that loves to see him knock people down, but nobody looks good when they demonstrate how butthurt they are in front of a wide audience. I would love to see a candidate say something like, "your hair looks like a rat's nest that was formed in the corpse of a dead cat." It would get him off message immediately, and make him look like a buffoon.
Ted Cruz ate a booger last night, and that still only made him the second most ridiculous guy up there.
The hope for this country is that the support for Trump all resides within the Republican voters, so he's getting maybe 40% during the general election.
If Trump gets as much as 40% of the popular vote, which I admit is likely (if not even below what he'll actually do), then the United States needs an enema even worse than we thought. That's an awfully high number of blithering idiots for one country to sustain.
I'd agree if the Democrats were running anybody but Hillary.
He'd probably get that against Bernie as well.
Bernie isn't running against two decades of people hating him with white-hot intensity.
But he is running against like 8 decades of Americans being told that socialism means the government takes everything you own and then also tells you God is dead while creepy leftists like Bort come in with their jackboots and piss on your bibles.
Fork I think you underestimate how much so many Americans would despise Bernie once they woke up during the general.
Right, the man's a wild-haired, bespectacled Jewish socialist. The right would have him successfully painted as a godless Trotsky in about two seconds while CNN is still trying to "hear both sides" on whether or not the KKK is bad.
Well, he kinda is.
He's basically Stew with worse hair.
I agree. My hair is clearly my best feature. But for that Bernie and I could have been separated at birth. (Except I was born about 6 years before he was. That would have been one tough labor.)
Think of all the work Larry David could get. He and Will Ferrell's George W. Bush on practically every week on SNL. (And I dunno, I guess Jay Pharoah's Obama? Or back to Fred Armisen in blackface?) Performing their political comedy bits.
Quote from: flannj on March 04, 2016, 12:57:28 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 12:46:49 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 04, 2016, 12:40:12 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 12:35:45 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 04, 2016, 12:32:48 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 12:13:48 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 12:08:30 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 04, 2016, 11:18:16 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 10:54:04 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 10:35:11 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 04, 2016, 10:04:13 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 08:30:07 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 04, 2016, 08:00:54 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 04, 2016, 07:59:43 AM
I think that the strategy to beat Trump is clear. Attack him about pointless things and let him rant about it on tv and during the debates. People attack his hand size, and he starts talking about how beautiful they are and how he's well hung during a debate. Why is nobody talking about his hair? His awful "tan"?
We'll see if it beats him, I doubt it. Him and his supporters thrive off the fact that the establishment hates him, what was obviously an incredibly well coordinated conspiracy to attack him and him alone will only feed the paranoia of his supporters.
I think "Trump feeds on the establishment's hate" is a myth that he has cultivated. From what I've read, his numbers go down every time he participates in a debate, as people see more and more of the clown revealed. He still has a sizeable following, no doubt, and there's a certain segment of the population that loves to see him knock people down, but nobody looks good when they demonstrate how butthurt they are in front of a wide audience. I would love to see a candidate say something like, "your hair looks like a rat's nest that was formed in the corpse of a dead cat." It would get him off message immediately, and make him look like a buffoon.
Ted Cruz ate a booger last night, and that still only made him the second most ridiculous guy up there.
The hope for this country is that the support for Trump all resides within the Republican voters, so he's getting maybe 40% during the general election.
If Trump gets as much as 40% of the popular vote, which I admit is likely (if not even below what he'll actually do), then the United States needs an enema even worse than we thought. That's an awfully high number of blithering idiots for one country to sustain.
I'd agree if the Democrats were running anybody but Hillary.
He'd probably get that against Bernie as well.
Bernie isn't running against two decades of people hating him with white-hot intensity.
But he is running against like 8 decades of Americans being told that socialism means the government takes everything you own and then also tells you God is dead while creepy leftists like Bort come in with their jackboots and piss on your bibles.
Fork I think you underestimate how much so many Americans would despise Bernie once they woke up during the general.
Right, the man's a wild-haired, bespectacled Jewish socialist. The right would have him successfully painted as a godless Trotsky in about two seconds while CNN is still trying to "hear both sides" on whether or not the KKK is bad.
Well, he kinda is.
Oh yeah no I didn't mean that part as exaggeration. I was just pointing out that he already fits the stereotype, using his own words against him and exploiting the fact that socialism is a horrifying dirty word millions of Americans don't actually understand would be a very easy thing to do.
I understand. I'm a no-haired, bespectacled fallen Catholic political skeptic. And the majority of people hate me too.
EDIT: I'm going outside, I love you all but it's too nice a day to do this. See you crumb-bums later.
Except ESKO
5 more states on the GOP side go today.
Let's see if trotting out the old lions worked at all.
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 03:17:36 PM
Cruz is a stubborn (but brilliant) son of a bitch who gets admirers because he stakes himself to a difficult position and sticks to it. There's a saying that the squishy "establishment" types can't identify a hill to die on, while people like Cruz are all too willing to die. Personality-wise he's unlikable, but he has true believers because he takes his job seriously. Maybe too much so.
Via Eli, here is Ted Cruz taking his job seriously by choosing a good man to introduce him (https://twitter.com/JaredWyand/status/708136080625631233).
Quote from: R-V on March 11, 2016, 09:52:12 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 03:17:36 PM
Cruz is a stubborn (but brilliant) son of a bitch who gets admirers because he stakes himself to a difficult position and sticks to it. There's a saying that the squishy "establishment" types can't identify a hill to die on, while people like Cruz are all too willing to die. Personality-wise he's unlikable, but he has true believers because he takes his job seriously. Maybe too much so.
Via Eli, here is Ted Cruz taking his job seriously by choosing a good man to introduce him (https://twitter.com/JaredWyand/status/708136080625631233).
That video had some ... interesting production value. And whenever I need to discredit Ted Cruz, I go straight to Donald Trump supporters on Twitter. Very reliable sources.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 11, 2016, 10:11:37 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 11, 2016, 09:52:12 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 03:17:36 PM
Cruz is a stubborn (but brilliant) son of a bitch who gets admirers because he stakes himself to a difficult position and sticks to it. There's a saying that the squishy "establishment" types can't identify a hill to die on, while people like Cruz are all too willing to die. Personality-wise he's unlikable, but he has true believers because he takes his job seriously. Maybe too much so.
Via Eli, here is Ted Cruz taking his job seriously by choosing a good man to introduce him (https://twitter.com/JaredWyand/status/708136080625631233).
That video had some ... interesting production value. And whenever I need to discredit Ted Cruz, I go straight to Donald Trump supporters on Twitter. Very reliable sources.
True story: I punched that Trump supporter back in middle school. Peoria class, my frients.
Quote from: R-V on March 11, 2016, 10:21:57 AM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 11, 2016, 10:11:37 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 11, 2016, 09:52:12 AM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 03:17:36 PM
Cruz is a stubborn (but brilliant) son of a bitch who gets admirers because he stakes himself to a difficult position and sticks to it. There's a saying that the squishy "establishment" types can't identify a hill to die on, while people like Cruz are all too willing to die. Personality-wise he's unlikable, but he has true believers because he takes his job seriously. Maybe too much so.
Via Eli, here is Ted Cruz taking his job seriously by choosing a good man to introduce him (https://twitter.com/JaredWyand/status/708136080625631233).
That video had some ... interesting production value. And whenever I need to discredit Ted Cruz, I go straight to Donald Trump supporters on Twitter. Very reliable sources.
True story: I punched that Trump supporter back in middle school. Peoria class, my frients.
Now go punch a Cruz supporter and a Rubio supporter and you will have my vote.
https://www.facebook.com/juggalosforbernie/
Quote from: J. Walter Weatherman on March 13, 2016, 11:56:42 PM
https://www.facebook.com/juggalosforbernie/
"951 people like this." Seems high.
So what's in store this week?
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 08:20:28 AM
So what's in store this week?
Probably the first person dying at a Trump rally. Tonight in Tampa, maybe?
Quote from: Eli on March 14, 2016, 08:27:57 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 08:20:28 AM
So what's in store this week?
Probably the first person dying at a Trump rally. Tonight in Tampa, maybe?
And people refusing to understand what the hell the first amendment actually says, or that it also applies to protestors.
Quote from: SKO on March 14, 2016, 08:35:52 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 14, 2016, 08:27:57 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 08:20:28 AM
So what's in store this week?
Probably the first person dying at a Trump rally. Tonight in Tampa, maybe?
And people refusing to understand what the hell the first amendment actually says, or that it also applies to protestors.
Talking about Ditka?
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 14, 2016, 08:36:45 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 14, 2016, 08:35:52 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 14, 2016, 08:27:57 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 08:20:28 AM
So what's in store this week?
Probably the first person dying at a Trump rally. Tonight in Tampa, maybe?
And people refusing to understand what the hell the first amendment actually says, or that it also applies to protestors.
Talking about Ditka?
Ditka and any other person I've seen saying that it's somehow the death of free expression that a bunch of protestors managed to shout Trump down from the bully pulpit, despite the fact that the police and the university both said Trump was assured they had adequate security for the event and he cancelled anyway, undoubtedly to garner sympathy from people who default to taking the opposite side of protestors on just about any issue.
Also this is unbelievably despicable even for Breitbart: http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/michelle-fields-ben-shapiro-resign-from-breitbart#.khKnE2Dmm
Trump's campaign manager physically assaults their own reporter and they decide to question her story so as not to "help Hillary win the general election".
Quote from: SKO on March 14, 2016, 08:48:20 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 14, 2016, 08:36:45 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 14, 2016, 08:35:52 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 14, 2016, 08:27:57 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 08:20:28 AM
So what's in store this week?
Probably the first person dying at a Trump rally. Tonight in Tampa, maybe?
And people refusing to understand what the hell the first amendment actually says, or that it also applies to protestors.
Talking about Ditka?
Ditka and any other person I've seen saying that it's somehow the death of free expression that a bunch of protestors managed to shout Trump down from the bully pulpit, despite the fact that the police and the university both said Trump was assured they had adequate security for the event and he cancelled anyway, undoubtedly to garner sympathy from people who default to taking the opposite side of protestors on just about any issue.
It was more about the brouhaha last week where CBS demoted Ditka made critical remarks about Obama (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271916-mike-ditka-obama-is-the-worst-president-weve-ever-had). Whenever people invoke the First Amendment when people state their opnions (that they usually agree with) and there are workplace ramifications, I invite them to go call their boss an asshole. Let's see how James Madison saves them.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 14, 2016, 09:04:05 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 14, 2016, 08:48:20 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 14, 2016, 08:36:45 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 14, 2016, 08:35:52 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 14, 2016, 08:27:57 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 08:20:28 AM
So what's in store this week?
Probably the first person dying at a Trump rally. Tonight in Tampa, maybe?
And people refusing to understand what the hell the first amendment actually says, or that it also applies to protestors.
Talking about Ditka?
Ditka and any other person I've seen saying that it's somehow the death of free expression that a bunch of protestors managed to shout Trump down from the bully pulpit, despite the fact that the police and the university both said Trump was assured they had adequate security for the event and he cancelled anyway, undoubtedly to garner sympathy from people who default to taking the opposite side of protestors on just about any issue.
It was more about the brouhaha last week where CBS demoted Ditka made critical remarks about Obama (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271916-mike-ditka-obama-is-the-worst-president-weve-ever-had). Whenever people invoke the First Amendment when people state their opnions (that they usually agree with) and there are workplace ramifications, I invite them to go call their boss an asshole. Let's see how James Madison saves them.
Yeah I don't see why it's so hard to grasp that unless a government entity has arrested you or fined you or explicitly said "you can't say that", no one's first amendment rights have been violated. If a private citizen got shouted down by other private citizens, the constitution need not apply here.
Quote from: SKO on March 14, 2016, 09:36:47 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 14, 2016, 09:04:05 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 14, 2016, 08:48:20 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 14, 2016, 08:36:45 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 14, 2016, 08:35:52 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 14, 2016, 08:27:57 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 08:20:28 AM
So what's in store this week?
Probably the first person dying at a Trump rally. Tonight in Tampa, maybe?
And people refusing to understand what the hell the first amendment actually says, or that it also applies to protestors.
Talking about Ditka?
Ditka and any other person I've seen saying that it's somehow the death of free expression that a bunch of protestors managed to shout Trump down from the bully pulpit, despite the fact that the police and the university both said Trump was assured they had adequate security for the event and he cancelled anyway, undoubtedly to garner sympathy from people who default to taking the opposite side of protestors on just about any issue.
It was more about the brouhaha last week where CBS demoted Ditka made critical remarks about Obama (http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/271916-mike-ditka-obama-is-the-worst-president-weve-ever-had). Whenever people invoke the First Amendment when people state their opnions (that they usually agree with) and there are workplace ramifications, I invite them to go call their boss an asshole. Let's see how James Madison saves them.
Yeah I don't see why it's so hard to grasp that unless a government entity has arrested you or fined you or explicitly said "you can't say that", no one's first amendment rights have been violated. If a private citizen got shouted down by other private citizens, the constitution need not apply here.
I would have preferred that Trump's rally take place, because it would have been the first one of his to feature dissent of more than a couple isolated people. And I also think it's important that people see and feel it in all its hot anger.
That being said, at least Trump is evil exposed. Cruz believes all the same stuff, but he hides behind his Bible.
I'm not sure this Trump thing is going to go much farther. Just a gut feeling. He's not interested in toning things down so it's not going to stop being ugly wherever he goes. And he's making the other candidates think hard about backing him if he wins enough delegates.
Do we think he's going to beat Kasich in Ohio?
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 01:48:45 PM
I'm not sure this Trump thing is going to go much farther. Just a gut feeling. He's not interested in toning things down so it's not going to stop being ugly wherever he goes. And he's making the other candidates think hard about backing him if he wins enough delegates.
Do we think he's going to beat Kasich in Ohio?
I don't know if they can stop him from getting the nomination but it's so hard to see him winning a general election. Polls have Hillary Clinton beating him handily in the GE and nobody likes her. I kinda look forward to him winning the nomination, getting trounced with 39% of the popular vote in November, and the Republican Party having to break up and reform into something separate from the tea party nutjobs.
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 01:48:45 PM
I'm not sure this Trump thing is going to go much farther. Just a gut feeling. He's not interested in toning things down so it's not going to stop being ugly wherever he goes. And he's making the other candidates think hard about backing him if he wins enough delegates.
Do we think he's going to beat Kasich in Ohio?
No, but he's going to win Florida and 99 delegates there winner-take-all. He's going to get delegates in all the other states, but for Ohio.
I can in-no-fucking-way ever vote for Trump. I could be convinced to vote for Kasich, especially if the Senate confirms a replacement for Scalia this year.
I really, really, REALLY hate Hillary.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 14, 2016, 02:28:55 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 01:48:45 PM
I'm not sure this Trump thing is going to go much farther. Just a gut feeling. He's not interested in toning things down so it's not going to stop being ugly wherever he goes. And he's making the other candidates think hard about backing him if he wins enough delegates.
Do we think he's going to beat Kasich in Ohio?
No, but he's going to win Florida and 99 delegates there winner-take-all. He's going to get delegates in all the other states, but for Ohio.
I can in-no-fucking-way ever vote for Trump. I could be convinced to vote for Kasich, especially if the Senate confirms a replacement for Scalia this year.
I really, really, REALLY hate Hillary.
What's awesome is that a vote for Kasich pretty much means you hate all women (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/wolf-sheeps-clothing-gov-kasichs-reproductive-rights-record), not just Hillary.
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 01:48:45 PM
I'm not sure this Trump thing is going to go much farther. Just a gut feeling. He's not interested in toning things down so it's not going to stop being ugly wherever he goes. And he's making the other candidates think hard about backing him if he wins enough delegates.
Do we think he's going to beat Kasich in Ohio?
What can the GOP do if Trump gets a majority of delegates? Whatever it is, Trump must be pushing them awfully, awfully close to doing it.
Quote from: Tonker on March 14, 2016, 02:42:01 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 01:48:45 PM
I'm not sure this Trump thing is going to go much farther. Just a gut feeling. He's not interested in toning things down so it's not going to stop being ugly wherever he goes. And he's making the other candidates think hard about backing him if he wins enough delegates.
Do we think he's going to beat Kasich in Ohio?
What can the GOP do if Trump gets a majority of delegates? Whatever it is, Trump must be pushing them awfully, awfully close to doing it.
A majority means he's the nominee.
A plurality means a brokered convention and some mighty fine entertainment for a week.
Quote from: Oleg on March 14, 2016, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Tonker on March 14, 2016, 02:42:01 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 01:48:45 PM
I'm not sure this Trump thing is going to go much farther. Just a gut feeling. He's not interested in toning things down so it's not going to stop being ugly wherever he goes. And he's making the other candidates think hard about backing him if he wins enough delegates.
Do we think he's going to beat Kasich in Ohio?
What can the GOP do if Trump gets a majority of delegates? Whatever it is, Trump must be pushing them awfully, awfully close to doing it.
A majority means he's the nominee.
A plurality means a brokered convention and some mighty fine entertainment for a week.
Except that there will most certainly be something less than funny that occurs as a result of such an event.
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 02:47:59 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 14, 2016, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Tonker on March 14, 2016, 02:42:01 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 01:48:45 PM
I'm not sure this Trump thing is going to go much farther. Just a gut feeling. He's not interested in toning things down so it's not going to stop being ugly wherever he goes. And he's making the other candidates think hard about backing him if he wins enough delegates.
Do we think he's going to beat Kasich in Ohio?
What can the GOP do if Trump gets a majority of delegates? Whatever it is, Trump must be pushing them awfully, awfully close to doing it.
A majority means he's the nominee.
A plurality means a brokered convention and some mighty fine entertainment for a week.
Except that there will most certainly be something less than funny that occurs as a result of such an event.
Someone from the Trump campaign said they'd "burn down Cleveland" if they actually stole the nomination from him at a brokered convention and frankly I'm not sure that's hyperbole.
Quote from: Oleg on March 14, 2016, 02:33:18 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 14, 2016, 02:28:55 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 01:48:45 PM
I'm not sure this Trump thing is going to go much farther. Just a gut feeling. He's not interested in toning things down so it's not going to stop being ugly wherever he goes. And he's making the other candidates think hard about backing him if he wins enough delegates.
Do we think he's going to beat Kasich in Ohio?
No, but he's going to win Florida and 99 delegates there winner-take-all. He's going to get delegates in all the other states, but for Ohio.
I can in-no-fucking-way ever vote for Trump. I could be convinced to vote for Kasich, especially if the Senate confirms a replacement for Scalia this year.
I really, really, REALLY hate Hillary.
What's awesome is that a vote for Kasich pretty much means you hate all women (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/wolf-sheeps-clothing-gov-kasichs-reproductive-rights-record), not just Hillary.
It's really too bad Kasich is all about making sure women have no chance to manage their own bodies because he's by far the least of the evils on that side. He would definitely get crushed in a GE.
Chuck's right on one thing: Hillary just sucks. Every townhall and debate just proves that she's not very good at this.
Not to mention, she's probably going to try and turn the middle east into a parking lot if she wins the election. So...great.
Of course, since I don't like Hillary's policies, ideas, history of flip flopping and greed I am a misogynist.
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 02:50:12 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 14, 2016, 02:33:18 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 14, 2016, 02:28:55 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 01:48:45 PM
I'm not sure this Trump thing is going to go much farther. Just a gut feeling. He's not interested in toning things down so it's not going to stop being ugly wherever he goes. And he's making the other candidates think hard about backing him if he wins enough delegates.
Do we think he's going to beat Kasich in Ohio?
No, but he's going to win Florida and 99 delegates there winner-take-all. He's going to get delegates in all the other states, but for Ohio.
I can in-no-fucking-way ever vote for Trump. I could be convinced to vote for Kasich, especially if the Senate confirms a replacement for Scalia this year.
I really, really, REALLY hate Hillary.
What's awesome is that a vote for Kasich pretty much means you hate all women (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/wolf-sheeps-clothing-gov-kasichs-reproductive-rights-record), not just Hillary.
It's really too bad Kasich is all about making sure women have no chance to manage their own bodies because he's by far the least of the evils on that side. He would definitely get crushed in a GE.
Chuck's right on one thing: Hillary just sucks. Every townhall and debate just proves that she's not very good at this.
Not to mention, she's probably going to try and turn the middle east into a parking lot if she wins the election. So...great.
Of course, since I don't like Hillary's policies, ideas, history of flip flopping and greed I am a misogynist.
Yeah but other than Bernie she's the only candidate left that'll even leave enough left to build a parking lot there. Hell Kasich spent one of the GOP debates making it explicitly clear he'd bomb North Korea AND Iran AND Syria if you just give him a shot.
Quote from: SKO on March 14, 2016, 02:51:57 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 02:50:12 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 14, 2016, 02:33:18 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 14, 2016, 02:28:55 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 01:48:45 PM
I'm not sure this Trump thing is going to go much farther. Just a gut feeling. He's not interested in toning things down so it's not going to stop being ugly wherever he goes. And he's making the other candidates think hard about backing him if he wins enough delegates.
Do we think he's going to beat Kasich in Ohio?
No, but he's going to win Florida and 99 delegates there winner-take-all. He's going to get delegates in all the other states, but for Ohio.
I can in-no-fucking-way ever vote for Trump. I could be convinced to vote for Kasich, especially if the Senate confirms a replacement for Scalia this year.
I really, really, REALLY hate Hillary.
What's awesome is that a vote for Kasich pretty much means you hate all women (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/wolf-sheeps-clothing-gov-kasichs-reproductive-rights-record), not just Hillary.
It's really too bad Kasich is all about making sure women have no chance to manage their own bodies because he's by far the least of the evils on that side. He would definitely get crushed in a GE.
Chuck's right on one thing: Hillary just sucks. Every townhall and debate just proves that she's not very good at this.
Not to mention, she's probably going to try and turn the middle east into a parking lot if she wins the election. So...great.
Of course, since I don't like Hillary's policies, ideas, history of flip flopping and greed I am a misogynist.
Yeah but other than Bernie she's the only candidate left that'll even leave enough left to build a parking lot there. Hell Kasich spent one of the GOP debates making it explicitly clear he'd bomb North Korea AND Iran AND Syria if you just give him a shot.
You're right. He did.
Ho boy.
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 02:50:12 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 14, 2016, 02:33:18 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 14, 2016, 02:28:55 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 01:48:45 PM
I'm not sure this Trump thing is going to go much farther. Just a gut feeling. He's not interested in toning things down so it's not going to stop being ugly wherever he goes. And he's making the other candidates think hard about backing him if he wins enough delegates.
Do we think he's going to beat Kasich in Ohio?
No, but he's going to win Florida and 99 delegates there winner-take-all. He's going to get delegates in all the other states, but for Ohio.
I can in-no-fucking-way ever vote for Trump. I could be convinced to vote for Kasich, especially if the Senate confirms a replacement for Scalia this year.
I really, really, REALLY hate Hillary.
What's awesome is that a vote for Kasich pretty much means you hate all women (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/wolf-sheeps-clothing-gov-kasichs-reproductive-rights-record), not just Hillary.
It's really too bad Kasich is all about making sure women have no chance to manage their own bodies because he's by far the least of the evils on that side. He would definitely get crushed in a GE.
Chuck's right on one thing: Hillary just sucks. Every townhall and debate just proves that she's not very good at this.
Not to mention, she's probably going to try and turn the middle east into a parking lot if she wins the election. So...great.
Of course, since I don't like Hillary's policies, ideas, history of flip flopping and greed I am a misogynist.
Such is the slippery slope of #feministtwitter
I'm trying to think of a good metaphor for the current state of the Republican party.
Forgoing metaphor, they are basically all trying to pander to the crazy elements of their party because they don't believe they can attract the interest of moderates. They only know that they have to get the crazies in order to have enough votes to win, and they can't conceive of any other path to victory.
Realistically, there are a lot of conservatives out there who feel cornered into voting Democratic. Particularly the staunchly religious minorities out there, who either vote left or stay home. Imagine if the Republicans actually took measures to attract the vote of conservative Latino Americans? It would cost them their white base, but it's probably their only path toward survival.
Quote from: Canadouche on March 14, 2016, 03:09:37 PM
I'm trying to think of a good metaphor for the current state of the Republican party.
Forgoing metaphor, they are basically all trying to pander to the crazy elements of their party because they don't believe they can attract the interest of moderates. They only know that they have to get the crazies in order to have enough votes to win, and they can't conceive of any other path to victory.
Realistically, there are a lot of conservatives out there who feel cornered into voting Democratic. Particularly the staunchly religious minorities out there, who either vote left or stay home. Imagine if the Republicans actually took measures to attract the vote of conservative Latino Americans? It would cost them their white base, but it's probably their only path toward survival.
They make Nixon look kind of good, don't they?
Quote from: Canadouche on March 14, 2016, 03:09:37 PM
I'm trying to think of a good metaphor for the current state of the Republican party.
Forgoing metaphor, they are basically all trying to pander to the crazy elements of their party because they don't believe they can attract the interest of moderates. They only know that they have to get the crazies in order to have enough votes to win, and they can't conceive of any other path to victory.
Realistically, there are a lot of conservatives out there who feel cornered into voting Democratic. Particularly the staunchly religious minorities out there, who either vote left or stay home. Imagine if the Republicans actually took measures to attract the vote of conservative Latino Americans? It would cost them their white base, but it's probably their only path toward survival.
This was one thing GWB actually was doing correctly. Now even that is in the toilet.
Quote from: PANK! on March 14, 2016, 03:07:41 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 02:50:12 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 14, 2016, 02:33:18 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 14, 2016, 02:28:55 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 01:48:45 PM
I'm not sure this Trump thing is going to go much farther. Just a gut feeling. He's not interested in toning things down so it's not going to stop being ugly wherever he goes. And he's making the other candidates think hard about backing him if he wins enough delegates.
Do we think he's going to beat Kasich in Ohio?
No, but he's going to win Florida and 99 delegates there winner-take-all. He's going to get delegates in all the other states, but for Ohio.
I can in-no-fucking-way ever vote for Trump. I could be convinced to vote for Kasich, especially if the Senate confirms a replacement for Scalia this year.
I really, really, REALLY hate Hillary.
What's awesome is that a vote for Kasich pretty much means you hate all women (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/wolf-sheeps-clothing-gov-kasichs-reproductive-rights-record), not just Hillary.
It's really too bad Kasich is all about making sure women have no chance to manage their own bodies because he's by far the least of the evils on that side. He would definitely get crushed in a GE.
Chuck's right on one thing: Hillary just sucks. Every townhall and debate just proves that she's not very good at this.
Not to mention, she's probably going to try and turn the middle east into a parking lot if she wins the election. So...great.
Of course, since I don't like Hillary's policies, ideas, history of flip flopping and greed I am a misogynist.
Such is the slippery slope of #feministtwitter
I feel like this is a discussion waiting to happen in the "I Admit It" thread.
Quote from: Eli on March 14, 2016, 04:28:17 PM
Quote from: PANK! on March 14, 2016, 03:07:41 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 02:50:12 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 14, 2016, 02:33:18 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 14, 2016, 02:28:55 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 01:48:45 PM
I'm not sure this Trump thing is going to go much farther. Just a gut feeling. He's not interested in toning things down so it's not going to stop being ugly wherever he goes. And he's making the other candidates think hard about backing him if he wins enough delegates.
Do we think he's going to beat Kasich in Ohio?
No, but he's going to win Florida and 99 delegates there winner-take-all. He's going to get delegates in all the other states, but for Ohio.
I can in-no-fucking-way ever vote for Trump. I could be convinced to vote for Kasich, especially if the Senate confirms a replacement for Scalia this year.
I really, really, REALLY hate Hillary.
What's awesome is that a vote for Kasich pretty much means you hate all women (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/wolf-sheeps-clothing-gov-kasichs-reproductive-rights-record), not just Hillary.
It's really too bad Kasich is all about making sure women have no chance to manage their own bodies because he's by far the least of the evils on that side. He would definitely get crushed in a GE.
Chuck's right on one thing: Hillary just sucks. Every townhall and debate just proves that she's not very good at this.
Not to mention, she's probably going to try and turn the middle east into a parking lot if she wins the election. So...great.
Of course, since I don't like Hillary's policies, ideas, history of flip flopping and greed I am a misogynist.
Such is the slippery slope of #feministtwitter
I feel like this is a discussion waiting to happen in the "I Admit It" thread.
CT already dropped the bomb that he's a registered Republican in that thread. I need to let that one breathe (and cope with my own disillusionment at the same time).
Quote from: PANK! on March 14, 2016, 04:34:08 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 14, 2016, 04:28:17 PM
Quote from: PANK! on March 14, 2016, 03:07:41 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 02:50:12 PM
Quote from: Oleg on March 14, 2016, 02:33:18 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 14, 2016, 02:28:55 PM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 01:48:45 PM
I'm not sure this Trump thing is going to go much farther. Just a gut feeling. He's not interested in toning things down so it's not going to stop being ugly wherever he goes. And he's making the other candidates think hard about backing him if he wins enough delegates.
Do we think he's going to beat Kasich in Ohio?
No, but he's going to win Florida and 99 delegates there winner-take-all. He's going to get delegates in all the other states, but for Ohio.
I can in-no-fucking-way ever vote for Trump. I could be convinced to vote for Kasich, especially if the Senate confirms a replacement for Scalia this year.
I really, really, REALLY hate Hillary.
What's awesome is that a vote for Kasich pretty much means you hate all women (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/07/wolf-sheeps-clothing-gov-kasichs-reproductive-rights-record), not just Hillary.
It's really too bad Kasich is all about making sure women have no chance to manage their own bodies because he's by far the least of the evils on that side. He would definitely get crushed in a GE.
Chuck's right on one thing: Hillary just sucks. Every townhall and debate just proves that she's not very good at this.
Not to mention, she's probably going to try and turn the middle east into a parking lot if she wins the election. So...great.
Of course, since I don't like Hillary's policies, ideas, history of flip flopping and greed I am a misogynist.
Such is the slippery slope of #feministtwitter
I feel like this is a discussion waiting to happen in the "I Admit It" thread.
CT already dropped the bomb that he's a registered Republican in that thread. I need to let that one breathe (and cope with my own disillusionment at the same time).
He lives in Wheaton. They probably hand out Republican Party memberships to everyone who stays there more than 48 hours.
So if Kasich and Rubio each biff on their home states, do they drop out?
Or does the GOP establishment make them stay in, in hopes their meager delegate counts prevent Trump from getting a majority?
And how awesome would it be to see these two be forced to carry something to term against their will?
Quote from: Canadouche on March 14, 2016, 03:09:37 PM
they are basically all trying to pander to the crazy elements of their party because they don't believe they can attract the interest of moderates.
No. They are trying to reach out to the majority of people who vote Goop in the primary. Very few moderates in that group of voters.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 14, 2016, 05:14:01 PM
So if Kasich and Rubio each biff on their home states, do they drop out?
Or does the GOP establishment make them stay in, in hopes their meager delegate counts prevent Trump from getting a majority?
And how awesome would it be to see these two be forced to carry something to term against their will?
This is a disaster. All of it. How did we end up here.
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 10:44:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 14, 2016, 05:14:01 PM
So if Kasich and Rubio each biff on their home states, do they drop out?
Or does the GOP establishment make them stay in, in hopes their meager delegate counts prevent Trump from getting a majority?
And how awesome would it be to see these two be forced to carry something to term against their will?
This is a disaster. All of it. How did we end up here.
I think tomorrow is the last day of the pathetic Rubio campaign.
Kasich lives to fight another day.
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 10:44:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 14, 2016, 05:14:01 PM
So if Kasich and Rubio each biff on their home states, do they drop out?
Or does the GOP establishment make them stay in, in hopes their meager delegate counts prevent Trump from getting a majority?
And how awesome would it be to see these two be forced to carry something to term against their will?
This is a disaster. All of it. How did we end up here.
