It would seem that Robert Gates is yet another General who knows less than Donald Trump.
Did is say "shallow?" Did I sat "intellectually lazy?"
Why yes.... I believe I did. Nice to know that I'm not alone.
________________________
Bob Gates: Trump is 'beyond repair' By POLITICO STAFF 09/17/16 08:14 AM EDT
Neither presidential candidate has offered a compelling vision on national security, former Defense Secretary Bob Gates writes in a scathing Wall Street Journal op-ed -- but Donald Trump is “beyond repair.”
Gates, who ran the Pentagon under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, is critical of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, citing her advocacy for the invasion of Libya, her reversal on trade agreements she supported as secretary of state, and her opposition to the troop surge in Iraq.
“She has much-discussed credibility issues apart from national security, but these also influence foreign perceptions of reliability and trust,” Gates writes.
But he savages the Republican nominee over several paragraphs, saying Trump is “in a league of his own” when it comes to demonstrating his credibility on foreign affairs. Gates rips Trump for his famous wall, his vocal support of torture, his embrace of Russian strongman Vladimir Putin, and his skepticism of NATO. He also attacks Trump as “cavalier about the use of nuclear weapons,” with “a record of insults to servicemen, their families and the military.” He criticizes the GOP standard-bearer as “willfully ignorant about the rest of the world, about our military and its capabilities, and about government itself.”
“He has no clue about the difference between negotiating a business deal and negotiating with sovereign nations,” Gates writes. “A thin-skinned, temperamental, shoot-from-the-hip and lip, uninformed commander-in-chief is too great a risk for America.”
Trump lashed out at Gates early Saturday, tweeting, "I never met former Defense Secretary Robert Gates. He knows nothing about me. But look at the results under his guidance - a total disaster!" Gates holds out the prospect that he will ultimately endorse Clinton, urging her to “address forthrightly her trustworthiness, to reassure people about her judgment, to demonstrate her willingness to stake out one or more positions on national security at odds with her party’s conventional wisdom, and to speak beyond generalities about how she would deal with China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, the Middle East — and international trade. Whether and how she addresses these issues will, I believe, affect how many people vote — including me.”
But he rules out Trump as “stubbornly uninformed about the world and how to lead our country and government, and temperamentally unsuited to lead our men and women in uniform. He is unqualified and unfit to be commander-in-chief.”
Trump releases list of 88 generals, admirals supporting his bid
Republican presidential hopeful Donald Trump on Tuesday unveiled a list of 88 retired staff and flag officers backing his bid to become commander in chief, a direct response to a flurry of high-profile military-themed endorsements by his Democratic rival in recent weeks.
Since the Democratic convention in Philadelphia in late July, party nominee Hillary Clinton’s campaign has released the names of dozens of former military leaders and advisers supporting her presidential bid, including former CENTCOM Deputy Commander Marine Corps Gen. John Allen and former Republican Deputy Defense Secretary James Clad.
In addition, last month a group of 50 Republican national security officials released a public letter questioning Trump's qualifications and charging that he would “be the most reckless president in American history.”
But the long list of supporters released Tuesday includes an open letter with the opposite message, arguing that Trump is the only candidate who can make the military strong and the country secure.
“For the past eight years, America’s armed forces have been subjected to a series of ill-considered and debilitating budget cuts, policy choices and combat operations that have left the superb men and women in uniform less capable of performing their vital missions in the future than we require them to be,” the message states.
“For this reason, we support Donald Trump and his commitment to rebuild our military, to secure our borders, to defeat our Islamic supremacist adversaries and restore law and order domestically. We urge our fellow Americans to do the same.”
Signees include retired Army Gen. Burwell Bell III, former head of U.S. Forces Korea; retired Air Force Gen. Alfred Hansen, former head of the service’s Air Force Logistics Command, and retired Army Lt. Gen. William Boykin, a former intelligence chief who has become better known for his post-service remarks against the gay community.
The letter also accuses Clinton of planning to continue the current administration’s policies of “hollowing out of our military” and failing to aggressively pursue terrorist groups worldwide.
Ted, it is only one branch of government we are talking about with the Presidency. Obama didn't get half his crap done and neither will the next President.
Come, my brethren! Take courage and stand beneath our banner! The darkness closes in, and we are the only true defenders of the Light! March to victory and arise triumphant!
I thought that Robert Gates's WSJ op-ed was too important to give only attribution through a Politico article, so I decided to read the op-ed myself. In the interest of real scholarship, I'm posting it here for all interested voters to read.
I found it to be an extremely thorough examination of current affairs, and an insightful rendering of
_________________________
Sizing Up the Next Commander-in-Chief Neither candidate has seriously addressed how he or she thinks about the military or the use of force.
By ROBERT M. GATES Sept. 16, 2016 6:23 p.m. ET
You wouldn’t know it from the presidential campaigns, but the first serious crisis to face our new president most likely will be international. The list of possibilities is long—longer than it was eight years ago.
Here is the world the new president will inherit at noon on January 20—a range of challenges for which neither candidate has offered new strategies or paths forward.
Every aspect of our relationship with China is becoming more challenging. In addition to Chinese cyberspying and theft of intellectual property, many American businesses in China are encountering an increasingly hostile environment. China’s nationalist determination unilaterally to assert sovereignty over disputed waters and islands in the East and South China Seas is steadily increasing the risk of military confrontation.
Most worrying, given their historic bad blood, escalation of a confrontation between China and Japan could be very dangerous. As a treaty partner of Japan, we would be obligated to help Tokyo. China intends to challenge the U.S. for regional dominance in East Asia over the long term, but the new president could quickly face a Chinese military challenge over disputed islands and freedom of navigation.
Dealing effectively with China requires a president with strategic acumen and vision, nuance, deft diplomatic and political skill, and sound instincts on when to challenge, when to stay silent and when to compromise or partner.
On this most complex challenge, neither Hillary Clinton nor Donald Trump has said or done much to give anyone confidence. All we really know is Mr. Trump’s intention to launch a trade war with a country holding over $1 trillion in U.S. debt and the largest market for many U.S. companies; and Mrs. Clinton’s opposition to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, which she helped to craft and the failure of which would hand China an easy political and economic win.
Then there is Vladimir Putin’s Russia, now routinely challenging the U.S. and its allies. How to count the ways. There was the armed seizure of Ukraine’s Crimea; Moscow’s military support of the separatist movement in eastern Ukraine; overt and covert intimidation of the Baltic states; the dispatch of fighter and bomber aircraft to avert the defeat of Syria’s Assad; sales of sophisticated weaponry to Iran.
There is Russia’s luring the U.S. secretary of state into believing that a cease-fire in Syria is just around the corner—if only the U.S. would do more, or less, depending on the issue; the cyberattacks on the U.S., including possible attempts to influence the U.S. presidential election; and covert efforts to aggravate division and weakness with the European Union and inside European countries. And there is the dangerously close buzzing of U.S. Navy ships in the Baltic Sea and close encounters with U.S. military aircraft in international airspace.
The only thing longer than the list of hostile Russian actions abroad is the list of repressive actions inside Russia to stifle dissent and strengthen Mr. Putin’s security services-run state. Mr. Putin will continue to behave aggressively until confronted and stopped.
No one in the West wants a return to the Cold War, so the challenge is to confront and stop Mr. Putin’s aggressions while pursuing cooperation on international challenges that can only be addressed successfully if Russia is at the table—from terrorism to climate change, from the Syrian conflict to nuclear nonproliferation and arms control. Again, neither Mrs. Clinton nor Mr. Trump has expressed any views on how they would deal with Mr. Putin (although Mr. Trump’s expressions of admiration for the man and his authoritarian regime are naive and irresponsible).
North Korea and Iran are sworn enemies of the U.S. North Korean potentate Kim Jong Un is building more nuclear weapons for his arsenal even as he develops ballistic missiles that now, or very soon, can reach all of our allies (and U.S. military forces) in Asia. During the first term of the next president these missiles will be able to reach the U.S. mainland.
On his good days, Kim Jong Un appears to outsiders as a cartoonish megalomaniac; on his bad days, he seems to yearn for a Gotterdammerung finale in which a perishing North Korea takes a lot of Asians and Americans with it. Or is he simply continuing to pursue a strategy designed to preserve his rule and North Korea’s independence through nuclear blackmail? The new U.S. president could face an early North Korean provocation against the South, the Japanese or us, and for sure will be confronted by a long-term strategic nuclear threat to our allies and to America.
Regarding Iran, whatever value Mr. Obama’s nuclear agreement has brought, the deal has led to no decrease in Iran’s aggressive meddling in the Middle East nor any lessening of its hostility to the U.S. Iranian naval challenges to U.S. warship operations in the Persian Gulf have nearly doubled over the last year. Iran will do all it can to embarrass the U.S.—such as allowing Russian planes to use Iranian airfields to attack the Syrian opposition and testing ballistic missiles—even as it strives to eject us from the entire region. Our new president had best be prepared for an early test of U.S. resolve in the Persian Gulf and Iran’s continuing regional subversion.
While Mrs. Clinton gave a speech on Iran over a year ago, she has since offered no inkling of her views and has said little about North Korea. Mr. Trump has said nary a word on the challenge posed by either country.
Both candidates have spelled out how they would deal with ISIS, and terrorism more broadly, but their approach in essence sounds like what President Obama is doing now—with more ideological fervor and some additional starch. Neither has addressed what the broader U.S. strategy should be toward a Middle East in flames, from Syria to Iraq to Libya, and where Gulf Arab states worry about their own stability amid growing doubts they can rely on the U.S.; both Egypt and Turkey are ruled by increasingly authoritarian strongmen; and an Israeli-Palestinian conflict further from resolution than ever.
Mr. Trump has suggested we should walk away from the region and hope for the best. This is a dangerous approach oblivious to the reality that what happens in the Middle East doesn’t stay in the Middle East. Mrs. Clinton has ruled out putting U.S. ground troops in Iraq and Syria “ever again.” That is a politically driven categorical declaration of a sort no president (or candidate) should make, and it raises the question whether she would pull out the 5,000 U.S. troops now in Iraq. She has expressed no new ideas to deal with the boiling caldron that is today’s Middle East.
Each of these challenges may require the use of the American military, the most powerful the world has ever seen. The president commands some two million men and women in uniform, and every previous president would attest that the decision to put those lives at risk is the weightiest burden of office. Yet neither candidate has seriously addressed how he or she thinks about the military, the use of military force, the criteria they would apply before sending that force into battle, or broader questions of peace and war. Based on what each candidate has said and done, who can we trust with the lives of young Americans in uniform?
Both candidates have a credibility problem in foreign affairs. Mrs. Clinton was the senior-most advocate for using the U.S. military to bring ill-fated regime change in Libya and, further, failed to anticipate the chaos that would follow—the same failure she and other Democrats hung around the neck of the Bush 43 administration in post-Saddam Iraq. She was for trade agreements before she turned against them in this election campaign, just as she voted for the Iraq war in 2003 and then, several years later—in her first campaign for president—opposed the troop surge there. She has much-discussed credibility issues apart from national security, but these also influence foreign perceptions of reliability and trust.
When it comes to credibility problems, though, Donald Trump is in a league of his own. He has expressed support for building a wall between the U.S. and Mexico; for torturing suspected terrorists and killing their families; for Mr. Putin’s dictatorial leadership and for Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent successes against terrorism. He also has said he is for using defense spending by NATO allies as the litmus test on whether the U.S. will keep its treaty commitments to them; for withdrawing U.S. troops from Europe, South Korea and Japan and for the latter two developing nuclear weapons—a highly destabilizing prospect.
Mr. Trump has been cavalier about the use of nuclear weapons. He has a record of insults to servicemen, their families and the military, which he called a “disaster.” He has declared our senior military leaders “reduced to rubble” and “embarrassing our country” and has suggested that, if elected, he will purge them—an unprecedented and unconscionable threat. As of late, he appears to be rethinking some of these positions but he has yet to learn that when a president shoots off his mouth, there are no do-overs.
Mr. Trump is also willfully ignorant about the rest of the world, about our military and its capabilities, and about government itself. He disdains expertise and experience while touting his own—such as his claim that he knows more about ISIS than America’s generals. He has no clue about the difference between negotiating a business deal and negotiating with sovereign nations.
All of the presidents I served were strong personalities with strongly held views about the world. But each surrounded himself with independent-minded, knowledgeable and experienced advisers who would tell the president what he needed to hear, not what he wanted to hear. Sometimes presidents would take their advice, sometimes not. But they always listened.
The world we confront is too perilous and too complex to have as president a man who believes he, and he alone, has all the answers and has no need to listen to anyone. In domestic affairs, there are many checks on what a president can do; in national security there are few constraints. A thin-skinned, temperamental, shoot-from-the-hip and lip, uninformed commander-in-chief is too great a risk for America.
I understand the broad anger and frustration against political leaders in both parties. I have written about my disgust as secretary of defense as I watched politicians repeatedly place re-election above the nation’s best interests. Polls make clear that most Americans are dissatisfied with the two major party candidates for president. But as I used to say in the Pentagon, we are where we are—not where we might wish to be. We have to make a decision. Perhaps the debates, if the candidates focus on substance rather than personal attacks, will clarify the choice.
Mrs. Clinton has time before the election to address forthrightly her trustworthiness, to reassure people about her judgment, to demonstrate her willingness to stake out one or more positions on national security at odds with her party’s conventional wisdom, and to speak beyond generalities about how she would deal with China, Russia, North Korea, Iran, the Middle East—and international trade. Whether and how she addresses these issues will, I believe, affect how many people vote—including me.
At least on national security, I believe Mr. Trump is beyond repair. He is stubbornly uninformed about the world and how to lead our country and government, and temperamentally unsuited to lead our men and women in uniform. He is unqualified and unfit to be commander-in-chief.
Mr. Gates served eight presidents over 50 years, most recently as secretary of defense under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
So.....i'm not gonna even pretend i know half of what Gates knows. But i'll give my opinion on this article anyway.
Ok, So i have a ton of respect for Gates. However, one of the issues i have with him is that he's full of criticism, but a little bit empty when it comes to offering actual solutions.
he says this:
"Dealing effectively with China requires a president with strategic acumen and vision, nuance, deft diplomatic and political skill, and sound instincts on when to challenge, when to stay silent and when to compromise or partner."
i agree. Here's the problem: it doesn't just apply to China. it applies to every foreign policy issue he brought up.
He also doesn't seem to offer an example of when to challenge or stay silent, yet is critical of two candidates who haven't been afforded the opportunity as president to make those decisions just yet.
His major beef, the theme throughout the article, is that he is concerned that Trump and Clinton haven't offered much in military action.
***my opinion, not fact, just my opinion***** but that right there is how and why you see the pro's/con's of having a civilian president with little military background like Trump or Clinton:
Because Gates doesn't seem to realize that conservative or liberal, republican or democrat, the country is sick of war. we are sick of combat. we are sick of seeing our soldiers die in a region of the world where people aren't even willing to help their own selves half the time.
we've been at war for 15 years now. nobody wants to hear about more boots on ground, or another military intervention.
military personnel in politics tend to gravitate toward military solutions a lot. See Graham and Tom Cotton. and Gates. And McCain.
the only people right now who still support direct military conflict for pretty much anything are people still eating from the military industrial complex that we can't seem to shake off as a country.
With regards to China, while the chance of military conflict with them has risen....well, that percentage is still low.
China and the US needs each other. Economics is pretty much the sole reason. It's why they dance around each other, but ultimately play nice: China can't afford to lose US business, even with all their other partnerships with other nations like the EU.
Russia is flexing their muscles. this is a problem. here's what's also a problem: every time they flex their muscles, their economy damn near crashes.
Glass cannon describes them perfectly. And this goes back to Gates saying a president needs to know when to stay silent.
Why do anything? they are harassing naval ships and such because they want to bait America into a conflict.
Showing strength and leadership isn't giving the enemy what they want. only gullible people think like that.
Gates said "No one in the West wants a return to the Cold War", and i agree.
however, i would also add that if you don't want to return to the Cold War, then stop thinking in cold war strategy and rhetoric. You have to practice what your preach.
At this stage of the game, no government has done anything that warrants military conflict.
if a kid teases another kid with verbal shots, and that kid responds by punching him in the face, guess who gets in trouble?
we can't get caught being the aggressor. especially in a social and political climate that is just sick and tired of being in combat.
I am not 100% sure but didn't Powell also have disparaging remarks about Hilary?
For the record I am a Johnson man
Powell is much like Gates: he's been forthright and candid... both in times when he's agreed with her, and when he's been at odds with her.
Despite anyone's personally-held views about military brass, be ye a hawk or dove (or somewhere in-between), their public comments are usually refreshingly candid and honest, in this world of 24/7 spin. Most high-ranking career military officers have served under numerous regimes, both D and R... and answer the questions professionally, and without much political bias. I can see why they do, too: they are sworn to serve The Country before any temporary political party in office.
I refer you to this 2012 radio interview of Colin Powell, as he was hocking his post-service memoir, "It Worked For Me."
Listen to the interview. Please pay particular attention to Secretary Powell's exchange with Robert Siegel at the 6:33-8:02 mark. At 7:48, Mr. Powell says this: "You're not just voting for an individual, in my judgement... you're voting for an agenda. You're voting for a platform. You're voting for a political philosophy..."
That's how these guys think. It's how they were trained to think- with precision, a wide-angle lens, and and the discipline to see how the intersection of the two effect events, going forward. That discipline of thought is directly related to his remarks about "The Powell Doctrine," just minutes before.
Powell HAS held Clinton's feet to the fire in the past. He's also been staunchly supportive of her on other occasions. As far as my observations go, he's always been above-board and unimpeachable in his assessment of most political figures when asked. He's also been extremely focused, and issue-specific when giving answers to 'loaded' lines of questioning. I suspect that it's due to the discipline that comes from 40+ years of military background.
But that's Colin Powell, talking about his memoirs, and how he might cast his vote in the 2012 POTUS race. Let's tie it all together, shall we? ... and bring this back to the present.
I view Robert Gates in much the same light as I do Colin Powell. Both have served with a level of national distinction not awarded to any of us here at DT. Colin Powell has repeatedly spoken his mind, without regard to political party or personal favor.
Gates served under both POTUS 43 and POTUS 44 as Sec of Def. He has actually sat in War Rooms when global military issues have been decided. He too thinks and acts with discipline, strategy, and precision.
If Robert Gates says that a presidential candidate is unfit to occupy the chair at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, I'm inclined to regard his opinion with a bit more gravitas than some SpinPundit on a cable news outlet, some journalistic hack on a political blog-oriented site... or some Browns fan on a message board.
This isn't about uninformed opinion. This is about credibility.
If 'Clemdawg' tells a bunch of Dawg Pounders that a presidential candidate is unworthy of election, it's just his opinion- backed by "news" reports, op-eds ...and media spin.
If A former United States Secretary of Defense says the same thing, don't listen to some guy named 'Clemdawg' on a football fan site... listen to a man who was actually in the room, when the 'kill order' was issued to take out Osama Bin Laden, the "Architect of 9/11."
One man speaks from intuition, gut feelings, and a bunch of hooey that's spun to him on various electronic devices.
The other speaks from experience.
That's all I'm really sayin'.
Others can call it 'propaganda' all they want. These are the Secretary Of Defense's words- not mine.
__________
Some issues are more important than who can use their penises to write the longest signature in the snow, while their friends watch.
I've heard Hillary and Obama say "Australia-style gun control worth looking at". Trump was referring to Clinton's "DOUBLE STANDARDS", it's OK for her but not the American people. I don't believe Mr. Trump made an outrageous comment at all.
While Trump and Clinton battle it out for the title of
A title that they both are equally over qualified for, I see nothing wrong with Trump pointing out the fact that Clinton thinks her safety is more important than mine or my families.
Donald Trump, in an interview Thursday with the Washington Post, said he doesn’t think that Anderson Cooper should be a moderator of one of the upcoming presidential debates, calling him “very biased.”
But Trump said that he would still participate in the Oct. 9 debate, the second on the schedule, in which Cooper will be teamed with ABC News’ Martha Raddatz in a town hall format.
“I don’t think Anderson Cooper should be a moderator, because Anderson Cooper works for CNN and over the last couple of days, I’ve seen how Anderson Cooper behaves,” Trump told the Post. “He’ll be very biased, very biased. I don’t think he should be a moderator. I’ll participate, but I don’t think he should be a moderator. CNN is the Clinton News Network and Anderson Cooper, I don’t think he can be fair.”
The debate is the second on the schedule. The first, on Sept. 26, will be moderated by NBC News anchor Lester Holt. The final debate on Oct. 19 will be anchored by Chris Wallace.
David Brock, the founder of the pro-Hillary Clinton SuperPAC Correct the Record and the media watchdog Media Matters for America, urged the Commission on Presidential Debates to remove Wallace as the moderator. Brock said that Wallace had a conflict of interest because former Fox News chief Roger Ailes was advising the Trump campaign. But the commission refused to remove Wallace.
In the Post interview, Trump said that Ailes had no role in the campaign but said they do talk on occasion. “I love the benefit of his experience and knowledge,” Trump said.
Trump also denied that he was trying to create a right-wing news network should he lose the presidential race.
I'll give Clem credit for posting criticisms of Trump from reputable people. I may not agree with them but they are meaningful enough that anybody should read them and consider them.
This stuff about a vague reference to Clinton's bodyguards carrying guns and pointing out that CNN is biased in Clinton's favor... who cares.
You no what? Someone needs to man up tell Trump not to be a whiny little bitch. Do NOT let him dictate the terms of the debates. He's trying his best to get out of them completely. Hillary needs to attack Trump on that.
I don't disagree that someone needs to man up and tell Trump.. you know. He obviously has a very strong personality and that can be intimidating for some people. I also don't think that is a negative. Maybe go listen to Hillary or Tim Kaine speak if that's your thing.
He is not trying to get out of the debates. He will shine at the debates. Clinton has had almost all mainstream media on her side this entire election season but at the debates they can't selectively edit out things that are unfavorable to her. They can't take Trump's words out of context and put some ridiculous spin on them, not while the debate is live anyway.
CNN can't pull the crap they did after 9/11/16 where they cut the video right before it was obvious that Hillary literally was dragged into the van. They just showed the part where she lost her balance a little bit and said she stumbled. That's the Clinton News Network for you.
If they fact check Trump, it's gonna be ugly for him. He can't just say things such as "I've heard things" or "people FEEL." Any decent journalist is gonna smack that softball with factual evidence to contradict it. He also can't get away with generic statements anymore.
Actually a ton of people have already told him to man the hell up.
Bill Maher for one, a ton of others, including some on Fox News.
Trump isn't listening. So that's why it seems like nobody is telling him, because he doesn't care what they say. Is that a good or bad thing? Depends on who you're asking, I suppose.
He will shine in the debates based off what? I sincerely hope you aren't basing your opinion off the primary debates. Don't do that to yourself.
What trump is doing is trying to manipulate a win.
The problem is that the only people he will fool into thinking that the mods are biased and all this other crap is his own supporters. The rest of the country and, well, the world arenr falling for it.
Nobody takes trumps words out of context. I dunno why you're acting so oblivious right now.
How many times has trump said something, the media questions him on his words, and he DOUBLES DOWN on what he said?
Me and you have completely different definitions on what 'out of context' means, bro.
If they fact check Trump, it's gonna be ugly for him. He can't just say things such as "I've heard things" or "people FEEL." Any decent journalist is gonna smack that softball with factual evidence to contradict it. He also can't get away with generic statements anymore.
Trump obviously has access to a lot of info that isn't publicly available. To give one example, he suggested during the Democratic primaries that the whole process was rigged and some on the left lost their minds about that.
Well it turns out, that based on the DNC's emails, they indeed were conspiring to work against Bernie Sanders. Is that rigged? I mean, rigged is kind of an ambiguous term. It sure as hell wasn't fair to Bernie or his supporters. That whole thing still bothers me actually. It's a direct affront to democracy. The DNC was actively plotting against a fellow Democrat and a good man.
I strongly disagreed with Bernie's economic policies mind you, but I do genuinely think he had higher character than the two we are left with. I also think that many Bernie supporters are not making a big deal out of it because most of them dislike Trump more than they dislike Hillary and they don't want to hurt Hillary's chances of being elected.
Like I said, that's just one example but it has happened sometimes where Trump suggests something, with no publicly available factual evidence to support it, and then sometime down the road there is a new revelation that validates what he previously said. And of course, sometimes he just runs is mouth and exaggerates things. not trying to deny that.
Actually a ton of people have already told him to man the hell up.
Bill Maher for one, a ton of others, including some on Fox News.
Trump isn't listening. So that's why it seems like nobody is telling him, because he doesn't care what they say. Is that a good or bad thing? Depends on who you're asking, I suppose.
He will shine in the debates based off what? I sincerely hope you aren't basing your opinion off the primary debates. Don't do that to yourself.
What trump is doing is trying to manipulate a win.
The problem is that the only people he will fool into thinking that the mods are biased and all this other crap is his own supporters. The rest of the country and, well, the world arenr falling for it.
Nobody takes trumps words out of context. I dunno why you're acting so oblivious right now.
How many times has trump said something, the media questions him on his words, and he DOUBLES DOWN on what he said?
Me and you have completely different definitions on what 'out of context' means, bro.
I don't know what to tell you Swish! We've already talked about how we think the debates are going to go on here a bunch of times. We'll just have to wait and see how they go.
The first one is in 8 days, on Monday, Sept. 26 at 9pm EDT. I know we all love our football on here, but I hope that people understand the importance of this election and can put football aside and watch the debate instead. It is important.
I will see your respected general and your defense secretary and raise you 88 of the same.
You been Trumped!
We have 4 living ex presidents, one current president.
Of those, you'd expect Bill Clinton and Barack Obama to support Hillary,,, That's a given.
Not sure who Jimmy Carter is endorsing.. But if I were to guess, I'd say Hillary as well.
Now we come to the Bush guys. Did I just miss it, or did they not endorse Trump?
Honestly, not trying to start something, I just don't remember if they did or didn't endorse him. Or have they just said nothing?
Yes, all the Democrats support the Democrat while the Bush's are still hurting after Trump crushed their Heir Apparent to the thrown and killed the Bush Machine. Why?