It's strange when one party steadfastly refuses to govern, that they can't produce anybody capable of governing.
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 01:20:12 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 10:44:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 14, 2016, 05:14:01 PM
So if Kasich and Rubio each biff on their home states, do they drop out?
Or does the GOP establishment make them stay in, in hopes their meager delegate counts prevent Trump from getting a majority?
And how awesome would it be to see these two be forced to carry something to term against their will?
This is a disaster. All of it. How did we end up here.
I think tomorrow is the last day of the pathetic Rubio campaign.
Kasich lives to fight another day.
Despite disagreeing with almost everything Rubio believes in, I've started to feel sorry for him.
Quote from: Slaky on March 15, 2016, 08:18:49 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 01:20:12 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 10:44:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 14, 2016, 05:14:01 PM
So if Kasich and Rubio each biff on their home states, do they drop out?
Or does the GOP establishment make them stay in, in hopes their meager delegate counts prevent Trump from getting a majority?
And how awesome would it be to see these two be forced to carry something to term against their will?
This is a disaster. All of it. How did we end up here.
I think tomorrow is the last day of the pathetic Rubio campaign.
Kasich lives to fight another day.
Despite disagreeing with almost everything Rubio believes in, I've started to feel sorry for him.
He was asked the other day if he'd still vote for Trump, and he gave a 1,000 yard stare, and sounded utterly fucking exhausted as he said "I've said how bad I think Hillary Clinton would be for America and as of right now I still intend to support our nominee...*sigh* but it's getting harder every day"
Quote from: Slaky on March 15, 2016, 08:18:49 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 01:20:12 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 10:44:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 14, 2016, 05:14:01 PM
So if Kasich and Rubio each biff on their home states, do they drop out?
Or does the GOP establishment make them stay in, in hopes their meager delegate counts prevent Trump from getting a majority?
And how awesome would it be to see these two be forced to carry something to term against their will?
This is a disaster. All of it. How did we end up here.
I think tomorrow is the last day of the pathetic Rubio campaign.
Kasich lives to fight another day.
Despite disagreeing with almost everything Rubio believes in, I've started to feel sorry for him.
You shouldn't.
Quote from: SKO on March 15, 2016, 08:23:44 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 15, 2016, 08:18:49 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 01:20:12 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 10:44:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 14, 2016, 05:14:01 PM
So if Kasich and Rubio each biff on their home states, do they drop out?
Or does the GOP establishment make them stay in, in hopes their meager delegate counts prevent Trump from getting a majority?
And how awesome would it be to see these two be forced to carry something to term against their will?
This is a disaster. All of it. How did we end up here.
I think tomorrow is the last day of the pathetic Rubio campaign.
Kasich lives to fight another day.
Despite disagreeing with almost everything Rubio believes in, I've started to feel sorry for him.
He was asked the other day if he'd still vote for Trump, and he gave a 1,000 yard stare, and sounded utterly fucking exhausted as he said "I've said how bad I think Hillary Clinton would be for America and as of right now I still intend to support our nominee...*sigh* but it's getting harder every day"
If Trump gets the majority of delegates, that convention is going to be an absolute shitshow. Everyone is going to run from speaking slots, so it's going to be Sarah Palin and Chris Christie doing 4-hour stemwinders.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 15, 2016, 08:29:30 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 15, 2016, 08:23:44 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 15, 2016, 08:18:49 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 01:20:12 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 10:44:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 14, 2016, 05:14:01 PM
So if Kasich and Rubio each biff on their home states, do they drop out?
Or does the GOP establishment make them stay in, in hopes their meager delegate counts prevent Trump from getting a majority?
And how awesome would it be to see these two be forced to carry something to term against their will?
This is a disaster. All of it. How did we end up here.
I think tomorrow is the last day of the pathetic Rubio campaign.
Kasich lives to fight another day.
Despite disagreeing with almost everything Rubio believes in, I've started to feel sorry for him.
He was asked the other day if he'd still vote for Trump, and he gave a 1,000 yard stare, and sounded utterly fucking exhausted as he said "I've said how bad I think Hillary Clinton would be for America and as of right now I still intend to support our nominee...*sigh* but it's getting harder every day"
If Trump gets the majority of delegates, that convention is going to be an absolute shitshow. Everyone is going to run from speaking slots, so it's going to be Sarah Palin and Chris Christie doing 4-hour stemwinders.
Just let Ben Carson talk the whole time, after which I assume he'll fly back to his home planet like Poochie.
Quote from: SKO on March 15, 2016, 08:31:52 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 15, 2016, 08:29:30 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 15, 2016, 08:23:44 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 15, 2016, 08:18:49 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 01:20:12 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 10:44:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 14, 2016, 05:14:01 PM
So if Kasich and Rubio each biff on their home states, do they drop out?
Or does the GOP establishment make them stay in, in hopes their meager delegate counts prevent Trump from getting a majority?
And how awesome would it be to see these two be forced to carry something to term against their will?
This is a disaster. All of it. How did we end up here.
I think tomorrow is the last day of the pathetic Rubio campaign.
Kasich lives to fight another day.
Despite disagreeing with almost everything Rubio believes in, I've started to feel sorry for him.
He was asked the other day if he'd still vote for Trump, and he gave a 1,000 yard stare, and sounded utterly fucking exhausted as he said "I've said how bad I think Hillary Clinton would be for America and as of right now I still intend to support our nominee...*sigh* but it's getting harder every day"
If Trump gets the majority of delegates, that convention is going to be an absolute shitshow. Everyone is going to run from speaking slots, so it's going to be Sarah Palin and Chris Christie doing 4-hour stemwinders.
Just let Ben Carson talk the whole time, after which I assume he'll fly back to his home planet like Poochie.
And time how long he opens his eyes.
SPOILER ALERT: never
Quote from: SKO on March 15, 2016, 08:23:44 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 15, 2016, 08:18:49 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 01:20:12 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 10:44:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 14, 2016, 05:14:01 PM
So if Kasich and Rubio each biff on their home states, do they drop out?
Or does the GOP establishment make them stay in, in hopes their meager delegate counts prevent Trump from getting a majority?
And how awesome would it be to see these two be forced to carry something to term against their will?
This is a disaster. All of it. How did we end up here.
I think tomorrow is the last day of the pathetic Rubio campaign.
Kasich lives to fight another day.
Despite disagreeing with almost everything Rubio believes in, I've started to feel sorry for him.
He was asked the other day if he'd still vote for Trump, and he gave a 1,000 yard stare, and sounded utterly fucking exhausted as he said "I've said how bad I think Hillary Clinton would be for America and as of right now I still intend to support our nominee...*sigh* but it's getting harder every day"
I saw that, and while it isn't quite sympathy, I didn't feel the malicious glee I thought I would. Poor bastard.
Quote from: Bort on March 15, 2016, 01:18:52 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 15, 2016, 08:23:44 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 15, 2016, 08:18:49 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 01:20:12 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 10:44:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 14, 2016, 05:14:01 PM
So if Kasich and Rubio each biff on their home states, do they drop out?
Or does the GOP establishment make them stay in, in hopes their meager delegate counts prevent Trump from getting a majority?
And how awesome would it be to see these two be forced to carry something to term against their will?
This is a disaster. All of it. How did we end up here.
I think tomorrow is the last day of the pathetic Rubio campaign.
Kasich lives to fight another day.
Despite disagreeing with almost everything Rubio believes in, I've started to feel sorry for him.
He was asked the other day if he'd still vote for Trump, and he gave a 1,000 yard stare, and sounded utterly fucking exhausted as he said "I've said how bad I think Hillary Clinton would be for America and as of right now I still intend to support our nominee...*sigh* but it's getting harder every day"
I saw that, and while it isn't quite sympathy, I didn't feel the malicious glee I thought I would. Poor bastard.
Same. What's funny is that the Republican establishment knows damn well that Hillary would be perfect acceptable to them. It's amusing that both Hillary and the GOP have to pretend she's far more to the left than she actually is.
Quote from: SKO on March 15, 2016, 01:27:14 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 15, 2016, 01:18:52 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 15, 2016, 08:23:44 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 15, 2016, 08:18:49 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 01:20:12 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 10:44:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 14, 2016, 05:14:01 PM
So if Kasich and Rubio each biff on their home states, do they drop out?
Or does the GOP establishment make them stay in, in hopes their meager delegate counts prevent Trump from getting a majority?
And how awesome would it be to see these two be forced to carry something to term against their will?
This is a disaster. All of it. How did we end up here.
I think tomorrow is the last day of the pathetic Rubio campaign.
Kasich lives to fight another day.
Despite disagreeing with almost everything Rubio believes in, I've started to feel sorry for him.
He was asked the other day if he'd still vote for Trump, and he gave a 1,000 yard stare, and sounded utterly fucking exhausted as he said "I've said how bad I think Hillary Clinton would be for America and as of right now I still intend to support our nominee...*sigh* but it's getting harder every day"
I saw that, and while it isn't quite sympathy, I didn't feel the malicious glee I thought I would. Poor bastard.
Same. What's funny is that the Republican establishment knows damn well that Hillary would be perfect acceptable to them. It's amusing that both Hillary and the GOP have to pretend she's far more to the left than she actually is.
Plus, the GOP has found a lot more success in opposing the Executive branch than occupying it.
Quote from: SKO on March 15, 2016, 01:27:14 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 15, 2016, 01:18:52 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 15, 2016, 08:23:44 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 15, 2016, 08:18:49 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 01:20:12 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 10:44:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 14, 2016, 05:14:01 PM
So if Kasich and Rubio each biff on their home states, do they drop out?
Or does the GOP establishment make them stay in, in hopes their meager delegate counts prevent Trump from getting a majority?
And how awesome would it be to see these two be forced to carry something to term against their will?
This is a disaster. All of it. How did we end up here.
I think tomorrow is the last day of the pathetic Rubio campaign.
Kasich lives to fight another day.
Despite disagreeing with almost everything Rubio believes in, I've started to feel sorry for him.
He was asked the other day if he'd still vote for Trump, and he gave a 1,000 yard stare, and sounded utterly fucking exhausted as he said "I've said how bad I think Hillary Clinton would be for America and as of right now I still intend to support our nominee...*sigh* but it's getting harder every day"
I saw that, and while it isn't quite sympathy, I didn't feel the malicious glee I thought I would. Poor bastard.
Same. What's funny is that the Republican establishment knows damn well that Hillary would be perfect acceptable to them. It's amusing that both Hillary and the GOP have to pretend she's far more to the left than she actually is.
If either of them ever let that ruse drop, both parties would be full of disillusioned True Believers.
Quote from: Bort on March 15, 2016, 01:18:52 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 15, 2016, 08:23:44 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 15, 2016, 08:18:49 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 01:20:12 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 10:44:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 14, 2016, 05:14:01 PM
So if Kasich and Rubio each biff on their home states, do they drop out?
Or does the GOP establishment make them stay in, in hopes their meager delegate counts prevent Trump from getting a majority?
And how awesome would it be to see these two be forced to carry something to term against their will?
This is a disaster. All of it. How did we end up here.
I think tomorrow is the last day of the pathetic Rubio campaign.
Kasich lives to fight another day.
Despite disagreeing with almost everything Rubio believes in, I've started to feel sorry for him.
He was asked the other day if he'd still vote for Trump, and he gave a 1,000 yard stare, and sounded utterly fucking exhausted as he said "I've said how bad I think Hillary Clinton would be for America and as of right now I still intend to support our nominee...*sigh* but it's getting harder every day"
I saw that, and while it isn't quite sympathy, I didn't feel the malicious glee I thought I would. Poor bastard.
This is an awful lot of bullshit toleration. Fuck Rubio and fuck the GOP. They're getting exactly what they deserve. And if this country elects Drumph (or any of these cunts), then we, too, will get what we deserve.
Quote from: Bort on March 15, 2016, 01:41:09 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 15, 2016, 01:27:14 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 15, 2016, 01:18:52 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 15, 2016, 08:23:44 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 15, 2016, 08:18:49 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 01:20:12 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 10:44:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 14, 2016, 05:14:01 PM
So if Kasich and Rubio each biff on their home states, do they drop out?
Or does the GOP establishment make them stay in, in hopes their meager delegate counts prevent Trump from getting a majority?
And how awesome would it be to see these two be forced to carry something to term against their will?
This is a disaster. All of it. How did we end up here.
I think tomorrow is the last day of the pathetic Rubio campaign.
Kasich lives to fight another day.
Despite disagreeing with almost everything Rubio believes in, I've started to feel sorry for him.
He was asked the other day if he'd still vote for Trump, and he gave a 1,000 yard stare, and sounded utterly fucking exhausted as he said "I've said how bad I think Hillary Clinton would be for America and as of right now I still intend to support our nominee...*sigh* but it's getting harder every day"
I saw that, and while it isn't quite sympathy, I didn't feel the malicious glee I thought I would. Poor bastard.
Same. What's funny is that the Republican establishment knows damn well that Hillary would be perfect acceptable to them. It's amusing that both Hillary and the GOP have to pretend she's far more to the left than she actually is.
If either of them ever let that ruse drop, both parties would be full of disillusioned True Believers.
Indeed. They've spent so long painting the Obama Administration/the Democrats as the Bolsheviks ready to launch the October Revolution any second that when their own party is taken over by a lunatic they know damn well they can't control they still have to keep up appearances.
Quote from: Oleg on March 15, 2016, 01:43:03 PM
Quote from: Bort on March 15, 2016, 01:18:52 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 15, 2016, 08:23:44 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 15, 2016, 08:18:49 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 01:20:12 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 10:44:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 14, 2016, 05:14:01 PM
So if Kasich and Rubio each biff on their home states, do they drop out?
Or does the GOP establishment make them stay in, in hopes their meager delegate counts prevent Trump from getting a majority?
And how awesome would it be to see these two be forced to carry something to term against their will?
This is a disaster. All of it. How did we end up here.
I think tomorrow is the last day of the pathetic Rubio campaign.
Kasich lives to fight another day.
Despite disagreeing with almost everything Rubio believes in, I've started to feel sorry for him.
He was asked the other day if he'd still vote for Trump, and he gave a 1,000 yard stare, and sounded utterly fucking exhausted as he said "I've said how bad I think Hillary Clinton would be for America and as of right now I still intend to support our nominee...*sigh* but it's getting harder every day"
I saw that, and while it isn't quite sympathy, I didn't feel the malicious glee I thought I would. Poor bastard.
This is an awful lot of bullshit toleration. Fuck Rubio and fuck the GOP. They're getting exactly what they deserve. And if this country elects Drumph (or any of these cunts), then we, too, will get what we deserve.
But part of our charm is that we never get our comeuppance!
Hey Illinois, way to suck.
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
Still pretty good odds.
(http://i65.tinypic.com/2q9etxv.png)
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 09:27:45 PM
Hey Illinois, way to suck.
I voted for O'Malley. Seriously.
A's in six
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 02:21:10 PM
There's a lot of baseball left to be played. This is not like Bill Clinton coming out of Super Tuesday in 1992 with Tsongas and Gephardt types just shrugging their shoulders, or Bush beating Dole here in Illinois in 1988. Trump won't be the nominee.
Someday after this election, when T.J. is either in a mental institution or in jail, we'll mark this thread as the turning point.
Quote from: Bort on March 15, 2016, 01:18:52 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 15, 2016, 08:23:44 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 15, 2016, 08:18:49 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 01:20:12 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 10:44:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 14, 2016, 05:14:01 PM
So if Kasich and Rubio each biff on their home states, do they drop out?
Or does the GOP establishment make them stay in, in hopes their meager delegate counts prevent Trump from getting a majority?
And how awesome would it be to see these two be forced to carry something to term against their will?
This is a disaster. All of it. How did we end up here.
I think tomorrow is the last day of the pathetic Rubio campaign.
Kasich lives to fight another day.
Despite disagreeing with almost everything Rubio believes in, I've started to feel sorry for him.
He was asked the other day if he'd still vote for Trump, and he gave a 1,000 yard stare, and sounded utterly fucking exhausted as he said "I've said how bad I think Hillary Clinton would be for America and as of right now I still intend to support our nominee...*sigh* but it's getting harder every day"
I saw that, and while it isn't quite sympathy, I didn't feel the malicious glee I thought I would. Poor bastard.
So, now that he's out, what's to stop him NOT endorsing Trump? I can't imagine the GOP establishment would have a problem with that - they want to choose somebody, anybody else anyway - and he'd buy himself a huge amount of goodwill from non-Trump supporters.
Quote from: Tonker on March 16, 2016, 12:51:33 AM
Quote from: Bort on March 15, 2016, 01:18:52 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 15, 2016, 08:23:44 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 15, 2016, 08:18:49 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 01:20:12 AM
Quote from: Slaky on March 14, 2016, 10:44:55 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 14, 2016, 05:14:01 PM
So if Kasich and Rubio each biff on their home states, do they drop out?
Or does the GOP establishment make them stay in, in hopes their meager delegate counts prevent Trump from getting a majority?
And how awesome would it be to see these two be forced to carry something to term against their will?
This is a disaster. All of it. How did we end up here.
I think tomorrow is the last day of the pathetic Rubio campaign.
Kasich lives to fight another day.
Despite disagreeing with almost everything Rubio believes in, I've started to feel sorry for him.
He was asked the other day if he'd still vote for Trump, and he gave a 1,000 yard stare, and sounded utterly fucking exhausted as he said "I've said how bad I think Hillary Clinton would be for America and as of right now I still intend to support our nominee...*sigh* but it's getting harder every day"
I saw that, and while it isn't quite sympathy, I didn't feel the malicious glee I thought I would. Poor bastard.
So, now that he's out, what's to stop him NOT endorsing Trump? I can't imagine the GOP establishment would have a problem with that - they want to choose somebody, anybody else anyway - and he'd buy himself a huge amount of goodwill from non-Trump supporters.
I don't see anyway he endorses Trump after that concession speech tonight. He and Cruz aren't exactly tight, but I assume he goes that way.
Quote from: R-V on March 16, 2016, 08:04:51 AM
Quote from: flannj on March 16, 2016, 12:34:27 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2016, 09:29:39 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 09:27:45 PM
Hey Illinois, way to suck.
I voted for O'Malley. Seriously.
Because it's almost Saint Patricks day?
Because Chuck.
I really understand the Bortist approach of saying "fuck it" and not voting if you find all candidates reprehensible, especially Hillary. I don't really understand bothering to go through the trouble of voting only to cast said vote for someone who isn't even in the race. I mean even if you went just to vote against Anita Alvarez or whatever why not just leave the presidential portion of the ballot blank?
I think it's time to start collecting horcruxes.
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 08:07:21 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 16, 2016, 08:04:51 AM
Quote from: flannj on March 16, 2016, 12:34:27 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2016, 09:29:39 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 09:27:45 PM
Hey Illinois, way to suck.
I voted for O'Malley. Seriously.
Because it's almost Saint Patricks day?
Because Chuck.
I really understand the Bortist approach of saying "fuck it" and not voting if you find all candidates reprehensible, especially Hillary. I don't really understand bothering to go through the trouble of voting only to cast said vote for someone who isn't even in the race. I mean even if you went just to vote against Anita Alvarez or whatever why not just leave the presidential portion of the ballot blank?
I don't begrudge Bort. But I'm conflicted because this is an unprecedented type of candidate in Trump. If it was something like Kerry-Bush and you're really meh about both, that's fine. But I feel like there's a moral imperative to do whatever we can to stop a potential Hitler-type of situation. I don't think this is really a "lesser of two evils" thing. There's evil and there's
evil.
Quote from: Eli on March 16, 2016, 08:22:51 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 08:07:21 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 16, 2016, 08:04:51 AM
Quote from: flannj on March 16, 2016, 12:34:27 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2016, 09:29:39 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 09:27:45 PM
Hey Illinois, way to suck.
I voted for O'Malley. Seriously.
Because it's almost Saint Patricks day?
Because Chuck.
I really understand the Bortist approach of saying "fuck it" and not voting if you find all candidates reprehensible, especially Hillary. I don't really understand bothering to go through the trouble of voting only to cast said vote for someone who isn't even in the race. I mean even if you went just to vote against Anita Alvarez or whatever why not just leave the presidential portion of the ballot blank?
I don't begrudge Bort. But I'm conflicted because this is an unprecedented type of candidate in Trump. If it was something like Kerry-Bush and you're really meh about both, that's fine. But I feel like there's a moral imperative to do whatever we can to stop a potential Hitler-type of situation. I don't think this is really a "lesser of two evils" thing. There's evil and there's evil.
All I ask is that no one is proud of or smug about voting in this election. Do what your conscience tells you, but don't pretend this is anything but a shameful choice forced on us all by a system that is flawed in the extreme.
Quote from: Eli on March 16, 2016, 08:22:51 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 08:07:21 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 16, 2016, 08:04:51 AM
Quote from: flannj on March 16, 2016, 12:34:27 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2016, 09:29:39 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 09:27:45 PM
Hey Illinois, way to suck.
I voted for O'Malley. Seriously.
Because it's almost Saint Patricks day?
Because Chuck.
I really understand the Bortist approach of saying "fuck it" and not voting if you find all candidates reprehensible, especially Hillary. I don't really understand bothering to go through the trouble of voting only to cast said vote for someone who isn't even in the race. I mean even if you went just to vote against Anita Alvarez or whatever why not just leave the presidential portion of the ballot blank?
I don't begrudge Bort. But I'm conflicted because this is an unprecedented type of candidate in Trump. If it was something like Kerry-Bush and you're really meh about both, that's fine. But I feel like there's a moral imperative to do whatever we can to stop a potential Hitler-type of situation. I don't think this is really a "lesser of two evils" thing. There's evil and there's evil.
Oh I agree, and in a state that might possibly be a swing state (although I doubt it, given Iowa went for Obama twice and Trump didn't even win the caucus here), I will certainly feel obligated to vote to stop the fascist. In a hard blue state like Illinois, Bort is probably free to keep himself clear of the taint of ever having voted for a woman he finds utterly reprehensible.
Quote from: Bort on March 16, 2016, 08:29:32 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 16, 2016, 08:22:51 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 08:07:21 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 16, 2016, 08:04:51 AM
Quote from: flannj on March 16, 2016, 12:34:27 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2016, 09:29:39 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 09:27:45 PM
Hey Illinois, way to suck.
I voted for O'Malley. Seriously.
Because it's almost Saint Patricks day?
Because Chuck.
I really understand the Bortist approach of saying "fuck it" and not voting if you find all candidates reprehensible, especially Hillary. I don't really understand bothering to go through the trouble of voting only to cast said vote for someone who isn't even in the race. I mean even if you went just to vote against Anita Alvarez or whatever why not just leave the presidential portion of the ballot blank?
I don't begrudge Bort. But I'm conflicted because this is an unprecedented type of candidate in Trump. If it was something like Kerry-Bush and you're really meh about both, that's fine. But I feel like there's a moral imperative to do whatever we can to stop a potential Hitler-type of situation. I don't think this is really a "lesser of two evils" thing. There's evil and there's evil.
All I ask is that no one is proud of or smug about voting in this election. Do what your conscience tells you, but don't pretend this is anything but a shameful choice forced on us all by a system that is flawed in the extreme.
I assure you I will be both solemn and annoyed as I vote for Hillary.
Quote from: Eli on March 16, 2016, 08:34:02 AM
Quote from: Bort on March 16, 2016, 08:29:32 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 16, 2016, 08:22:51 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 08:07:21 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 16, 2016, 08:04:51 AM
Quote from: flannj on March 16, 2016, 12:34:27 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2016, 09:29:39 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 09:27:45 PM
Hey Illinois, way to suck.
I voted for O'Malley. Seriously.
Because it's almost Saint Patricks day?
Because Chuck.
I really understand the Bortist approach of saying "fuck it" and not voting if you find all candidates reprehensible, especially Hillary. I don't really understand bothering to go through the trouble of voting only to cast said vote for someone who isn't even in the race. I mean even if you went just to vote against Anita Alvarez or whatever why not just leave the presidential portion of the ballot blank?
I don't begrudge Bort. But I'm conflicted because this is an unprecedented type of candidate in Trump. If it was something like Kerry-Bush and you're really meh about both, that's fine. But I feel like there's a moral imperative to do whatever we can to stop a potential Hitler-type of situation. I don't think this is really a "lesser of two evils" thing. There's evil and there's evil.
All I ask is that no one is proud of or smug about voting in this election. Do what your conscience tells you, but don't pretend this is anything but a shameful choice forced on us all by a system that is flawed in the extreme.
I assure you I will be both solemn and annoyed as I vote for Hillary.
I know I'll be solemn and annoyed as I vote for Hillary.
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 08:07:21 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 16, 2016, 08:04:51 AM
Quote from: flannj on March 16, 2016, 12:34:27 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2016, 09:29:39 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 09:27:45 PM
Hey Illinois, way to suck.
I voted for O'Malley. Seriously.
Because it's almost Saint Patricks day?
Because Chuck.
I really understand the Bortist approach of saying "fuck it" and not voting if you find all candidates reprehensible, especially Hillary. I don't really understand bothering to go through the trouble of voting only to cast said vote for someone who isn't even in the race. I mean even if you went just to vote against Anita Alvarez or whatever why not just leave the presidential portion of the ballot blank?
True story--I'm not nearly as into the candidates as I was in my younger years but I went to the polls to vote against Alvarez.
I then saw that of the two challengers to Alvarez, one was Foxx, with 2 "X"'s and the other was Donna More, but without to "O''s. They seemed like fake porn names crafted up by the jokesters at Cook County party Central to make things look transparent, but in any event I decided to go with Foxx and not More.
Looks like I guessed right.
Quote from: PANK! on March 16, 2016, 08:44:17 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 08:07:21 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 16, 2016, 08:04:51 AM
Quote from: flannj on March 16, 2016, 12:34:27 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2016, 09:29:39 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 09:27:45 PM
Hey Illinois, way to suck.
I voted for O'Malley. Seriously.
Because it's almost Saint Patricks day?
Because Chuck.
I really understand the Bortist approach of saying "fuck it" and not voting if you find all candidates reprehensible, especially Hillary. I don't really understand bothering to go through the trouble of voting only to cast said vote for someone who isn't even in the race. I mean even if you went just to vote against Anita Alvarez or whatever why not just leave the presidential portion of the ballot blank?
True story--I'm not nearly as into the candidates as I was in my younger years but I went to the polls to vote against Alvarez.
I then saw that of the two challengers to Alvarez, one was Foxx, with 2 "X"'s and the other was Donna More, but without to "O''s. They seemed like fake porn names crafted up by the jokesters at Cook County party Central to make things look transparent, but in any event I decided to go with Foxx and not More.
Looks like I guessed right.
You went to the polls to vote against Alvarez but didn't think to google the candidates running against her first?
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 08:07:21 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 16, 2016, 08:04:51 AM
Quote from: flannj on March 16, 2016, 12:34:27 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2016, 09:29:39 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 09:27:45 PM
Hey Illinois, way to suck.
I voted for O'Malley. Seriously.
Because it's almost Saint Patricks day?
Because Chuck.
I really understand the Bortist approach of saying "fuck it" and not voting if you find all candidates reprehensible, especially Hillary. I don't really understand bothering to go through the trouble of voting only to cast said vote for someone who isn't even in the race. I mean even if you went just to vote against Anita Alvarez or whatever why not just leave the presidential portion of the ballot blank?
I had plenty of other races to vote for. I chimed in on Duckworth and Schneider.
I don't really see how a vote for O'Malley is any different from leaving it blank. I did vote for one Hillary delegate, a friend of mine from Highland Park. I countered that by voting for the two O'Malley delegates on my e-ballot.
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 08:45:25 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 16, 2016, 08:44:17 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 08:07:21 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 16, 2016, 08:04:51 AM
Quote from: flannj on March 16, 2016, 12:34:27 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2016, 09:29:39 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 09:27:45 PM
Hey Illinois, way to suck.
I voted for O'Malley. Seriously.
Because it's almost Saint Patricks day?
Because Chuck.
I really understand the Bortist approach of saying "fuck it" and not voting if you find all candidates reprehensible, especially Hillary. I don't really understand bothering to go through the trouble of voting only to cast said vote for someone who isn't even in the race. I mean even if you went just to vote against Anita Alvarez or whatever why not just leave the presidential portion of the ballot blank?
True story--I'm not nearly as into the candidates as I was in my younger years but I went to the polls to vote against Alvarez.
I then saw that of the two challengers to Alvarez, one was Foxx, with 2 "X"'s and the other was Donna More, but without to "O''s. They seemed like fake porn names crafted up by the jokesters at Cook County party Central to make things look transparent, but in any event I decided to go with Foxx and not More.
Looks like I guessed right.
You went to the polls to vote against Alvarez but didn't think to google the candidates running against her first?
PANK NO GONNA GOOGLE NO MORE
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 16, 2016, 08:40:27 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 16, 2016, 08:34:02 AM
Quote from: Bort on March 16, 2016, 08:29:32 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 16, 2016, 08:22:51 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 08:07:21 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 16, 2016, 08:04:51 AM
Quote from: flannj on March 16, 2016, 12:34:27 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2016, 09:29:39 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 09:27:45 PM
Hey Illinois, way to suck.
I voted for O'Malley. Seriously.
Because it's almost Saint Patricks day?
Because Chuck.
I really understand the Bortist approach of saying "fuck it" and not voting if you find all candidates reprehensible, especially Hillary. I don't really understand bothering to go through the trouble of voting only to cast said vote for someone who isn't even in the race. I mean even if you went just to vote against Anita Alvarez or whatever why not just leave the presidential portion of the ballot blank?
I don't begrudge Bort. But I'm conflicted because this is an unprecedented type of candidate in Trump. If it was something like Kerry-Bush and you're really meh about both, that's fine. But I feel like there's a moral imperative to do whatever we can to stop a potential Hitler-type of situation. I don't think this is really a "lesser of two evils" thing. There's evil and there's evil.
All I ask is that no one is proud of or smug about voting in this election. Do what your conscience tells you, but don't pretend this is anything but a shameful choice forced on us all by a system that is flawed in the extreme.
I assure you I will be both solemn and annoyed as I vote for Hillary.
I know I'll be solemn and annoyed as I vote for Hillary.
I'm going to need a new, stronger metaphor than "holding my nose" when I vote for her this November.
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 08:45:25 AM
Quote from: PANK! on March 16, 2016, 08:44:17 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 08:07:21 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 16, 2016, 08:04:51 AM
Quote from: flannj on March 16, 2016, 12:34:27 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2016, 09:29:39 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 09:27:45 PM
Hey Illinois, way to suck.
I voted for O'Malley. Seriously.
Because it's almost Saint Patricks day?
Because Chuck.
I really understand the Bortist approach of saying "fuck it" and not voting if you find all candidates reprehensible, especially Hillary. I don't really understand bothering to go through the trouble of voting only to cast said vote for someone who isn't even in the race. I mean even if you went just to vote against Anita Alvarez or whatever why not just leave the presidential portion of the ballot blank?
True story--I'm not nearly as into the candidates as I was in my younger years but I went to the polls to vote against Alvarez.
I then saw that of the two challengers to Alvarez, one was Foxx, with 2 "X"'s and the other was Donna More, but without to "O''s. They seemed like fake porn names crafted up by the jokesters at Cook County party Central to make things look transparent, but in any event I decided to go with Foxx and not More.
Looks like I guessed right.
You went to the polls to vote against Alvarez but didn't think to google the candidates running against her first?
Yup. I actually left a lot blank this year for that very reason, except for a judge that my sister-in-law asked me to vote for.
I did hear Foxx interviewed on the radio and thought she was fine. I just didn't know she had 2 X's in her last name and DAMMIT JUST LET ME MAKE MY JOKE.
TPD. I cringe when I hear Hillary speak and I admit I'm not crazy about her on balance, but I'm actually looking forward to voting for her. I'm sorry that the people who actively hate her will be so deeply conflicted about doing the same, but if Trump's the opponent it's the moral goddamn imperative so get over yourself.