This stuff about a vague reference to Clinton's bodyguards carrying guns and pointing out that CNN is biased in Clinton's favor... who cares.
Language, as we know is important. One's choice of language cannot just be flippant as it carries a lot of baggage. Especially if one is a Presidential candidate. Remember when Iranian President, Ahmadinejad suggested that "Israel should be wiped off the map"? That is an outrageous comment for anybody to say let alone the leader of a country who controls the army. Trump has proved time and time again to say shockingly awful and disgusting things. A Presidential candidate making these comments not only lacks tact, class and professionalism. But, he is provoking and suggesting violence. Where does it stop? Also, we should demand more from our leaders. What have we descended to as a nation when we give this type of behavior and language a pass (going back to his debates, his bullying social media comments, his personal insults)?
We are much better than this. Conservatives and Liberals once coexisted together and worked together in DC. Instead as a nation we as a populace have grown more divided by the day, angrier, less respect on one another and more and more un-United. Congress has shown a nasty side to the White House. Trump's shooting from the hip style of speaking without thinking, talking like a middle schooler and downright repulsive behavior embodies and magnifies this division. Yet, he then makes footnotes that he is a "great unifier".
This stuff about a vague reference to Clinton's bodyguards carrying guns and pointing out that CNN is biased in Clinton's favor... who cares.
Language, as we know is important. One's choice of language cannot just be flippant as it carries a lot of baggage. Especially if one is a Presidential candidate. Remember when Iranian President, Ahmadinejad suggested that "Israel should be wiped off the map"? That is an outrageous comment for anybody to say let alone the leader of a country who controls the army. Trump has proved time and time again to say shockingly awful and disgusting things. A Presidential candidate making these comments not only lacks tact, class and professionalism. But, he is provoking and suggesting violence. Where does it stop? Also, we should demand more from our leaders. What have we descended to as a nation when we give this type of behavior and language a pass (going back to his debates, his bullying social media comments, his personal insults)?
We are much better than this. Conservatives and Liberals once coexisted together and worked together in DC. Instead as a nation we as a populace have grown more divided by the day, angrier, less respect on one another and more and more un-United. Congress has shown a nasty side to the White House. Trump's shooting from the hip style of speaking without thinking, talking like a middle schooler and downright repulsive behavior embodies and magnifies this division. Yet, he then makes footnotes that he is a "great unifier".
You say that Trump has proven time and time again to say shockingly awful and disgusting things-- I don't agree with that at all. I think he has gotten carried away with the rhetoric at times for sure. He has been rough on competing countries, ISIS, the media, and his political opponents. However, he has been consistently supportive of American citizens of ALL types. I can roll with that.
He has a New Yorker style. You ever talk with a New Yorker? They're mostly blunt and direct. It's just how they talk. Personally I kind of like it. People get offended too damn easily these days. Just tell things like they are, I'm an adult, and I can handle it.
Yeah, he has taken things too far before. I get that. Neither of these candidates are great. I'll take a candidate that sometimes puts his foot in his mouth and says mean things over the lies, corruption, hawkishness, and frankly incompetence of his opponent.
You say that Trump has proven time and time again to say shockingly awful and disgusting things-- I don't agree with that at all. I think he has gotten carried away with the rhetoric at times for sure. He has been rough on competing countries, ISIS, the media, and his political opponents. However, he has been consistently supportive of American citizens of ALL types. I can roll with that.
He has a New Yorker style. You ever talk with a New Yorker? They're mostly blunt and direct. It's just how they talk. Personally I kind of like it. People get offended too damn easily these days. Just tell things like they are, I'm an adult, and I can handle it.
Yeah, he has taken things too far before. I get that. Neither of these candidates are great. I'll take a candidate that sometimes puts his foot in his mouth and says mean things over the lies, corruption, hawkishness, and frankly incompetence of his opponent.
Yep, I lived in New York for two years before moving to London. Never met anybody in that time who was as rude nor as spiteful as Trump. Especially not an adult.
You keep pointing out Clinton as a liar (I am not disagreeing, btw). Yet, it has been proven time and time again by the media that a lot of what Trump says is an exaggeration of the truth or, at worst, a bold faced lie. So, to accuse her as a liar and endorse another isn't productive it is a contradiction.
Again, I think a Presidential candidate should be held to a higher standard than the average middle school kid on the playground. We shouldn't give them a pass as "oh, he is from NY they are brash and a bit rude". No, an intelligent person who runs as leader uses their brain and thinks about the language they use before they say it. Thing is...I don't think Trump is that intelligent. At least he has not shown much evidence that he is.
And Haus, as somebody who does stand on the left of politics...I may disagree with your politics but, I totally respect your approach and thoughtful replies. That is how America should be. We may have differing opinions, lives, beliefs, religions, skin color, sexual preference etc. but, respect should always be there. That is what makes us the UNITED States.
Thanks PDX. I think the same about you. I remember one of your posts in the last thread I think, where you mentioned that one of the next president's biggest hurdles will be in uniting the people of our country. It is a huge task for sure.
In fact, I'm a little skeptical on how he/she will be able to do it given that the policies and ideology of each side is growing more and more apart. As more and more people get stuck in their TV and online 'echo chambers', we fail to understand the points of view of the other side. Look, I'm not going to vote for Hillary, but if she gets elected then I'll go about my life and be a productive and responsible citizen. I would pull for her to do well.
In this case, I don't see the big deal about Trump's remarks. Many conservatives feel really, really, really strongly about guns. Whether you agree with it or not, that's the reality, and the whole idea of protecting oneself against an aggressor is a point they feel strongly about. One of our fellow dawgs, FBO, told us about his experiences of anti-Trump protesters brazenly attacking Trump supporters, unprovoked, at rallies in California and Arizona.
Granted, we are talking about civilians and not the candidate himself, but a lot of people sympathize with that. Maybe read this blog post by Scott Adams, I don't agree with everything (some of the assumptions up front are debatable and a bit startling) but maybe it will give some insight on why people take offense to the idea of Hillary having top notch protective detail with bodyguards and the Secret Service while wanting stricter gun control for the ordinary citizen.
Gary Johnson on 11 key issues: Where does Libertarian presidential candidate stand?
on August 17, 2016 at 6:24 AM, updated August 18, 2016 at 11:48 AM 2016 PRESIDENTIAL RACE
Voters are so disenchanted with major-party presidential candidates that many are taking a serious look at Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson.
Johnson, 63, was twice elected governor of New Mexico as a Republican, serving from 1995 to 2003. He boasts that he cut taxes 14 times, balanced the state's budget and left office with a billion-dollar surplus. The Libertarian Cato Institute gave him a fiscal policy grade of "B" in 2002.
Johnson ran for president in 2012 as a Republican with a libertarian-flavored platform focused on limited government, non-interventionist foreign policy, tax reform and opposition to the war on drugs. After being "marginalized in a Republican primary that seeks rigidity and ideological purity,'' Johnson jumped to the Libertarian Party. He and running mate James P. Gray received 1.27 million votes, about 1 percent of votes cast.
In 2016, Johnson's running mate is William Weld, 71, the former two-term Republican governor of Massachusetts.
Libertarians believe in liberty, enterprise and personal responsibility. "Each individual has the right to control his or her own body, action, speech, and property. Government's only role is to help individuals defend themselves from force and fraud,'' the party's website says.
Here's where he and Weld stand on 11 key issues:
TAXES Johnson would eliminate loopholes and deductions for special interests; get rid of "double taxation'' on small businesses; and, eventually, replace taxes on income with a tax on consumption. The Libertarian Party platform calls for the abolishment of the Internal Revenue Service.
JOBS/ECONOMY Johnson and Weld both tout their economic records as governors. They would cut over-regulation that they say is stifling entrepreneurs and small businesses.
CIVIL LIBERTIES Johnson opposes government surveillance of private communications and financial transactions and favors an unregulated internet. He was an early supporter of gay marriage. Johnson also supports a woman's right to have an abortion. He opposes restricting gun ownership, except with respect to the mentally ill, and thinks Americans would be safer if more people carried guns. "Responsible adults should be free to marry whom they want, arm themselves if they want, and lead their personal lives as they see fit — as long as they aren't harming anyone else in doing so," his website says.
FOREIGN POLICY/MILITARY The role of the military and foreign policy in a Johnson administration would be to "protect Americans from harm and allow us to exercise our freedoms.'' Johnson would stop using the military for "nation building'' and "policing the world," which he says has created new enemies and kept the country in a state of "perpetual war.''
IMMIGRATION Johnson says his background as the former governor of a border state informs his understanding of immigration policy. He is critical of Trump's plan to build a wall. Johnson would make it easier for immigrants, after a background check, to get a work visa and a Social Security card so they could pay taxes.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE Johnson believes "tough on crime'' laws have criminalized aspects of our personal lives that should not be the concern of the state. He cites the war on drugs as an example, and calls it a failure. Johnson also is critical of mandatory minimum sentences that prevent judges from using their discretion.
MARIJUANA LEGALIZATION As president, Johnson would take marijuana off the federal government's list of controlled substances, allowing states to legalize its recreational and medicinal use. He favors taxing and regulating the marijuana business. "We need to treat drug abuse as a health issue, not a crime,'' he says.
EDUCATION Johnson would abolish the federal Department of Education and eliminate the Common Core curriculum. He favors school choice and competition to foster innovation.
ENVIRONMENT The Libertarian candidates would focus the Environmental Protection Agency on its core mission of protecting the environment. He and Weld say the climate "probably'' is changing and that humans "probably'' have something to do with it, but they question whether government's efforts to combat it are working, or worth the expense.
DEFICIT/BUDGET Johnson says he would balance the federal budget by cutting military spending and reforming entitlement programs. He hasn't provided specifics on what he would cut; the National Review estimates he would have to cut the budget by 43 percent to balance it.
HEALTH CARE Johnson says he supports a free-market health care system that lowers cost through competition. Johnson opposes the Affordable Care Act. When asked at the June 22, 2016 town hall on CNN whether he would replace Obamacare or modify it, he was noncommittal. "I'm going to assume that Republican proposals accomplish that. If the proposals don't accomplish that, then I'm not on board,'' he said.
If anything, the inference was a bit more suggestive on that occasion and I didn't even think it was a big deal back then. Just words being taken out of context. I would say that the suggestions that Hillary wants to essentially abolish the second amendment and take American's guns away are not really true. If that was the issue, that he was exaggerating that claim, I'd agree with that.
Miami (CNN)Donald Trump on Friday wondered aloud what would happen to Hillary Clinton should her Secret Service detail disarm.
"I think her bodyguards should drop all weapons. Disarm immediately," Trump said. "Take their guns away, let's see what happens to her." "Take their guns away, OK? It'll be very dangerous," he added.
Trump's comment, which came as he criticized Clinton over gun rights, is not the first time he has called for Clinton's Secret Service detail to "disarm." But it is the first time he has wondered aloud what would happen to her should she suddenly be deprived of armed protection. Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook said Trump's remarks "should be out of bounds for a presidential candidate." "Whether this is done to provoke protesters at a rally or casually or even as a joke, it is an unacceptable quality in anyone seeking the job of commander in chief," Mook said in a statement, adding, "He is unfit to be President and it is time Republican leaders stand up to denounce this disturbing behavior in their nominee."
The Secret Service declined to comment on Trump's remark, spokeswoman Catherine Milhoan said. Several federal law enforcement officials told CNN there is concern Trump's rhetoric could lead to a Secret Service or law enforcement officer getting shot or killed. They feel the consequences could be borne by people who protect Clinton and are first in line if someone makes an attempt on her life. Trump argued Friday that he would be a staunch defender of the Second Amendment and said that Clinton would "destroy" the right to bear arms. Clinton has called for tightening access to guns, including instating universal background checks, but has never suggested she would seek to do away with the Second Amendment. Trump made a similar comment after he accepted the National Rifle Association's endorsement last spring. "They should immediately disarm and let's see how good they do. Let's see how they feel walking around without their guns or their body guards," Trump said of Clinton and her Secret Service detail during his speech to the gun lobby conference in May.
Trump doesn't allow guns at his rallies and his properties don't allow open carrying of guns. Friday's remark comes just more than a month after Trump made comments that were interpreted by many as a threat of violence against Clinton. "Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know," Trump said during a rally in North Carolina in August. The Trump campaign defended those comments as a call for increased political activity, but the Clinton campaign said unequivocally that Trump's comments were "dangerous" and irresponsible for a presidential candidate to make.
Yes, I supported President Bush and I think I was leaning towards Jeb in the beginning of the Primaries.
When I finally got a chance to vote, I voted Cruz. Like most Republicans I thought Trump would fade. Trump however turned out to be a winner, against it all he prevailed, what thinking person can't respect that?
I know many life long Democrats and people who never voted before who can't wait to vote for Trump. He represents the hope of change to a corrupt government and a fading Society.
Seeing as the only people who want to kill Hillary in this country would probably be trump supporters, his intended message is probably lost on most.
I think the proper response to his comments, the response that most logical people would relate to the most, would be that presidential candidates are high-risk targets that need the extra protection. Their risk profile is different than the average civilian. That explanation may not go over well with some, but I bet it would go over better than making his comments sound mean or dangerous. just an idea anyway.
Again, nobody 'made' it sound mean. He did it all on his own.
At some point, your boy needs to stop saying stupid things.
Keep in mind that Trump's tough talk was directed at Hillary. In the past, on a number of occasions, it has been directed at illegal immigrants, competing countries, the media, and his former political opponents.
Hillary's tough talk was aimed at tens of millions of American citizens. Let that sink in for a little bit.
You mean like we he said that the black community is poor as hell with no jobs?
I guess you don't count them as Americans, huh?
Of course they are Americans. Why would Trump say such a thing? After 8 years of having a Black President the Black community is doing just fine today.
You mean like we he said that the black community is poor as hell with no jobs?
I guess you don't count them as Americans, huh?
Umm, isn't that kind of along the lines of what you, Lurker, and Clem regularly talk about on here? That is that poverty and lack of jobs makes it tough to escape the cycle of being poor.
Seriously, provide some context for that, lest I think you are taking his comments out of context. I thought that whole thing was about providing an equal opportunity for all Americans, regardless of color, gender, or class. That was one of the overriding points of his visit to that Church in Detroit, the coverage of which was suspiciously absent in mainstream media.
No I didn't see it, and I don't know which speech you are talking about.
From what I've seen and heard, he has been consistently supportive of American citizens of all races and ethnicities. If I missed something, hopefully somebody else will point me in the right direction.
It's pretty condescending and insulting. Also, I was wrong on the Michigan audience. I thought he said it in Flint but, it wasn't. It was actually a predominately white audience when he made this insulting pitch.
At least you did not disappoint. Not telling why we should vote for Hillary, but insulting the other candidate.
Well done!!!
Actually, it is none of anybody's business who I vote for. However, for the record, I have posted in here at least twice, possibly more, why I am voting the way I am. So, clearly you have not read them or you just prefer to stick with your same 'ol agenda and insult folks.
I guess I'd need to see the video of Trump talking to mostly white people when he said "what do you have to lose?"
Didn't he say that in Detroit? In downtown Detroit? At a black church?
And I agree with you. All blacks aren't poor, or in poverty. In fact, I would guess most AREN'T........which leads me to question why the ones that are seem to get all of the media play.
I dont have any problems with what trump said. He doesnt really sugar coat things and tell you what you want to hear like Hillary does. But I understand the liberal lemmings enjoy being told life will be a utopia if you only vote for Dems.
Okay, just watched a video of it. It does seem it was quite "non black" based on the people behind Trump.
Ummm...I know I am a few years older than Swish but, it looks pretty white to me too.
And, for the record here are the town's demographics as per the 2010 census (nothing more recent on the town's wiki page):
As of the census[2] of 2010, there were 1,234 people, 504 households, and 351 families residing in the village. The population density was 1,371.1 inhabitants per square mile (529.4/km2). There were 530 housing units at an average density of 588.9 per square mile (227.4/km2). The racial makeup of the village was 92.7% White, 0.7% African American, 0.9% Native American, 0.8% Asian, 1.6% from other races, and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 4.1% of the population.
Okay, just watched a video of it. It does seem it was quite "non black" based on the people behind Trump.
Ummm...I know I am a few years older than Swish but, it looks pretty white to me too.
And, for the record here are the town's demographics as per the 2010 census (nothing more recent on the town's wiki page):
As of the census[2] of 2010, there were 1,234 people, 504 households, and 351 families residing in the village. The population density was 1,371.1 inhabitants per square mile (529.4/km2). There were 530 housing units at an average density of 588.9 per square mile (227.4/km2). The racial makeup of the village was 92.7% White, 0.7% African American, 0.9% Native American, 0.8% Asian, 1.6% from other races, and 3.2% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 4.1% of the population.
Didn't I just say it appeared it was quite non black?
That means, it appeared it was......get this, quite NON BLACK.
Haha I posted the same video. Didn't know you did.
Anyway, Eve, the same question can be said.
Most white people are fine, yet only your drug addicts from opiates and mass shooters get all the attention.
But didn't you just say these kind of issues should be covered and not in the background in the other thread?
So what's the standard?
And I watched the same video BEFORE you or pdx posted it.........and that's when I said something along the lines of "oka, it does appear it was quite non black."
I dont find it insulting or care if it gets liberals panties in a wad. Liberals just cant stand him being right.
Or maybe he has no clue because he is the shining example of white privilege, was born into wealth, is himself a billionaire thanks to daddy, has sent his kids to the most expensive private schools and lives in a gleaming tower named after himself.
Or maybe liberals cant stand him being right. The liberals on this forum complain about black poverty as often as possible in this forum. Maybe your panties are in a wad because he is right. The Dems have done nothing to improve the situation.
Or maybe liberals cant stand him being right. The liberals on this forum complain about black poverty as often as possible in this forum. Maybe your panties are in a wad because he is right. The Dems have done nothing to improve the situation.
And, once again, it his poor choice of language. The guy has no class, no tact and is completely unprofessional and to be frank, comes across very ignorant.
Can somebody post what he actually did that was condescending? I watched PDX's video but that's obviously not it. Clem referenced a speech a while back in Iowa?
I was gone for most of the day. Cut me some slack here.
Can somebody post what he actually did that was condescending? I watched PDX's video but that's obviously not it. Clem referenced a speech a while back in Iowa?
I was gone for most of the day. Cut me some slack here.
He didnt say anything insulting. He spoke the truth that the dems have not done anything to help poor blacks. Liberals got their panties in a wad about it.
I've gone on record, plenty of times, that neither party wants to do anything. Why don't they want? It'll radically flip the power structure, and hat scares too many rich people.
Just look at how MLK got assassinated. He gets shot right when he's about to enact a huge campaign to redistribute wealth in our country.
I watched PDX's video but that's obviously not it. Clem referenced a speech a while back in Iowa?
If it was in Iowa I can't remember what he said. To be honest, he has said so many insulting things on this campaign it is hard to keep track.
But, why is it "obviously not it" (the video from Michigan)?
Between the way Swish described Trump's words, and Clem suggesting it was from a rally in Iowa, I thought we were talking about something different. I don't think what he said is insulting, I'm sure we're all adults here and we can handle some political banter.
And... he's kind of right. Here are a few questions for you, and I hope you look into the first part of the question before you research the second part of it.
Which cities in the United States are in the worst condition? Use whatever definition you want in terms of 'worst condition', but I'm thinking along the lines of cities hit by urban decay, that have high poverty, high crime, corrupt politicians, and failing schools.
Once you have a list of these cities, what political party has control of these cities, and for how long has that political party been in control? As a quick/crude way to measure this, go by the mayor, google something like list of [city name] mayors and most major cities have a neat looking wiki page that will show you. I'd be curious to know what you find.
And... he's kind of right. Here are a few questions for you, and I hope you look into the first part of the question before you research the second part of it.
Which cities in the United States are in the worst condition? Use whatever definition you want in terms of 'worst condition', but I'm thinking along the lines of cities hit by urban decay, that have high poverty, high crime, corrupt politicians, and failing schools.
Once you have a list of these cities, what political party has control of these cities, and for how long has that political party been in control? As a quick/crude way to measure this, go by the mayor, google something like list of [city name] mayors and most major cities have a neat looking wiki page that will show you. I'd be curious to know what you find.
I don't need to do any research because I know the answer to both of these. Just because I lean politically to the left doesn't mean I give passes to politicians simply for being Dem or liberal.
Trump's lack of Presidential stature is what I am calling out. His ego gets in his way. As President the overall job and goal is much bigger than the man. However, I see Trump as being intoxicated with the power and becoming an even bigger narcissist than he already is. Also, as I have said over and over....I demand more from a candidate. I really don't think he is particularly bright and his insults, gaffes and bullying behavior only add to his unsuitability for the job.
You demand more from a candidate? You expect them to lie over and over to you like Hillary does? She plays liberals for fools and you guys fall for it hook line and sucker.
You demand more from a candidate? You expect them to lie over and over to you like Hillary does? She plays liberals for fools and you guys fall for it hook line and sucker.
Quoted for truth.
It's weird how the hillary supporters poo poo all her lies, misdeeds, theft, etc.
But most of them couch it with a statement similar to this "I don't like hillary, but................." and attack Trump.
You demand more from a candidate? You expect them to lie over and over to you like Hillary does? She plays liberals for fools and you guys fall for it hook line and sucker.
Did I say that? I have acknowledged it. Unfortunately, we have a 2 party system that has put up the two candidates we have. I wont vote for Johnson simply as a protest as Vers seems to want folks to do. I also wont not vote. This election is too important. Trump is by far the worst candidate I have seen in my lifetime. I thought Bush Jr/Cheney and rumsfeld were bad but, Trump is downright frightening. Clinton is flawed, no doubt. I have acknowledged that over and over but, she is far superior to Trump.
Oh, and btw Eve...Trump lies over and over too and are you are cool with it?
The difference between Hillarys lies and Trumps lies is that Hillarys lies are carefully crafted to fool the masses and Trumps are because he isnt bright enough to know he is wrong about something.
The difference between Hillarys lies and Trumps lies is that Hillarys lies are carefully crafted to fool the masses and Trumps are because he isnt bright enough to know he is wrong about something.
So with this rationale you are saying:
A- Clinton is smart and clever B - Trump isn't very bright
We agree!
As both have been caught lying (show me a politician anywhere in the world who doesn't lie) my vote will go with the smart and clever candidate anyday over the dim wit.
I am voting for Gary so I will have a clean conscience. But you should get used to President Trump because he is trending up in the polls and the only thing standing in his way is the debates.
But you should get used to President Trump because he is trending up in the polls and the only thing standing in his way is the debates.
I am banking on him being destroyed in the debates because I agree with your previous post. He isn't very bright so his feathers will get ruffled and he will eventually resort to schoolyard behavior like he did in the Rep debates.
I am voting for Gary so I will have a clean conscience.
Vers posted Johnson's 11 key issues and they were NOT very detailed. In fact, most were a couple sentences and none of them go into detail about how he would achieve them. He seems rather one-dimensional to me.
But...I welcome him in the debates and think he should be included. As he will be on all 50 ballots (and PR?) it isn't democratic to not allow him to participate.
You can look up his platform on his website if you really cared about his stance on the issues. Gary is a MUCH better choice than either of the two trainwreck candidates.
Seriously... I wish you brain-damaged Browns Fans would STOP using the "Quick Post" feature on the main post page, and actually link your responses to the individual posters you're responding to.
It's exhausting me.
90% of the posts I'm geared up to respond to aren't really directed at me personally. You dummies are using the type field that's conveniently located at the bottom of the post page.... but each one registers as a personal post to me on my DT thread page.
If you are just generally posting a thought, please feel free to use my thread as your outlet.
If you are responding to a specific poster in a thread.... PLEASE use the 'old school channels.'
Click their post, and respond to them the way you always did, in The Old Days.
Don't just use the dialog box at the bottom of your screen as a general default.
It's great short cut for general comments.... but it's not the best default 'go-to' when you're trying to engage in targeted conversation.
Sorry... I just HAD to ask this, for the sake of 'board continuity'....
Clem, with all due respect this is a topic should discuss with Purp. It's obviously a popular feature designed to make game day posting more easy with the amount of traffic the site receives. It's not our fault for using a feature that is easy and convenient. It's not our job to accomadate those who don't know how to use it or find it frustrating.
Purp actually did a fantastic job making this website updated to the 21st century.
It's just another example of young folks being to lazy to take the time to do something right. I mean the extra 1.5 seconds it would take to reply to someone is 1.5 seconds in their day that they can't be rubbing their boogers on their phone.
I didn't listen to this, and why would I. Rudy is the guy who said that there were NO SUCCESSFUL TERRORIST ATTACKS on american soil except during the Clinton and Obama admins.
The guy is an idiot. I can't believe he forgot about 9/11. What a dope. I used to respect him. But now, he's a doddering old fool
I didn't listen to this, and why would I. Rudy is the guy who said that there were NO SUCCESSFUL TERRORIST ATTACKS on american soil except during the Clinton and Obama admins.
The guy is an idiot. I can't believe he forgot about 9/11. What a dope. I used to respect him. But now, he's a doddering old fool
From the presidential thread part 4, in response to someone posting a link about this:
Quote:
Context: he mentions Mike Pence coming to ground zero (9/11) and the ensuing passage of the PATRIOT Act. He's talking about how there were no Islamic terrorist attacks in the U.S. after passing that act until Obama came into office. This was all said in the span of about 30 seconds.
edit2: What he said was still not technically correct, but he obviously did not forget 9/11
The problem is that the video that was posted had left out that important bit of context. The more complete video made his acknowledgement of that attack quite obvious. It was still a pretty clumsy speech as I recall.
You demand more from a candidate? You expect them to lie over and over to you like Hillary does? She plays liberals for fools and you guys fall for it hook line and sucker.
Quoted for truth.
It's weird how the hillary supporters poo poo all her lies, misdeeds, theft, etc.
But most of them couch it with a statement similar to this "I don't like hillary, but................." and attack Trump.
Yep, the liberals on this board give hillary a free pass on everything.
It obviously is not impossible. Guys do it all the time.
However, I don't think they are really watching. They are too busy typing to watch closely.