You guys complain about your choices of candidates in a March primary. I don't get to vote in a primary until June, when there won't be any choices left.
Quote from: CBStew on March 16, 2016, 09:24:02 AM
You guys complain about your choices of candidates in a March primary. I don't get to vote in a primary until June, when there won't be any choices left.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure Kasich is looking at that as his last stand.
Quote from: Oleg on March 16, 2016, 09:29:50 AM
Quote from: CBStew on March 16, 2016, 09:24:02 AM
You guys complain about your choices of candidates in a March primary. I don't get to vote in a primary until June, when there won't be any choices left.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure Kasich is looking at that as his last stand.
I'm pretty sure Kasich is looking at the Convention as his last stand.
Obama picks Merrick Garland for SCOTUS a week after Orrin Hatch sings his praises, and a day after Trump essentially locks up the nomination, leaving the GOP with no option but trying to keep the Senate.
Blocking him will absolutely mean Harry Reid gets his gavel back in January.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 16, 2016, 09:51:34 AM
Obama picks Merrick Garland for SCOTUS a week after Orrin Hatch sings his praises, and a day after Trump essentially locks up the nomination, leaving the GOP with no option but trying to keep the Senate.
Blocking him will absolutely mean Harry Reid gets his gavel back in January.
Elizabeth Warren has something to say about this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=502&v=ePsNcoMNNXc).
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 16, 2016, 09:51:34 AM
Obama picks Merrick Garland for SCOTUS a week after Orrin Hatch sings his praises, and a day after Trump essentially locks up the nomination, leaving the GOP with no option but trying to keep the Senate.
Blocking him will absolutely mean Harry Reid gets his gavel back in January.
Nothing anyone will do will get Reid the gavel back.
He's retiring, you dufus.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 16, 2016, 09:51:34 AM
Obama picks Merrick Garland for SCOTUS a week after Orrin Hatch sings his praises, and a day after Trump essentially locks up the nomination, leaving the GOP with no option but trying to keep the Senate.
Blocking him will absolutely mean Harry Reid gets his gavel back in January.
Everyone is talking about what a masterful troll job it is by Obama, but I'm not sure Obama being forced to nominate a guy like Garland (who lots of Republicans like) is any sort of a win for him.
Quote from: Eli on March 16, 2016, 10:21:12 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 16, 2016, 09:51:34 AM
Obama picks Merrick Garland for SCOTUS a week after Orrin Hatch sings his praises, and a day after Trump essentially locks up the nomination, leaving the GOP with no option but trying to keep the Senate.
Blocking him will absolutely mean Harry Reid gets his gavel back in January.
Everyone is talking about what a masterful troll job it is by Obama, but I'm not sure Obama being forced to nominate a guy like Garland (who lots of Republicans like) is any sort of a win for him.
Yeah, I get that he's trying to paint them into a corner and make them look even more unreasonable than they already are, but I'm pretty sure if GOP obstructionism turned you off of voting for them you'd have made up your mind long before this point. I'm not sure trying to score a PR victory with this one outweighs actually appointing a justice you want. If I were the Democrats I'd just gamble on Hillary winning the election and then appoint someone you actually want, Republicans be damned. The Democrats constantly moving to the center in response to the GOP moving to the right is a bad trend that's gotten us into a lot of shit in the last decade and it's hardly a victory.
None of you live in the 5th district with Ken Dunkin, right? If you do, and voted against him, I thank you
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 16, 2016, 09:44:58 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 16, 2016, 09:29:50 AM
Quote from: CBStew on March 16, 2016, 09:24:02 AM
You guys complain about your choices of candidates in a March primary. I don't get to vote in a primary until June, when there won't be any choices left.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure Kasich is looking at that as his last stand.
I'm pretty sure Kasich is looking at the Convention as his last stand.
His path is tenuous, at best right now. If he loses California (or New York or too many of the New England states), game over for him, no matter what happens at the convention. This is, of course, assuming the GOP doesn't decide on the nuclear option with a brokered convention and nominates someone who finishes in third place among the voters. Which would, frankly, be great entertainment value.
Quote from: Oleg on March 16, 2016, 10:44:30 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 16, 2016, 09:44:58 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 16, 2016, 09:29:50 AM
Quote from: CBStew on March 16, 2016, 09:24:02 AM
You guys complain about your choices of candidates in a March primary. I don't get to vote in a primary until June, when there won't be any choices left.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure Kasich is looking at that as his last stand.
I'm pretty sure Kasich is looking at the Convention as his last stand.
His path is tenuous, at best right now. If he loses California (or New York or too many of the New England states), game over for him, no matter what happens at the convention. This is, of course, assuming the GOP doesn't decide on the nuclear option with a brokered convention and nominates someone who finishes in third place among the voters. Which would, frankly, be great entertainment value.
If they do that, they immediately disenfranchise a huge swathe of their own voters. If they don't do that, they immediately disenfranchise a huge swathe of their own voters.
In summary, ha ha.
Quote from: Tonker on March 16, 2016, 10:55:05 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 16, 2016, 10:44:30 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 16, 2016, 09:44:58 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 16, 2016, 09:29:50 AM
Quote from: CBStew on March 16, 2016, 09:24:02 AM
You guys complain about your choices of candidates in a March primary. I don't get to vote in a primary until June, when there won't be any choices left.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure Kasich is looking at that as his last stand.
I'm pretty sure Kasich is looking at the Convention as his last stand.
His path is tenuous, at best right now. If he loses California (or New York or too many of the New England states), game over for him, no matter what happens at the convention. This is, of course, assuming the GOP doesn't decide on the nuclear option with a brokered convention and nominates someone who finishes in third place among the voters. Which would, frankly, be great entertainment value.
If they do that, they immediately disenfranchise a huge swathe of their own voters. If they don't do that, they immediately disenfranchise a huge swathe of their own voters.
In summary, ha ha.
Yeah it's hard to see how they survive a brokered convention. If they steal the nomination from Trump there's no way in hell Cruz or his supporters will go quietly into the night to see the nomination handed to Kasich. It'd be more likely to see Cruz throw in his lot with Trump at that point, I think, and that would presumably give Trump enough delegates to get it outright.
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 10:56:52 AM
Quote from: Tonker on March 16, 2016, 10:55:05 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 16, 2016, 10:44:30 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 16, 2016, 09:44:58 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 16, 2016, 09:29:50 AM
Quote from: CBStew on March 16, 2016, 09:24:02 AM
You guys complain about your choices of candidates in a March primary. I don't get to vote in a primary until June, when there won't be any choices left.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure Kasich is looking at that as his last stand.
I'm pretty sure Kasich is looking at the Convention as his last stand.
His path is tenuous, at best right now. If he loses California (or New York or too many of the New England states), game over for him, no matter what happens at the convention. This is, of course, assuming the GOP doesn't decide on the nuclear option with a brokered convention and nominates someone who finishes in third place among the voters. Which would, frankly, be great entertainment value.
If they do that, they immediately disenfranchise a huge swathe of their own voters. If they don't do that, they immediately disenfranchise a huge swathe of their own voters.
In summary, ha ha.
Yeah it's hard to see how they survive a brokered convention. If they steal the nomination from Trump there's no way in hell Cruz or his supporters will go quietly into the night to see the nomination handed to Kasich. It'd be more likely to see Cruz throw in his lot with Trump at that point, I think, and that would presumably give Trump enough delegates to get it outright.
I think both Cruz and Kasich think the other should drop out to consolidate support against Drumph.
Quote from: Oleg on March 16, 2016, 11:10:12 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 10:56:52 AM
Quote from: Tonker on March 16, 2016, 10:55:05 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 16, 2016, 10:44:30 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 16, 2016, 09:44:58 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 16, 2016, 09:29:50 AM
Quote from: CBStew on March 16, 2016, 09:24:02 AM
You guys complain about your choices of candidates in a March primary. I don't get to vote in a primary until June, when there won't be any choices left.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure Kasich is looking at that as his last stand.
I'm pretty sure Kasich is looking at the Convention as his last stand.
His path is tenuous, at best right now. If he loses California (or New York or too many of the New England states), game over for him, no matter what happens at the convention. This is, of course, assuming the GOP doesn't decide on the nuclear option with a brokered convention and nominates someone who finishes in third place among the voters. Which would, frankly, be great entertainment value.
If they do that, they immediately disenfranchise a huge swathe of their own voters. If they don't do that, they immediately disenfranchise a huge swathe of their own voters.
In summary, ha ha.
Yeah it's hard to see how they survive a brokered convention. If they steal the nomination from Trump there's no way in hell Cruz or his supporters will go quietly into the night to see the nomination handed to Kasich. It'd be more likely to see Cruz throw in his lot with Trump at that point, I think, and that would presumably give Trump enough delegates to get it outright.
I think both Cruz and Kasich think the other should drop out to consolidate support against Drumph.
Right, and the party is telling Kasich to stay in this because they don't want Cruz either. Cruz seems like he's still trying to win over the establishment, but I think he's got enough rebel in him that when he realizes they're going to try to pass him over he very well could go with Trump because why would he make peace with an establishment that fucking hates him?
DPD, but whatever happens if the GOP establishment does try to screw over Trump and Cruz it's going to be really awesome to see the redneck and evangelical base of the party realize just how little the party actually cares about them.
Quote from: Oleg on March 16, 2016, 11:10:12 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 10:56:52 AM
Quote from: Tonker on March 16, 2016, 10:55:05 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 16, 2016, 10:44:30 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 16, 2016, 09:44:58 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 16, 2016, 09:29:50 AM
Quote from: CBStew on March 16, 2016, 09:24:02 AM
You guys complain about your choices of candidates in a March primary. I don't get to vote in a primary until June, when there won't be any choices left.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure Kasich is looking at that as his last stand.
I'm pretty sure Kasich is looking at the Convention as his last stand.
His path is tenuous, at best right now. If he loses California (or New York or too many of the New England states), game over for him, no matter what happens at the convention. This is, of course, assuming the GOP doesn't decide on the nuclear option with a brokered convention and nominates someone who finishes in third place among the voters. Which would, frankly, be great entertainment value.
If they do that, they immediately disenfranchise a huge swathe of their own voters. If they don't do that, they immediately disenfranchise a huge swathe of their own voters.
In summary, ha ha.
Yeah it's hard to see how they survive a brokered convention. If they steal the nomination from Trump there's no way in hell Cruz or his supporters will go quietly into the night to see the nomination handed to Kasich. It'd be more likely to see Cruz throw in his lot with Trump at that point, I think, and that would presumably give Trump enough delegates to get it outright.
I think both Cruz and Kasich think the other should drop out to consolidate support against Drumph.
Cruz has more than double the delegates Kasich has. And even if one dropped out and they consolidated delegates, they'd still trail Drumpf by almost a hundred.
Quote from: Yeti on March 16, 2016, 10:32:58 AM
None of you live in the 5th district with Ken Dunkin, right? If you do, and voted against him, I thank you
Why? Because Mike Madigan is doing such a great job?
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 16, 2016, 11:25:24 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 16, 2016, 11:10:12 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 10:56:52 AM
Quote from: Tonker on March 16, 2016, 10:55:05 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 16, 2016, 10:44:30 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 16, 2016, 09:44:58 AM
Quote from: Oleg on March 16, 2016, 09:29:50 AM
Quote from: CBStew on March 16, 2016, 09:24:02 AM
You guys complain about your choices of candidates in a March primary. I don't get to vote in a primary until June, when there won't be any choices left.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure Kasich is looking at that as his last stand.
I'm pretty sure Kasich is looking at the Convention as his last stand.
His path is tenuous, at best right now. If he loses California (or New York or too many of the New England states), game over for him, no matter what happens at the convention. This is, of course, assuming the GOP doesn't decide on the nuclear option with a brokered convention and nominates someone who finishes in third place among the voters. Which would, frankly, be great entertainment value.
If they do that, they immediately disenfranchise a huge swathe of their own voters. If they don't do that, they immediately disenfranchise a huge swathe of their own voters.
In summary, ha ha.
Yeah it's hard to see how they survive a brokered convention. If they steal the nomination from Trump there's no way in hell Cruz or his supporters will go quietly into the night to see the nomination handed to Kasich. It'd be more likely to see Cruz throw in his lot with Trump at that point, I think, and that would presumably give Trump enough delegates to get it outright.
I think both Cruz and Kasich think the other should drop out to consolidate support against Drumph.
Cruz has more than double the delegates Kasich has. And even if one dropped out and they consolidated delegates, they'd still trail Drumpf by almost a hundred.
Did you count Rubio's delegates in there? I think it's fairly safe to say Rubio and Jeb's delegates, however many they had, will not be going to Trump.
If the Republicans refuse to hold a hearing on Garland, I hope Obama keeps putting reasonable options up for consideration. Then, when Hillary wins by like 350 electoral votes over Trump/Cruz, she can say "America has had their say" and nominate Bernie Sanders for the seat.
Make Chuck Grassley's Twitter feed great again, Hillary.
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:34:32 PM
If the Republicans refuse to hold a hearing on Garland, I hope Obama keeps putting reasonable options up for consideration. Then, when Hillary wins by like 350 electoral votes over Trump/Cruz, she can say "America has had their say" and nominate Bernie Sanders for the seat.
Make Chuck Grassley's Twitter feed great again, Hillary.
I actually enjoy the conspiracy theory of Hillary turning around and nominating Obama for the seat.
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:34:32 PM
If the Republicans refuse to hold a hearing on Garland, I hope Obama keeps putting reasonable options up for consideration. Then, when Hillary wins by like 350 electoral votes over Trump/Cruz, she can say "America has had their say" and nominate Bernie Sanders Obama himselffor the seat.
Even better'd.
Edit: Damn SKO and his obsessive-posting ways.
Quote from: Eli on March 16, 2016, 12:36:02 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:34:32 PM
If the Republicans refuse to hold a hearing on Garland, I hope Obama keeps putting reasonable options up for consideration. Then, when Hillary wins by like 350 electoral votes over Trump/Cruz, she can say "America has had their say" and nominate Bernie Sanders Obama himselffor the seat.
Even better'd.
OBAMAFORJUSTICEFACED
Quote from: Eli on March 16, 2016, 12:36:02 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:34:32 PM
If the Republicans refuse to hold a hearing on Garland, I hope Obama keeps putting reasonable options up for consideration. Then, when Hillary wins by like 350 electoral votes over Drumpf/Cruz, she can say "America has had their say" and nominate Bernie Sanders Obama himselffor the seat.
Even better'd.
I was thinking Obama would be a good compromise pick after they refused to hold hearings on Sanders.
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:38:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 16, 2016, 12:36:02 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:34:32 PM
If the Republicans refuse to hold a hearing on Garland, I hope Obama keeps putting reasonable options up for consideration. Then, when Hillary wins by like 350 electoral votes over Drumpf/Cruz, she can say "America has had their say" and nominate Bernie Sanders Obama himselffor the seat.
Even better'd.
I was thinking Obama would be a good compromise pick after they refused to hold hearings on Sanders.
Here's the thing...
Being an Associate Justice after being POTUS would be a downgrade. The only former President to ever sit on the Supreme Court was Taft, and he served as Chief Justice. I think Obama would only want to do it if he were replacing Roberts.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 16, 2016, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:38:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 16, 2016, 12:36:02 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:34:32 PM
If the Republicans refuse to hold a hearing on Garland, I hope Obama keeps putting reasonable options up for consideration. Then, when Hillary wins by like 350 electoral votes over Drumpf/Cruz, she can say "America has had their say" and nominate Bernie Sanders Obama himselffor the seat.
Even better'd.
I was thinking Obama would be a good compromise pick after they refused to hold hearings on Sanders.
Here's the thing...
Being an Associate Justice after being POTUS would be a downgrade. The only former President to ever sit on the Supreme Court was Taft, and he served as Chief Justice. I think Obama would only want to do it if he were replacing Roberts.
Isn't literally everything a downgrade after being POTUS
Quote from: flannj on March 16, 2016, 12:10:35 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 16, 2016, 10:32:58 AM
None of you live in the 5th district with Ken Dunkin, right? If you do, and voted against him, I thank you
Why? Because Mike Madigan is doing such a great job?
Because Dunkin was absent for a vote on union arbitration and then all of a sudden flush with cash from Dan Proft, a Rauner ally.
And there's also him appointing Raymond Poe (local R that voted with his constituents on AFSCME stuff) to the Director of Ag. He did something similar with Wayne Rosenthal. He replaced them with Sara Wojcicki-Jimenez, his wife's former chief of staff, and Avery Bourne, a 22 year old student that worked on his campaign and likely hasn't had a real job, respectively.
He also sunk over a million dollars to take down Sam McCann, who I would bet got the same offer that Poe and Rosenthal did but refused, but McCann prevailed.
So, yea, whatever that can be done to stiffly say "fuck you" to the Governor is fine by me.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 16, 2016, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:38:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 16, 2016, 12:36:02 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:34:32 PM
If the Republicans refuse to hold a hearing on Garland, I hope Obama keeps putting reasonable options up for consideration. Then, when Hillary wins by like 350 electoral votes over Drumpf/Cruz, she can say "America has had their say" and nominate Bernie Sanders Obama himselffor the seat.
Even better'd.
I was thinking Obama would be a good compromise pick after they refused to hold hearings on Sanders.
Here's the thing...
Being an Associate Justice after being POTUS would be a downgrade. The only former President to ever sit on the Supreme Court was Taft, and he served as Chief Justice. I think Obama would only want to do it if he were replacing Roberts.
Wait, I didn't think we were actually being serious. Obama's said he didn't want to be a justice.
Quote from: Yeti on March 16, 2016, 02:01:25 PM
Quote from: flannj on March 16, 2016, 12:10:35 PM
Quote from: Yeti on March 16, 2016, 10:32:58 AM
None of you live in the 5th district with Ken Dunkin, right? If you do, and voted against him, I thank you
Why? Because Mike Madigan is doing such a great job?
Because Dunkin was absent for a vote on union arbitration and then all of a sudden flush with cash from Dan Proft, a Rauner ally.
And there's also him appointing Raymond Poe (local R that voted with his constituents on AFSCME stuff) to the Director of Ag. He did something similar with Wayne Rosenthal. He replaced them with Sara Wojcicki-Jimenez, his wife's former chief of staff, and Avery Bourne, a 22 year old student that worked on his campaign and likely hasn't had a real job, respectively.
He also sunk over a million dollars to take down Sam McCann, who I would bet got the same offer that Poe and Rosenthal did but refused, but McCann prevailed.
So, yea, whatever that can be done to stiffly say "fuck you" to the Governor is fine by me.
So Dunkin said "fuck you" to Madigan.
Works for me.
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 02:10:57 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 16, 2016, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:38:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 16, 2016, 12:36:02 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:34:32 PM
If the Republicans refuse to hold a hearing on Garland, I hope Obama keeps putting reasonable options up for consideration. Then, when Hillary wins by like 350 electoral votes over Drumpf/Cruz, she can say "America has had their say" and nominate Bernie Sanders Obama himselffor the seat.
Even better'd.
I was thinking Obama would be a good compromise pick after they refused to hold hearings on Sanders.
Here's the thing...
Being an Associate Justice after being POTUS would be a downgrade. The only former President to ever sit on the Supreme Court was Taft, and he served as Chief Justice. I think Obama would only want to do it if he were replacing Roberts.
Wait, I didn't think we were actually being serious. Obama's said he didn't want to be a justice.
I wasn't being serious. I'm never being serious. Not even right now.
No hearing for Obama's Supreme Court nominee, McConnell says (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/273230-mcconnell-no-hearing-for-garland)
QuoteSenate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Wednesday shot down the idea of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland getting a hearing.
McConnell insisted in a floor speech that the vacancy should be filled by the next president.
"The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the court's direction," he said.
"The Senate will continue to observe the 'Biden Rule' so the American people have a voice in this momentous decision. The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next president may also nominate somebody very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in filling this vacancy."
Quote from: flannj on March 16, 2016, 03:05:16 PM
No hearing for Obama's Supreme Court nominee, McConnell says (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/273230-mcconnell-no-hearing-for-garland)
QuoteSenate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) on Wednesday shot down the idea of Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland getting a hearing.
McConnell insisted in a floor speech that the vacancy should be filled by the next president.
"The next justice could fundamentally alter the direction of the Supreme Court and have a profound impact on our country, so of course the American people should have a say in the court's direction," he said.
"The Senate will continue to observe the 'Biden Rule' so the American people have a voice in this momentous decision. The American people may well elect a president who decides to nominate Judge Garland for Senate consideration. The next president may also nominate somebody very different. Either way, our view is this: Give the people a voice in filling this vacancy."
Excellent. I'd rather see a super-duper gay liberal activist on there anyway.
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 01:54:47 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 16, 2016, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:38:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 16, 2016, 12:36:02 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:34:32 PM
If the Republicans refuse to hold a hearing on Garland, I hope Obama keeps putting reasonable options up for consideration. Then, when Hillary wins by like 350 electoral votes over Drumpf/Cruz, she can say "America has had their say" and nominate Bernie Sanders Obama himselffor the seat.
Even better'd.
I was thinking Obama would be a good compromise pick after they refused to hold hearings on Sanders.
Here's the thing...
Being an Associate Justice after being POTUS would be a downgrade. The only former President to ever sit on the Supreme Court was Taft, and he served as Chief Justice. I think Obama would only want to do it if he were replacing Roberts.
Isn't literally everything a downgrade after being POTUS
Heading the Judicial branch could be construed as a lateral move from heading the Executive branch.
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 16, 2016, 03:41:49 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 01:54:47 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 16, 2016, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:38:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 16, 2016, 12:36:02 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:34:32 PM
If the Republicans refuse to hold a hearing on Garland, I hope Obama keeps putting reasonable options up for consideration. Then, when Hillary wins by like 350 electoral votes over Drumpf/Cruz, she can say "America has had their say" and nominate Bernie Sanders Obama himselffor the seat.
Even better'd.
I was thinking Obama would be a good compromise pick after they refused to hold hearings on Sanders.
Here's the thing...
Being an Associate Justice after being POTUS would be a downgrade. The only former President to ever sit on the Supreme Court was Taft, and he served as Chief Justice. I think Obama would only want to do it if he were replacing Roberts.
Isn't literally everything a downgrade after being POTUS
Heading the Judicial branch could be construed as a lateral move from heading the Executive branch.
No
Quote from: PANK! on March 16, 2016, 03:43:05 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 16, 2016, 03:41:49 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 01:54:47 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 16, 2016, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:38:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 16, 2016, 12:36:02 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:34:32 PM
If the Republicans refuse to hold a hearing on Garland, I hope Obama keeps putting reasonable options up for consideration. Then, when Hillary wins by like 350 electoral votes over Drumpf/Cruz, she can say "America has had their say" and nominate Bernie Sanders Obama himselffor the seat.
Even better'd.
I was thinking Obama would be a good compromise pick after they refused to hold hearings on Sanders.
Here's the thing...
Being an Associate Justice after being POTUS would be a downgrade. The only former President to ever sit on the Supreme Court was Taft, and he served as Chief Justice. I think Obama would only want to do it if he were replacing Roberts.
Isn't literally everything a downgrade after being POTUS
Heading the Judicial branch could be construed as a lateral move from heading the Executive branch.
No
No
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 03:44:35 PM
Quote from: PANK! on March 16, 2016, 03:43:05 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 16, 2016, 03:41:49 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 01:54:47 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 16, 2016, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:38:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 16, 2016, 12:36:02 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:34:32 PM
If the Republicans refuse to hold a hearing on Garland, I hope Obama keeps putting reasonable options up for consideration. Then, when Hillary wins by like 350 electoral votes over Drumpf/Cruz, she can say "America has had their say" and nominate Bernie Sanders Obama himselffor the seat.
Even better'd.
I was thinking Obama would be a good compromise pick after they refused to hold hearings on Sanders.
Here's the thing...
Being an Associate Justice after being POTUS would be a downgrade. The only former President to ever sit on the Supreme Court was Taft, and he served as Chief Justice. I think Obama would only want to do it if he were replacing Roberts.
Isn't literally everything a downgrade after being POTUS
Heading the Judicial branch could be construed as a lateral move from heading the Executive branch.
No
No
Also, wouldn't it be a little weird to appoint someone to SCOTUS who has never been a judge?
Quote from: Oleg on March 16, 2016, 04:01:58 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 03:44:35 PM
Quote from: PANK! on March 16, 2016, 03:43:05 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 16, 2016, 03:41:49 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 01:54:47 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 16, 2016, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:38:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 16, 2016, 12:36:02 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:34:32 PM
If the Republicans refuse to hold a hearing on Garland, I hope Obama keeps putting reasonable options up for consideration. Then, when Hillary wins by like 350 electoral votes over Drumpf/Cruz, she can say "America has had their say" and nominate Bernie Sanders Obama himselffor the seat.
Even better'd.
I was thinking Obama would be a good compromise pick after they refused to hold hearings on Sanders.
Here's the thing...
Being an Associate Justice after being POTUS would be a downgrade. The only former President to ever sit on the Supreme Court was Taft, and he served as Chief Justice. I think Obama would only want to do it if he were replacing Roberts.
Isn't literally everything a downgrade after being POTUS
Heading the Judicial branch could be construed as a lateral move from heading the Executive branch.
No
No
Also, wouldn't it be a little weird to appoint someone to SCOTUS who has never been a judge?
How did Harriet Meyers work out?
Quote from: Oleg on March 16, 2016, 04:01:58 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 03:44:35 PM
Quote from: PANK! on March 16, 2016, 03:43:05 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 16, 2016, 03:41:49 PM
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 01:54:47 PM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 16, 2016, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:38:38 PM
Quote from: Eli on March 16, 2016, 12:36:02 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:34:32 PM
If the Republicans refuse to hold a hearing on Garland, I hope Obama keeps putting reasonable options up for consideration. Then, when Hillary wins by like 350 electoral votes over Drumpf/Cruz, she can say "America has had their say" and nominate Bernie Sanders Obama himselffor the seat.
Even better'd.
I was thinking Obama would be a good compromise pick after they refused to hold hearings on Sanders.
Here's the thing...
Being an Associate Justice after being POTUS would be a downgrade. The only former President to ever sit on the Supreme Court was Taft, and he served as Chief Justice. I think Obama would only want to do it if he were replacing Roberts.
Isn't literally everything a downgrade after being POTUS
Heading the Judicial branch could be construed as a lateral move from heading the Executive branch.
No
No
Also, wouldn't it be a little weird to appoint someone to SCOTUS who has never been a judge?
Apparently, we're all in the running (http://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/2012/03/08/most-united-states-supreme-court-justices-have-lacked-prior-judicial-experience/).
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on March 16, 2016, 08:40:27 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 16, 2016, 08:34:02 AM
Quote from: Bort on March 16, 2016, 08:29:32 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 16, 2016, 08:22:51 AM
Quote from: SKO on March 16, 2016, 08:07:21 AM
Quote from: R-V on March 16, 2016, 08:04:51 AM
Quote from: flannj on March 16, 2016, 12:34:27 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 15, 2016, 09:29:39 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on March 15, 2016, 09:27:45 PM
Hey Illinois, way to suck.
I voted for O'Malley. Seriously.
Because it's almost Saint Patricks day?
Because Chuck.
I really understand the Bortist approach of saying "fuck it" and not voting if you find all candidates reprehensible, especially Hillary. I don't really understand bothering to go through the trouble of voting only to cast said vote for someone who isn't even in the race. I mean even if you went just to vote against Anita Alvarez or whatever why not just leave the presidential portion of the ballot blank?
I don't begrudge Bort. But I'm conflicted because this is an unprecedented type of candidate in Trump. If it was something like Kerry-Bush and you're really meh about both, that's fine. But I feel like there's a moral imperative to do whatever we can to stop a potential Hitler-type of situation. I don't think this is really a "lesser of two evils" thing. There's evil and there's evil.
All I ask is that no one is proud of or smug about voting in this election. Do what your conscience tells you, but don't pretend this is anything but a shameful choice forced on us all by a system that is flawed in the extreme.
I assure you I will be both solemn and annoyed as I vote for Hillary.
I know I'll be solemn and annoyed as I vote for Hillary.
I'll be solemn and annoyed as I leave the top line blank in November. And then I'll be even more solemn and more annoyed when I vote for Rubio to unseat Hillary in 2020.
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:34:32 PM
If the Republicans refuse to hold a hearing on Garland, I hope Obama keeps putting reasonable options up for consideration. Then, when Hillary wins by like 350 electoral votes over Trump/Cruz, she can say "America has had their say" and nominate Bernie Sanders for the seat.
Make Chuck Grassley's Twitter feed great again, Hillary.
I've read somewhere that Hillary aught to nominate Obama if the seat is unfilled. That would be kind of awesome.
EDIT: FACED BY HALF A DAY
In my defense, I'm on vacation and haven't been able to keep up with this highly active thread.
Quote from: InternetApex on March 16, 2016, 07:46:50 PM
I'll be solemn and annoyed as I leave the top line blank in November. And then I'll be even more solemn and more annoyed when I vote for Rubio to unseat Hillary in 2020.
Rubio's done.
Quote from: InternetApex on March 16, 2016, 07:46:50 PM
I'll be solemn and annoyed as I leave the top line blank in November. And then I'll be even more solemn and more annoyed when I vote for Rubio to unseat Hillary in 2020.
He's going to have a hard time running for president being only 2 years removed from losing the GOP-FL Gubernatorial primary.
Quote from: Canadouche on March 16, 2016, 07:51:54 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:34:32 PM
If the Republicans refuse to hold a hearing on Garland, I hope Obama keeps putting reasonable options up for consideration. Then, when Hillary wins by like 350 electoral votes over Trump/Cruz, she can say "America has had their say" and nominate Bernie Sanders for the seat.
Make Chuck Grassley's Twitter feed great again, Hillary.
I've read somewhere that Hillary aught to nominate Obama if the seat is unfilled. That would be kind of awesome.
EDIT: FACED BY HALF A DAY
In my defense, I'm on vacation and haven't been able to keep up with this highly active thread.
But you're posting anyway, because TIME TO POST
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 16, 2016, 09:51:15 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 16, 2016, 07:51:54 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:34:32 PM
If the Republicans refuse to hold a hearing on Garland, I hope Obama keeps putting reasonable options up for consideration. Then, when Hillary wins by like 350 electoral votes over Trump/Cruz, she can say "America has had their say" and nominate Bernie Sanders for the seat.
Make Chuck Grassley's Twitter feed great again, Hillary.
I've read somewhere that Hillary aught to nominate Obama if the seat is unfilled. That would be kind of awesome.
EDIT: FACED BY HALF A DAY
In my defense, I'm on vacation and haven't been able to keep up with this highly active thread.
But you're posting anyway, because TIME TO POST
When I realized my mistake, I decided it was better to live with it than pretend it had never happened. :(
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 16, 2016, 09:45:15 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 16, 2016, 07:46:50 PM
I'll be solemn and annoyed as I leave the top line blank in November. And then I'll be even more solemn and more annoyed when I vote for Rubio to unseat Hillary in 2020.
He's going to have a hard time running for president being only 2 years removed from losing the GOP-FL Gubernatorial primary.
Jeb Bush spent $20 million in attack ads on Rubio in Florida. He only spent $5 million on Trump. If you want a study on how badly the establishment misplayed this election, you could start there. I'm not in favor of a Rubio candidacy for anything. They're going to run somebody in 2020 and out of all the names on the stage this time, Rubio is the youngest and therefor most likely to return for another helping.
Rubio may very well be done since he's the establishment's choice and they're going out with
high buttoned shoes tasseled loafers. We have no idea what that party will look like in four years or even two.
Something like this probably:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MgfBNd2e4us/TBT2LjPUz0I/AAAAAAAAFNQ/gi9u6gB86Uc/s1600/star+wars+cantina.jpg)
With Rubio and BC in the mix somewhere.