It's like watching a highlight show. They see an interception or a sack and then determine that guy had an outstanding game when in fact that said players may have given up several completions or got abused in the running game.
And I really don't get what is so hard about clicking on the reply button to a specific poster???????
Yep, the liberals on this board give hillary a free pass on everything.
That's interesting as it seems the Republicans gave Bush Jr and his cronies a free pass on Iraq Pt. II as well as the economy as it swirled down the toilet WELL before 2008. Bengazi is also often cited. Let me ask...how many US embassies were attacked and how many folks killed under Bush's reign? Just curious. Free pass? Contradiction? Yep.
So, my thinking is a lot of folks are just tired of the witch hunts and have tuned it out into background noise. We saw it with Obama and now we are seeing it with Hillary. It gets old and tiring pretty fast.
But, I guess you can say that at least the Republicans are predictably consistent.
More than 800 immigrants mistakenly granted citizenship
Associated Press
The U.S. government has mistakenly granted citizenship to at least 858 immigrants who had pending deportation orders from countries of concern to national security or with high rates of immigration fraud, according to an internal Homeland Security audit released Monday.
The Homeland Security Department's inspector general found that the immigrants used different names or birthdates to apply for citizenship with U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and such discrepancies weren't caught because their fingerprints were missing from government databases.
The report does not identify any of the immigrants by name, but Inspector General John Roth's auditors said they were all from "special interest countries" -- those that present a national security concern for the United States -- or neighboring countries with high rates of immigration fraud. The report did not identify those countries.
There's a possible new scandal brewing on reddit. Apparently a user on that site that went by the name of 'StoneTear' happened to be Paul Combetta, the IT director for Hillary Clinton around the time of the email scandal.
This user StoneTear made a post a couple years ago asking for help on how to change out the names of emails on already sent and archived emails because the person whose email it was would be immediately recognizable and was VIP/Very VIP (you can't make this stuff up). Lots of his other post history gives thorough evidence that it is indeed Paul Combetta (I am merely relaying this information; I have not done any research myself). This morning, when the person who has control of that account got wind of this, mass editing and deletion of that account history began.
However, some conservative bloggers archived his posts extensively before they went down. There are some videos of the content being taken down as it was happening. This could be a major scandal. Whether and to what extent it goes viral and hits mainstream media remains to be seen, but expect to hear more about it soon.
Yes, Reddit. That is the site that Hillary Clinton's IT guy posted asking for technical advice on how to remove or replace the to/from address on archived emails. I believe this was during the time they were being investigated by the FBI, but don't quote me on that. It's complicated trying to untangle this whole mess. It will be interesting to match this up with statements the Clinton camp made to the public and to the FBI.
Lots more where that came from. Don't worry, I'll keep you updated
Angela Merkel's party slumps as far-right surges in Berlin election
(CNN)Germany's two largest parties were facing up to losses in the nation's capital Monday after large numbers of Berliners turned to the far-right.
Anti-immigrant party Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD) will enter Berlin's state parliament for the first time, after winning 14.2% of the vote. Angela Merkel's center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU) was knocked out of a ruling coalition with the center-left Social Democrats, after winning just 17.6% of the vote. After the poll result, Merkel acknowledged mistakes and shortcomings with the controversial refugee policy which allowed hundreds of thousands into the country. "If I could I would play back time so I and the German federal government and leaders could have been better prepared," she said.
Trump calls for confronting 'cancer from within' amid terror attacks
Donald Trump revived his calls for tightening immigration following a rapid-fire succession of terror attacks involving foreign-born suspects spanning from Minnesota to New York and New Jersey, describing the threat as “cancer from within.”
The Republican presidential nominee, in an interview Monday morning with Fox News’ “Fox & Friends,” pointed to the latest threat in doubling down on his criticism of his Democratic opponent wanting to boost refugee admissions.
“Hillary Clinton wants to allow hundreds of thousands of these same people,” Trump said.
Trump has called for “extreme vetting” for U.S.-bound immigrants and for a temporary suspension of all immigration from certain countries with a history of terror – proposals his critics have blasted as overly broad.
The Obama administration, meanwhile, wants to boost the total number of refugees to the U.S. next year to 110,000, a nearly 30 percent increase. Clinton specifically wants to increase the number of Syrian refugee admissions from 10,000 to 65,000.
Donald Trump said Monday he did not care if his former primary challengers endorse him, but expressed agreement with Reince Priebus, chair of the Republican National Committee, who warned that measures may be taken against Republicans who refuse to get aboard the Trump train.
"These people all want to run in four years, right?" Trump said on Fox News. "If I were the head of the Republican Party, I'd say you can't do it, but what do I have to do with it?"
The real-estate mogul added: "In the meantime, we're either tied or leading, we're doing very well, and it'd be nice to have their support, but at this point, I don't really even care about their support. Whatever happens, happens."
During a Sunday interview on CBS's "Face the Nation," Priebus said Trump's former primary challengers might face trouble in 2020 or 2024 if they did not announce their support for Trump.
"Those people need to get on board," he said. "And if they're thinking they're going to run again someday, I think that we're going to evaluate the process — of the nomination process — and I don't think it's going to be that easy for them."
Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush have prominently refused to endorse Trump since he wrapped up the party's nomination in May. Priebus said the party would "look at" potential penalties for those who have not endorsed Trump who are considering a future presidential bid. Every GOP presidential hopeful signed a loyalty pledge last summer stating they would support the eventual nominee no matter who it was.
"People in our party are talking about what we're going to do about this. I mean, there's a ballot access issue in South Carolina," Priebus said. "In order to be on the ballot in South Carolina, you actually have to pledge your support to the nominee, no matter who that person is. So what's the penalty for that? It's not a threat, but that's just the question that we have a process in place.
"And if a private entity puts forward a process and has agreement with the participants in that process, and those participants don't follow through with the promises that they made in that process, what — what should a private party do about that if those same people come around in four or eight years?"
Kasich's chief strategist for his presidential run, John Weaver, fired back at Priebus late Sunday, saying the Ohio Republican would not be "bullied by a Kenosha political operative," referring to Priebus' hometown in Wisconsin.
The Manhattan billionaire praised Priebus in his Monday interview, saying he is doing "a very good job."
"But it shows he's a tough cookie," Trump said. "He doesn't like it when you sign a pledge and then you use their data. They signed an agreement ... and now they're violating it."
Calling out Kasich specifically, Trump said the only reason Kasich is not backing him is because the real-estate magnate defeated the governor "so badly."
"But Kasich isn't on board, and the only reason he's not on board is that he got beaten so badly," Trump said. "He got beaten as badly as anybody can get beaten. I don't mind it. If Kasich doesn't endorse me that's fine. But I will say this: He and Bush and all of these people signed pledges."
NBC's Lester Holt, the moderator of the first presidential debate, which is next week, on Monday announced the topics to be discussed during the much-anticipated event.
The three topics to be discussed during the debate, held at Hofstra University in New York, will be "America's Direction," "Achieving Prosperity," and "Securing America," per a release from the Commission on Presidential Debates.
The debate format calls for six 15-minute time segments, and each of the topics will take up two of the six time slots. The debate will start at 9 p.m. next Monday and will run for 90 minutes without any commercial interruption.
I'm ready for a three page long tirade about this from Swish...
For the record, this is the first I've heard of these comments.
Im waiting for the spin job on his comments followed by 30 links related to Hillary.
The tirade thing was just a friendly jab at Swish based on an old joke about the tirades we go on sometimes. It kind of came off wrong. nothing meant by it.
As far as Trump's comments, I still have to watch the full video. On one hand, I don't trust the media to provide full context and an accurate interpretation of his remarks. On the other hand, I don't want to put my foot in my mouth, at face value his comments are divisive and I think it's strange he would be going down that road this late in the election season. He's been doing so well the last six weeks!
you know what's crazy? some conservatives sincerely thought that obama was gonna declare marshall law and such.
yet the only person coming close to it is a republican nominee.
how come nobody targets the polygamist in this country? i mean, the cops know who they are, right? isn't polygamy illegal? why aren't the cops doing anything about it? are they afraid?
Haus, your boy can't keep his mouth shut. bank on it: he's gonna say something beyond dumb in the debates.
I don't want to deflect over to Hillary, candy made a good call on that, but the rabbit hole on this Reddit discovery is crazy and the timing of these posts was right around when subpoenas were issued by congress and then soon after tens of thousands of these emails were deleted.
I should add that for the non-tech geeks, usually when things are 'deleted', they are not really deleted, it's more like hidden from view but files can still generally be retrieved. These were more scrubbed so that not even the FBI could retrieve them (it is still possible they were tracked in some other way.)
The way I understand this, and keep in mind that I've just poked around on reddit and some of the conservative sites that have covered this, is that the emails that were deleted were supposed to be preserved, unaltered, via the subpoena from congress. Supposedly the deleted emails were deleted routinely, but if some of these guys are correct, there is blatant intent here to try to change the contents of the emails, and ultimately when that was deemed technologically unfeasible, they were scrubbed altogether.
Then there is further evidence of malice when the owner of this account has gone to great lengths to delete his internet history (on Reddit and various other sites where he shares this username). What a cluster. But if these guys are right, this discovery would go a long way to untangle the web of confusion that has been given to the American public.
Just one other general comment about this whole thing: Apparently this user had some extremely embarrassing posts up on various sites. I'm not trying to shame the guy but I'm just vaguely bringing it up to give a friendly public service announcement that everything you do on the internet is out there for good. Even deleted content will be archived or cached somewhere. Just keep that in mind when you visit some shady site or make a heated post on here in a moment of passion.
I think the source is legit. I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around a fact that someone is this incredibly stupid.
After everything that has happened, I guarantee secret information will never have an electronic trail again.
This particular case is surprising, given Combetta's position and the fact that this just got kicked off by a bunch of regular internet users searching around. It is hard to believe that Clinton's IT guy was this careless.
As far as secret information never having an electronic trial again, I have to disagree with that. People can be careless and some security considerations are very complex. That's a bad combination. This does have to be a wake up call for sure though.
So Trump never said anything about 'racial profiling' after all. Literally never said anything about race. He made vague comments about Israel profiling when they see somebody suspicious and they bring them in.
The part about "racial" was added by Clinton News Network. I guess the actual quote, while a little dicey, wasn't potent enough. No wonder why I couldn't find a video.
Donald Trump is gaining support among African-American voters — whose enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton is eroding, a tracking poll released Saturday revealed.
Trump saw a 16.5 percentage-point increase in backing from African-American voters in a Los Angeles Times/University of Southern California tracking poll, up from 3.1 percent on Sept. 10 to 19.6 percent through Friday.
Meanwhile, the same poll showed Clinton’s support among that group plummeting from 90.4 percent on Sept. 10 to 71.4 percent.
Clinton’s nearly 20-point crash began Sunday, said Dan Schnur of USC. Sunday was the day Clinton was recorded collapsing while entering a Secret Service van at a 9/11 event.
The survey, which spanned through Friday, included the days in which Trump reignited the divisive “birther” issue — which critics contend is a thinly veiled attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the country’s first black president.
Late Wednesday, Trump had refused to acknowledge that President Obama was born in the United States, demurring on the topic in a Washington Post interview published the next day.
But at a bizarre press conference at Trump International, his new hotel in Washington, DC, on Friday, the tycoon conceded, “President Barack Obama was born in the United States, period.”
For the week, the poll found a 6-point rise for Trump. The Republican is now at 47.2 percent of the vote to Clinton’s 41.2 percent.
“It’s the largest shift we’ve seen in a one-week period since we began polling in July,” Schnur said.
Expect more outrageous dishonesty from CNN and perhaps other mainstream media outlets (MSNBC anybody?) The shifts have to be disconcerting. If Trump won't say anything controversial, I guess they will just modify his quotes to reflect what they heard and not what he said.
So Trump never said anything about 'racial profiling' after all. Literally never said anything about race. He made vague comments about Israel profiling when they see somebody suspicious and they bring them in.
The part about "racial" was added by Clinton News Network. I guess the actual quote, while a little dicey, wasn't potent enough. No wonder why I couldn't find a video.
Did you miss the O'reilly factor when he doubled down?
I have not followed this all that closely. I have actually been trying to follow politics less lately but I keep getting sucked back in. I read more about the Combetta situation today than Trump's comments about profiling.
He may very well have said something controversial. I just don't know. The thing that I am upset with is the fact that we have a major, mainstream media station that literally changed his quote, perhaps in an effort to sabotage Trump's gains with minorities.
This is why I so many people don't trust the media. I actually make an effort to follow what they say but sometimes I don't even know why I bother. Usually they are more subtle than this but I guess with less than two months to go, they have to pull out all the stops to try to save Hillary. Crazy.
As far as him doubling down, if you want to link me to a video or whatever, I'll watch it tomorrow. It's too late for me right now. Or if you want to transcribe what he said or give your take on it, that would be cool too.
Former President George H.W. Bush is bucking his party's presidential nominee and plans to vote for Hillary Clinton in November, according to a member of another famous political family, the Kennedys.
So, a democrat say's "He said it......"
Hey, you heard it here: I heard that Bill Clinton was voting for Trump.
Catchy headline, but like arch pointed out, that is just hearsay.