Quote from: InternetApex on March 17, 2016, 07:40:59 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 16, 2016, 09:45:15 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 16, 2016, 07:46:50 PM
I'll be solemn and annoyed as I leave the top line blank in November. And then I'll be even more solemn and more annoyed when I vote for Rubio to unseat Hillary in 2020.
He's going to have a hard time running for president being only 2 years removed from losing the GOP-FL Gubernatorial primary.
Jeb Bush spent $20 million in attack ads on Rubio in Florida. He only spent $5 million on Trump. If you want a study on how badly the establishment misplayed this election, you could start there. I'm not in favor of a Rubio candidacy for anything. They're going to run somebody in 2020 and out of all the names on the stage this time, Rubio is the youngest and therefor most likely to return for another helping.
Rubio may very well be done since he's the establishment's choice and they're going out with high buttoned shoes tasseled loafers. We have no idea what that party will look like in four years or even two.
Something like this probably:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MgfBNd2e4us/TBT2LjPUz0I/AAAAAAAAFNQ/gi9u6gB86Uc/s1600/star+wars+cantina.jpg)
With Rubio and BC in the mix somewhere.
That group there is way too diverse. Given Trump's base I think it's more likely it'll look something like this:
(http://www.trbimg.com/img-54c2b24f/turbine/ct-ct-per-kukluxklan-0125-jpg-20150123/650/650x366)
Quote from: InternetApex on March 17, 2016, 07:40:59 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 16, 2016, 09:45:15 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 16, 2016, 07:46:50 PM
I'll be solemn and annoyed as I leave the top line blank in November. And then I'll be even more solemn and more annoyed when I vote for Rubio to unseat Hillary in 2020.
He's going to have a hard time running for president being only 2 years removed from losing the GOP-FL Gubernatorial primary.
Jeb Bush spent $20 million in attack ads on Rubio in Florida. He only spent $5 million on Trump. If you want a study on how badly the establishment misplayed this election, you could start there. I'm not in favor of a Rubio candidacy for anything. They're going to run somebody in 2020 and out of all the names on the stage this time, Rubio is the youngest and therefor most likely to return for another helping.
Rubio may very well be done since he's the establishment's choice and they're going out with high buttoned shoes tasseled loafers. We have no idea what that party will look like in four years or even two.
Something like this probably:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MgfBNd2e4us/TBT2LjPUz0I/AAAAAAAAFNQ/gi9u6gB86Uc/s1600/star+wars+cantina.jpg)
With Rubio and BC in the mix somewhere.
I think Nikki Haley will run in 2020 and have a pretty good shot at it.
Quote from: Eli on March 17, 2016, 09:08:34 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 17, 2016, 07:40:59 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 16, 2016, 09:45:15 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 16, 2016, 07:46:50 PM
I'll be solemn and annoyed as I leave the top line blank in November. And then I'll be even more solemn and more annoyed when I vote for Rubio to unseat Hillary in 2020.
He's going to have a hard time running for president being only 2 years removed from losing the GOP-FL Gubernatorial primary.
Jeb Bush spent $20 million in attack ads on Rubio in Florida. He only spent $5 million on Trump. If you want a study on how badly the establishment misplayed this election, you could start there. I'm not in favor of a Rubio candidacy for anything. They're going to run somebody in 2020 and out of all the names on the stage this time, Rubio is the youngest and therefor most likely to return for another helping.
Rubio may very well be done since he's the establishment's choice and they're going out with high buttoned shoes tasseled loafers. We have no idea what that party will look like in four years or even two.
Something like this probably:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MgfBNd2e4us/TBT2LjPUz0I/AAAAAAAAFNQ/gi9u6gB86Uc/s1600/star+wars+cantina.jpg)
With Rubio and BC in the mix somewhere.
I think Nikki Haley will run in 2020 and have a pretty good shot at it.
No way a brown woman beats a white septuagenarian woman.
Quote from: Eli on March 17, 2016, 09:08:34 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 17, 2016, 07:40:59 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 16, 2016, 09:45:15 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 16, 2016, 07:46:50 PM
I'll be solemn and annoyed as I leave the top line blank in November. And then I'll be even more solemn and more annoyed when I vote for Rubio to unseat Hillary in 2020.
He's going to have a hard time running for president being only 2 years removed from losing the GOP-FL Gubernatorial primary.
Jeb Bush spent $20 million in attack ads on Rubio in Florida. He only spent $5 million on Trump. If you want a study on how badly the establishment misplayed this election, you could start there. I'm not in favor of a Rubio candidacy for anything. They're going to run somebody in 2020 and out of all the names on the stage this time, Rubio is the youngest and therefor most likely to return for another helping.
Rubio may very well be done since he's the establishment's choice and they're going out with high buttoned shoes tasseled loafers. We have no idea what that party will look like in four years or even two.
Something like this probably:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MgfBNd2e4us/TBT2LjPUz0I/AAAAAAAAFNQ/gi9u6gB86Uc/s1600/star+wars+cantina.jpg)
With Rubio and BC in the mix somewhere.
I think Nikki Haley will run in 2020 and have a pretty good shot at it.
WHAT IS YOUR REAL NAME NIKKI!?
*crowd gasps*
Quote from: Saul Goodman on March 16, 2016, 09:51:15 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on March 16, 2016, 07:51:54 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on March 16, 2016, 12:34:32 PM
If the Republicans refuse to hold a hearing on Garland, I hope Obama keeps putting reasonable options up for consideration. Then, when Hillary wins by like 350 electoral votes over Trump/Cruz, she can say "America has had their say" and nominate Bernie Sanders for the seat.
Make Chuck Grassley's Twitter feed great again, Hillary.
I've read somewhere that Hillary aught to nominate Obama if the seat is unfilled. That would be kind of awesome.
EDIT: FACED BY HALF A DAY
In my defense, I'm on vacation and haven't been able to keep up with this highly active thread.
But you're posting anyway, because TIME TO POST
This definitely calls for an irony ruling.
Quote from: Slaky on March 17, 2016, 10:52:52 AM
Quote from: Eli on March 17, 2016, 09:08:34 AM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 17, 2016, 07:40:59 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on March 16, 2016, 09:45:15 PM
Quote from: InternetApex on March 16, 2016, 07:46:50 PM
I'll be solemn and annoyed as I leave the top line blank in November. And then I'll be even more solemn and more annoyed when I vote for Rubio to unseat Hillary in 2020.
He's going to have a hard time running for president being only 2 years removed from losing the GOP-FL Gubernatorial primary.
Jeb Bush spent $20 million in attack ads on Rubio in Florida. He only spent $5 million on Trump. If you want a study on how badly the establishment misplayed this election, you could start there. I'm not in favor of a Rubio candidacy for anything. They're going to run somebody in 2020 and out of all the names on the stage this time, Rubio is the youngest and therefor most likely to return for another helping.
Rubio may very well be done since he's the establishment's choice and they're going out with high buttoned shoes tasseled loafers. We have no idea what that party will look like in four years or even two.
Something like this probably:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_MgfBNd2e4us/TBT2LjPUz0I/AAAAAAAAFNQ/gi9u6gB86Uc/s1600/star+wars+cantina.jpg)
With Rubio and BC in the mix somewhere.
I think Nikki Haley will run in 2020 and have a pretty good shot at it.
WHAT IS YOUR REAL NAME NIKKI!?
*crowd gasps*
Nice try "Nikki Haley" — or should I say...
Nimrata Nikki Randhawa
— or should I say...
[rearranges letters]
"HIWARI KINDAN"
[audience gasps]
Shit, if Ted Cruz were a Democrat, how many Republicans would be calling him "Ted" as opposed to "Eduardo Raphael"?
Not an overly political guy here, but I just wanted to reiterate that we live in a country in which Donald Trump, Bill Clinton's liar wife or some lunatic old guy can be President.
Is anyone else afraid? Hillary Clinton might actually be the lesser of all evils.
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on March 17, 2016, 12:23:03 PM
Not an overly political guy here, but I just wanted to reiterate that we live in a country in which Donald Trump, Bill Clinton's liar wife or some lunatic old guy can be President.
Is anyone else afraid? Hillary Clinton might actually be the lesser of all evils.
Nah we're all good with how things are going, just check the archives of the thread you posted in.
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on March 17, 2016, 12:23:03 PM
Not an overly political guy here, but I just wanted to reiterate that we live in a country in which Donald Drumpf, Bill Clinton's liar wife or some lunatic old guy can be President.
Is anyone else afraid? Hillary Clinton might actually be the lesser of all evils.
Ted Cruz is only 12 years older than you...
Quote from: ChuckD on March 17, 2016, 06:29:40 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on March 17, 2016, 12:23:03 PM
Not an overly political guy here, but I just wanted to reiterate that we live in a country in which Donald Drumpf, Bill Clinton's liar wife or some lunatic old guy can be President.
Is anyone else afraid? Hillary Clinton might actually be the lesser of all evils.
Ted Cruz is only 12 years older than you...
Lunatic or not, Bernie is younger than me.
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 02:21:10 PM
There's a lot of baseball left to be played. This is not like Bill Clinton coming out of Super Tuesday in 1992 with Tsongas and Gephardt types just shrugging their shoulders, or Bush beating Dole here in Illinois in 1988. Trump won't be the nominee.
(http://images.complex.com/complex/image/upload/t_in_content_image/Kobe-Mad-Gif-1_o4607d.gif)
Quote from: PenFoe on May 03, 2016, 07:22:54 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 02:21:10 PM
There's a lot of baseball left to be played. This is not like Bill Clinton coming out of Super Tuesday in 1992 with Tsongas and Gephardt types just shrugging their shoulders, or Bush beating Dole here in Illinois in 1988. Trump won't be the nominee.
(http://images.complex.com/complex/image/upload/t_in_content_image/Kobe-Mad-Gif-1_o4607d.gif)
I'm worried the next phase will be all of us quoting the people who said he could never win a general election.
Quote from: Eli on May 03, 2016, 07:38:24 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on May 03, 2016, 07:22:54 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 02:21:10 PM
There's a lot of baseball left to be played. This is not like Bill Clinton coming out of Super Tuesday in 1992 with Tsongas and Gephardt types just shrugging their shoulders, or Bush beating Dole here in Illinois in 1988. Trump won't be the nominee.
(http://images.complex.com/complex/image/upload/t_in_content_image/Kobe-Mad-Gif-1_o4607d.gif)
I'm worried the next phase will be all of us quoting the people who said he could never win a general election.
Well, considering that rational Republicans like TJ are probably still going to vote for him over the Evil Pantsuit, this concern is legitimate.
Does this mean that Carli Fiorina isn't going to be the next vice president of the United States?
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
The Cubs are gonna collapse. I know it. I know it...
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 03, 2016, 08:53:56 PM
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
The Cubs are gonna collapse. I know it. I know it...
Goddamnit, Teej.
Quote from: PANK! on May 03, 2016, 07:42:14 PM
Quote from: Eli on May 03, 2016, 07:38:24 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on May 03, 2016, 07:22:54 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 02:21:10 PM
There's a lot of baseball left to be played. This is not like Bill Clinton coming out of Super Tuesday in 1992 with Tsongas and Gephardt types just shrugging their shoulders, or Bush beating Dole here in Illinois in 1988. Trump won't be the nominee.
(http://images.complex.com/complex/image/upload/t_in_content_image/Kobe-Mad-Gif-1_o4607d.gif)
I'm worried the next phase will be all of us quoting the people who said he could never win a general election.
Well, considering that rational Republicans like TJ are probably still going to vote for him over the Evil Pantsuit, this concern is legitimate.
Which is odd because the Pantsuit is a republican who just supports gay marriage.
Quote from: Slaky on May 04, 2016, 09:09:32 AM
Quote from: PANK! on May 03, 2016, 07:42:14 PM
Quote from: Eli on May 03, 2016, 07:38:24 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on May 03, 2016, 07:22:54 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 02:21:10 PM
There's a lot of baseball left to be played. This is not like Bill Clinton coming out of Super Tuesday in 1992 with Tsongas and Gephardt types just shrugging their shoulders, or Bush beating Dole here in Illinois in 1988. Trump won't be the nominee.
(http://images.complex.com/complex/image/upload/t_in_content_image/Kobe-Mad-Gif-1_o4607d.gif)
I'm worried the next phase will be all of us quoting the people who said he could never win a general election.
Well, considering that rational Republicans like TJ are probably still going to vote for him over the Evil Pantsuit, this concern is legitimate.
Which is odd because the Pantsuit is a republican who just supports gay marriage.
I think she's a populist who will support whatever the people (and her donors) want her to support. I think Bill was a populist as well. I'm generally ok with this, but being a populist is why we ended up with things like Don't Ask, Don't Tell. I also think that being a populist inevitably spins you into having conservative viewpoints, because the population in general remains moderately conservative.
Quote from: Slaky on May 04, 2016, 09:09:32 AM
Quote from: PANK! on May 03, 2016, 07:42:14 PM
Quote from: Eli on May 03, 2016, 07:38:24 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on May 03, 2016, 07:22:54 PM
Quote from: Brownie on March 02, 2016, 02:21:10 PM
There's a lot of baseball left to be played. This is not like Bill Clinton coming out of Super Tuesday in 1992 with Tsongas and Gephardt types just shrugging their shoulders, or Bush beating Dole here in Illinois in 1988. Trump won't be the nominee.
(http://images.complex.com/complex/image/upload/t_in_content_image/Kobe-Mad-Gif-1_o4607d.gif)
I'm worried the next phase will be all of us quoting the people who said he could never win a general election.
Well, considering that rational Republicans like TJ are probably still going to vote for him over the Evil Pantsuit, this concern is legitimate.
Which is odd because the Pantsuit is a republican who just supports gay marriage.
Slick Willie pissed off the GOP because he was a better Republican than they were.
"Democrats nominate former Senator, Secretary of State to be their Nominee" - Maisie Williams revised headline
Quote from: Brownie on January 25, 2016, 10:42:34 AM
Quote from: SKO on January 25, 2016, 09:57:26 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 25, 2016, 09:32:44 AM
Quote from: Median Desipio Chucklehead on January 25, 2016, 01:16:38 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on January 21, 2016, 06:34:49 PM
Quote from: Oleg on January 21, 2016, 04:18:31 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on January 21, 2016, 03:44:03 PM
Living in America's hat, a lot of people here are baffled/concerned about Trump. I've explained to them that he has a following similar to the number of people who believe the moon landing was a hoax. The media continues to soak him up like spilled jizz, and I find myself feeling angry toward the people who get sucked in by it and take his candidacy seriously. For that matter, the whole "is Cruz eligible" nonsense is also outrageous. I guess the media feels that anything is better than focusing on the actual issues.
As dismissive as I've been of his candidacy, there's a real chance he'll be the GOP nominee. If that happens, he's really one major scandal away from winning the general election. I think HRC is a well-oiled machine at this point and the chances of something serious coming out and ruining her chances are pretty slim but still...
I'm just interested in seeing how Morph and TJ justify voting for that cretin.
You mean in the next few minutes? Yeah, probably. But by November? Bears winning the Super Bowl are even money with no Hillary scandals.
How someone can be that tone deaf despite (supposedly) sleeping in the same bed as the greatest retail politician since FDR is really something.
Yeah, but what scandal can possibly stick at this point? I'm not enthralled at the prospect of having to give the keys to the Executive Branch to Hillary, but the electorate is numb to anti-Hillary muckraking.
That's mostly because most people already have an opinion of her. Put me in the 53.3% who don't like her. All that would be needed to sink her would be some sort of revelation about where she's made her money the past few years. That's pretty much an unvetted area, at least publicly.
I don't understand how a single financial scandal could be that damaging to Hillary in a general election against Trump. I am pretty sure (god I hope) there are more Americans who are "anyone but Trump" than "anyone but Hillary".
I'm pretty sure the Trump-Hillary matchup is as likely this November as a Brewers-A's World Series.
(https://i.imgur.com/gL8lVfT.jpg)
The next five months are going to be insufferable.
Quote from: Eli on June 08, 2016, 09:44:12 AM
The next five months are going to be insufferable.
I don't agree. I am suffering already.
Quote from: Eli on June 08, 2016, 09:44:12 AM
The next five months are going to be insufferable.
There's an awful lot in common between these two, including the fact that whoever gets in is going to get us bombing a whole fuckload of places, and probably put boots on the ground.
Hopefully Hillary picks a person of color as her running mate, and Trump picks someone even more batshit than he is, so at least we can fantasize this is all just some cocaine-fueled 1980s WWF storyline as the whole fucking country burns around us.
Quote from: CBStew on June 08, 2016, 09:47:53 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 08, 2016, 09:44:12 AM
The next five months are going to be insufferable.
I don't agree. I am suffering already.
I'm moving to New Zealand.
They accept the Irish there, right?
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 08, 2016, 10:25:07 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 08, 2016, 09:44:12 AM
The next five months are going to be insufferable.
There's an awful lot in common between these two, including the fact that whoever gets in is going to get us bombing a whole fuckload of places, and probably put boots on the ground.
Hopefully Hillary picks a person of color as her running mate, and Trump picks someone even more batshit than he is, so at least we can fantasize this is all just some cocaine-fueled 1980s WWF storyline as the whole fucking country burns around us.
I love how, of all people,
Hillary Clinton is seen as a war monger. Rewind 20 years, does anybody think that any Democrat would get that label?
Quote from: Canadouche on June 08, 2016, 11:29:05 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 08, 2016, 10:25:07 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 08, 2016, 09:44:12 AM
The next five months are going to be insufferable.
There's an awful lot in common between these two, including the fact that whoever gets in is going to get us bombing a whole fuckload of places, and probably put boots on the ground.
Hopefully Hillary picks a person of color as her running mate, and Trump picks someone even more batshit than he is, so at least we can fantasize this is all just some cocaine-fueled 1980s WWF storyline as the whole fucking country burns around us.
I love how, of all people, Hillary Clinton is seen as a war monger. Rewind 20 years, does anybody think that any Democrat would get that label?
I'm not sure what you're saying here, that saying Hillary is a hawk is inaccurate (it's not)? Or that it's weird to think of Democrats as pro-war (it's not)?
Or are you just saying it's weird that Hillary seems to be taking more crap for being a war monger than Obama and or basically any politicians but W in the last 20 years? Which I guess is a fair point. Obama certainly gets far too much of a pass.
Quote from: Canadouche on June 08, 2016, 11:29:05 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 08, 2016, 10:25:07 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 08, 2016, 09:44:12 AM
The next five months are going to be insufferable.
There's an awful lot in common between these two, including the fact that whoever gets in is going to get us bombing a whole fuckload of places, and probably put boots on the ground.
Hopefully Hillary picks a person of color as her running mate, and Trump picks someone even more batshit than he is, so at least we can fantasize this is all just some cocaine-fueled 1980s WWF storyline as the whole fucking country burns around us.
I love how, of all people, Hillary Clinton is seen as a war monger. Rewind 20 years, does anybody think that any Democrat would get that label?
Johnson?
Kennedy?
Roosevelt?
All of them?
American imperialism knows no political party affiliation.
Quote from: Oleg on June 08, 2016, 11:42:31 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on June 08, 2016, 11:29:05 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 08, 2016, 10:25:07 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 08, 2016, 09:44:12 AM
The next five months are going to be insufferable.
There's an awful lot in common between these two, including the fact that whoever gets in is going to get us bombing a whole fuckload of places, and probably put boots on the ground.
Hopefully Hillary picks a person of color as her running mate, and Trump picks someone even more batshit than he is, so at least we can fantasize this is all just some cocaine-fueled 1980s WWF storyline as the whole fucking country burns around us.
I love how, of all people, Hillary Clinton is seen as a war monger. Rewind 20 years, does anybody think that any Democrat would get that label?
Johnson?
Kennedy?
Roosevelt?
All of them?
American imperialism knows no political party affiliation.
Heck, a Democrat was president during the War of 1812, a Democrat started the Mexican War as a brazen land grab, Democrats were president for both World Wars, the start of Korea, most of Vietnam, Bill Clinton bombed Iraq whenever his poll numbers dipped. Republicans didn't really get the chance to earn their war monger reputation until this century, but they made up for lost time.
To say nothing of Kennedy trying to overthrow Castro and Obama/Hillary accelerating drone strikes against every one.
Quote from: SKO on June 08, 2016, 11:45:51 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 08, 2016, 11:42:31 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on June 08, 2016, 11:29:05 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 08, 2016, 10:25:07 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 08, 2016, 09:44:12 AM
The next five months are going to be insufferable.
There's an awful lot in common between these two, including the fact that whoever gets in is going to get us bombing a whole fuckload of places, and probably put boots on the ground.
Hopefully Hillary picks a person of color as her running mate, and Trump picks someone even more batshit than he is, so at least we can fantasize this is all just some cocaine-fueled 1980s WWF storyline as the whole fucking country burns around us.
I love how, of all people, Hillary Clinton is seen as a war monger. Rewind 20 years, does anybody think that any Democrat would get that label?
Johnson?
Kennedy?
Roosevelt?
All of them?
American imperialism knows no political party affiliation.
Heck, a Democrat was president during the War of 1812, a Democrat started the Mexican War as a brazen land grab, Democrats were president for both World Wars, the start of Korea, most of Vietnam, Bill Clinton bombed Iraq whenever his poll numbers dipped. Republicans didn't really get the chance to earn their war monger reputation until this century, but they made up for lost time.
To say nothing of Kennedy trying to overthrow Castro and Obama/Hillary accelerating drone strikes against every one.
Maybe Jimmy Carter gets a pass?
Quote from: Oleg on June 08, 2016, 12:01:39 PM
Quote from: SKO on June 08, 2016, 11:45:51 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 08, 2016, 11:42:31 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on June 08, 2016, 11:29:05 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 08, 2016, 10:25:07 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 08, 2016, 09:44:12 AM
The next five months are going to be insufferable.
There's an awful lot in common between these two, including the fact that whoever gets in is going to get us bombing a whole fuckload of places, and probably put boots on the ground.
Hopefully Hillary picks a person of color as her running mate, and Trump picks someone even more batshit than he is, so at least we can fantasize this is all just some cocaine-fueled 1980s WWF storyline as the whole fucking country burns around us.
I love how, of all people, Hillary Clinton is seen as a war monger. Rewind 20 years, does anybody think that any Democrat would get that label?
Johnson?
Kennedy?
Roosevelt?
All of them?
American imperialism knows no political party affiliation.
Heck, a Democrat was president during the War of 1812, a Democrat started the Mexican War as a brazen land grab, Democrats were president for both World Wars, the start of Korea, most of Vietnam, Bill Clinton bombed Iraq whenever his poll numbers dipped. Republicans didn't really get the chance to earn their war monger reputation until this century, but they made up for lost time.
To say nothing of Kennedy trying to overthrow Castro and Obama/Hillary accelerating drone strikes against every one.
Maybe Jimmy Carter gets a pass?
But we're supposed to condemn him as a wimp for not invading Iran and KICKIN THE AYATOLLAH'S ASS for takin those hostages.
Quote from: SKO on June 08, 2016, 12:05:29 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 08, 2016, 12:01:39 PM
Quote from: SKO on June 08, 2016, 11:45:51 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 08, 2016, 11:42:31 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on June 08, 2016, 11:29:05 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 08, 2016, 10:25:07 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 08, 2016, 09:44:12 AM
The next five months are going to be insufferable.
There's an awful lot in common between these two, including the fact that whoever gets in is going to get us bombing a whole fuckload of places, and probably put boots on the ground.
Hopefully Hillary picks a person of color as her running mate, and Trump picks someone even more batshit than he is, so at least we can fantasize this is all just some cocaine-fueled 1980s WWF storyline as the whole fucking country burns around us.
I love how, of all people, Hillary Clinton is seen as a war monger. Rewind 20 years, does anybody think that any Democrat would get that label?
Johnson?
Kennedy?
Roosevelt?
All of them?
American imperialism knows no political party affiliation.
Heck, a Democrat was president during the War of 1812, a Democrat started the Mexican War as a brazen land grab, Democrats were president for both World Wars, the start of Korea, most of Vietnam, Bill Clinton bombed Iraq whenever his poll numbers dipped. Republicans didn't really get the chance to earn their war monger reputation until this century, but they made up for lost time.
To say nothing of Kennedy trying to overthrow Castro and Obama/Hillary accelerating drone strikes against every one.
Maybe Jimmy Carter gets a pass?
But we're supposed to condemn him as a wimp for not invading Iran and KICKIN THE AYATOLLAH'S ASS for takin those hostages.
He was a malfunctioning helicopter away from being President Kickass.
Quote from: SKO on June 08, 2016, 11:33:12 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on June 08, 2016, 11:29:05 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 08, 2016, 10:25:07 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 08, 2016, 09:44:12 AM
The next five months are going to be insufferable.
There's an awful lot in common between these two, including the fact that whoever gets in is going to get us bombing a whole fuckload of places, and probably put boots on the ground.
Hopefully Hillary picks a person of color as her running mate, and Trump picks someone even more batshit than he is, so at least we can fantasize this is all just some cocaine-fueled 1980s WWF storyline as the whole fucking country burns around us.
I love how, of all people, Hillary Clinton is seen as a war monger. Rewind 20 years, does anybody think that any Democrat would get that label?
I'm not sure what you're saying here, that saying Hillary is a hawk is inaccurate (it's not)? Or that it's weird to think of Democrats as pro-war (it's not)?
Or are you just saying it's weird that Hillary seems to be taking more crap for being a war monger than Obama and or basically any politicians but W in the last 20 years? Which I guess is a fair point. Obama certainly gets far too much of a pass.
I was going for whichever of those three points that seemed most reasonable.
Quote from: Canadouche on June 08, 2016, 11:29:05 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 08, 2016, 10:25:07 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 08, 2016, 09:44:12 AM
The next five months are going to be insufferable.
There's an awful lot in common between these two, including the fact that whoever gets in is going to get us bombing a whole fuckload of places, and probably put boots on the ground.
Hopefully Hillary picks a person of color as her running mate, and Trump picks someone even more batshit than he is, so at least we can fantasize this is all just some cocaine-fueled 1980s WWF storyline as the whole fucking country burns around us.
I love how, of all people, Hillary Clinton is seen as a war monger. Rewind 20 years, does anybody think that any Democrat would get that label?
Yeah. 20 years? Nah.
You have to go back 50 years to LBJ.
Quote from: SKO on June 08, 2016, 12:05:29 PM
Quote from: Oleg on June 08, 2016, 12:01:39 PM
Quote from: SKO on June 08, 2016, 11:45:51 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 08, 2016, 11:42:31 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on June 08, 2016, 11:29:05 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 08, 2016, 10:25:07 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 08, 2016, 09:44:12 AM
The next five months are going to be insufferable.
There's an awful lot in common between these two, including the fact that whoever gets in is going to get us bombing a whole fuckload of places, and probably put boots on the ground.
Hopefully Hillary picks a person of color as her running mate, and Trump picks someone even more batshit than he is, so at least we can fantasize this is all just some cocaine-fueled 1980s WWF storyline as the whole fucking country burns around us.
I love how, of all people, Hillary Clinton is seen as a war monger. Rewind 20 years, does anybody think that any Democrat would get that label?
Johnson?
Kennedy?
Roosevelt?
All of them?
American imperialism knows no political party affiliation.
Heck, a Democrat was president during the War of 1812, a Democrat started the Mexican War as a brazen land grab, Democrats were president for both World Wars, the start of Korea, most of Vietnam, Bill Clinton bombed Iraq whenever his poll numbers dipped. Republicans didn't really get the chance to earn their war monger reputation until this century, but they made up for lost time.
To say nothing of Kennedy trying to overthrow Castro and Obama/Hillary accelerating drone strikes against every one.
Maybe Jimmy Carter gets a pass?
But we're supposed to condemn him as a wimp for not invading Iran and KICKIN THE AYATOLLAH'S ASS for takin those hostages.
He fended off a deranged rabbit, so those should have been a cakewalk!
Quote from: SKO on June 08, 2016, 11:45:51 AM
Quote from: Oleg on June 08, 2016, 11:42:31 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on June 08, 2016, 11:29:05 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 08, 2016, 10:25:07 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 08, 2016, 09:44:12 AM
The next five months are going to be insufferable.
There's an awful lot in common between these two, including the fact that whoever gets in is going to get us bombing a whole fuckload of places, and probably put boots on the ground.
Hopefully Hillary picks a person of color as her running mate, and Trump picks someone even more batshit than he is, so at least we can fantasize this is all just some cocaine-fueled 1980s WWF storyline as the whole fucking country burns around us.
I love how, of all people, Hillary Clinton is seen as a war monger. Rewind 20 years, does anybody think that any Democrat would get that label?
Johnson?
Kennedy?
Roosevelt?
All of them?
American imperialism knows no political party affiliation.
Heck, a Democrat was president during the War of 1812, a Democrat started the Mexican War as a brazen land grab, Democrats were president for both World Wars, the start of Korea, most of Vietnam, Bill Clinton bombed Iraq whenever his poll numbers dipped. Republicans didn't really get the chance to earn their war monger reputation until this century, but they made up for lost time.
To say nothing of Kennedy trying to overthrow Castro and Obama/Hillary accelerating drone strikes against every one.
You are forgetting Jefferson Davis. Although he was President of the Confederacy at the start of the Civil War, he was a Democrat at the time of the secession and was serving as the Senator from Mississippi.
It's almost as if pretty much every American president has sent the military somewhere to kill someone.
Jesus Fucking Christ, England.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2016, 08:31:58 AM
Jesus Fucking Christ, England.
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the issue (and how terrible the result is), but I'd still like to send out the TonkSignal for a more in-depth perspective.
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2016, 08:42:21 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2016, 08:31:58 AM
Jesus Fucking Christ, England.
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the issue (and how terrible the result is), but I'd still like to send out the TonkSignal for a more in-depth perspective.
Tonk slack-confirmed my assertion (BOLD) that Brexiters were British Trump supporters.
Quote from: Yeti on June 24, 2016, 09:05:28 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2016, 08:42:21 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2016, 08:31:58 AM
Jesus Fucking Christ, England.
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the issue (and how terrible the result is), but I'd still like to send out the TonkSignal for a more in-depth perspective.
Tonk slack-confirmed my assertion (BOLD) that Brexiters were British Trump supporters.
If any of you have pension plans invested in the Market I advise waiting a few days before you check it out.
Quote from: CBStew on June 24, 2016, 09:22:13 AM
Quote from: Yeti on June 24, 2016, 09:05:28 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2016, 08:42:21 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2016, 08:31:58 AM
Jesus Fucking Christ, England.
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the issue (and how terrible the result is), but I'd still like to send out the TonkSignal for a more in-depth perspective.
Tonk slack-confirmed my assertion (BOLD) that Brexiters were British Trump supporters.
If any of you have pension plans invested in the Market I advise waiting a few days before you check it out.
This whole Brexit thing reminds me of the ending to The Graduate. After wildly and recklessly stopping a wedding, Dustin Hoffman and Katherine Ross hop onto a bus and escape. Then, as they are sitting there, still amazed at what they just did, they get this creeping and baffling feeling of, what do we do
now?
Quote from: Canadouche on June 24, 2016, 10:06:58 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 24, 2016, 09:22:13 AM
Quote from: Yeti on June 24, 2016, 09:05:28 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2016, 08:42:21 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2016, 08:31:58 AM
Jesus Fucking Christ, England.
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the issue (and how terrible the result is), but I'd still like to send out the TonkSignal for a more in-depth perspective.
Tonk slack-confirmed my assertion (BOLD) that Brexiters were British Trump supporters.
If any of you have pension plans invested in the Market I advise waiting a few days before you check it out.
This whole Brexit thing reminds me of the ending to The Graduate. After wildly and recklessly stopping a wedding, Dustin Hoffman and Katherine Ross hop onto a bus and escape. Then, as they are sitting there, still amazed at what they just did, they get this creeping and baffling feeling of, what do we do now?