Quote:
Asked about Townsend’s post, George H.W. Bush spokesman Jim McGrath in an email replied, "The vote President Bush will cast as a private citizen in some 50 days will be just that: a private vote cast in some 50 days. He is not commenting on the presidential race in the interim."
Maybe he is voting for Hillary; maybe he isn't. I don't trust politico to be fair. This headline is misleading enough, but perhaps some have forgotten about how in the summer, politico had an agreement with the DNC to let them 'review' Clinton stories before being published. [edit: reading this businessinsider article again, they write that the agreement was with one influential reporter at Politico. It shouldn't apply to Politico as a whole.]
Somehow I get the feeling that they don't allow Donald Trump to review and suggest edits to articles written about him.
Quote:
The email's subject line read: "per agreement ... any thoughts appreciated."
"Vogel gave me his story ahead of time/before it goes to his editors as long as I didn't share it," Paustenbach wrote in an email to Luis Miranda, the DNC's communications director.
"Let me know if you see anything that's missing and I'll push back," he added.
I would say that almost none of the old folks do it on purpose. We may do it because we are not computer savvy. Heck who knows maybe the younger folks don't do it on purpose either. Maybe they just can't see their screen with all the boogers on it
For the record, that "nonsense from reddit" has been picked up by U.S. News & World report (I posted that link yesterday) and is being investigated by the House Oversight Committee.
how come nobody targets the polygamist in this country? i mean, the cops know who they are, right? isn't polygamy illegal? why aren't the cops doing anything about it? are they afraid?
They are to busy making pot busts to worry about polygamists.
Quote:
Haus, your boy can't keep his mouth shut. bank on it: he's gonna say something beyond dumb in the debates.
I can hear him now as Clinton goes into a coughing fit.
Hey Hillary that's what Monica did before she stained that blue dress.
As she goes into another one of her exaggerated spasms
Trump: Hey is that Hillary or Linda Blair?
As Hillary has a major seizure and falls to the ground.
Trump: She is flopping around like a fish out of water. Hey Bill get up here quick and bring some cigars. For once she will be moving while you do it.
You demand more from a candidate? You expect them to lie over and over to you like Hillary does? She plays liberals for fools and you guys fall for it hook line and sucker.
Quoted for truth.
It's weird how the hillary supporters poo poo all her lies, misdeeds, theft, etc.
But most of them couch it with a statement similar to this "I don't like hillary, but................." and attack Trump.
Yep, the liberals on this board give hillary a free pass on everything.
The conservatives do the same thing when it comes to Trump and his misteps.
Here's a general thought I had about the debates, after watching this Clinton video from a couple days ago:
She didn't say anything wrong. It's a pretty good response actually. It's just the lack of passion, lack of enthusiasm that makes it hard to spend 39 seconds listening to it let alone 39 minutes. That's the thing about debates, it's not just what you say, it's also the charisma and Trump is better at that by miles.
Now look, I'm not saying we should elect a leader based on passion. It's just a strictly neutral point that it will count for the viewers, consciously or subconsciously. Where most people (self included) don't really understand international trade deals that well, we all have a sort of sense on who makes us feel good about ourselves and who is just painful to listen to. I think it counts. I think it counts more than it should.
Now look, I'm not saying we should elect a leader based on passion again.
Qualifications for President changed dramatically back around the time of John F. Kennedy because that is when everybody had television, debates were televised, etc. Charm, charisma, looks, public speaking skills, it all became vastly more important.
It's not an accident that the average male height in America is just under 5'10" but the average height of American Presidents since Kennedy is almost 6'1"... Height implies stature, it implies strength, it implies power.. people are drawn to it more.
Story highlights "Let's end the politically correct agenda that doesn't put America first," he tweeted The internet responded and criticized his tweet
Washington (CNN) — Donald Trump Jr., the Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump's son, tweeted a graphic on Tuesday that likened Syrian refugees to Skittles, which was swiftly met with criticism.
"This image says it all. Let's end the politically correct agenda that doesn't put America first. #trump2016," he tweeted, with a graphic that said: "If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you. Would you take a handful? That's our Syrian refugee problem."
The graphic had an official Trump logo that the Republican nominee shares with his running mate, Mike Pence.
And it appears the graphic's language wasn't a Trump Jr. original, but instead that of former Illinois Rep. Joe Walsh, a former tea party congressman from Illinois and now a conservative talk radio host.
Walsh tweeted at Trump Jr.: "Hey @DonaldTrumpJr, that's the point I made last month. Glad you agree."
Walsh's tweet included a screenshot of a tweet he made dated August 13.
Hillary Clinton's campaign spokesman Nick Merrill retweeted Trump Jr. adding: "This is disgusting."
The 2016 campaign has featured heated rhetoric around US policy for accepting refugees. Clinton has called for an increase in the number of Syrian refugees the US should accept and Trump has called for "extreme vetting" of immigrants, as well as a ban on immigrants from countries that are hotbeds of terrorism, such as Syria.
One of President Barack Obama's former speechwriters responded to Trump Jr. with a link to CNN reporting about a little boy in Aleppo, Syria who became the face of the humanitarian crises in Syria.
"Hey @DonaldJTrumpJr, this is one of the millions of children you compared to a poisoned Skittle today," Jon Favreau tweeted.
Former Obama campaign staffer, Jason Sparks, tweeted at Trump Jr. photos of the Syrian refugee children in the crises and said: "These aren't Skittles, @DonaldJTrumpJr."
And musician John Legend, who has been an outspoken critic of Trump on Twitter, wrote: "There's a tiny chance that anyone could be a murderer. Get rid of everyone now!!! #trumplogic"
Legend also retweeted a photo of the Aleppo boy, where someone said: "This is not a skittle."
The Trump campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Mars Candy, the parent company of Wrigley who makes Skittles, put out a statement saying "Skittles are candy; refugees are people. It's an inappropriate analogy. We respectfully refrain from further comment, as that could be misinterpreted as marketing."
Last week, Trump Jr. was criticized for making a "gas chamber" reference when complaining about how the treatment his father has received form the media compared to the coverage from Clinton.
"They've let her slide on every discrepancy, on every lie, on every DNC game trying to get Bernie Sanders out of the thing," he said. "I mean, if Republicans were doing that, they'd be warming up the gas chamber right now. It's a very different system -- there's nothing fair about it."
Hillary Clinton's campaign spokesman Nick Merrill retweeted Trump Jr. adding: "This is disgusting."
It's not disgusting, it's a metaphor. One would think with all of the elitest academic intelligence on the left, somebody would know that. Now go back to comparing conservatives to Nazis because you know... that's not disgusting at all.
Hillary Clinton's campaign spokesman Nick Merrill retweeted Trump Jr. adding: "This is disgusting."
It's not disgusting, it's a metaphor. One would think with all of the elitest academic intelligence on the left, somebody would know that. Now go back to comparing conservatives to Nazis because you know... that's not disgusting at all.
But it is a fallacy, because since 9/11 we have had 100s of thousands of refugees and not one of them has committed a terrorist attack. So the real analogy would be there are enough skittles to fill a refrigerator and not one of them is poison.
Its scare tactic BS that is what Trumps whole campaign is based on .
Haus, you are looking at the reaction of Hillary in a very narrow lens.
Trump used it as campaign fodder. I actually believe that when things like this occur, maybe a little sadness, calm and deliberation beats going off the deep end and trying to use it for personal gain.
Hillary Clinton's campaign spokesman Nick Merrill retweeted Trump Jr. adding: "This is disgusting."
It's not disgusting, it's a metaphor. One would think with all of the elitest academic intelligence on the left, somebody would know that. Now go back to comparing conservatives to Nazis because you know... that's not disgusting at all.
But it is a fallacy, because since 9/11 we have had 100s of thousands of refugees and not one of them has committed a terrorist attack. So the real analogy would be there are enough skittles to fill a refrigerator and not one of them is poison.
Its scare tactic BS that is what Trumps whole campaign is based on .
That's fine. If want to disagree with his metaphor... have at it. But insinuating that it is somehow disgusting and racist is BS.
Haus, you are looking at the reaction of Hillary in a very narrow lens.
Trump used it as campaign fodder. I actually believe that when things like this occur, maybe a little sadness, calm and deliberation beats going off the deep end and trying to use it for personal gain.
eh, I got the vibe that she was totally out of it, like she was hopped up on meds or something like that. You're right though that a certain calm sadness was/would be an appropriate response, given the situation. A longer video and more context would have been appropriate.
I have to give Trump credit for working the refs (debate mods) over. It was like vintage Phil Jackson criticizing refs during a playoff series. Saying the system is rigged beforehand is equivalent to saying the refs aren't making correct calls. It makes the refs (mods) so worried about their integrity being damaged that they over compensate in favor of the accuser.
If people don't believe it will work, look at how he made Matt Lauer his bitch at the forum debate. Hillary is such a weak candidate that she has let Trump dictate terms from day 1. Article on what I meant in a sports phrase-
PHOENIX — Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio on Tuesday vowed to the Surprise Tea Party Patriots, the group that five years ago petitioned him to investigate President Obama’s birth certificate, that he was continuing the inquiry.
“I don’t care where he’s from,” Arpaio told the crowd of about 200. “We are looking at a forged document. Period.”
For Arpaio, last week’s statement by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump that Obama was born in this country had no weight on his volunteer posse's work.
USA TODAY Trump finally says Obama born in U.S., blames Clinton for controversy
“I know all the politicians say, ‘Sheriff, don’t talk about it,’” he told the crowd. “But how can I back down when we started it? I’m not going to just forget it.”
Arpaio started his investigation in August 2011, months after Trump raised the issue. In April of that year, Obama held a news conference and posted an image of his birth certificate on the White House website.
“I had nothing to do with Trump on the birth certificate,” Arpaio told the crowd. “We did it on our own, because of you guys.”
The Surprise Tea Party asked Arpaio to investigate the birth certificate in a letter dated Aug. 20, 2011.
“They’re the ones that got me stuck in this thing,” Arpaio said in a brief interview before walking into the meeting room in the Sun City West Foundation Plaza.
Donald Trump scored a coup against the media Friday, convening the press at his new Washington hotel after promising a big announcement, but delivering just a brief acknowledgement that President Obama was born in the US. (Sept. 16) AP
Arpaio received the letter three days after Jerome Corsi, an author and reporter for World Net Daily, spoke to the Surprise Tea Party about his doubts on Obama’s birth records.
On that day, according to a copy of the letter sent to Arpaio, the group gathered 242 signatures on a petition asking Arpaio to investigate whether Obama’s birth certificate was a forgery.
Arpaio began the investigation that week. It has continued since.
“I’m not going to give up, and we’re looking into it,” he said. “I don’t know how it’s going to turn out.”
Mike Zullo, the lead investigator on the case and commander of Arpaio’s Cold Case Posse, told the crowd that he knew Trump’s statement was a “punch in the gut, because it was unexpected.”
Zullo said he thought Trump’s statement was “strategic.”
“It’s not going to deter us,” Zullo said. “It’s not going to stop us. I am closer than ever.”
Zullo, however, said that he was not sure whether Obama was not born in the United States. He also said an unnamed official high up in Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children in Honolulu, the hospital listed on Obama's birth certificate, has “assured me that birth never took place there, and I believe him.”
Hillary Clinton says rival Donald Trump owes President Barack Obama and the American people an apology for his role in the so-called "birther" movement that questioned the president's American citizenship. (Sept. 16) AP
Trump said Friday that he believed Obama was born in the United States. He has not elaborated on what led him to this conclusion.
In a statement, his campaign said that Trump successfully ended the issue when Obama released his birth certificate in 2011.
“Having successfully obtained President Obama’s birth certificate when others could not, Mr. Trump believes that President Obama was born in the United States,” reads the statement on Trump’s website.
State Rep. Phil Lovas, a Peoria Republican and director of the Trump campaign in Arizona, said in a brief interview that the Trump statement speaks for itself.
Lovas said he, personally, believes that Obama’s birth certificate is real.
“I believe it is, but I haven’t examined it,” Lovas said before addressing meeting attendees.
Jeff Lichter, who was among the Surprise Tea Party Patriots who signed the letter asking Arpaio for the investigation, demurred when asked about Trump’s statement.
“I don’t want to say anything that hurts Trump,” Lichter said before the meeting began. “I don’t want to say anything that makes national news.”
But during a presentation to the Surprise Tea Party Patriots, Lichter said that, when he and two state lawmakers traveled to New York in April 2011 and met with Trump in Trump Tower, the businessman told them he anticipated Obama would be releasing a fake birth certificate.
“My sources in D.C. are telling me there is going to be a fake birth certificate,” Lichter quoted Trump as saying.
Barb Heller, 59, of Glendale, who attended the meeting, said that she doesn’t see a conflict between the birth certificate investigation and Trump’s statement.
“He said he was born in the United States,” Heller said before the meeting. “He didn’t say it was a true document.”
Haus, you are looking at the reaction of Hillary in a very narrow lens.
Trump used it as campaign fodder. I actually believe that when things like this occur, maybe a little sadness, calm and deliberation beats going off the deep end and trying to use it for personal gain.
eh, I got the vibe that she was totally out of it, like she was hopped up on meds or something like that. You're right though that a certain calm sadness was/would be an appropriate response, given the situation. A longer video and more context would have been appropriate.
Hillary Clinton's campaign spokesman Nick Merrill retweeted Trump Jr. adding: "This is disgusting."
It's not disgusting, it's a metaphor. One would think with all of the elitest academic intelligence on the left, somebody would know that. Now go back to comparing conservatives to Nazis because you know... that's not disgusting at all.
New York (AFP) - Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump used funds from his charitable foundation to pay settlements in legal cases involving his businesses, an apparent violation of laws governing non-profits, the Washington Post reported Tuesday.
The cases involved a combined $258,000 paid out by the Donald J. Trump Foundation -- a charity almost entirely funded with other people's money, the newspaper said -- and follow a review of legal documents and the foundation's tax records.
The newspaper carried out a weekslong investigation into the charity's finances, finding that Trump himself has not contributed a dollar since 2009. The group is funded by donations from third parties instead.
One of the group's suspect payments was a $100,000 donation to a veterans' charity in 2007 as part of a legal settlement with the city of Palm Beach, Florida.
Trump had sued the city after it fined him $120,000, or $1,250 per day, for erecting an 80-foot (24-meter) flagpole at his Mar-a-Lago Club that exceeded the maximum 42 feet permitted by local regulations.
The Trump Foundation also made transactions that appeared to be exclusively for the benefit of the real estate mogul or his businesses, apparently in violation of regulations governing charities, the Washington Post said.
In one case, the charity paid $20,000 in 2007 for a six-foot portrait of Trump, the newspaper reported.
"Clearly the Trump Foundation is as much a charitable organization as Trump University is an institute of higher education," said Christina Reynolds, a spokeswoman for the campaign of Trump's White House rival, Democrat Hillary Clinton.
"Once again, Trump has proven himself a fraud who believes the rules don't apply to him," she said in a statement. "It's past time for him to release his tax returns to show whether his tax issues extend to his own personal finances."
Some Democrats have complained that the media has not sufficiently reported about the Trump Foundation's suspected wrongdoing, accusing journalists of being lenient in their treatment of the outspoken billionaire.
News outlets have also been criticized for being more keen to cover a tweet by Trump's son comparing Syrian refugees to a bowl of colorful Skittles candy.
"If I had a bowl of skittles and I told you just three would kill you. Would you take a handful?" he wrote. "That's our Syria refugee problem."
"If you are covering Skittles-gate instead Trump's illegal use of his foundation, you are probably in journalism for the wrong reasons," tweeted Dan Pfeiffer, a former top advisor to President Barack Obama.
Trump's campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
I have to give Trump credit for working the refs (debate mods) over. It was like vintage Phil Jackson criticizing refs during a playoff series. Saying the system is rigged beforehand is equivalent to saying the refs aren't making correct calls. It makes the refs (mods) so worried about their integrity being damaged that they over compensate in favor of the accuser.
If people don't believe it will work, look at how he made Matt Lauer his bitch at the forum debate. Hillary is such a weak candidate that she has let Trump dictate terms from day 1. Article on what I meant in a sports phrase-
that Donald Trump accused the moderator of Monday's upcoming debate of being a Democrat as a reason the debates are rigged against him. But Lester Holt is a registered Republican, Time magazine reports.
“By the way, Lester is a Democrat. It’s a phony system. They are all Democrats. It’s a very unfair system,” Trump told Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly Monday night.
The NBC anchor — who will moderate the first debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, N.Y. Sept. 26 — has been a registered Republican since 2003, according to Time’s review of New York voter registration documents.
Earlier this month Trump said the debate shouldn't have a moderator and he and Hillary Clinton should just moderate themselves.
I am sure that this is how he will finish the election and govern if by some how he is elected potus. If he fails, it wasn't his fault. To get his message across, it is bs and lies. Morning Joe also stated that in addition to already putting it out there that if he gets crushed, it wasn't his fault, Trump really isn't studying policy for the debate, just comebacks and zingers
Apparently I can't say things like xenophbia or bigotry, but things like this are okay?
Come on.
Your go to word is xenophobia even when there's legitimate concern, even after the San Bernadino shooting you went straight there. I mention that I'm concerned that all the illegals that are coming into the country are either going to take my job or dilute the skilled trade pool to the point that I have to slash my prices in order to work and it falls on deaf ears. I suggest lightening up on the accusations you make and reserving them for actual cases of such.
I can relate with the price thing. My expenses go up and up: business insurance, health insurance (gotten through my wife's job) Personal (home and auto insurance), electric, food.
Yet, if I raise my prices, I may lose jobs.
I'm getting squeezed on both ends (and not in a good way).
Apparently I can't say things like xenophbia or bigotry,
Come on.
Trump is neither xenophobic nor a bigot, he is all about America First! He is running for President of the United States, not president of the world like Hillary.
Apparently I can't say things like xenophbia or bigotry,
Come on.
Trump is neither xenophobic nor a bigot, he is all about America First! He is running for President of the United States, not president of the world like Hillary.
He's actually both.. and a Liar as well. and a joke of a candidate.
Wow. I was surprised to find MSNBC being this hard on Clinton.
The Clinton campaign attacks Trump on the Syria thing, saying "well, he says he has some secret plan to deal with it......ha ha", but when asked point blank, Hillary's spokesperson says "well, she has made clear what her plan is"
Apparently I can't say things like xenophbia or bigotry,
Come on.
Trump is neither xenophobic nor a bigot, he is all about America First! He is running for President of the United States, not president of the world like Hillary.
If you haven't read the transcript of Obama's recent speech at the UN, I would suggest you go read it. It sounds very much like he is kicking off his campaign to run for President of the world and most of the accomplishments he touts from his Presidency involve how much better off other countries are now than they were when he took office.
But such use of charitable foundations is not illegal under the federal tax laws, even if it may appear unseemly. A foundation only crosses into illegality if a substantial return benefit is received by a foundation insider or a business in which they or their family has a substantial ownership stake.
This is where the Trump Foundation distinguishes itself from the Clinton Foundation. As detailed in a series of articles by David Fahrenthold of the Washington Post, the Trump Foundation allegedly purchased a Tim Tebow helmet and paintings of Mr. Trump that may have been kept by Trump personally, bought an ad for a Trump business, made a $25,000 contribution to a political organization affiliated with Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi that Trump had promised to make at a time her office was considering possible action against Trump University, and paid over a quarter million dollars to charities in order to settle lawsuits against Trump businesses.
None of the allegations against the Clinton Foundation, much less the actually demonstrated facts, show this type of personal benefit to Ms. Clinton, her family or any business in which she or they had an interest.
Quote:
While both Ms. Clinton and Mr. Trump used their foundations to enhance their extensive networks of relationships, it seems that only Mr. Trump treated his foundation as just another pot of money he could draw upon whenever there was any type of "charitable" connection and even when the primary beneficiary of the foundation's spending was himself or his businesses. This is where the Trump Foundation appears to have crossed into illegality, as the Post indicates, while the Clinton Foundation did not.
With the first presidential debate coming on Monday, Donald Trump has moved to a five-point lead over Hillary Clinton, his biggest advantage since mid-July.
The latest Rasmussen Reports weekly White House Watch telephone and online survey finds Trump with 44% support among Likely U.S. Voters to Clinton’s 39%. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson earns eight percent (8%) of the vote, while Green Party nominee Jill Stein holds steady at two percent (2%). Three percent (3%) like some other candidate, and five percent (5%) are still undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
In the 2D world in which most people live, Clinton and Trump are polling about evenly, and either one could win. The 2D world is all about facts and policies and common sense. In other words – all the stuff we think we care about but really don’t.
In the 3D world of persuasion, however, the election is already over. There is still some mystery about how large the margin will be, but Trump is already the President of the United States unless something big happens in the next few weeks. How do I know that?
Listen to this clip in which Clinton asks why she isn’t leading by 50 points. Ignore the content of what she says, because no one cares about content. Just feel it.
And see the future.
—
In other news…
You might be wondering if Trump made mistakes this week when he mentioned both profiling and “stop and frisk.” Persuasion-wise, both comments are mistakes, because they work against his outreach strategy that has been effective. But these are minor problems because the news is providing the best-possible context for Trump’s comments.
On some level, everyone knows the government of the United States is already profiling, and will continue doing so. We just call it something else. No one believes that the U.S. checks Swedish immigrants as thoroughly as Syrian immigrants. Clearly we already profile – not just for race, but probably according to a dozen other variables. (And Islam still isn’t a race.)
Trump’s “stop and frisk” comment will haunt him for a few weeks, but it comes in the context of outrage about an African-American policeman killing an African-American citizen. According to the pundits on TV, that changed the frame from a problem of white-versus-black to a question of police training. And even Trump is asking why the police shot a man in Tulsa who appeared to be surrendering.
Trump is consistent in staking out whatever is the most bad-ass sounding position on all matters of security. Later, following his well-observed pattern, he negotiates down to something that doesn’t violate the Constitution so much. So I wouldn’t worry about “stop and frisk” becoming a thing. States will figure out that stuff on their own.
I wouldn't say it's over yet, there is still a long way to go and a lot can happen. Yet, he has been more accurate than all the professionals in predicting the election thus far, so I wouldn't discount what he says entirely just because he's the cartoon guy.
Hillary Clinton kept her large lead in the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll Wednesday, holding a 6-point advantage over Donald Trump in a four-way race.
In the prior two installments of the four-way NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, which included Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson and Green Party nominee Jill Stein, Clinton held a 9-point lead in early August and a 6-point lead in mid-July.
"Despite arguably the worst few weeks of her candidacy, the fundamentals still point toward a Hillary Clinton victory," said Democratic pollster Fred Yang of Hart Research Associates, who conducted the survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies.
"Donald Trump has closed the margin since August, but as we head towards the debate, still needs to push this campaign closer," McInturff added. "The good news for him is the electorate narrowly agrees with him that America has lost ground and wants to see a change in direction."
The poll was conducted Friday to Monday, with 1,000 registered voters polled. The margin of error is 3.1 percentage points.
________________________
how about we just chill out until the debates. any of us can find any poll from any source and go "omg see!! he/she is winning!!"
Fort Lee’s mayor testified Wednesday that he lied when he insisted in a letter to a New Jersey newspaper that the George Washington Bridge lane closures weren’t an act of political payback — because he “was petrified of further retribution” from Gov. Chris Christie.
“My responsibility is the safety of my community. We had a billion-dollar redevelopment that took 40 years to get off the ground,” Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich told Newark federal jurors when asked about his November 2013 op-ed in the Star-Ledger of Newark, in which he denied he’d been targeted for refusing to endorse Christie.
“We were finally in the middle of it,” he said. “I was petrified of further retribution.”
–– ADVERTISEMENT ––
Under cross-examination, Sokolich said Christie was one of the people he feared would retaliate against him.
“They include the governor of the state of NJ,” he said. “All we needed was further retribution that would add further to the standstill.”
Sokolich said that as a “local mayor,” he didn’t realize there would be a federal investigation into the infamous lane closures.
“I didn’t want Fort Lee and myself, all by ourselves, there facing retribution and getting beat up,” he explained. “I didn’t know what sort of things could happen and I didn’t want to find out.”
‘I didn’t want Fort Lee and myself, all by ourselves, there facing retribution and getting beat up. I didn’t know what sort of things could happen and I didn’t want to find out.’ - Fort Lee Mayor Mark Sokolich Sokolich testified at the trial of Bill Baroni, the former deputy executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and Bridget Anne Kelly, a former top Christie aid. They’ve been charged with arranging the 2013 lane closures, which snarled traffic at the busy bridge.
PA Executive Director Pat Foye — who ordered the reopening of the lanes after four days — testified that Baroni asked him to close them again.
“Bill asked for the lanes to be closed and said the issue was important to Trenton,” Foye told jurors. “I took that to be the Governor’s Office. This was often the way the New Jersey Governor’s Office was referred to.”
Foye testified that when he refused, Baroni warned, “Trenton may call.”
Earlier, the Bridgegate defense team presented Sokolich’s letter to the Star-Ledger, showing that he denied the lane closures were punishment by the Christie administration for his failure to support the governor’s re-election.
“In September of 2013 you are writing letters that you are being punished and on November 14th, sending out the word you are not being punished,” Kelly defense attorney Michael Critchley said.
“Which is the lie?” Critchley asked.
“You just read it,” Sokolich replied.
The Fort Lee mayor also said that Christie finally apologized to him months after the shutdown — but only in front of a throng of reporters.
First, Christie closed that bridge 40, you know it.
Second, Swish Clinton is getting crushed by Trump right now. She was/is a terrible candidate. She always loses in the home stretch after having a big lead. Dems earned this.
"Listen to this clip in which Clinton asks why she isn’t leading by 50 points."
I clicked the link to read that article and also clicked the link referenced above and watched the Clinton video.
Whenever she talks serious, like she did in that video, I can't help getting the feeling that she's bitching at me. I really hope I'm not forced to listen to her talk over the next four years.
Whenever she talks serious, like she did in that video, I can't help getting the feeling that she's bitching at me. I really hope I'm not forced to listen to her talk over the next four years.
I am curious why people seem fine with Trump coming across stern, bullish and angry. His supporters view it that he is "strong and wont back down". However, when Clinton talks with a tough, steely spine those same supporters call her a "b...." and want her to soften up. Funny how things work differently for males and females.