Watching the "Leave" voters react to the results reminds me of this part in the movie Rocky. Rocky is a down and out fighter in Philadelphia and through a series of circumstances, finds himself with the opportunity to fight Apollo Creed, a flamboyant but skilled boxer, for the heavyweight championship of the world. Nobody thinks that Rocky stands a change, but he believes in himself. And so he's training for the fight and there's this great scene where he's running through Philadelphia and he's pushing his body to the limits -- and this is all a metaphor for the doubts of everyone who thinks he can't give Creed a fight -- and at the end he runs up the stairs to the Philadelphia Library and he turns around and he's standing "above" the city. The music swells and Rocky raises his hands in victory because he feels that he's ready to prove everybody wrong.
Quote from: ChuckD on June 24, 2016, 11:12:18 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on June 24, 2016, 10:06:58 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 24, 2016, 09:22:13 AM
Quote from: Yeti on June 24, 2016, 09:05:28 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2016, 08:42:21 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2016, 08:31:58 AM
Jesus Fucking Christ, England.
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the issue (and how terrible the result is), but I'd still like to send out the TonkSignal for a more in-depth perspective.
Tonk slack-confirmed my assertion (BOLD) that Brexiters were British Trump supporters.
If any of you have pension plans invested in the Market I advise waiting a few days before you check it out.
This whole Brexit thing reminds me of the ending to The Graduate. After wildly and recklessly stopping a wedding, Dustin Hoffman and Katherine Ross hop onto a bus and escape. Then, as they are sitting there, still amazed at what they just did, they get this creeping and baffling feeling of, what do we do now?
Watching the "Leave" voters react to the results reminds me of this part in the movie Rocky. Rocky is a down and out fighter in Philadelphia and through a series of circumstances, finds himself with the opportunity to fight Apollo Creed, a flamboyant but skilled boxer, for the heavyweight championship of the world. Nobody thinks that Rocky stands a change, but he believes in himself. And so he's training for the fight and there's this great scene where he's running through Philadelphia and he's pushing his body to the limits -- and this is all a metaphor for the doubts of everyone who thinks he can't give Creed a fight -- and at the end he runs up the stairs to the Philadelphia Library and he turns around and he's standing "above" the city. The music swells and Rocky raises his hands in victory because he feels that he's ready to prove everybody wrong.
If we are looking for movies to which to compare this calamity, I suggest that we look no further than "Independence Day". Malicious aliens destroy the world as we know it.
Quote from: CBStew on June 24, 2016, 11:20:40 AM
Quote from: ChuckD on June 24, 2016, 11:12:18 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on June 24, 2016, 10:06:58 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 24, 2016, 09:22:13 AM
Quote from: Yeti on June 24, 2016, 09:05:28 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2016, 08:42:21 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2016, 08:31:58 AM
Jesus Fucking Christ, England.
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the issue (and how terrible the result is), but I'd still like to send out the TonkSignal for a more in-depth perspective.
Tonk slack-confirmed my assertion (BOLD) that Brexiters were British Trump supporters.
If any of you have pension plans invested in the Market I advise waiting a few days before you check it out.
This whole Brexit thing reminds me of the ending to The Graduate. After wildly and recklessly stopping a wedding, Dustin Hoffman and Katherine Ross hop onto a bus and escape. Then, as they are sitting there, still amazed at what they just did, they get this creeping and baffling feeling of, what do we do now?
Watching the "Leave" voters react to the results reminds me of this part in the movie Rocky. Rocky is a down and out fighter in Philadelphia and through a series of circumstances, finds himself with the opportunity to fight Apollo Creed, a flamboyant but skilled boxer, for the heavyweight championship of the world. Nobody thinks that Rocky stands a change, but he believes in himself. And so he's training for the fight and there's this great scene where he's running through Philadelphia and he's pushing his body to the limits -- and this is all a metaphor for the doubts of everyone who thinks he can't give Creed a fight -- and at the end he runs up the stairs to the Philadelphia Library and he turns around and he's standing "above" the city. The music swells and Rocky raises his hands in victory because he feels that he's ready to prove everybody wrong.
If we are looking for movies to which to compare this calamity, I suggest that we look no further than "Independence Day". Malicious aliens destroy the world as we know it.
One of us is going to wind up riding a nuke like Slim Pickens.
Quote from: ChuckD on June 24, 2016, 11:12:18 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on June 24, 2016, 10:06:58 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 24, 2016, 09:22:13 AM
Quote from: Yeti on June 24, 2016, 09:05:28 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2016, 08:42:21 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2016, 08:31:58 AM
Jesus Fucking Christ, England.
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the issue (and how terrible the result is), but I'd still like to send out the TonkSignal for a more in-depth perspective.
Tonk slack-confirmed my assertion (BOLD) that Brexiters were British Trump supporters.
If any of you have pension plans invested in the Market I advise waiting a few days before you check it out.
This whole Brexit thing reminds me of the ending to The Graduate. After wildly and recklessly stopping a wedding, Dustin Hoffman and Katherine Ross hop onto a bus and escape. Then, as they are sitting there, still amazed at what they just did, they get this creeping and baffling feeling of, what do we do now?
Watching the "Leave" voters react to the results reminds me of this part in the movie Rocky. Rocky is a down and out fighter in Philadelphia and through a series of circumstances, finds himself with the opportunity to fight Apollo Creed, a flamboyant but skilled boxer, for the heavyweight championship of the world. Nobody thinks that Rocky stands a change, but he believes in himself. And so he's training for the fight and there's this great scene where he's running through Philadelphia and he's pushing his body to the limits -- and this is all a metaphor for the doubts of everyone who thinks he can't give Creed a fight -- and at the end he runs up the stairs to the Philadelphia Library and he turns around and he's standing "above" the city. The music swells and Rocky raises his hands in victory because he feels that he's ready to prove everybody wrong.
To me, it's more like the movie Oceans 11. The films features a group of well-dressed criminals who are each sort of "out of the game." But the ringleader, played by George Clooney, rounds up the ol' gang for a big caper that is both lucrative financially by probably also -- admittedly -- a way to pay back the man who stole his ex-wife. They meet up in Vegas and plan out their strategy, which then unfolds neatly; they are able to pull off the heist through some very clever trickery. While the caper itself was successful, the ending of the film does hint at the future consequences of their actions and some possible sequels down the road.
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2016, 12:06:29 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on June 24, 2016, 11:12:18 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on June 24, 2016, 10:06:58 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 24, 2016, 09:22:13 AM
Quote from: Yeti on June 24, 2016, 09:05:28 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2016, 08:42:21 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2016, 08:31:58 AM
Jesus Fucking Christ, England.
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the issue (and how terrible the result is), but I'd still like to send out the TonkSignal for a more in-depth perspective.
Tonk slack-confirmed my assertion (BOLD) that Brexiters were British Trump supporters.
If any of you have pension plans invested in the Market I advise waiting a few days before you check it out.
This whole Brexit thing reminds me of the ending to The Graduate. After wildly and recklessly stopping a wedding, Dustin Hoffman and Katherine Ross hop onto a bus and escape. Then, as they are sitting there, still amazed at what they just did, they get this creeping and baffling feeling of, what do we do now?
Watching the "Leave" voters react to the results reminds me of this part in the movie Rocky. Rocky is a down and out fighter in Philadelphia and through a series of circumstances, finds himself with the opportunity to fight Apollo Creed, a flamboyant but skilled boxer, for the heavyweight championship of the world. Nobody thinks that Rocky stands a change, but he believes in himself. And so he's training for the fight and there's this great scene where he's running through Philadelphia and he's pushing his body to the limits -- and this is all a metaphor for the doubts of everyone who thinks he can't give Creed a fight -- and at the end he runs up the stairs to the Philadelphia Library and he turns around and he's standing "above" the city. The music swells and Rocky raises his hands in victory because he feels that he's ready to prove everybody wrong.
To me, it's more like the movie Oceans 11. The films features a group of well-dressed criminals who are each sort of "out of the game." But the ringleader, played by George Clooney, rounds up the ol' gang for a big caper that is both lucrative financially by probably also -- admittedly -- a way to pay back the man who stole his ex-wife. They meet up in Vegas and plan out their strategy, which then unfolds neatly; they are able to pull off the heist through some very clever trickery. While the caper itself was successful, the ending of the film does hint at the future consequences of their actions and some possible sequels down the road.
I'm thinking it's more like "Breaking Away" wherein a local Bloomington, Indiana, kid, whose father helped cut the stones that were to become the foundation of many of the buildings on the campus of Indiana University, feels trapped by his local surroundings, and assumes the persona of an Italian bicycle racer to escape the mundane reality shared by all of the local "cutters"--the pejorative nickname our protagonist shares with his friends, coined as the result of their fathers' having all cut the stones from the local quarry for the university's benefit. Due to an altercation with IU students, the locals are granted an opportunity to participate in the annual university-sponsored "Little 500" bicycle race, over the objections of the preppy frat boys with whom they had an altercation. In the end, vindication arrives in the form of an upset victory by the Cutters over the IU kids.
Wait--what're we doing?
Quote from: PANK! on June 24, 2016, 12:33:45 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2016, 12:06:29 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on June 24, 2016, 11:12:18 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on June 24, 2016, 10:06:58 AM
Quote from: CBStew on June 24, 2016, 09:22:13 AM
Quote from: Yeti on June 24, 2016, 09:05:28 AM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2016, 08:42:21 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2016, 08:31:58 AM
Jesus Fucking Christ, England.
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the issue (and how terrible the result is), but I'd still like to send out the TonkSignal for a more in-depth perspective.
Tonk slack-confirmed my assertion (BOLD) that Brexiters were British Trump supporters.
If any of you have pension plans invested in the Market I advise waiting a few days before you check it out.
This whole Brexit thing reminds me of the ending to The Graduate. After wildly and recklessly stopping a wedding, Dustin Hoffman and Katherine Ross hop onto a bus and escape. Then, as they are sitting there, still amazed at what they just did, they get this creeping and baffling feeling of, what do we do now?
Watching the "Leave" voters react to the results reminds me of this part in the movie Rocky. Rocky is a down and out fighter in Philadelphia and through a series of circumstances, finds himself with the opportunity to fight Apollo Creed, a flamboyant but skilled boxer, for the heavyweight championship of the world. Nobody thinks that Rocky stands a change, but he believes in himself. And so he's training for the fight and there's this great scene where he's running through Philadelphia and he's pushing his body to the limits -- and this is all a metaphor for the doubts of everyone who thinks he can't give Creed a fight -- and at the end he runs up the stairs to the Philadelphia Library and he turns around and he's standing "above" the city. The music swells and Rocky raises his hands in victory because he feels that he's ready to prove everybody wrong.
To me, it's more like the movie Oceans 11. The films features a group of well-dressed criminals who are each sort of "out of the game." But the ringleader, played by George Clooney, rounds up the ol' gang for a big caper that is both lucrative financially by probably also -- admittedly -- a way to pay back the man who stole his ex-wife. They meet up in Vegas and plan out their strategy, which then unfolds neatly; they are able to pull off the heist through some very clever trickery. While the caper itself was successful, the ending of the film does hint at the future consequences of their actions and some possible sequels down the road.
I'm thinking it's more like "Breaking Away" wherein a local Bloomington, Indiana, kid, whose father helped cut the stones that were to become the foundation of many of the buildings on the campus of Indiana University, feels trapped by his local surroundings, and assumes the persona of an Italian bicycle racer to escape the mundane reality shared by all of the local "cutters"--the pejorative nickname our protagonist shares with his friends, coined as the result of their fathers' having all cut the stones from the local quarry for the university's benefit. Due to an altercation with IU students, the locals are granted an opportunity to participate in the annual university-sponsored "Little 500" bicycle race, over the objections of the preppy frat boys with whom they had an altercation. In the end, vindication arrives in the form of an upset victory by the Cutters over the IU kids.
Wait--what're we doing?
Making me laugh out loud.
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2016, 08:42:21 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2016, 08:31:58 AM
Jesus Fucking Christ, England.
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the issue (and how terrible the result is), but I'd still like to send out the TonkSignal for a more in-depth perspective.
Basically, the Brexit campaign was run by right-wing whackjob tories who, as far as I can make out, didn't desperately want to leave the EU but DO want power, so they adopted the campaign as a means to an end. The referendum was only promised in the first place by Cameron to keep his back benches in line at the last election and get himself back into power, so the whole fucking thing has been driven by personalities, personal ambition and party politics. It still needn't necessarily have been a problem, but Cameron subsequently took the issue far too lightly for far too long, allowing the Leave campaign and their foreign-backed media allies to gain significant momentum (mostly by lying and diversion). By the time Cameron realised what was going on, it was too late.
What was going on was, to put it bluntly, lies, damned lies and obfuscation of the actual issues as the Brexit campaign played up to exactly the sort of things that Trump has been playing up to. They have already this morning (!) reneged on two of their most significant promises. Not that it really matters, though, because without wishing to be unkind about the stupid, stupid, STUPID CUNTS who have voted to exit the EU, they're either a) working class oiks who are thick as pig shit and are very happy to be given the chance to stick it to the man, to brown people and to other Johnny Foreigners; or b) Baby Boomers who FUCK YOU BECAUSE I'VE GOT MINE. Actual issues were never the issue.
Frankly, I'd be quite happy to let the whole fucking lot of them stew in the fetid, festering pot of shitty fucking cancer that they've cooked up, but I'm worried that they'll start a chain reaction and that small-minded, right-wing, brainless cunts across Europe will now be allowed to do something that we can never undo. From there, I can assure you, it's a very, very small step to another big war in Europe.
Mostly, though, I'm heartbroken for my nieces and cousins in England and Scotland who will never get the opportunities that I was afforded. The European Union is a flawed but beautiful thing which has brought me much joy, my wife, children and the last sixteen wonderful years of my life... and my British family and friends are now all permanently locked on the outside of it.
I'm so angry, I can barely speak.
Quote from: Tonker on June 24, 2016, 01:07:24 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2016, 08:42:21 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2016, 08:31:58 AM
Jesus Fucking Christ, England.
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the issue (and how terrible the result is), but I'd still like to send out the TonkSignal for a more in-depth perspective.
Basically, the Brexit campaign was run by right-wing whackjob tories who, as far as I can make out, didn't desperately want to leave the EU but DO want power, so they adopted the campaign as a means to an end. The referendum was only promised in the first place by Cameron to keep his back benches in line at the last election and get himself back into power, so the whole fucking thing has been driven by personalities, personal ambition and party politics. It still needn't necessarily have been a problem, but Cameron subsequently took the issue far too lightly for far too long, allowing the Leave campaign and their foreign-backed media allies to gain significant momentum (mostly by lying and diversion). By the time Cameron realised what was going on, it was too late.
What was going on was, to put it bluntly, lies, damned lies and obfuscation of the actual issues as the Brexit campaign played up to exactly the sort of things that Drumpf has been playing up to. They have already this morning (!) reneged on two of their most significant promises. Not that it really matters, though, because without wishing to be unkind about the stupid, stupid, STUPID CUNTS who have voted to exit the EU, they're either a) working class oiks who are thick as pig shit and are very happy to be given the chance to stick it to the man, to brown people and to other Johnny Foreigners; or b) Baby Boomers who FUCK YOU BECAUSE I'VE GOT MINE. Actual issues were never the issue.
Frankly, I'd be quite happy to let the whole fucking lot of them stew in the fetid, festering pot of shitty fucking cancer that they've cooked up, but I'm worried that they'll start a chain reaction and that small-minded, right-wing, brainless cunts across Europe will now be allowed to do something that we can never undo. From there, I can assure you, it's a very, very small step to another big war in Europe.
Mostly, though, I'm heartbroken for my nieces and cousins in England and Scotland who will never get the opportunities that I was afforded. The European Union is a flawed but beautiful thing which has brought me much joy, my wife, children and the last sixteen wonderful years of my life... and my British family and friends are now all permanently locked on the outside of it.
I'm so angry, I can barely speak.
Thoughts on Scotland and Northern Ireland potentially joining the Republic of Ireland as a sort of back-door way of rejoining the EU? I saw someone throw out a possible name of Celtic Union of National and Trade Solidarity which seems like a good idea.
Quote from: Tonker on June 24, 2016, 01:07:24 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2016, 08:42:21 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2016, 08:31:58 AM
Jesus Fucking Christ, England.
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the issue (and how terrible the result is), but I'd still like to send out the TonkSignal for a more in-depth perspective.
Basically, the Brexit campaign was run by right-wing whackjob tories who, as far as I can make out, didn't desperately want to leave the EU but DO want power, so they adopted the campaign as a means to an end. The referendum was only promised in the first place by Cameron to keep his back benches in line at the last election and get himself back into power, so the whole fucking thing has been driven by personalities, personal ambition and party politics. It still needn't necessarily have been a problem, but Cameron subsequently took the issue far too lightly for far too long, allowing the Leave campaign and their foreign-backed media allies to gain significant momentum (mostly by lying and diversion). By the time Cameron realised what was going on, it was too late.
What was going on was, to put it bluntly, lies, damned lies and obfuscation of the actual issues as the Brexit campaign played up to exactly the sort of things that Trump has been playing up to. They have already this morning (!) reneged on two of their most significant promises. Not that it really matters, though, because without wishing to be unkind about the stupid, stupid, STUPID CUNTS who have voted to exit the EU, they're either a) working class oiks who are thick as pig shit and are very happy to be given the chance to stick it to the man, to brown people and to other Johnny Foreigners; or b) Baby Boomers who FUCK YOU BECAUSE I'VE GOT MINE. Actual issues were never the issue.
Frankly, I'd be quite happy to let the whole fucking lot of them stew in the fetid, festering pot of shitty fucking cancer that they've cooked up, but I'm worried that they'll start a chain reaction and that small-minded, right-wing, brainless cunts across Europe will now be allowed to do something that we can never undo. From there, I can assure you, it's a very, very small step to another big war in Europe.
Mostly, though, I'm heartbroken for my nieces and cousins in England and Scotland who will never get the opportunities that I was afforded. The European Union is a flawed but beautiful thing which has brought me much joy, my wife, children and the last sixteen wonderful years of my life... and my British family and friends are now all permanently locked on the outside of it.
I'm so angry, I can barely speak.
No chance the new PM who comes in this fall chooses not to invoke Article 50?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on June 24, 2016, 01:27:51 PM
Quote from: Tonker on June 24, 2016, 01:07:24 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2016, 08:42:21 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2016, 08:31:58 AM
Jesus Fucking Christ, England.
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the issue (and how terrible the result is), but I'd still like to send out the TonkSignal for a more in-depth perspective.
Basically, the Brexit campaign was run by right-wing whackjob tories who, as far as I can make out, didn't desperately want to leave the EU but DO want power, so they adopted the campaign as a means to an end. The referendum was only promised in the first place by Cameron to keep his back benches in line at the last election and get himself back into power, so the whole fucking thing has been driven by personalities, personal ambition and party politics. It still needn't necessarily have been a problem, but Cameron subsequently took the issue far too lightly for far too long, allowing the Leave campaign and their foreign-backed media allies to gain significant momentum (mostly by lying and diversion). By the time Cameron realised what was going on, it was too late.
What was going on was, to put it bluntly, lies, damned lies and obfuscation of the actual issues as the Brexit campaign played up to exactly the sort of things that Trump has been playing up to. They have already this morning (!) reneged on two of their most significant promises. Not that it really matters, though, because without wishing to be unkind about the stupid, stupid, STUPID CUNTS who have voted to exit the EU, they're either a) working class oiks who are thick as pig shit and are very happy to be given the chance to stick it to the man, to brown people and to other Johnny Foreigners; or b) Baby Boomers who FUCK YOU BECAUSE I'VE GOT MINE. Actual issues were never the issue.
Frankly, I'd be quite happy to let the whole fucking lot of them stew in the fetid, festering pot of shitty fucking cancer that they've cooked up, but I'm worried that they'll start a chain reaction and that small-minded, right-wing, brainless cunts across Europe will now be allowed to do something that we can never undo. From there, I can assure you, it's a very, very small step to another big war in Europe.
Mostly, though, I'm heartbroken for my nieces and cousins in England and Scotland who will never get the opportunities that I was afforded. The European Union is a flawed but beautiful thing which has brought me much joy, my wife, children and the last sixteen wonderful years of my life... and my British family and friends are now all permanently locked on the outside of it.
I'm so angry, I can barely speak.
No chance the new PM who comes in this fall chooses not to invoke Article 50?
You mean Boris Johnson?
Is there any chance the "Stays" agitate for another referendum? I'm pretty sure that prior to the vote there was some noise made on the "Leave" side about how they wouldn't consider a 52-48% vote against them to be overwhelming and might ask for another vote.
Quote from: Tonker on June 24, 2016, 01:07:24 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2016, 08:42:21 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2016, 08:31:58 AM
Jesus Fucking Christ, England.
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the issue (and how terrible the result is), but I'd still like to send out the TonkSignal for a more in-depth perspective.
Basically, the Brexit campaign was run by right-wing whackjob tories who, as far as I can make out, didn't desperately want to leave the EU but DO want power, so they adopted the campaign as a means to an end. The referendum was only promised in the first place by Cameron to keep his back benches in line at the last election and get himself back into power, so the whole fucking thing has been driven by personalities, personal ambition and party politics. It still needn't necessarily have been a problem, but Cameron subsequently took the issue far too lightly for far too long, allowing the Leave campaign and their foreign-backed media allies to gain significant momentum (mostly by lying and diversion). By the time Cameron realised what was going on, it was too late.
What was going on was, to put it bluntly, lies, damned lies and obfuscation of the actual issues as the Brexit campaign played up to exactly the sort of things that Trump has been playing up to. They have already this morning (!) reneged on two of their most significant promises. Not that it really matters, though, because without wishing to be unkind about the stupid, stupid, STUPID CUNTS who have voted to exit the EU, they're either a) working class oiks who are thick as pig shit and are very happy to be given the chance to stick it to the man, to brown people and to other Johnny Foreigners; or b) Baby Boomers who FUCK YOU BECAUSE I'VE GOT MINE. Actual issues were never the issue.
Frankly, I'd be quite happy to let the whole fucking lot of them stew in the fetid, festering pot of shitty fucking cancer that they've cooked up, but I'm worried that they'll start a chain reaction and that small-minded, right-wing, brainless cunts across Europe will now be allowed to do something that we can never undo. From there, I can assure you, it's a very, very small step to another big war in Europe.
Mostly, though, I'm heartbroken for my nieces and cousins in England and Scotland who will never get the opportunities that I was afforded. The European Union is a flawed but beautiful thing which has brought me much joy, my wife, children and the last sixteen wonderful years of my life... and my British family and friends are now all permanently locked on the outside of it.
I'm so angry, I can barely speak.
It bears repeating - too right-wing and cunty for David Cameron.
http://fusion.net/story/318640/delete-your-golf-course/
Nothing left to be said.
Quote from: Tonker on June 24, 2016, 01:07:24 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2016, 08:42:21 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2016, 08:31:58 AM
Jesus Fucking Christ, England.
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the issue (and how terrible the result is), but I'd still like to send out the TonkSignal for a more in-depth perspective.
Basically, the Brexit campaign was run by right-wing whackjob tories who, as far as I can make out, didn't desperately want to leave the EU but DO want power, so they adopted the campaign as a means to an end. The referendum was only promised in the first place by Cameron to keep his back benches in line at the last election and get himself back into power, so the whole fucking thing has been driven by personalities, personal ambition and party politics. It still needn't necessarily have been a problem, but Cameron subsequently took the issue far too lightly for far too long, allowing the Leave campaign and their foreign-backed media allies to gain significant momentum (mostly by lying and diversion). By the time Cameron realised what was going on, it was too late.
What was going on was, to put it bluntly, lies, damned lies and obfuscation of the actual issues as the Brexit campaign played up to exactly the sort of things that Trump has been playing up to. They have already this morning (!) reneged on two of their most significant promises. Not that it really matters, though, because without wishing to be unkind about the stupid, stupid, STUPID CUNTS who have voted to exit the EU, they're either a) working class oiks who are thick as pig shit and are very happy to be given the chance to stick it to the man, to brown people and to other Johnny Foreigners; or b) Baby Boomers who FUCK YOU BECAUSE I'VE GOT MINE. Actual issues were never the issue.
Frankly, I'd be quite happy to let the whole fucking lot of them stew in the fetid, festering pot of shitty fucking cancer that they've cooked up, but I'm worried that they'll start a chain reaction and that small-minded, right-wing, brainless cunts across Europe will now be allowed to do something that we can never undo. From there, I can assure you, it's a very, very small step to another big war in Europe.
Mostly, though, I'm heartbroken for my nieces and cousins in England and Scotland who will never get the opportunities that I was afforded. The European Union is a flawed but beautiful thing which has brought me much joy, my wife, children and the last sixteen wonderful years of my life... and my British family and friends are now all permanently locked on the outside of it.
I'm so angry, I can barely speak.
What are the two big promises upon which they've already reneged?
Quote from: Canadouche on June 24, 2016, 06:22:34 PM
Quote from: Tonker on June 24, 2016, 01:07:24 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2016, 08:42:21 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2016, 08:31:58 AM
Jesus Fucking Christ, England.
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the issue (and how terrible the result is), but I'd still like to send out the TonkSignal for a more in-depth perspective.
Basically, the Brexit campaign was run by right-wing whackjob tories who, as far as I can make out, didn't desperately want to leave the EU but DO want power, so they adopted the campaign as a means to an end. The referendum was only promised in the first place by Cameron to keep his back benches in line at the last election and get himself back into power, so the whole fucking thing has been driven by personalities, personal ambition and party politics. It still needn't necessarily have been a problem, but Cameron subsequently took the issue far too lightly for far too long, allowing the Leave campaign and their foreign-backed media allies to gain significant momentum (mostly by lying and diversion). By the time Cameron realised what was going on, it was too late.
What was going on was, to put it bluntly, lies, damned lies and obfuscation of the actual issues as the Brexit campaign played up to exactly the sort of things that Trump has been playing up to. They have already this morning (!) reneged on two of their most significant promises. Not that it really matters, though, because without wishing to be unkind about the stupid, stupid, STUPID CUNTS who have voted to exit the EU, they're either a) working class oiks who are thick as pig shit and are very happy to be given the chance to stick it to the man, to brown people and to other Johnny Foreigners; or b) Baby Boomers who FUCK YOU BECAUSE I'VE GOT MINE. Actual issues were never the issue.
Frankly, I'd be quite happy to let the whole fucking lot of them stew in the fetid, festering pot of shitty fucking cancer that they've cooked up, but I'm worried that they'll start a chain reaction and that small-minded, right-wing, brainless cunts across Europe will now be allowed to do something that we can never undo. From there, I can assure you, it's a very, very small step to another big war in Europe.
Mostly, though, I'm heartbroken for my nieces and cousins in England and Scotland who will never get the opportunities that I was afforded. The European Union is a flawed but beautiful thing which has brought me much joy, my wife, children and the last sixteen wonderful years of my life... and my British family and friends are now all permanently locked on the outside of it.
I'm so angry, I can barely speak.
What are the two big promises upon which they've already reneged?
They quoted an absolutely bonus statistic that the UK was paying 350 million pounds a week to the EU and that they'd redistribute that money at home, and that they'd halt immigration. Now they admit that number was bullshit and that they can't stop immigration
Quote from: SKO on June 24, 2016, 06:59:43 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on June 24, 2016, 06:22:34 PM
Quote from: Tonker on June 24, 2016, 01:07:24 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2016, 08:42:21 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2016, 08:31:58 AM
Jesus Fucking Christ, England.
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the issue (and how terrible the result is), but I'd still like to send out the TonkSignal for a more in-depth perspective.
Basically, the Brexit campaign was run by right-wing whackjob tories who, as far as I can make out, didn't desperately want to leave the EU but DO want power, so they adopted the campaign as a means to an end. The referendum was only promised in the first place by Cameron to keep his back benches in line at the last election and get himself back into power, so the whole fucking thing has been driven by personalities, personal ambition and party politics. It still needn't necessarily have been a problem, but Cameron subsequently took the issue far too lightly for far too long, allowing the Leave campaign and their foreign-backed media allies to gain significant momentum (mostly by lying and diversion). By the time Cameron realised what was going on, it was too late.
What was going on was, to put it bluntly, lies, damned lies and obfuscation of the actual issues as the Brexit campaign played up to exactly the sort of things that Trump has been playing up to. They have already this morning (!) reneged on two of their most significant promises. Not that it really matters, though, because without wishing to be unkind about the stupid, stupid, STUPID CUNTS who have voted to exit the EU, they're either a) working class oiks who are thick as pig shit and are very happy to be given the chance to stick it to the man, to brown people and to other Johnny Foreigners; or b) Baby Boomers who FUCK YOU BECAUSE I'VE GOT MINE. Actual issues were never the issue.
Frankly, I'd be quite happy to let the whole fucking lot of them stew in the fetid, festering pot of shitty fucking cancer that they've cooked up, but I'm worried that they'll start a chain reaction and that small-minded, right-wing, brainless cunts across Europe will now be allowed to do something that we can never undo. From there, I can assure you, it's a very, very small step to another big war in Europe.
Mostly, though, I'm heartbroken for my nieces and cousins in England and Scotland who will never get the opportunities that I was afforded. The European Union is a flawed but beautiful thing which has brought me much joy, my wife, children and the last sixteen wonderful years of my life... and my British family and friends are now all permanently locked on the outside of it.
I'm so angry, I can barely speak.
What are the two big promises upon which they've already reneged?
They quoted an absolutely bonus statistic that the UK was paying 350 million pounds a week to the EU and that they'd redistribute that money at home, and that they'd halt immigration. Now they admit that number was bullshit and that they can't stop immigration
The
whole bonus?
Quote from: Saul Goodman on June 24, 2016, 07:34:20 PM
Quote from: SKO on June 24, 2016, 06:59:43 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on June 24, 2016, 06:22:34 PM
Quote from: Tonker on June 24, 2016, 01:07:24 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2016, 08:42:21 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2016, 08:31:58 AM
Jesus Fucking Christ, England.
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the issue (and how terrible the result is), but I'd still like to send out the TonkSignal for a more in-depth perspective.
Basically, the Brexit campaign was run by right-wing whackjob tories who, as far as I can make out, didn't desperately want to leave the EU but DO want power, so they adopted the campaign as a means to an end. The referendum was only promised in the first place by Cameron to keep his back benches in line at the last election and get himself back into power, so the whole fucking thing has been driven by personalities, personal ambition and party politics. It still needn't necessarily have been a problem, but Cameron subsequently took the issue far too lightly for far too long, allowing the Leave campaign and their foreign-backed media allies to gain significant momentum (mostly by lying and diversion). By the time Cameron realised what was going on, it was too late.
What was going on was, to put it bluntly, lies, damned lies and obfuscation of the actual issues as the Brexit campaign played up to exactly the sort of things that Trump has been playing up to. They have already this morning (!) reneged on two of their most significant promises. Not that it really matters, though, because without wishing to be unkind about the stupid, stupid, STUPID CUNTS who have voted to exit the EU, they're either a) working class oiks who are thick as pig shit and are very happy to be given the chance to stick it to the man, to brown people and to other Johnny Foreigners; or b) Baby Boomers who FUCK YOU BECAUSE I'VE GOT MINE. Actual issues were never the issue.
Frankly, I'd be quite happy to let the whole fucking lot of them stew in the fetid, festering pot of shitty fucking cancer that they've cooked up, but I'm worried that they'll start a chain reaction and that small-minded, right-wing, brainless cunts across Europe will now be allowed to do something that we can never undo. From there, I can assure you, it's a very, very small step to another big war in Europe.
Mostly, though, I'm heartbroken for my nieces and cousins in England and Scotland who will never get the opportunities that I was afforded. The European Union is a flawed but beautiful thing which has brought me much joy, my wife, children and the last sixteen wonderful years of my life... and my British family and friends are now all permanently locked on the outside of it.
I'm so angry, I can barely speak.
What are the two big promises upon which they've already reneged?
They quoted an absolutely bonus statistic that the UK was paying 350 million pounds a week to the EU and that they'd redistribute that money at home, and that they'd halt immigration. Now they admit that number was bullshit and that they can't stop immigration
The whole bonus?
Goddamn auto correct
Quote from: Saul Goodman on June 24, 2016, 07:34:20 PM
Quote from: SKO on June 24, 2016, 06:59:43 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on June 24, 2016, 06:22:34 PM
Quote from: Tonker on June 24, 2016, 01:07:24 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2016, 08:42:21 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2016, 08:31:58 AM
Jesus Fucking Christ, England.
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the issue (and how terrible the result is), but I'd still like to send out the TonkSignal for a more in-depth perspective.
Basically, the Brexit campaign was run by right-wing whackjob tories who, as far as I can make out, didn't desperately want to leave the EU but DO want power, so they adopted the campaign as a means to an end. The referendum was only promised in the first place by Cameron to keep his back benches in line at the last election and get himself back into power, so the whole fucking thing has been driven by personalities, personal ambition and party politics. It still needn't necessarily have been a problem, but Cameron subsequently took the issue far too lightly for far too long, allowing the Leave campaign and their foreign-backed media allies to gain significant momentum (mostly by lying and diversion). By the time Cameron realised what was going on, it was too late.
What was going on was, to put it bluntly, lies, damned lies and obfuscation of the actual issues as the Brexit campaign played up to exactly the sort of things that Trump has been playing up to. They have already this morning (!) reneged on two of their most significant promises. Not that it really matters, though, because without wishing to be unkind about the stupid, stupid, STUPID CUNTS who have voted to exit the EU, they're either a) working class oiks who are thick as pig shit and are very happy to be given the chance to stick it to the man, to brown people and to other Johnny Foreigners; or b) Baby Boomers who FUCK YOU BECAUSE I'VE GOT MINE. Actual issues were never the issue.
Frankly, I'd be quite happy to let the whole fucking lot of them stew in the fetid, festering pot of shitty fucking cancer that they've cooked up, but I'm worried that they'll start a chain reaction and that small-minded, right-wing, brainless cunts across Europe will now be allowed to do something that we can never undo. From there, I can assure you, it's a very, very small step to another big war in Europe.
Mostly, though, I'm heartbroken for my nieces and cousins in England and Scotland who will never get the opportunities that I was afforded. The European Union is a flawed but beautiful thing which has brought me much joy, my wife, children and the last sixteen wonderful years of my life... and my British family and friends are now all permanently locked on the outside of it.
I'm so angry, I can barely speak.
What are the two big promises upon which they've already reneged?
They quoted an absolutely bonus statistic that the UK was paying 350 million pounds a week to the EU and that they'd redistribute that money at home, and that they'd halt immigration. Now they admit that number was bullshit and that they can't stop immigration
The whole bonus?
Huey's going to be pissed when he finds out you're trying to steal his bit.
Quote from: SKO on June 24, 2016, 06:59:43 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on June 24, 2016, 06:22:34 PM
Quote from: Tonker on June 24, 2016, 01:07:24 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2016, 08:42:21 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2016, 08:31:58 AM
Jesus Fucking Christ, England.
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the issue (and how terrible the result is), but I'd still like to send out the TonkSignal for a more in-depth perspective.
Basically, the Brexit campaign was run by right-wing whackjob tories who, as far as I can make out, didn't desperately want to leave the EU but DO want power, so they adopted the campaign as a means to an end. The referendum was only promised in the first place by Cameron to keep his back benches in line at the last election and get himself back into power, so the whole fucking thing has been driven by personalities, personal ambition and party politics. It still needn't necessarily have been a problem, but Cameron subsequently took the issue far too lightly for far too long, allowing the Leave campaign and their foreign-backed media allies to gain significant momentum (mostly by lying and diversion). By the time Cameron realised what was going on, it was too late.
What was going on was, to put it bluntly, lies, damned lies and obfuscation of the actual issues as the Brexit campaign played up to exactly the sort of things that Trump has been playing up to. They have already this morning (!) reneged on two of their most significant promises. Not that it really matters, though, because without wishing to be unkind about the stupid, stupid, STUPID CUNTS who have voted to exit the EU, they're either a) working class oiks who are thick as pig shit and are very happy to be given the chance to stick it to the man, to brown people and to other Johnny Foreigners; or b) Baby Boomers who FUCK YOU BECAUSE I'VE GOT MINE. Actual issues were never the issue.
Frankly, I'd be quite happy to let the whole fucking lot of them stew in the fetid, festering pot of shitty fucking cancer that they've cooked up, but I'm worried that they'll start a chain reaction and that small-minded, right-wing, brainless cunts across Europe will now be allowed to do something that we can never undo. From there, I can assure you, it's a very, very small step to another big war in Europe.
Mostly, though, I'm heartbroken for my nieces and cousins in England and Scotland who will never get the opportunities that I was afforded. The European Union is a flawed but beautiful thing which has brought me much joy, my wife, children and the last sixteen wonderful years of my life... and my British family and friends are now all permanently locked on the outside of it.
I'm so angry, I can barely speak.
What are the two big promises upon which they've already reneged?
They quoted an absolutely bonus statistic that the UK was paying 350 million pounds a week to the EU and that they'd redistribute that money at home, and that they'd halt immigration. Now they admit that number was bullshit and that they can't stop immigration
They didn't just say redistribute, they explicitly said they'd put it in the National Health System, then tried to claim that was never promised.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-million-pledge-to-fund-the-nhs-was-a-mistake/
Quote from: CT III on June 26, 2016, 01:24:23 PM
Quote from: SKO on June 24, 2016, 06:59:43 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on June 24, 2016, 06:22:34 PM
Quote from: Tonker on June 24, 2016, 01:07:24 PM
Quote from: Eli on June 24, 2016, 08:42:21 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on June 24, 2016, 08:31:58 AM
Jesus Fucking Christ, England.
I feel like I have a pretty good grasp of the issue (and how terrible the result is), but I'd still like to send out the TonkSignal for a more in-depth perspective.
Basically, the Brexit campaign was run by right-wing whackjob tories who, as far as I can make out, didn't desperately want to leave the EU but DO want power, so they adopted the campaign as a means to an end. The referendum was only promised in the first place by Cameron to keep his back benches in line at the last election and get himself back into power, so the whole fucking thing has been driven by personalities, personal ambition and party politics. It still needn't necessarily have been a problem, but Cameron subsequently took the issue far too lightly for far too long, allowing the Leave campaign and their foreign-backed media allies to gain significant momentum (mostly by lying and diversion). By the time Cameron realised what was going on, it was too late.
What was going on was, to put it bluntly, lies, damned lies and obfuscation of the actual issues as the Brexit campaign played up to exactly the sort of things that Trump has been playing up to. They have already this morning (!) reneged on two of their most significant promises. Not that it really matters, though, because without wishing to be unkind about the stupid, stupid, STUPID CUNTS who have voted to exit the EU, they're either a) working class oiks who are thick as pig shit and are very happy to be given the chance to stick it to the man, to brown people and to other Johnny Foreigners; or b) Baby Boomers who FUCK YOU BECAUSE I'VE GOT MINE. Actual issues were never the issue.
Frankly, I'd be quite happy to let the whole fucking lot of them stew in the fetid, festering pot of shitty fucking cancer that they've cooked up, but I'm worried that they'll start a chain reaction and that small-minded, right-wing, brainless cunts across Europe will now be allowed to do something that we can never undo. From there, I can assure you, it's a very, very small step to another big war in Europe.
Mostly, though, I'm heartbroken for my nieces and cousins in England and Scotland who will never get the opportunities that I was afforded. The European Union is a flawed but beautiful thing which has brought me much joy, my wife, children and the last sixteen wonderful years of my life... and my British family and friends are now all permanently locked on the outside of it.
I'm so angry, I can barely speak.
What are the two big promises upon which they've already reneged?
They quoted an absolutely bonus statistic that the UK was paying 350 million pounds a week to the EU and that they'd redistribute that money at home, and that they'd halt immigration. Now they admit that number was bullshit and that they can't stop immigration
They didn't just say redistribute, they explicitly said they'd put it in the National Health System, then tried to claim that was never promised.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-million-pledge-to-fund-the-nhs-was-a-mistake/
Farage said
he never promised it, and that he hadn't agreed with people within the campaign who had done so. That may have been true, but he wasn't exactly shouting it from the rooftops before the result was in. As it was, though, and regardless of the technicalities, it was a staggeringly quick volte-face by the Leave campaign - the interview in which he said all this was literally within a couple of hours of the result being announced.
If Ted Cruz may not be the Zodiac Killer, but he sure knifed Trump last night.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 21, 2016, 08:55:04 AM
If Ted Cruz may not be the Zodiac Killer, but he sure knifed Trump last night.
The fact that Trump expected an endorsement after saying Cruz' father was part of the JFK conspiracy just shows how clowned he'd get at a summit meeting.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on July 21, 2016, 10:45:08 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 21, 2016, 08:55:04 AM
If Ted Cruz may not be the Zodiac Killer, but he sure knifed Trump last night.
The fact that Trump expected an endorsement after saying Cruz' father was part of the JFK conspiracy just shows how clowned he'd get at a summit meeting.
I've never looked forward to Hillary Clinton doing anything but I feel like the first debate between those two is going to be like an aged, heartless Leslie Knope vs a racist Bobby Newport. Given the way the woman destroyed a hostile house committee going after her over the Benghazi thing I don't doubt that she'll blast him out of the water.
Quote from: SKO on July 21, 2016, 10:48:39 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on July 21, 2016, 10:45:08 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 21, 2016, 08:55:04 AM
If Ted Cruz may not be the Zodiac Killer, but he sure knifed Trump last night.
The fact that Trump expected an endorsement after saying Cruz' father was part of the JFK conspiracy just shows how clowned he'd get at a summit meeting.
I've never looked forward to Hillary Clinton doing anything but I feel like the first debate between those two is going to be like an aged, heartless Leslie Knope vs a racist Bobby Newport. Given the way the woman destroyed a hostile house committee going after her over the Benghazi thing I don't doubt that she'll blast him out of the water.
Not even a racist Bobby Newport is a good comp. He's missing the nasty streak that is Trump's essence.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on July 21, 2016, 01:32:43 PM
Quote from: SKO on July 21, 2016, 10:48:39 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on July 21, 2016, 10:45:08 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 21, 2016, 08:55:04 AM
If Ted Cruz may not be the Zodiac Killer, but he sure knifed Trump last night.
The fact that Trump expected an endorsement after saying Cruz' father was part of the JFK conspiracy just shows how clowned he'd get at a summit meeting.
I've never looked forward to Hillary Clinton doing anything but I feel like the first debate between those two is going to be like an aged, heartless Leslie Knope vs a racist Bobby Newport. Given the way the woman destroyed a hostile house committee going after her over the Benghazi thing I don't doubt that she'll blast him out of the water.
Not even a racist Bobby Newport is a good comp. He's missing the nasty streak that is Trump's essence.
Political campaigns are essentially long job interviews, and I expect Donald Trump to react as a man who has never had to interview for a job in his life would.
Quote from: SKO on July 21, 2016, 10:48:39 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on July 21, 2016, 10:45:08 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 21, 2016, 08:55:04 AM
If Ted Cruz may not be the Zodiac Killer, but he sure knifed Trump last night.
The fact that Trump expected an endorsement after saying Cruz' father was part of the JFK conspiracy just shows how clowned he'd get at a summit meeting.
I've never looked forward to Hillary Clinton doing anything but I feel like the first debate between those two is going to be like an aged, heartless Leslie Knope vs a racist Bobby Newport. Given the way the woman destroyed a hostile house committee going after her over the Benghazi thing I don't doubt that she'll blast him out of the water.
I think Clinton is a good debater, but Trump's nature makes the debates unbearable for me to watch. I just imagine that she's going to be primarily making points on policy, while he's going to talk about how she's a criminal, and should be in jail, and whose coldness and unpleasant personality drove her husband to chase other women. It's like she's going to be standing in front of a firing squad, and there's no way around it for her. She should win the debates, but they are going to be too filthy and unpleasant for me to watch.
Quote from: Canadouche on July 21, 2016, 02:13:17 PM
Quote from: SKO on July 21, 2016, 10:48:39 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on July 21, 2016, 10:45:08 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 21, 2016, 08:55:04 AM
If Ted Cruz may not be the Zodiac Killer, but he sure knifed Trump last night.
The fact that Trump expected an endorsement after saying Cruz' father was part of the JFK conspiracy just shows how clowned he'd get at a summit meeting.
I've never looked forward to Hillary Clinton doing anything but I feel like the first debate between those two is going to be like an aged, heartless Leslie Knope vs a racist Bobby Newport. Given the way the woman destroyed a hostile house committee going after her over the Benghazi thing I don't doubt that she'll blast him out of the water.
I think Clinton is a good debater, but Trump's nature makes the debates unbearable for me to watch. I just imagine that she's going to be primarily making points on policy, while he's going to talk about how she's a criminal, and should be in jail, and whose coldness and unpleasant personality drove her husband to chase other women. It's like she's going to be standing in front of a firing squad, and there's no way around it for her. She should win the debates, but they are going to be too filthy and unpleasant for me to watch.
I'm going to watch them (and hate myself for it), but I agree with you on the rest. She's a fierce debater and will clearly win on all points and anything of substance and he'll still come out of it with plenty of people thinking that he won because he "took it to her."
Quote from: PenFoe on July 21, 2016, 02:17:35 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 21, 2016, 02:13:17 PM
Quote from: SKO on July 21, 2016, 10:48:39 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on July 21, 2016, 10:45:08 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 21, 2016, 08:55:04 AM
If Ted Cruz may not be the Zodiac Killer, but he sure knifed Trump last night.
The fact that Trump expected an endorsement after saying Cruz' father was part of the JFK conspiracy just shows how clowned he'd get at a summit meeting.
I've never looked forward to Hillary Clinton doing anything but I feel like the first debate between those two is going to be like an aged, heartless Leslie Knope vs a racist Bobby Newport. Given the way the woman destroyed a hostile house committee going after her over the Benghazi thing I don't doubt that she'll blast him out of the water.
I think Clinton is a good debater, but Trump's nature makes the debates unbearable for me to watch. I just imagine that she's going to be primarily making points on policy, while he's going to talk about how she's a criminal, and should be in jail, and whose coldness and unpleasant personality drove her husband to chase other women. It's like she's going to be standing in front of a firing squad, and there's no way around it for her. She should win the debates, but they are going to be too filthy and unpleasant for me to watch.
I'm going to watch them (and hate myself for it), but I agree with you on the rest. She's a fierce debater and will clearly win on all points and anything of substance and he'll still come out of it with plenty of people thinking that he won because he "took it to her."
She's a mediocre debater at best. Her times vs. Obama were weak (one of the main reasons he beat her). She was lousy when she ran for Senate but Lazlo was lousier. Her biggest weakness as a politician is she can't talk. She comes off stilted and programmed when she reads prepared remarks and she has a tendency to make stupid lies when she's off the cuff.
The best thing she said in her entire elective career was a few weeks ago: "I am not a natural politician, in case you haven't noticed, like my husband or President Obama."
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 21, 2016, 02:36:22 PM
Quote from: PenFoe on July 21, 2016, 02:17:35 PM
Quote from: Canadouche on July 21, 2016, 02:13:17 PM
Quote from: SKO on July 21, 2016, 10:48:39 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on July 21, 2016, 10:45:08 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 21, 2016, 08:55:04 AM
If Ted Cruz may not be the Zodiac Killer, but he sure knifed Trump last night.
The fact that Trump expected an endorsement after saying Cruz' father was part of the JFK conspiracy just shows how clowned he'd get at a summit meeting.
I've never looked forward to Hillary Clinton doing anything but I feel like the first debate between those two is going to be like an aged, heartless Leslie Knope vs a racist Bobby Newport. Given the way the woman destroyed a hostile house committee going after her over the Benghazi thing I don't doubt that she'll blast him out of the water.
I think Clinton is a good debater, but Trump's nature makes the debates unbearable for me to watch. I just imagine that she's going to be primarily making points on policy, while he's going to talk about how she's a criminal, and should be in jail, and whose coldness and unpleasant personality drove her husband to chase other women. It's like she's going to be standing in front of a firing squad, and there's no way around it for her. She should win the debates, but they are going to be too filthy and unpleasant for me to watch.
I'm going to watch them (and hate myself for it), but I agree with you on the rest. She's a fierce debater and will clearly win on all points and anything of substance and he'll still come out of it with plenty of people thinking that he won because he "took it to her."
She's a mediocre debater at best. Her times vs. Obama were weak (one of the main reasons he beat her). She was lousy when she ran for Senate but Lazlo was lousier. Her biggest weakness as a politician is she can't talk. She comes off stilted and programmed when she reads prepared remarks and she has a tendency to make stupid lies when she's off the cuff.
The best thing she said in her entire elective career was a few weeks ago: "I am not a natural politician, in case you haven't noticed, like my husband or President Obama."
That Pokemon Go To The Polls joke killed though.
*crickets*
How's everyone doing today?
Quote from: Eli on July 22, 2016, 08:47:40 AM
How's everyone doing today?
Even though I disagreed with the content, it wasn't that same non-sensical rambling he usually does. He's gonna win and I won't know what to think about this future great country
Quote from: Yeti on July 22, 2016, 08:51:02 AM
Quote from: Eli on July 22, 2016, 08:47:40 AM
How's everyone doing today?
Even though I disagreed with the content, it wasn't that same non-sensical rambling he usually does. He's gonna win and I won't know what to think about this future great country
I still don't believe he'll actually win, and the bits I saw were rambling lunacy, but I assume your facebook feed is much like mine, full of downstate relatives that leave you with the sickening feeling he can actually pull this off.
Quote from: SKO on July 22, 2016, 08:54:26 AM
Quote from: Yeti on July 22, 2016, 08:51:02 AM
Quote from: Eli on July 22, 2016, 08:47:40 AM
How's everyone doing today?
Even though I disagreed with the content, it wasn't that same non-sensical rambling he usually does. He's gonna win and I won't know what to think about this future great country
I still don't believe he'll actually win, and the bits I saw were rambling lunacy, but I assume your facebook feed is much like mine, full of downstate relatives that leave you with the sickening feeling he can actually pull this off.
I'm just imagining the utter dread we'll all feel on Election Night if some early swing state breaks for Trump and then another, then another. Until that happens I'll refuse to believe he can actually win, but I can't say I feel good about things. After all, he's still gotten this close to the Presidency and it can't be a good sign for the country's future.
Quote from: SKO on July 22, 2016, 08:54:26 AM
Quote from: Yeti on July 22, 2016, 08:51:02 AM
Quote from: Eli on July 22, 2016, 08:47:40 AM
How's everyone doing today?
Even though I disagreed with the content, it wasn't that same non-sensical rambling he usually does. He's gonna win and I won't know what to think about this future great country
I still don't believe he'll actually win, and the bits I saw were rambling lunacy, but I assume your facebook feed is much like mine, full of downstate relatives that leave you with the sickening feeling he can actually pull this off.
I didn't watch a second, but I read the transcript your illegitimate father posted on Facebook....... But now I see that was a pre-speech release so it's possible he Trump'd the speech up. Honestly, since I defriended a shitton of people last year, I think I only have one overt Trump supporter polluting my feed: the woman who gave me life.
Quote from: Eli on July 22, 2016, 09:07:00 AM
I'm just imagining the utter dread we'll all feel on Election Night if some early swing state breaks for Trump and then another, then another. Until that happens I'll refuse to believe he can actually win, but I can't say I feel good about things. After all, he's still gotten this close to the Presidency and it can't be a good sign for the country's future.
Yea, that part baffles me. Sometimes I wonder if it's a dream.. and I hope it's the same part of me that dreams incorrect things about Jake Arrieta
Quote from: SKO on July 22, 2016, 08:54:26 AM
Quote from: Yeti on July 22, 2016, 08:51:02 AM
Quote from: Eli on July 22, 2016, 08:47:40 AM
How's everyone doing today?
Even though I disagreed with the content, it wasn't that same non-sensical rambling he usually does. He's gonna win and I won't know what to think about this future great country
I still don't believe he'll actually win, and the bits I saw were rambling lunacy, but I assume your facebook feed is much like mine, full of downstate relatives that leave you with the sickening feeling he can actually pull this off.
My main fear now is that this thing's going to be close. My hope was the Trump would be destroyed in the general election, but I think there's enough anti-Hillary sentiment that unless large swaths of GOPers stay home or vote 3rd party, the election will be close enough that Trump's strategy for winning the nomination remains viable. The man is clearly unqualified to be President and has zero workable ideas (and if you believe his VP offer to John Kasich, even Trump knows it) but here he is. So if somebody who was actually competent decides to do this in four years, well I'm kind of afraid of that scenario.
Quote from: Eli on July 22, 2016, 09:07:00 AM
Quote from: SKO on July 22, 2016, 08:54:26 AM
Quote from: Yeti on July 22, 2016, 08:51:02 AM
Quote from: Eli on July 22, 2016, 08:47:40 AM
How's everyone doing today?
Even though I disagreed with the content, it wasn't that same non-sensical rambling he usually does. He's gonna win and I won't know what to think about this future great country
I still don't believe he'll actually win, and the bits I saw were rambling lunacy, but I assume your facebook feed is much like mine, full of downstate relatives that leave you with the sickening feeling he can actually pull this off.
I'm just imagining the utter dread we'll all feel on Election Night if some early swing state breaks for Trump and then another, then another. Until that happens I'll refuse to believe he can actually win, but I can't say I feel good about things. After all, he's still gotten this close to the Presidency and it can't be a good sign for the country's future.
It kind of feels like a loss in the big picture already, even if he doesn't win. Unless he gets destroyed and loses by a billion electoral votes. If that happens maybe we'll see that the nutjobs supporting him were just a vocal minority and everything is actually fine. Right?
Quote from: Eli on July 22, 2016, 09:07:00 AM
Quote from: SKO on July 22, 2016, 08:54:26 AM
Quote from: Yeti on July 22, 2016, 08:51:02 AM
Quote from: Eli on July 22, 2016, 08:47:40 AM
How's everyone doing today?
Even though I disagreed with the content, it wasn't that same non-sensical rambling he usually does. He's gonna win and I won't know what to think about this future great country
I still don't believe he'll actually win, and the bits I saw were rambling lunacy, but I assume your facebook feed is much like mine, full of downstate relatives that leave you with the sickening feeling he can actually pull this off.
I'm just imagining the utter dread we'll all feel on Election Night if some early swing state breaks for Trump and then another, then another. Until that happens I'll refuse to believe he can actually win, but I can't say I feel good about things. After all, he's still gotten this close to the Presidency and it can't be a good sign for the country's future.
Oh the outlook is grim. No doubt about it, that was clear from the moment the best case scenario was a damn Hillary Clinton presidency. I just don't think this will be the fascist dictator we get. It'll be a more respectable and marketable fascist a few years from now.
Quote from: Eli on July 22, 2016, 09:07:00 AM
Quote from: SKO on July 22, 2016, 08:54:26 AM
Quote from: Yeti on July 22, 2016, 08:51:02 AM
Quote from: Eli on July 22, 2016, 08:47:40 AM
How's everyone doing today?
Even though I disagreed with the content, it wasn't that same non-sensical rambling he usually does. He's gonna win and I won't know what to think about this future great country
I still don't believe he'll actually win, and the bits I saw were rambling lunacy, but I assume your facebook feed is much like mine, full of downstate relatives that leave you with the sickening feeling he can actually pull this off.
I'm just imagining the utter dread we'll all feel on Election Night if some early swing state breaks for Trump and then another, then another. Until that happens I'll refuse to believe he can actually win, but I can't say I feel good about things. After all, he's still gotten this close to the Presidency and it can't be a good sign for the country's future.
As I think a few people have pointed out, it's not Trump that frightens me so much as a younger, slicker, less-disgusting candidate smoothing out the rhetorical edges a bit, and winning 4 or 8 years from now.
Quote from: Yeti on July 22, 2016, 09:11:47 AM
I think I only have one overt Trump supporter polluting my feed: the woman who gave me life.
Ouch. My mom doesn't like Trump, but I know she hates Hillary. She hasn't said who she is voting for, and I can't bring myself to ask her.
Quote from: SKO on July 22, 2016, 09:16:34 AM
Quote from: Eli on July 22, 2016, 09:07:00 AM
Quote from: SKO on July 22, 2016, 08:54:26 AM
Quote from: Yeti on July 22, 2016, 08:51:02 AM
Quote from: Eli on July 22, 2016, 08:47:40 AM
How's everyone doing today?
Even though I disagreed with the content, it wasn't that same non-sensical rambling he usually does. He's gonna win and I won't know what to think about this future great country
I still don't believe he'll actually win, and the bits I saw were rambling lunacy, but I assume your facebook feed is much like mine, full of downstate relatives that leave you with the sickening feeling he can actually pull this off.
I'm just imagining the utter dread we'll all feel on Election Night if some early swing state breaks for Trump and then another, then another. Until that happens I'll refuse to believe he can actually win, but I can't say I feel good about things. After all, he's still gotten this close to the Presidency and it can't be a good sign for the country's future.
Oh the outlook is grim. No doubt about it, that was clear from the moment the best case scenario was a damn Hillary Clinton presidency. I just don't think this will be the fascist dictator we get. It'll be a more respectable and marketable fascist a few years from now.
Aaand....faced.
Could Fork or TJ get in here to predict a fascist win in 2020 so we can be assured it won't happen?
If Trump wins, we might as well scrap the National Anthem...we won't be free, because we sure as Hell weren't brave.
Quote from: Tony on July 22, 2016, 09:18:51 AM
Quote from: Yeti on July 22, 2016, 09:11:47 AM
I think I only have one overt Trump supporter polluting my feed: the woman who gave me life.
Ouch. My mom doesn't like Trump, but I know she hates Hillary. She hasn't said who she is voting for, and I can't bring myself to ask her.
She was a Carson woman to start out (because she had to get behind the "See, we have one!" candidate) and shifted to full-blown Trumper
Who saw this (http://nbc4i.com/2016/07/22/former-kkk-leader-david-duke-announces-plans-to-run-for-us-senate/) coming?
Quote from: SKO on July 22, 2016, 09:16:34 AM
Quote from: Eli on July 22, 2016, 09:07:00 AM
Quote from: SKO on July 22, 2016, 08:54:26 AM
Quote from: Yeti on July 22, 2016, 08:51:02 AM
Quote from: Eli on July 22, 2016, 08:47:40 AM
How's everyone doing today?
Even though I disagreed with the content, it wasn't that same non-sensical rambling he usually does. He's gonna win and I won't know what to think about this future great country
I still don't believe he'll actually win, and the bits I saw were rambling lunacy, but I assume your facebook feed is much like mine, full of downstate relatives that leave you with the sickening feeling he can actually pull this off.
I'm just imagining the utter dread we'll all feel on Election Night if some early swing state breaks for Trump and then another, then another. Until that happens I'll refuse to believe he can actually win, but I can't say I feel good about things. After all, he's still gotten this close to the Presidency and it can't be a good sign for the country's future.
Oh the outlook is grim. No doubt about it, that was clear from the moment the best case scenario was a damn Hillary Clinton presidency. I just don't think this will be the fascist dictator we get. It'll be a more respectable and marketable fascist a few years from now.
The demographics continue their march toward a white minority, which will make it close to impossible for another Trump to get this close to wrecking the country. Not to mention his constituents (old white men, primarily) will just keep getting older and dying off.
That's why this is so critical. If Trump wins, we can pretty much guarantee that they will do everything in their power to make it impossible for the shifting demographics to play a part in any future election. A country for white people by white people. I really think it's now or never for the Republicans.
Donald Trump is the actual GOP nominee. Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. This is real life. Stop this ride, I want to get off.
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on July 22, 2016, 12:09:58 PM
Donald Drumpf is the actual GOP nominee. Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. This is real life. Stop this ride, I want to get off.
I bet this will be worth a couple points with the disillusioned Sanders peeps:
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/22/new-leak-top-dnc-official-wanted-to-use-bernie-sanderss-religious-beliefs-against-him/
Quote from: ChuckD on July 22, 2016, 12:21:15 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on July 22, 2016, 12:09:58 PM
Donald Drumpf is the actual GOP nominee. Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. This is real life. Stop this ride, I want to get off.
I bet this will be worth a couple points with the disillusioned Sanders peeps:
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/22/new-leak-top-dnc-official-wanted-to-use-bernie-sanderss-religious-beliefs-against-him/
Not really surprising from the campaign that leaked the "Obama in muslim garb" photo in '08 to try to scare off Southern voters.
Quote from: SKO on July 22, 2016, 12:34:02 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on July 22, 2016, 12:21:15 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on July 22, 2016, 12:09:58 PM
Donald Drumpf is the actual GOP nominee. Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. This is real life. Stop this ride, I want to get off.
I bet this will be worth a couple points with the disillusioned Sanders peeps:
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/22/new-leak-top-dnc-official-wanted-to-use-bernie-sanderss-religious-beliefs-against-him/
Not really surprising from the campaign that leaked the "Obama in muslim garb" photo in '08 to try to scare off Southern voters.
No, it wouldn't be surprising these were staffers on Hillary's campaign. But these are the CEO and CFO of the DNC.
Quote from: ChuckD on July 22, 2016, 12:42:31 PM
Quote from: SKO on July 22, 2016, 12:34:02 PM
Quote from: ChuckD on July 22, 2016, 12:21:15 PM
Quote from: Powdered Toast Man on July 22, 2016, 12:09:58 PM
Donald Drumpf is the actual GOP nominee. Hillary Clinton will be the Democratic nominee. This is real life. Stop this ride, I want to get off.
I bet this will be worth a couple points with the disillusioned Sanders peeps:
https://theintercept.com/2016/07/22/new-leak-top-dnc-official-wanted-to-use-bernie-sanderss-religious-beliefs-against-him/
Not really surprising from the campaign that leaked the "Obama in muslim garb" photo in '08 to try to scare off Southern voters.
No, it wouldn't be surprising these were staffers on Hillary's campaign. But these are the CEO and CFO of the DNC.
Yeah, I mean it's clear proof they conspired against Bernie but I doubt any new disaffected Bernie supporters will be generated by this, it was very clear that the party establishment he wasn't even a part of was going to back the person who is everything everyone hates about established party members.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on July 22, 2016, 09:20:02 AM
If Trump wins, we might as well scrap the National Anthem...we won't be free, because we sure as Hell weren't brave.
Are you writing jokes for Hillary? Stuff like this would probably pay big given that awful Pokemon Go "joke."
I live in a liberal bubble. Not merely the Bay Area, but Berkeley. If I put a Hilary sign in my front lawn (well... drought stricken wasteland) my neighbors would think that I was senile and wasting my time because there isn't anyone in a 35 mile radius who would ever consider voting for tRump.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on July 22, 2016, 12:58:11 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on July 22, 2016, 09:20:02 AM
If Trump wins, we might as well scrap the National Anthem...we won't be free, because we sure as Hell weren't brave.
Are you writing jokes for Hillary? Stuff like this would probably pay big given that awful Pokemon Go "joke."
If she uses it, Imma sue.
Quote from: CBStew on July 22, 2016, 03:56:11 PM
I live in a liberal bubble. Not merely the Bay Area, but Berkeley. If I put a Hilary sign in my front lawn (well... drought stricken wasteland) my neighbors would think that I was senile and wasting my time because there isn't anyone in a 35 mile radius who would ever consider voting for tRump.
Intrepid Reader: Pauline Kael:
Hi!
Quote from: PANK! on July 23, 2016, 05:42:55 AM
Quote from: CBStew on July 22, 2016, 03:56:11 PM
I live in a liberal bubble. Not merely the Bay Area, but Berkeley. If I put a Hilary sign in my front lawn (well... drought stricken wasteland) my neighbors would think that I was senile and wasting my time because there isn't anyone in a 35 mile radius who would ever consider voting for tRump.
Intrepid Reader: Pauline Kael:
Hi!
Before Kael became a national icon she lived nearby and wrote movie reviews for local publications.
My new favorite Congressional candidate (http://erickson4us.com/about/).
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 07, 2016, 06:41:03 PM
My new favorite Congressional candidate (http://erickson4us.com/about/).
You've got one day left, as his primary is tomorrow
Quote from: Yeti on August 08, 2016, 06:35:00 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 07, 2016, 06:41:03 PM
My new favorite Congressional candidate (http://erickson4us.com/about/).
You've got one day left, as his primary is tomorrow
Too bad you can't move there and register by then (https://twitter.com/MateoErickson/status/760950631842451456).
Any reactions to last night's debate on the eve of our country and/or planet's destruction?
Quote from: Saul Goodman on September 27, 2016, 03:08:49 PM
Any reactions to last night's debate on the eve of our country and/or planet's destruction?
More to the point, was anybody surprised?
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on September 27, 2016, 03:38:32 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on September 27, 2016, 03:08:49 PM
Any reactions to last night's debate on the eve of our country and/or planet's destruction?
More to the point, was anybody surprised?
The people deleting Trump's tweets.
Um, what the hell, America?
Quote from: Eli on November 08, 2016, 08:23:39 PM
Um, what the hell, America?
This is pretty fucked up.
I, for one, am intrigued to see what economic policies are going to be proposed by a man who managed to lose money with gambling casinos.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on November 09, 2016, 07:31:46 PM
I, for one, am intrigued to see what economic policies are going to be proposed by a man who managed to lose money with gambling casinos.
The kind of policies that involve gilding every interior surface of every building Trump sets foot in with tacky gold to match his exquisite, very classy, just the best taste.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on November 09, 2016, 09:34:33 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on November 09, 2016, 07:31:46 PM
I, for one, am intrigued to see what economic policies are going to be proposed by a man who managed to lose money with gambling casinos.
The kind of policies that involve gilding every interior surface of every building Trump sets foot in with tacky gold to match his exquisite, very classy, just the best taste.
The best.
It isn't Chris Collins' fault that Trump and his staff are in bed with the Russians and lying about it, and I would imagine the last thing he wanted to do this morning was to go on CNN to talk about it. Nonetheless, he's exposed himself as a massive, irredeemable cunt this morning, and I thoroughly enjoyed Chris Cuomo refusing to let him off the hook. It's in the past, so we should just forget about it? "Guess what? Now what?" Jesus fucking Christ. How fucking partisan would you need to be to be able to choke that shit down?
Quote from: Tonker on February 14, 2017, 08:25:24 AM
It isn't Chris Collins' fault that Trump and his staff are in bed with the Russians and lying about it, and I would imagine the last thing he wanted to do this morning was to go on CNN to talk about it. Nonetheless, he's exposed himself as a massive, irredeemable cunt this morning, and I thoroughly enjoyed Chris Cuomo refusing to let him off the hook. It's in the past, so we should just forget about it? "Guess what? Now what?" Jesus fucking Christ. How fucking partisan would you need to be to be able to choke that shit down?
"move on" coming from a guy that said this about 8 months ago
Quote from: fucking idiotBut when you want to talk about someone being honest or not, look at Mrs. Clinton and her comments on Benghazi, look at her comments on the email, look at the Inspector General report
First scandal resignation 23 days into an administration is some kind of record, no?
How did Blagojevich not win when he was on Trump's show?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 14, 2017, 09:39:56 AM
First scandal resignation 23 days into an administration is some kind of record, no?
How did Blagojevich not win when he was on Trump's show?
We're going to have the best resignations, the quickest resignations resignations so fast it'll make your head spin.
Quote from: thehawk on February 14, 2017, 11:06:17 AM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on February 14, 2017, 09:39:56 AM
First scandal resignation 23 days into an administration is some kind of record, no?
How did Blagojevich not win when he was on Trump's show?
We're going to have the best resignations, the quickest resignations resignations so fast it'll make your head spin.
I'm intrigued to see what flotsam is on deck.
Attacks on Bowling Green and Sweden already. I guess Donald Trump is just limp and soft on terror, unlike strong man Barack Obama. Sad!
Any guesses on where bottom is?
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 12:58:07 PM
Any guesses on where bottom is?
If we get there we're all gonna be fuckin dead, so who cares
Quote from: SKO on May 16, 2017, 01:13:00 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 12:58:07 PM
Any guesses on where bottom is?
If we get there we're all gonna be fuckin dead, so who cares
You think we get to the Apocalypse before Congress cuts the legs out from under him? At some point, blindly backing 45 will cost the GOP grassroots funding. Politicians can put up with a lot, but not getting money isn't on the list.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 01:25:33 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 16, 2017, 01:13:00 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 12:58:07 PM
Any guesses on where bottom is?
If we get there we're all gonna be fuckin dead, so who cares
You think we get to the Apocalypse before Congress cuts the legs out from under him? At some point, blindly backing 45 will cost the GOP grassroots funding. Politicians can put up with a lot, but not getting money isn't on the list.
I think it's abundantly clear they will back him as long as he's pushing their overall agenda of cutting taxes and trying to kill poor people.
You know what I'd really like?
A source for the 5 W's of journalism.
Without bias without a political agenda.
I don't want a "side" just report facts.
Fake news , real news, CNN, FOX, WSJ, NYT, WP, and all the rest.
How about just reporting a factual non glorified unbiased story.
I'm so sick of everyone has to have a position.
Yeah, I know I'm old.
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:47:58 PM
You know what I'd really like?
A source for the 5 W's of journalism.
Without bias without a political agenda.
I don't want a "side" just report facts.
Fake news , real news, CNN, FOX, WSJ, NYT, WP, and all the rest.
How about just reporting a factual non glorified unbiased story.
I'm so sick of everyone has to have a position.
Yeah, I know I'm old.
I think that Twitter is the answer. If you can't count on Twitter what can you count on?
Quote from: CBStew on May 16, 2017, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:47:58 PM
You know what I'd really like?
A source for the 5 W's of journalism.
Without bias without a political agenda.
I don't want a "side" just report facts.
Fake news , real news, CNN, FOX, WSJ, NYT, WP, and all the rest.
How about just reporting a factual non glorified unbiased story.
I'm so sick of everyone has to have a position.
Yeah, I know I'm old.
I think that Twitter is the answer. If you can't count on Twitter what can you count on?
Stew, I would read your tweets.
Quote from: CBStew on May 16, 2017, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:47:58 PM
You know what I'd really like?
A source for the 5 W's of journalism.
Without bias without a political agenda.
I don't want a "side" just report facts.
Fake news , real news, CNN, FOX, WSJ, NYT, WP, and all the rest.
How about just reporting a factual non glorified unbiased story.
I'm so sick of everyone has to have a position.
Yeah, I know I'm old.
I think that Twitter is the answer. If you can't count on Twitter what can you count on?
The best source of unbiased analysis is on Twitter, particularly politicians who criticize people they don't like for doing the same thing people they like are doing.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 01:55:00 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 16, 2017, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:47:58 PM
You know what I'd really like?
A source for the 5 W's of journalism.
Without bias without a political agenda.
I don't want a "side" just report facts.
Fake news , real news, CNN, FOX, WSJ, NYT, WP, and all the rest.
How about just reporting a factual non glorified unbiased story.
I'm so sick of everyone has to have a position.
Yeah, I know I'm old.
I think that Twitter is the answer. If you can't count on Twitter what can you count on?
The best source of unbiased analysis is on Twitter, particularly politicians who criticize people they don't like for doing the same thing people they like are doing.
I know you're kidding but I'm talking about real reporting.
I'm just so sick of having to filter
everything based off an assumption of bias.
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:57:40 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 01:55:00 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 16, 2017, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:47:58 PM
You know what I'd really like?
A source for the 5 W's of journalism.
Without bias without a political agenda.
I don't want a "side" just report facts.
Fake news , real news, CNN, FOX, WSJ, NYT, WP, and all the rest.
How about just reporting a factual non glorified unbiased story.
I'm so sick of everyone has to have a position.
Yeah, I know I'm old.
I think that Twitter is the answer. If you can't count on Twitter what can you count on?
The best source of unbiased analysis is on Twitter, particularly politicians who criticize people they don't like for doing the same thing people they like are doing.
I know you're kidding but I'm talking about real reporting.
I'm just so sick of having to filter everything based off an assumption of bias.
The bias isn't necessarily ideological - hell, most media is owned by corporations that benefits greatly from Conservative policies, whether it's FCC deregulation or abolishing net neutrality...but the bias, particularly with regard to broadcast media, is ratings.
People don't tune in to hear everything is fine.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:03:55 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:57:40 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 01:55:00 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 16, 2017, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:47:58 PM
You know what I'd really like?
A source for the 5 W's of journalism.
Without bias without a political agenda.
I don't want a "side" just report facts.
Fake news , real news, CNN, FOX, WSJ, NYT, WP, and all the rest.
How about just reporting a factual non glorified unbiased story.
I'm so sick of everyone has to have a position.
Yeah, I know I'm old.
I think that Twitter is the answer. If you can't count on Twitter what can you count on?
The best source of unbiased analysis is on Twitter, particularly politicians who criticize people they don't like for doing the same thing people they like are doing.
I know you're kidding but I'm talking about real reporting.
I'm just so sick of having to filter everything based off an assumption of bias.
The bias isn't necessarily ideological - hell, most media is owned by corporations that benefits greatly from Conservative policies, whether it's FCC deregulation or abolishing net neutrality...but the bias, particularly with regard to broadcast media, is ratings.
People don't tune in to hear everything is fine.
So CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, WP, and the NYT benefit from conservative policies?
You must get your cable and internet from a different provider than mine.
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 02:07:47 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:03:55 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:57:40 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 01:55:00 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 16, 2017, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:47:58 PM
You know what I'd really like?
A source for the 5 W's of journalism.
Without bias without a political agenda.
I don't want a "side" just report facts.
Fake news , real news, CNN, FOX, WSJ, NYT, WP, and all the rest.
How about just reporting a factual non glorified unbiased story.
I'm so sick of everyone has to have a position.
Yeah, I know I'm old.
I think that Twitter is the answer. If you can't count on Twitter what can you count on?
The best source of unbiased analysis is on Twitter, particularly politicians who criticize people they don't like for doing the same thing people they like are doing.
I know you're kidding but I'm talking about real reporting.
I'm just so sick of having to filter everything based off an assumption of bias.
The bias isn't necessarily ideological - hell, most media is owned by corporations that benefits greatly from Conservative policies, whether it's FCC deregulation or abolishing net neutrality...but the bias, particularly with regard to broadcast media, is ratings.
People don't tune in to hear everything is fine.
So CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, WP, and the NYT benefit from conservative policies?
You must get your cable and internet from a different provider than mine.
NBC, which is owned by Comcast, one of the largest Internet providers in the US? Damn right they do.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:45:42 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 02:07:47 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:03:55 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:57:40 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 01:55:00 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 16, 2017, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:47:58 PM
You know what I'd really like?
A source for the 5 W's of journalism.
Without bias without a political agenda.
I don't want a "side" just report facts.
Fake news , real news, CNN, FOX, WSJ, NYT, WP, and all the rest.
How about just reporting a factual non glorified unbiased story.
I'm so sick of everyone has to have a position.
Yeah, I know I'm old.
I think that Twitter is the answer. If you can't count on Twitter what can you count on?
The best source of unbiased analysis is on Twitter, particularly politicians who criticize people they don't like for doing the same thing people they like are doing.
I know you're kidding but I'm talking about real reporting.
I'm just so sick of having to filter everything based off an assumption of bias.
The bias isn't necessarily ideological - hell, most media is owned by corporations that benefits greatly from Conservative policies, whether it's FCC deregulation or abolishing net neutrality...but the bias, particularly with regard to broadcast media, is ratings.
People don't tune in to hear everything is fine.
So CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, WP, and the NYT benefit from conservative policies?
You must get your cable and internet from a different provider than mine.
NBC, which is owned by Comcast, one of the largest Internet providers in the US? Damn right they do.
I must have missed all the conservative stories on NBC
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 02:49:09 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:45:42 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 02:07:47 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:03:55 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:57:40 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 01:55:00 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 16, 2017, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:47:58 PM
You know what I'd really like?
A source for the 5 W's of journalism.
Without bias without a political agenda.
I don't want a "side" just report facts.
Fake news , real news, CNN, FOX, WSJ, NYT, WP, and all the rest.
How about just reporting a factual non glorified unbiased story.
I'm so sick of everyone has to have a position.
Yeah, I know I'm old.
I think that Twitter is the answer. If you can't count on Twitter what can you count on?
The best source of unbiased analysis is on Twitter, particularly politicians who criticize people they don't like for doing the same thing people they like are doing.
I know you're kidding but I'm talking about real reporting.
I'm just so sick of having to filter everything based off an assumption of bias.
The bias isn't necessarily ideological - hell, most media is owned by corporations that benefits greatly from Conservative policies, whether it's FCC deregulation or abolishing net neutrality...but the bias, particularly with regard to broadcast media, is ratings.
People don't tune in to hear everything is fine.
So CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, WP, and the NYT benefit from conservative policies?
You must get your cable and internet from a different provider than mine.
NBC, which is owned by Comcast, one of the largest Internet providers in the US? Damn right they do.
I must have missed all the conservative stories on NBC
You mean like their running 5 minutes on Hillary's emails for every one minute on issues-based reporting last campaign cycle?
(According to MMFA)
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 02:49:09 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:45:42 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 02:07:47 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:03:55 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:57:40 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 01:55:00 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 16, 2017, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:47:58 PM
You know what I'd really like?
A source for the 5 W's of journalism.
Without bias without a political agenda.
I don't want a "side" just report facts.
Fake news , real news, CNN, FOX, WSJ, NYT, WP, and all the rest.
How about just reporting a factual non glorified unbiased story.
I'm so sick of everyone has to have a position.
Yeah, I know I'm old.
I think that Twitter is the answer. If you can't count on Twitter what can you count on?
The best source of unbiased analysis is on Twitter, particularly politicians who criticize people they don't like for doing the same thing people they like are doing.
I know you're kidding but I'm talking about real reporting.
I'm just so sick of having to filter everything based off an assumption of bias.
The bias isn't necessarily ideological - hell, most media is owned by corporations that benefits greatly from Conservative policies, whether it's FCC deregulation or abolishing net neutrality...but the bias, particularly with regard to broadcast media, is ratings.
People don't tune in to hear everything is fine.
So CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, WP, and the NYT benefit from conservative policies?
You must get your cable and internet from a different provider than mine.
NBC, which is owned by Comcast, one of the largest Internet providers in the US? Damn right they do.
I must have missed all the conservative stories on NBC
I guess I'm wondering what you define as a "conservative story"? If it's just "when are they going to run something not biased against the current administration or its policies" then is it worth considering whether the problem is the news or the administration's continued fuck ups? I mean the AHCA had a fucking 17% approval rating from the American public and it was rammed through in a matter of days without a final bill published for public review and without a CBO score. Is the media supposed to just lie?
I mean if you want "conservative stories" people on CNN were not averse to praising Trump for launching a few cruise missiles into Syria to send a message (I saw where out of 47 OP eds run in major national newspapers about the Syria strikes, only 1 was opposed) and Brian Williams talked about how "beautiful" they were as they were being fired off the deck of a ship.
His one address to congress was met with praise from all the major pundits and largely hailed as the day he "became president" or whatever.
The media wants to go wherever public opinion goes and Americans want nothing more than to be told everything is fine so long as they're not being blatantly lied to. This administration is so transparent in their repeated fucks ups that it is impossible to push the "everything is fine" narrative. If Trump ever manages to go one week without hitting himself in the dick repeatedly you'll see the media fall right in line to praise his presidential tone or whatever.
Quote from: SKO on May 16, 2017, 02:57:42 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 02:49:09 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:45:42 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 02:07:47 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:03:55 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:57:40 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 01:55:00 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 16, 2017, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:47:58 PM
You know what I'd really like?
A source for the 5 W's of journalism.
Without bias without a political agenda.
I don't want a "side" just report facts.
Fake news , real news, CNN, FOX, WSJ, NYT, WP, and all the rest.
How about just reporting a factual non glorified unbiased story.
I'm so sick of everyone has to have a position.
Yeah, I know I'm old.
I think that Twitter is the answer. If you can't count on Twitter what can you count on?
The best source of unbiased analysis is on Twitter, particularly politicians who criticize people they don't like for doing the same thing people they like are doing.
I know you're kidding but I'm talking about real reporting.
I'm just so sick of having to filter everything based off an assumption of bias.
The bias isn't necessarily ideological - hell, most media is owned by corporations that benefits greatly from Conservative policies, whether it's FCC deregulation or abolishing net neutrality...but the bias, particularly with regard to broadcast media, is ratings.
People don't tune in to hear everything is fine.
So CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, WP, and the NYT benefit from conservative policies?
You must get your cable and internet from a different provider than mine.
NBC, which is owned by Comcast, one of the largest Internet providers in the US? Damn right they do.
I must have missed all the conservative stories on NBC
I guess I'm wondering what you define as a "conservative story"? If it's just "when are they going to run something not biased against the current administration or its policies" then is it worth considering whether the problem is the news or the administration's continued fuck ups? I mean the AHCA had a fucking 17% approval rating from the American public and it was rammed through in a matter of days without a final bill published for public review and without a CBO score. Is the media supposed to just lie?
I mean if you want "conservative stories" people on CNN were not averse to praising Trump for launching a few cruise missiles into Syria to send a message (I saw where out of 47 OP eds run in major national newspapers about the Syria strikes, only 1 was opposed) and Brian Williams talked about how "beautiful" they were as they were being fired off the deck of a ship.
His one address to congress was met with praise from all the major pundits and largely hailed as the day he "became president" or whatever.
The media wants to go wherever public opinion goes and Americans want nothing more than to be told everything is fine so long as they're not being blatantly lied to. This administration is so transparent in their repeated fucks ups that it is impossible to push the "everything is fine" narrative. If Trump ever manages to go one week without hitting himself in the dick repeatedly you'll see the media fall right in line to praise his presidential tone or whatever.
Don't forget Brian Williams chimping himself raw over Syria getting bombed.
I mean for God's sake CNN hired Corey Lewandowski or however the hell he spells it to come on and talk about Trump's campaign as a CNN talking head while Trump's campaign was still paying him. NBC hired Megyn Kelly. MSNBC in general is tacking right-wing even as their left-wing shows get higher ratings.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 03:01:36 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 16, 2017, 02:57:42 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 02:49:09 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:45:42 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 02:07:47 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:03:55 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:57:40 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 01:55:00 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 16, 2017, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:47:58 PM
You know what I'd really like?
A source for the 5 W's of journalism.
Without bias without a political agenda.
I don't want a "side" just report facts.
Fake news , real news, CNN, FOX, WSJ, NYT, WP, and all the rest.
How about just reporting a factual non glorified unbiased story.
I'm so sick of everyone has to have a position.
Yeah, I know I'm old.
I think that Twitter is the answer. If you can't count on Twitter what can you count on?
The best source of unbiased analysis is on Twitter, particularly politicians who criticize people they don't like for doing the same thing people they like are doing.
I know you're kidding but I'm talking about real reporting.
I'm just so sick of having to filter everything based off an assumption of bias.
The bias isn't necessarily ideological - hell, most media is owned by corporations that benefits greatly from Conservative policies, whether it's FCC deregulation or abolishing net neutrality...but the bias, particularly with regard to broadcast media, is ratings.
People don't tune in to hear everything is fine.
So CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, WP, and the NYT benefit from conservative policies?
You must get your cable and internet from a different provider than mine.
NBC, which is owned by Comcast, one of the largest Internet providers in the US? Damn right they do.
I must have missed all the conservative stories on NBC
I guess I'm wondering what you define as a "conservative story"? If it's just "when are they going to run something not biased against the current administration or its policies" then is it worth considering whether the problem is the news or the administration's continued fuck ups? I mean the AHCA had a fucking 17% approval rating from the American public and it was rammed through in a matter of days without a final bill published for public review and without a CBO score. Is the media supposed to just lie?
I mean if you want "conservative stories" people on CNN were not averse to praising Trump for launching a few cruise missiles into Syria to send a message (I saw where out of 47 OP eds run in major national newspapers about the Syria strikes, only 1 was opposed) and Brian Williams talked about how "beautiful" they were as they were being fired off the deck of a ship.
His one address to congress was met with praise from all the major pundits and largely hailed as the day he "became president" or whatever.
The media wants to go wherever public opinion goes and Americans want nothing more than to be told everything is fine so long as they're not being blatantly lied to. This administration is so transparent in their repeated fucks ups that it is impossible to push the "everything is fine" narrative. If Trump ever manages to go one week without hitting himself in the dick repeatedly you'll see the media fall right in line to praise his presidential tone or whatever.
Don't forget Brian Williams chimping himself raw over Syria getting bombed.
Do you just read every
other paragraph?
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on May 16, 2017, 03:05:31 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 03:01:36 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 16, 2017, 02:57:42 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 02:49:09 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:45:42 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 02:07:47 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:03:55 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:57:40 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 01:55:00 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 16, 2017, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:47:58 PM
You know what I'd really like?
A source for the 5 W's of journalism.
Without bias without a political agenda.
I don't want a "side" just report facts.
Fake news , real news, CNN, FOX, WSJ, NYT, WP, and all the rest.
How about just reporting a factual non glorified unbiased story.
I'm so sick of everyone has to have a position.
Yeah, I know I'm old.
I think that Twitter is the answer. If you can't count on Twitter what can you count on?
The best source of unbiased analysis is on Twitter, particularly politicians who criticize people they don't like for doing the same thing people they like are doing.
I know you're kidding but I'm talking about real reporting.
I'm just so sick of having to filter everything based off an assumption of bias.
The bias isn't necessarily ideological - hell, most media is owned by corporations that benefits greatly from Conservative policies, whether it's FCC deregulation or abolishing net neutrality...but the bias, particularly with regard to broadcast media, is ratings.
People don't tune in to hear everything is fine.
So CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, WP, and the NYT benefit from conservative policies?
You must get your cable and internet from a different provider than mine.
NBC, which is owned by Comcast, one of the largest Internet providers in the US? Damn right they do.
I must have missed all the conservative stories on NBC
I guess I'm wondering what you define as a "conservative story"? If it's just "when are they going to run something not biased against the current administration or its policies" then is it worth considering whether the problem is the news or the administration's continued fuck ups? I mean the AHCA had a fucking 17% approval rating from the American public and it was rammed through in a matter of days without a final bill published for public review and without a CBO score. Is the media supposed to just lie?
I mean if you want "conservative stories" people on CNN were not averse to praising Trump for launching a few cruise missiles into Syria to send a message (I saw where out of 47 OP eds run in major national newspapers about the Syria strikes, only 1 was opposed) and Brian Williams talked about how "beautiful" they were as they were being fired off the deck of a ship.
His one address to congress was met with praise from all the major pundits and largely hailed as the day he "became president" or whatever.
The media wants to go wherever public opinion goes and Americans want nothing more than to be told everything is fine so long as they're not being blatantly lied to. This administration is so transparent in their repeated fucks ups that it is impossible to push the "everything is fine" narrative. If Trump ever manages to go one week without hitting himself in the dick repeatedly you'll see the media fall right in line to praise his presidential tone or whatever.
Don't forget Brian Williams chimping himself raw over Syria getting bombed.
Do you just read every other paragraph?
I had to consider the source.
Quote from: SKO on May 16, 2017, 02:57:42 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 02:49:09 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:45:42 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 02:07:47 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:03:55 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:57:40 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 01:55:00 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 16, 2017, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:47:58 PM
You know what I'd really like?
A source for the 5 W's of journalism.
Without bias without a political agenda.
I don't want a "side" just report facts.
Fake news , real news, CNN, FOX, WSJ, NYT, WP, and all the rest.
How about just reporting a factual non glorified unbiased story.
I'm so sick of everyone has to have a position.
Yeah, I know I'm old.
I think that Twitter is the answer. If you can't count on Twitter what can you count on?
The best source of unbiased analysis is on Twitter, particularly politicians who criticize people they don't like for doing the same thing people they like are doing.
I know you're kidding but I'm talking about real reporting.
I'm just so sick of having to filter everything based off an assumption of bias.
The bias isn't necessarily ideological - hell, most media is owned by corporations that benefits greatly from Conservative policies, whether it's FCC deregulation or abolishing net neutrality...but the bias, particularly with regard to broadcast media, is ratings.
People don't tune in to hear everything is fine.
So CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, WP, and the NYT benefit from conservative policies?
You must get your cable and internet from a different provider than mine.
NBC, which is owned by Comcast, one of the largest Internet providers in the US? Damn right they do.
I must have missed all the conservative stories on NBC
I guess I'm wondering what you define as a "conservative story"? If it's just "when are they going to run something not biased against the current administration or its policies" then is it worth considering whether the problem is the news or the administration's continued fuck ups? I mean the AHCA had a fucking 17% approval rating from the American public and it was rammed through in a matter of days without a final bill published for public review and without a CBO score. Is the media supposed to just lie?
I mean if you want "conservative stories" people on CNN were not averse to praising Trump for launching a few cruise missiles into Syria to send a message (I saw where out of 47 OP eds run in major national newspapers about the Syria strikes, only 1 was opposed) and Brian Williams talked about how "beautiful" they were as they were being fired off the deck of a ship.
His one address to congress was met with praise from all the major pundits and largely hailed as the day he "became president" or whatever.
The media wants to go wherever public opinion goes and Americans want nothing more than to be told everything is fine so long as they're not being blatantly lied to. This administration is so transparent in their repeated fucks ups that it is impossible to push the "everything is fine" narrative. If Trump ever manages to go one week without hitting himself in the dick repeatedly you'll see the media fall right in line to praise his presidential tone or whatever.
Guys, I'm not arguing for / against Trump.
If you don't feel CNN and NBC have a left bias, that's cool.
I'm apolitical as hell and my original post was about not feeling confident in being able to find a source for the 5 W's.
No matter what your politics are it's just sad as hell that it is all ratings driven and not about non sensationalistic journalism.
I would really like to have a source for unbiased investigative work.
Turn on any of the network big 3 at 5:30 pm on a weekday and the most air time will be given to the current national "weather apocalypse".
I would love to sit down and spend time reading a fair report.
I believe those days are gone if they ever existed.
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 03:16:15 PM
Quote from: SKO on May 16, 2017, 02:57:42 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 02:49:09 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:45:42 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 02:07:47 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:03:55 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:57:40 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 01:55:00 PM
Quote from: CBStew on May 16, 2017, 01:50:58 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 01:47:58 PM
You know what I'd really like?
A source for the 5 W's of journalism.
Without bias without a political agenda.
I don't want a "side" just report facts.
Fake news , real news, CNN, FOX, WSJ, NYT, WP, and all the rest.
How about just reporting a factual non glorified unbiased story.
I'm so sick of everyone has to have a position.
Yeah, I know I'm old.
I think that Twitter is the answer. If you can't count on Twitter what can you count on?
The best source of unbiased analysis is on Twitter, particularly politicians who criticize people they don't like for doing the same thing people they like are doing.
I know you're kidding but I'm talking about real reporting.
I'm just so sick of having to filter everything based off an assumption of bias.
The bias isn't necessarily ideological - hell, most media is owned by corporations that benefits greatly from Conservative policies, whether it's FCC deregulation or abolishing net neutrality...but the bias, particularly with regard to broadcast media, is ratings.
People don't tune in to hear everything is fine.
So CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, WP, and the NYT benefit from conservative policies?
You must get your cable and internet from a different provider than mine.
NBC, which is owned by Comcast, one of the largest Internet providers in the US? Damn right they do.
I must have missed all the conservative stories on NBC
I guess I'm wondering what you define as a "conservative story"? If it's just "when are they going to run something not biased against the current administration or its policies" then is it worth considering whether the problem is the news or the administration's continued fuck ups? I mean the AHCA had a fucking 17% approval rating from the American public and it was rammed through in a matter of days without a final bill published for public review and without a CBO score. Is the media supposed to just lie?
I mean if you want "conservative stories" people on CNN were not averse to praising Trump for launching a few cruise missiles into Syria to send a message (I saw where out of 47 OP eds run in major national newspapers about the Syria strikes, only 1 was opposed) and Brian Williams talked about how "beautiful" they were as they were being fired off the deck of a ship.
His one address to congress was met with praise from all the major pundits and largely hailed as the day he "became president" or whatever.
The media wants to go wherever public opinion goes and Americans want nothing more than to be told everything is fine so long as they're not being blatantly lied to. This administration is so transparent in their repeated fucks ups that it is impossible to push the "everything is fine" narrative. If Trump ever manages to go one week without hitting himself in the dick repeatedly you'll see the media fall right in line to praise his presidential tone or whatever.
Guys, I'm not arguing for / against Trump.
If you don't feel CNN and NBC have a left bias, that's cool.
I'm apolitical as hell and my original post was about not feeling confident in being able to find a source for the 5 W's.
No matter what your politics are it's just sad as hell that it is all ratings driven and not about non sensationalistic journalism.
I would really like to have a source for unbiased investigative work.
Turn on any of the network big 3 at 5:30 pm on a weekday and the most air time will be given to the current national "weather apocalypse".
I would love to sit down and spend time reading a fair report.
I believe those days are gone if they ever existed.
My original point, which still stands, is the most sensational shit gets the airtime, regardless of political slant. Trump got tens of millions of dollars worth of free airtime last campaign cycle, simply because nobody wanted to miss the next insane thing he said. He was like a shock jock for cable news. And everybody gave him maximum exposure.
Cable news with the exception of Fox tries to skew towards what viewers want as far as social news, economically they skew right of center. Bernie's economic platform that would most definitely hurt major media corporations financially got met with derision or just ignored entirely by news channels on either side. NBC/MSNBC/CNN etc will skew more liberal as far as diversity and social issues go simply because that appeals to the broadest number of viewers, since the Cranky Old White People demographic is owned by Fox.
Fork, you quoted MMFA.
Seriously?
This is my point.
Where do I find unbiased reporting?
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 03:36:47 PM
Fork, you quoted MMFA.
Seriously?
This is my point.
Where do I find unbiased reporting?
Like it or not, they provide the best metrics.
ETA: I generally get my news from financial networks. They provide the rawest data, and the analysis isn't geared toward politics, but how to make money off the information.
Not the pure 5 Ws, but better than screaming talking heads.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 03:39:28 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 03:36:47 PM
Fork, you quoted MMFA.
Seriously?
This is my point.
Where do I find unbiased reporting?
Like it or not, they provide the best metrics.
ETA: I generally get my news from financial networks. They provide the rawest data, and the analysis isn't geared toward politics, but how to make money off the information.
Not the pure 5 Ws, but better than screaming talking heads.
Says who? Mother Jones?
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 03:49:53 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 03:39:28 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 03:36:47 PM
Fork, you quoted MMFA.
Seriously?
This is my point.
Where do I find unbiased reporting?
Like it or not, they provide the best metrics.
ETA: I generally get my news from financial networks. They provide the rawest data, and the analysis isn't geared toward politics, but how to make money off the information.
Not the pure 5 Ws, but better than screaming talking heads.
Says who? Mother Jones?
Find me someone who does as thorough a monitoring of broadcasts and I'll take a look.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 04:00:10 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 03:49:53 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 03:39:28 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 03:36:47 PM
Fork, you quoted MMFA.
Seriously?
This is my point.
Where do I find unbiased reporting?
Like it or not, they provide the best metrics.
ETA: I generally get my news from financial networks. They provide the rawest data, and the analysis isn't geared toward politics, but how to make money off the information.
Not the pure 5 Ws, but better than screaming talking heads.
Says who? Mother Jones?
Find me someone who does as thorough a monitoring of broadcasts and I'll take a look.
That's my whole point.
Who say's it's thorough or unbiased?
Confirmation bias is just as big a problem and I mean that from all sides.
Quote from: SKO on May 16, 2017, 03:35:50 PM
Cable news with the exception of Fox tries to skew towards what viewers want as far as social news, economically they skew right of center. Bernie's economic platform that would most definitely hurt major media corporations financially got met with derision or just ignored entirely by news channels on either side. NBC/MSNBC/CNN etc will skew more liberal as far as diversity and social issues go simply because that appeals to the broadest number of viewers, since the Cranky Old White People demographic is owned by Fox.
I'm a cranky old white person and I despise FOX.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:03:55 PM
People don't tune in to hear everything is fine.
People don't turn in to hear everything they think is wrong.
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 16, 2017, 04:13:30 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:03:55 PM
People don't tune in to hear everything is fine.
People don't turn in to hear everything they think is wrong.
This is a large part of the problem. People would rather feel informed than actually be informed. Tuning in for daily affirmation achieves that.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 04:14:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 16, 2017, 04:13:30 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:03:55 PM
People don't tune in to hear everything is fine.
People don't turn in to hear everything they think is wrong.
This is a large part of the problem. People would rather feel informed than actually be informed. Tuning in for daily affirmation achieves that.
Just another form of faith.
"Thy guy you hoped would make your life better is a fraud."
"Yes, I mean both the politicians and God."
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 16, 2017, 04:18:34 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 04:14:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 16, 2017, 04:13:30 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:03:55 PM
People don't tune in to hear everything is fine.
People don't turn in to hear everything they think is wrong.
This is a large part of the problem. People would rather feel informed than actually be informed. Tuning in for daily affirmation achieves that.
Just another form of faith.
"Thy guy you hoped would make your life better is a fraud."
"Yes, I mean both the politicians and God."
This is where I recommend listening to "Joe's Garage".
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 04:19:58 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 16, 2017, 04:18:34 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 04:14:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 16, 2017, 04:13:30 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:03:55 PM
People don't tune in to hear everything is fine.
People don't turn in to hear everything they think is wrong.
This is a large part of the problem. People would rather feel informed than actually be informed. Tuning in for daily affirmation achieves that.
Just another form of faith.
"Thy guy you hoped would make your life better is a fraud."
"Yes, I mean both the politicians and God."
This is where I recommend listening to "Joe's Garage".
Chuck is right
Fork with the FZ reference
And as I edited above "confirmation bias".
Can we all just agree that our President is a sociopath and there is no true and honest reporting?
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 04:25:53 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 04:19:58 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 16, 2017, 04:18:34 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 04:14:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 16, 2017, 04:13:30 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:03:55 PM
People don't tune in to hear everything is fine.
People don't turn in to hear everything they think is wrong.
This is a large part of the problem. People would rather feel informed than actually be informed. Tuning in for daily affirmation achieves that.
Just another form of faith.
"Thy guy you hoped would make your life better is a fraud."
"Yes, I mean both the politicians and God."
This is where I recommend listening to "Joe's Garage".
Chuck is right
Fork with the FZ reference
And as I edited above "confirmation bias".
Can we all just agree that our President is a sociopath and there is no true and honest reporting?
And "Joe's Garage" is awesome. And timely. As is "Thing Fish" and "Broadway The Hard Way".
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 04:25:53 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 04:19:58 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 16, 2017, 04:18:34 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 04:14:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 16, 2017, 04:13:30 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:03:55 PM
People don't tune in to hear everything is fine.
People don't turn in to hear everything they think is wrong.
This is a large part of the problem. People would rather feel informed than actually be informed. Tuning in for daily affirmation achieves that.
Just another form of faith.
"Thy guy you hoped would make your life better is a fraud."
"Yes, I mean both the politicians and God."
This is where I recommend listening to "Joe's Garage".
Chuck is right
Fork with the FZ reference
And as I edited above "confirmation bias".
Can we all just agree that our President is a sociopath and there is no true and honest reporting?
Is there an example of true and honest reporting from days gone by that you are using as a baseline? All reporters have their own worldview and biases on which facts are worthy of gathering, and they report to editors who have their own worldview and biases that impact their decisions on what gets reported, and they report to media executives who have their own worldview and biases that impact who they hired in the first place, and they report to board members who want to consolidate and synergize and cut costs in an industry that should be a public good. I don't know how a rational person could expect there to be any One True Journalism that could emerge through all those filters.
Quote from: R-V on May 16, 2017, 04:49:06 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 04:25:53 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 04:19:58 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 16, 2017, 04:18:34 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 04:14:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 16, 2017, 04:13:30 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:03:55 PM
People don't tune in to hear everything is fine.
People don't turn in to hear everything they think is wrong.
This is a large part of the problem. People would rather feel informed than actually be informed. Tuning in for daily affirmation achieves that.
Just another form of faith.
"Thy guy you hoped would make your life better is a fraud."
"Yes, I mean both the politicians and God."
This is where I recommend listening to "Joe's Garage".
Chuck is right
Fork with the FZ reference
And as I edited above "confirmation bias".
Can we all just agree that our President is a sociopath and there is no true and honest reporting?
Is there an example of true and honest reporting from days gone by that you are using as a baseline? All reporters have their own worldview and biases on which facts are worthy of gathering, and they report to editors who have their own worldview and biases that impact their decisions on what gets reported, and they report to media executives who have their own worldview and biases that impact who they hired in the first place, and they report to board members who want to consolidate and synergize and cut costs in an industry that should be a public good. I don't know how a rational person could expect there to be any One True Journalism that could emerge through all those filters.
R-V I think your points are very valid. Think about the Tribune and Colonel McCormick.
But I do believe there was a time when reporters and editors tried to be considerably more accurate than today.
Blue pencil and all.
Or, when is news no longer what matters?
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 04:55:15 PM
R-V I think your points are very valid. Think about the Tribune and Colonel McCormick.
But I do believe there was a time when reporters and editors tried to be considerably more accurate than today.
Blue pencil and all.
Or, when is news no longer what matters?
People are a product of the environment they inhabit. To assume that these mythical unbiased reporters of days gone by would be the same reporters in today's environment as they were back then is probably a little misguided, and probably giving them too much credit.
Quote from: Yeti on May 16, 2017, 09:17:46 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 04:55:15 PM
R-V I think your points are very valid. Think about the Tribune and Colonel McCormick.
But I do believe there was a time when reporters and editors tried to be considerably more accurate than today.
Blue pencil and all.
Or, when is news no longer what matters?
People are a product of the environment they inhabit. To assume that these mythical unbiased reporters of days gone by would be the same reporters in today's environment as they were back then is probably a little misguided, and probably giving them too much credit.
The most revered name in broadcast journalism - Edward R. Murrow - led a merry band of liberals at CBS.
And Hearst was Rupert Murdoch before Murdoch was.
It is as it always has been.
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 04:55:15 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 16, 2017, 04:49:06 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 04:25:53 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 04:19:58 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 16, 2017, 04:18:34 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 04:14:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 16, 2017, 04:13:30 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:03:55 PM
People don't tune in to hear everything is fine.
People don't turn in to hear everything they think is wrong.
This is a large part of the problem. People would rather feel informed than actually be informed. Tuning in for daily affirmation achieves that.
Just another form of faith.
"Thy guy you hoped would make your life better is a fraud."
"Yes, I mean both the politicians and God."
This is where I recommend listening to "Joe's Garage".
Chuck is right
Fork with the FZ reference
And as I edited above "confirmation bias".
Can we all just agree that our President is a sociopath and there is no true and honest reporting?
Is there an example of true and honest reporting from days gone by that you are using as a baseline? All reporters have their own worldview and biases on which facts are worthy of gathering, and they report to editors who have their own worldview and biases that impact their decisions on what gets reported, and they report to media executives who have their own worldview and biases that impact who they hired in the first place, and they report to board members who want to consolidate and synergize and cut costs in an industry that should be a public good. I don't know how a rational person could expect there to be any One True Journalism that could emerge through all those filters.
R-V I think your points are very valid. Think about the Tribune and Colonel McCormick.
But I do believe there was a time when reporters and editors tried to be considerably more accurate than today.
Blue pencil and all.
Or, when is news no longer what matters?
Maybe to me its a 'what's old is new again', but the original reporting (not the analysis or the commentary) from the Times, the Post and the Journal to me strikes me as quite 5W right now (and the bigger the story the more 'straight down the middle' sources seeking to remain credible will be). There are slants and biases, but you know what they are when you walk in.
Quote from: thehawk on May 17, 2017, 11:08:53 AM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 04:55:15 PM
Quote from: R-V on May 16, 2017, 04:49:06 PM
Quote from: flannj on May 16, 2017, 04:25:53 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 04:19:58 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 16, 2017, 04:18:34 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 04:14:20 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on May 16, 2017, 04:13:30 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on May 16, 2017, 02:03:55 PM
People don't tune in to hear everything is fine.
People don't turn in to hear everything they think is wrong.
This is a large part of the problem. People would rather feel informed than actually be informed. Tuning in for daily affirmation achieves that.
Just another form of faith.
"Thy guy you hoped would make your life better is a fraud."
"Yes, I mean both the politicians and God."
This is where I recommend listening to "Joe's Garage".
Chuck is right
Fork with the FZ reference
And as I edited above "confirmation bias".
Can we all just agree that our President is a sociopath and there is no true and honest reporting?
Is there an example of true and honest reporting from days gone by that you are using as a baseline? All reporters have their own worldview and biases on which facts are worthy of gathering, and they report to editors who have their own worldview and biases that impact their decisions on what gets reported, and they report to media executives who have their own worldview and biases that impact who they hired in the first place, and they report to board members who want to consolidate and synergize and cut costs in an industry that should be a public good. I don't know how a rational person could expect there to be any One True Journalism that could emerge through all those filters.
R-V I think your points are very valid. Think about the Tribune and Colonel McCormick.
But I do believe there was a time when reporters and editors tried to be considerably more accurate than today.
Blue pencil and all.
Or, when is news no longer what matters?
Maybe to me its a 'what's old is new again', but the original reporting (not the analysis or the commentary) from the Times, the Post and the Journal to me strikes me as quite 5W right now (and the bigger the story the more 'straight down the middle' sources seeking to remain credible will be). There are slants and biases, but you know what they are when you walk in.
It's also possible that we've entered a post-information world. Next time you're in your local grocery store, look at the front page of the National Enquirer, and you'll see the front page is all pro-Trump hit pieces..."MEGYN KELLY - WORST MOTHER EVER!!!"
Plus, people on both sides are perfectly happy only reading what comfortably fits inside their worldview (personally, I like knowing what the other side's thinking)...basically, people are happier feeling informed than actually being informed.
I'm tired of this reality show. What else is on?
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 11, 2017, 02:48:09 PM
I'm tired of this reality show. What else is on?
This (https://www.loa.org/books/128-reporting-vietnam-american-journalism-1959-1969)
Or this (https://www.loa.org/books/186-reporting-civil-rights-american-journalism-1941-1963)
I just wish people would read a book every once and awhile.
Quote from: flannj on July 11, 2017, 03:53:38 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 11, 2017, 02:48:09 PM
I'm tired of this reality show. What else is on?
This (https://www.loa.org/books/128-reporting-vietnam-american-journalism-1959-1969)
Or this (https://www.loa.org/books/186-reporting-civil-rights-american-journalism-1941-1963)
I just wish people would read a book every once and awhile.
Just not Kaplan's. It's almost as bad as Yellon's.
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on July 11, 2017, 04:21:40 PM
Quote from: flannj on July 11, 2017, 03:53:38 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 11, 2017, 02:48:09 PM
I'm tired of this reality show. What else is on?
This (https://www.loa.org/books/128-reporting-vietnam-american-journalism-1959-1969)
Or this (https://www.loa.org/books/186-reporting-civil-rights-american-journalism-1941-1963)
I just wish people would read a book every once and awhile.
Just not Kaplan's. It's almost as bad as Yellon's.
Those reviews should be updated perhaps?
Quote from: flannj on July 11, 2017, 03:53:38 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 11, 2017, 02:48:09 PM
I'm tired of this reality show. What else is on?
This (https://www.loa.org/books/128-reporting-vietnam-american-journalism-1959-1969)
Or this (https://www.loa.org/books/186-reporting-civil-rights-american-journalism-1941-1963)
I just wish people would read a book every once and awhile.
If people read books they wouldn't write "once and awhile."
Quote from: Saul Goodman on July 11, 2017, 06:54:00 PM
Quote from: flannj on July 11, 2017, 03:53:38 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 11, 2017, 02:48:09 PM
I'm tired of this reality show. What else is on?
This (https://www.loa.org/books/128-reporting-vietnam-american-journalism-1959-1969)
Or this (https://www.loa.org/books/186-reporting-civil-rights-american-journalism-1941-1963)
I just wish people would read a book every once and awhile.
If people read books they wouldn't write "once and awhile."
I wood.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on July 11, 2017, 06:54:00 PM
Quote from: flannj on July 11, 2017, 03:53:38 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 11, 2017, 02:48:09 PM
I'm tired of this reality show. What else is on?
This (https://www.loa.org/books/128-reporting-vietnam-american-journalism-1959-1969)
Or this (https://www.loa.org/books/186-reporting-civil-rights-american-journalism-1941-1963)
I just wish people would read a book every once and awhile.
If people read books they wouldn't write "once and awhile."
pwnd
Quote from: Yeti on July 11, 2017, 07:11:52 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on July 11, 2017, 06:54:00 PM
Quote from: flannj on July 11, 2017, 03:53:38 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 11, 2017, 02:48:09 PM
I'm tired of this reality show. What else is on?
This (https://www.loa.org/books/128-reporting-vietnam-american-journalism-1959-1969)
Or this (https://www.loa.org/books/186-reporting-civil-rights-american-journalism-1941-1963)
I just wish people would read a book every once and awhile.
If people read books they wouldn't write "once and awhile."
pwnd
Just like Marcia Clark, without a doubt.
Quote from: flannj on July 11, 2017, 07:30:09 PM
Quote from: Yeti on July 11, 2017, 07:11:52 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on July 11, 2017, 06:54:00 PM
Quote from: flannj on July 11, 2017, 03:53:38 PM
Quote from: Chuck to Chuck on July 11, 2017, 02:48:09 PM
I'm tired of this reality show. What else is on?
This (https://www.loa.org/books/128-reporting-vietnam-american-journalism-1959-1969)
Or this (https://www.loa.org/books/186-reporting-civil-rights-american-journalism-1941-1963)
I just wish people would read a book every once and awhile.
If people read books they wouldn't write "once and awhile."
pwnd
Just like Marcia Clark, without a doubt.
Corn cob.
'Merica.
Does anybody remember what a normal week feels like?
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 14, 2017, 03:52:13 PM
Does anybody remember what a normal week feels like?
You mean back in the days when the Cubs had gone over a century without a World Series?
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 14, 2017, 05:03:16 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 14, 2017, 03:52:13 PM
Does anybody remember what a normal week feels like?
You mean back in the days when the Cubs had gone over a century without a World Series?
I was going to post but I deleted.
I'm just so sick of all of it.
Quote from: flannj on August 14, 2017, 05:08:11 PM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 14, 2017, 05:03:16 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 14, 2017, 03:52:13 PM
Does anybody remember what a normal week feels like?
You mean back in the days when the Cubs had gone over a century without a World Series?
I was going to post but I deleted.
I'm just so sick of all of it.
At this point there is nothing to say without being "Captain Obvious".
Quote from: CBStew on August 14, 2017, 06:31:31 PM
Quote from: flannj on August 14, 2017, 05:08:11 PM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 14, 2017, 05:03:16 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 14, 2017, 03:52:13 PM
Does anybody remember what a normal week feels like?
You mean back in the days when the Cubs had gone over a century without a World Series?
I was going to post but I deleted.
I'm just so sick of all of it.
At this point there is nothing to say without being "Captain Obvious".
I'm sure I'm not the first to say it, but I just finished the latest season of "House of Cards" and everybody in it seemed thoroughly decent and normal.
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 14, 2017, 05:03:16 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 14, 2017, 03:52:13 PM
Does anybody remember what a normal week feels like?
You mean back in the days when the Cubs had gone over a century without a World Series?
Are you implying the Cubs winning was part of a Faustian bargain?
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 15, 2017, 09:29:23 AM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 14, 2017, 05:03:16 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 14, 2017, 03:52:13 PM
Does anybody remember what a normal week feels like?
You mean back in the days when the Cubs had gone over a century without a World Series?
Are you implying the Cubs winning was part of a Faustian bargain?
I tend to reject the emotional and irrational but I'll be damned if it doesn't increasingly feel like it. We had one week--ONE WEEK--to truly enjoy it before the world starting raining shit.
On the plus side at least we DO have a good Cubs team to which we can turn our attention to block out said shit shower.
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 15, 2017, 11:57:56 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 15, 2017, 09:29:23 AM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 14, 2017, 05:03:16 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 14, 2017, 03:52:13 PM
Does anybody remember what a normal week feels like?
You mean back in the days when the Cubs had gone over a century without a World Series?
Are you implying the Cubs winning was part of a Faustian bargain?
I tend to reject the emotional and irrational but I'll be damned if it doesn't increasingly feel like it. We had one week--ONE WEEK--to truly enjoy it before the world starting raining shit.
On the plus side at least we DO have a good Cubs team to which we can turn our attention to block out said shit shower.
Remember when everybody said 2016 was the worst year ever? I can't even remember what happened in 2016 now.
The president of the United States just said some of the neo-nazis were "good people" and blamed the innocent protestors who got run over by a neo-nazi's car for the violence. He will face no consequences for this. I have no idea what to say anymore, other than fuck you if you voted for him and fuck you even more if you're still supporting him or the party of cowards and monsters that still enables him.
Quote from: SKO on August 15, 2017, 03:51:50 PM
The president of the United States just said some of the neo-nazis were "good people" and blamed the innocent protestors who got run over by a neo-nazi's car for the violence. He will face no consequences for this. I have no idea what to say anymore, other than fuck you if you voted for him and fuck you even more if you're still supporting him or the party of cowards and monsters that still enables him.
Cowards and Monsters? Is that a David Bowie Album?
Quote from: flannj on August 15, 2017, 03:59:12 PM
Quote from: SKO on August 15, 2017, 03:51:50 PM
The president of the United States just said some of the neo-nazis were "good people" and blamed the innocent protestors who got run over by a neo-nazi's car for the violence. He will face no consequences for this. I have no idea what to say anymore, other than fuck you if you voted for him and fuck you even more if you're still supporting him or the party of cowards and monsters that still enables him.
Cowards and Monsters? Is that a David Bowie Album?
No.
Quote from: SKO on August 15, 2017, 04:55:23 PM
Quote from: flannj on August 15, 2017, 03:59:12 PM
Quote from: SKO on August 15, 2017, 03:51:50 PM
The president of the United States just said some of the neo-nazis were "good people" and blamed the innocent protestors who got run over by a neo-nazi's car for the violence. He will face no consequences for this. I have no idea what to say anymore, other than fuck you if you voted for him and fuck you even more if you're still supporting him or the party of cowards and monsters that still enables him.
Cowards and Monsters? Is that a David Bowie Album?
No.
Super creeps?
Quote from: Tonker on August 15, 2017, 03:01:13 PM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 15, 2017, 11:57:56 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 15, 2017, 09:29:23 AM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 14, 2017, 05:03:16 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 14, 2017, 03:52:13 PM
Does anybody remember what a normal week feels like?
You mean back in the days when the Cubs had gone over a century without a World Series?
Are you implying the Cubs winning was part of a Faustian bargain?
I tend to reject the emotional and irrational but I'll be damned if it doesn't increasingly feel like it. We had one week--ONE WEEK--to truly enjoy it before the world starting raining shit.
On the plus side at least we DO have a good Cubs team to which we can turn our attention to block out said shit shower.
Remember when everybody said 2016 was the worst year ever? I can't even remember what happened in 2016 now.
Some singers died.
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 15, 2017, 11:57:56 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 15, 2017, 09:29:23 AM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 14, 2017, 05:03:16 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 14, 2017, 03:52:13 PM
Does anybody remember what a normal week feels like?
You mean back in the days when the Cubs had gone over a century without a World Series?
Are you implying the Cubs winning was part of a Faustian bargain?
I tend to reject the emotional and irrational but I'll be damned if it doesn't increasingly feel like it. We had one week--ONE WEEK--to truly enjoy it before the world starting raining shit.
On the plus side at least we DO have a good Cubs team to which we can turn our attention to block out said shit shower.
It was more like two or three days from Game Seven to the election. I got to have two days of elation in exchange for going on 9 months of pervasive, unending dread. This is affecting my general sense of happiness.
Quote from: Canadouche on August 15, 2017, 09:03:56 PM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 15, 2017, 11:57:56 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 15, 2017, 09:29:23 AM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 14, 2017, 05:03:16 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 14, 2017, 03:52:13 PM
Does anybody remember what a normal week feels like?
You mean back in the days when the Cubs had gone over a century without a World Series?
Are you implying the Cubs winning was part of a Faustian bargain?
I tend to reject the emotional and irrational but I'll be damned if it doesn't increasingly feel like it. We had one week--ONE WEEK--to truly enjoy it before the world starting raining shit.
On the plus side at least we DO have a good Cubs team to which we can turn our attention to block out said shit shower.
It was more like two or three days from Game Seven to the election. I got to have two days of elation in exchange for going on 9 months of pervasive, unending dread. This is affecting my general sense of happiness.
Maybe it's a conversion issue but there are 6 days between Nov 2 and Nov 8.
Quote from: Oleg on August 16, 2017, 09:55:45 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on August 15, 2017, 09:03:56 PM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 15, 2017, 11:57:56 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 15, 2017, 09:29:23 AM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 14, 2017, 05:03:16 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 14, 2017, 03:52:13 PM
Does anybody remember what a normal week feels like?
You mean back in the days when the Cubs had gone over a century without a World Series?
Are you implying the Cubs winning was part of a Faustian bargain?
I tend to reject the emotional and irrational but I'll be damned if it doesn't increasingly feel like it. We had one week--ONE WEEK--to truly enjoy it before the world starting raining shit.
On the plus side at least we DO have a good Cubs team to which we can turn our attention to block out said shit shower.
It was more like two or three days from Game Seven to the election. I got to have two days of elation in exchange for going on 9 months of pervasive, unending dread. This is affecting my general sense of happiness.
Maybe it's a conversion issue but there are 6 days between Nov 2 and Nov 8.
Yeah I was confused here, thinking for a moment that Canadian calendars marked time differently.
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 16, 2017, 10:11:12 AM
Quote from: Oleg on August 16, 2017, 09:55:45 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on August 15, 2017, 09:03:56 PM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 15, 2017, 11:57:56 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 15, 2017, 09:29:23 AM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 14, 2017, 05:03:16 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 14, 2017, 03:52:13 PM
Does anybody remember what a normal week feels like?
You mean back in the days when the Cubs had gone over a century without a World Series?
Are you implying the Cubs winning was part of a Faustian bargain?
I tend to reject the emotional and irrational but I'll be damned if it doesn't increasingly feel like it. We had one week--ONE WEEK--to truly enjoy it before the world starting raining shit.
On the plus side at least we DO have a good Cubs team to which we can turn our attention to block out said shit shower.
It was more like two or three days from Game Seven to the election. I got to have two days of elation in exchange for going on 9 months of pervasive, unending dread. This is affecting my general sense of happiness.
Maybe it's a conversion issue but there are 6 days between Nov 2 and Nov 8.
Yeah I was confused here, thinking for a moment that Canadian calendars marked time differently.
If I lived in Canada, I would probably just laugh at America instead of being sad about it.
Quote from: PenFoe on August 16, 2017, 10:35:00 AM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 16, 2017, 10:11:12 AM
Quote from: Oleg on August 16, 2017, 09:55:45 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on August 15, 2017, 09:03:56 PM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 15, 2017, 11:57:56 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 15, 2017, 09:29:23 AM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 14, 2017, 05:03:16 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 14, 2017, 03:52:13 PM
Does anybody remember what a normal week feels like?
You mean back in the days when the Cubs had gone over a century without a World Series?
Are you implying the Cubs winning was part of a Faustian bargain?
I tend to reject the emotional and irrational but I'll be damned if it doesn't increasingly feel like it. We had one week--ONE WEEK--to truly enjoy it before the world starting raining shit.
On the plus side at least we DO have a good Cubs team to which we can turn our attention to block out said shit shower.
It was more like two or three days from Game Seven to the election. I got to have two days of elation in exchange for going on 9 months of pervasive, unending dread. This is affecting my general sense of happiness.
Maybe it's a conversion issue but there are 6 days between Nov 2 and Nov 8.
Yeah I was confused here, thinking for a moment that Canadian calendars marked time differently.
If I lived in Canada, I would probably just laugh at America instead of being sad about it.
Being serious for a moment, y'all know I loves me some 'Murica, and I certainly care about what happens to the people I know there (apart from Oleg, I don't care about him), so... laughing? Not so much.
Quote from: Tonker on August 16, 2017, 11:23:34 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on August 16, 2017, 10:35:00 AM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 16, 2017, 10:11:12 AM
Quote from: Oleg on August 16, 2017, 09:55:45 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on August 15, 2017, 09:03:56 PM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 15, 2017, 11:57:56 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 15, 2017, 09:29:23 AM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 14, 2017, 05:03:16 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 14, 2017, 03:52:13 PM
Does anybody remember what a normal week feels like?
You mean back in the days when the Cubs had gone over a century without a World Series?
Are you implying the Cubs winning was part of a Faustian bargain?
I tend to reject the emotional and irrational but I'll be damned if it doesn't increasingly feel like it. We had one week--ONE WEEK--to truly enjoy it before the world starting raining shit.
On the plus side at least we DO have a good Cubs team to which we can turn our attention to block out said shit shower.
It was more like two or three days from Game Seven to the election. I got to have two days of elation in exchange for going on 9 months of pervasive, unending dread. This is affecting my general sense of happiness.
Maybe it's a conversion issue but there are 6 days between Nov 2 and Nov 8.
Yeah I was confused here, thinking for a moment that Canadian calendars marked time differently.
If I lived in Canada, I would probably just laugh at America instead of being sad about it.
Being serious for a moment, y'all know I loves me some 'Murica, and I certainly care about what happens to the people I know there (apart from Oleg, I don't care about him), so... laughing? Not so much.
That, and unfortunately however we go down we're bound to drag the rest of the world with us? I mean Trump's starting a war here before this is all done, he's probably pretty sure that'll be the only way to fix his poll #s at this point anyway, when we inevitable invade Iran who knows who all is gonna get sucked in with us.
Quote from: Oleg on August 16, 2017, 09:55:45 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on August 15, 2017, 09:03:56 PM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 15, 2017, 11:57:56 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 15, 2017, 09:29:23 AM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 14, 2017, 05:03:16 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 14, 2017, 03:52:13 PM
Does anybody remember what a normal week feels like?
You mean back in the days when the Cubs had gone over a century without a World Series?
Are you implying the Cubs winning was part of a Faustian bargain?
I tend to reject the emotional and irrational but I'll be damned if it doesn't increasingly feel like it. We had one week--ONE WEEK--to truly enjoy it before the world starting raining shit.
On the plus side at least we DO have a good Cubs team to which we can turn our attention to block out said shit shower.
It was more like two or three days from Game Seven to the election. I got to have two days of elation in exchange for going on 9 months of pervasive, unending dread. This is affecting my general sense of happiness.
Maybe it's a conversion issue but there are 6 days between Nov 2 and Nov 8.
Huh. In my memory, it didn't feel like we had six whole days between victory and despair.
Quote from: Tonker on August 16, 2017, 11:23:34 AM
Quote from: PenFoe on August 16, 2017, 10:35:00 AM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 16, 2017, 10:11:12 AM
Quote from: Oleg on August 16, 2017, 09:55:45 AM
Quote from: Canadouche on August 15, 2017, 09:03:56 PM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 15, 2017, 11:57:56 AM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 15, 2017, 09:29:23 AM
Quote from: Cannonball Titcomb on August 14, 2017, 05:03:16 PM
Quote from: Quality Start Machine on August 14, 2017, 03:52:13 PM
Does anybody remember what a normal week feels like?
You mean back in the days when the Cubs had gone over a century without a World Series?
Are you implying the Cubs winning was part of a Faustian bargain?
I tend to reject the emotional and irrational but I'll be damned if it doesn't increasingly feel like it. We had one week--ONE WEEK--to truly enjoy it before the world starting raining shit.
On the plus side at least we DO have a good Cubs team to which we can turn our attention to block out said shit shower.
It was more like two or three days from Game Seven to the election. I got to have two days of elation in exchange for going on 9 months of pervasive, unending dread. This is affecting my general sense of happiness.
Maybe it's a conversion issue but there are 6 days between Nov 2 and Nov 8.
Yeah I was confused here, thinking for a moment that Canadian calendars marked time differently.
If I lived in Canada, I would probably just laugh at America instead of being sad about it.
Being serious for a moment, y'all know I loves me some 'Murica, and I certainly care about what happens to the people I know there (apart from Oleg, I don't care about him), so... laughing? Not so much.
Yeah, there's nothing funny about it. Just sickening. I got my Canadian citizenship about 18 months ago, but I'll always be an American, with lots of family and friends there, and I'm very worried about the future.
I never thought there would come a day when people don't understand that the only thing "as bad as Nazis" were other Nazis.
I'd better never hear about Roy Moore again unless he's indicted and/or arrested.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on December 12, 2017, 10:32:25 PM
I'd better never hear about Roy Moore again unless he's indicted and/or arrested.
Prepare for disappointment, at least in the short-term.
Quote from: Canadouche on December 13, 2017, 06:46:38 AM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on December 12, 2017, 10:32:25 PM
I'd better never hear about Roy Moore again unless he's indicted and/or arrested.
Prepare for disappointment, at least in the short-term.
After the post-election news cycle ends, obviously.
Quote from: Saul Goodman on December 12, 2017, 10:32:25 PM
I'd better never hear about Roy Moore again unless he's indicted and/or arrested.
Sorry to make you hear about him again, but his candidacy was unbelievable. A Republican LOST in Alabama???????????? It was as though the Democrats chose him to run. A worse candidate is impossible to imagine. Fortunately for him he lost just in time to get a job as a department store Santa and have little girls sit in his lap.
Quote from: CBStew on December 13, 2017, 04:05:33 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on December 12, 2017, 10:32:25 PM
I'd better never hear about Roy Moore again unless he's indicted and/or arrested.
Sorry to make you hear about him again, but his candidacy was unbelievable. A Republican LOST in Alabama???????????? It was as though the Democrats chose him to run. A worse candidate is impossible to imagine. Fortunately for him he lost just in time to get a job as a department store Santa and have little girls sit in his lap.
Unfortunately, he's banned from the mall.
Quote from: CBStew on December 13, 2017, 04:05:33 PM
Quote from: Saul Goodman on December 12, 2017, 10:32:25 PM
I'd better never hear about Roy Moore again unless he's indicted and/or arrested.
Sorry to make you hear about him again, but his candidacy was unbelievable. A Republican LOST in Alabama???????????? It was as though the Democrats chose him to run. A worse candidate is impossible to imagine. Fortunately for him he lost just in time to get a job as a department store Santa and have little girls sit in his lap.
Before anybody starts spiking the ball and seeing this as some harbinger of a great sea change, let's take a moment to remember that 48.4% of Alabama voters didn't see his pedophilia as a dealbreaker.