I notch it up as more evidence of Republicans being frightened by a strong, powerful woman.
Whenever she talks serious, like she did in that video, I can't help getting the feeling that she's bitching at me. I really hope I'm not forced to listen to her talk over the next four years.
I am curious why people seem fine with Trump coming across stern, bullish and angry. His supporters view it that he is "strong and wont back down". However, when Clinton talks with a tough, steely spine those same supporters call her a "b...." and want her to soften up. Funny how things work differently for males and females.
I notch it up as more evidence of Republicans being frightened by a strong, powerful woman.
I bet many of the same people who dislike Hillary and/or like Trump also think highly of Ann Coulter, Condoleezza Rice, Sarah Palin, etc.
We heard similar things about how the only reason people couldn't like Obama was because he is black. Yet those same people seem to be quite high on Ben Carson, David Clarke, and others.
Maybe it is time to stop making everything out to be about race and gender. Seriously, it gets old after a while.
or, they are the tokens who happen to agree your point of view.
that way you can go "see!! see!! the black guy thinks like me!! so it MUST be true!!"
your favorite phrase: confirmation bias. because far too often, you guys will praise the FEW like that sheriff because he agrees with you, and the slam the majority of blacks because they DON'T agree with you.
Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin? Come on, dude....we may disagree politically but, I respect you more than that. Neither of these ladies come close to the intelligence, class or respect that Rice has. They shouldn't even be in the same sentence with Rice.
Condoleezza is incredibly intelligent. If the Republicans could talk her into running I think a lot of Democrats and even liberals would have much greater respect for the party. Instead they wheel out Palin, Santorum, Carson, Cruz and Trump (to name a few).
Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin? Come on, dude....we may disagree politically but, I respect you more than that. Neither of these ladies come close to the intelligence, class or respect that Rice has. They shouldn't even be in the same sentence with Rice.
Condoleezza is incredibly intelligent. If the Republicans could talk her into running I think a lot of Democrats and even liberals would have much greater respect for the party. Instead they wheel out Palin, Santorum, Carson, Cruz and Trump (to name a few).
I was never a fan of Palin and thought she was a bad choice politically at the time. That's kind of beside the point though. You said that you think Republicans are frightened by a strong, powerful woman, and Sarah Palin is an example of a politician that a lot of Republican/Tea Party types really liked. That fact is hard to reconcile with your statement.
I simply want the best person for a job. In this case that means the presidency, but that also applies for any other job. Just hire the best person without regard for race, gender, religion, or anything else. That is all I ask for, and my opinion is that Hillary is, at best, the 4th best candidate in the presidential race.
or, they are the tokens who happen to agree your point of view.
that way you can go "see!! see!! the black guy thinks like me!! so it MUST be true!!"
your favorite phrase: confirmation bias. because far too often, you guys will praise the FEW like that sheriff because he agrees with you, and the slam the majority of blacks because they DON'T agree with you.
happens every. single. time.
So the Black people I like are tokens?
Is that like Ben Carson who speaks like an educated adult but since he is Black he must be an Uncle Tom as you called him?
Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin? Come on, dude....we may disagree politically but, I respect you more than that. Neither of these ladies come close to the intelligence, class or respect that Rice has. They shouldn't even be in the same sentence with Rice.
Condoleezza is incredibly intelligent. If the Republicans could talk her into running I think a lot of Democrats and even liberals would have much greater respect for the party. Instead they wheel out Palin, Santorum, Carson, Cruz and Trump (to name a few).
I was never a fan of Palin and thought she was a bad choice politically at the time. That's kind of beside the point though. You said that you think Republicans are frightened by a strong, powerful woman, and Sarah Palin is an example of a politician that a lot of Republican/Tea Party types really liked. That fact is hard to reconcile with your statement.
I simply want the best person for a job. In this case that means the presidency, but that also applies for any other job. Just hire the best person without regard for race, gender, religion, or anything else. That is all I ask for, and my opinion is that Hillary is, at best, the 4th best candidate in the presidential race.
My definition of strong and powerful includes intelligence. I have never heard Palin speak where I have thought "wow, she is really bright". Rice, however, yep...she is confident, strong, powerful and incredibly bright. If she ran a lot of people on both sides of the political spectrum would take note.
Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin? Come on, dude....we may disagree politically but, I respect you more than that. Neither of these ladies come close to the intelligence, class or respect that Rice has. They shouldn't even be in the same sentence with Rice.
Condoleezza is incredibly intelligent. If the Republicans could talk her into running I think a lot of Democrats and even liberals would have much greater respect for the party. Instead they wheel out Palin, Santorum, Carson, Cruz and Trump (to name a few).
I was never a fan of Palin and thought she was a bad choice politically at the time. That's kind of beside the point though. You said that you think Republicans are frightened by a strong, powerful woman, and Sarah Palin is an example of a politician that a lot of Republican/Tea Party types really liked. That fact is hard to reconcile with your statement.
I simply want the best person for a job. In this case that means the presidency, but that also applies for any other job. Just hire the best person without regard for race, gender, religion, or anything else. That is all I ask for, and my opinion is that Hillary is, at best, the 4th best candidate in the presidential race.
My definition of strong and powerful includes intelligence. I have never heard Palin speak where I have thought "wow, she is really bright". Rice, however, yep...she is confident, strong, powerful and incredibly bright. If she ran a lot of people on both sides of the political spectrum would take note.
Ok.... I agree... but this completely contradicts what you said about Republicans being frightened by a strong, powerful woman. I will give an alternative explanation: maybe it's just that Hillary Clinton is an awful candidate.
Ok.... I agree... but this completely contradicts what you said about Republicans being frightened by a strong, powerful woman. I will give an alternative explanation: maybe it's just that Hillary Clinton is an awful candidate.
No matter where you stand I don't think anybody can say Clinton isn't clever. Intellectually she runs circuits around Palin. She is intelligent, confident and powerful. She has a spine of steel and wont flinch on their witch hunts. The Republican male, in particular, is scared poopless of her.
Obama has been subjected to the same behavior that we are seeing play out against Clinton.
Ok.... I agree... but this completely contradicts what you said about Republicans being frightened by a strong, powerful woman. I will give an alternative explanation: maybe it's just that Hillary Clinton is an awful candidate.
No matter where you stand I don't think anybody can say Clinton isn't clever. Intellectually she runs circuits around Palin. She is intelligent, confident and powerful. She has a spine of steel and wont flinch on their witch hunts. The Republican male, in particular, is scared poopless of her.
Obama has been subjected to the same behavior that we are seeing play out against Clinton.
Politics are nasty. I wish it were not like that, even if I get caught up in it from time to time.
Bush, Obama, Hillary, and Trump have all had an unbelievable amount of hostility directed at them. It is what it is. We should all try to be mindful of that and realize that 'the other side' probably isn't as bad as what we make it out to be.
I look at the condition of our crumbling society today and the 52 million dead Americans who never had a chance in life and I say Hogwash, they are worse and more destructive than any foreign enemy we have ever faced.
Politics are nasty. I wish it were not like that, even if I get caught up in it from time to time.
Bush, Obama, Hillary, and Trump have all had an unbelievable amount of hostility directed at them. It is what it is.
I think Bush deserves his as he has blood on his hands by taking us to war on false pretenses and he also wasted billions of dollars doing so.
Trump tends to put his foot in his mouth so often that he kinda walks smack into the face of hostility on his own accord.
Quote:
We should all try to be mindful of that and realize that 'the other side' probably isn't as bad as what we make it out to be.
Fair point, brother. I'd have a beer with you at the pub and talk politics. We might not agree on everything but, you are reasonable and your replies are insightful.
Whenever she talks serious, like she did in that video, I can't help getting the feeling that she's bitching at me. I really hope I'm not forced to listen to her talk over the next four years.
I am curious why people seem fine with Trump coming across stern, bullish and angry. His supporters view it that he is "strong and wont back down". However, when Clinton talks with a tough, steely spine those same supporters call her a "b...." and want her to soften up. Funny how things work differently for males and females.
I notch it up as more evidence of Republicans being frightened by a strong, powerful woman.
So, when a man acts like a man he gets accolades, but when a woman tries to act like a man she gets called a "b....". Funny how things work differently for males and females.
Men and women show their power and strength in different ways.
If she would act and come across as a strong and powerful woman I'd appreciate that in her. However, I don't think she is a strong, powerful woman. I think she believes that if she shows a stern face and a bitchy voice it makes her appear strong and powerful. It doesn't.
or, they are the tokens who happen to agree your point of view.
that way you can go "see!! see!! the black guy thinks like me!! so it MUST be true!!"
your favorite phrase: confirmation bias. because far too often, you guys will praise the FEW like that sheriff because he agrees with you, and the slam the majority of blacks because they DON'T agree with you.
happens every. single. time.
That Sheriff got paid $150,000 in speaking fees during 2015 to basically slam black people. His department is actually under investigation for dehydrating a prisoner to death.
Question for everyone, do you think political ads work anymore? I question how well ads in general work anymore. I feel that we've all trained our brains to block out ads. We see through BS negative ads as what they are. I think it's because most of us are so spammed with ads during sporting events that we don't even give them a second thought. We post on sites like these during commercial breaks, talk with friends / family or just check our phones / tablets periodically.
Question for everyone, do you think political ads work anymore? I question how well ads in general work anymore. I feel that we've all trained our brains to block out ads. We see through BS negative ads as what they are. I think it's because most of us are so spammed with ads during sporting events that we don't even give them a second thought. We post on sites like these during commercial breaks, talk with friends / family or just check our phones / tablets periodically.
I don't think they change anybody's mind. I think they only serve to reinforce that which we already believe.
If your candidate runs an attack ad, you think, "Yea, go get'em.. " If the opponent runs an attack ad, you think, "Look at that lying piece of crap talk about my candidate."
Question for everyone, do you think political ads work anymore? I question how well ads in general work anymore. I feel that we've all trained our brains to block out ads. We see through BS negative ads as what they are. I think it's because most of us are so spammed with ads during sporting events that we don't even give them a second thought. We post on sites like these during commercial breaks, talk with friends / family or just check our phones / tablets periodically.
I don't think they change anybody's mind. I think they only serve to reinforce that which we already believe.
If your candidate runs an attack ad, you think, "Yea, go get'em.. " If the opponent runs an attack ad, you think, "Look at that lying piece of crap talk about my candidate."
LOL I pretty much tune them all out. Especially those on Facebook,, Oh man, it's crazy. Almost makes Facebook unreadable.
LOL, I saw one the other day where a guy was questioning where Obama was during 9/11, he wanted to know why he wasn't in the oval office doing his job.. I damned near lost it LOL
For a different perspective take a look at who the candidates will be surrounding themselves with. Forget popularity and such, just look at who each will have to do the day to day work in the trenches.
I saw one the other day where a guy was questioning where Obama was during 9/11, he wanted to know why he wasn't in the oval office doing his job..
That clip was from a recent episode of the Daily Show.
'Correspondent' Jordan Klepper was doing man on the streets interviews with Ohioans at a Trump rally. He asked another person (a middle-aged woman) where she got her news. Her answer:
"from my friends and family on facebook."
I kid you not. You should go to Comedy Central and chase down the entire clip. That dude you mentioned was on the clip several times. He''s hysterical.... and he's our neighbor, D.
For a different perspective take a look at who the candidates will be surrounding themselves with. Forget popularity and such, just look at who each will have to do the day to day work in the trenches.
That should influence one's vote almost as much as the principal candidate.
While Trump has not given serious hints about whom he would choose for his cabinet, he relies on counsel from New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama, among others.
For economic advice, Trump has largely surrounded himself with investors and businessmen rather than economists. Hedge fund manager John Paulson, energy baron Harold Hamm, and investors Wilbur Ross and Tom Barrack all serve on Trump's economic advisory team, among others.
After Bitter Primary Fight, Ted Cruz Backs Donald Trump
After a bitter primary battle that culminated with Ted Cruz being booed off the stage at the Republican National Convention, the Texas senator says he will vote for Donald Trump.
In a 741-word Facebook post Friday, Cruz wrote that he made the decision because he wants to "keep his word" to vote for the Republican nominee and because he finds Hillary Clinton "wholly unacceptable."
After Bitter Primary Fight, Ted Cruz Backs Donald Trump
After a bitter primary battle that culminated with Ted Cruz being booed off the stage at the Republican National Convention, the Texas senator says he will vote for Donald Trump.
In a 741-word Facebook post Friday, Cruz wrote that he made the decision because he wants to "keep his word" to vote for the Republican nominee and because he finds Hillary Clinton "wholly unacceptable."
Pretty lame that he has just now, so late in the day, come out to endorse Trump. This smells of a political move to me. In reality, he doesn't support Trump...he just wants to be reelected and knows if he doesn't back the Rep nominee he risks his own political career. Pretty spineless and weak, to be honest.
After Bitter Primary Fight, Ted Cruz Backs Donald Trump
After a bitter primary battle that culminated with Ted Cruz being booed off the stage at the Republican National Convention, the Texas senator says he will vote for Donald Trump.
In a 741-word Facebook post Friday, Cruz wrote that he made the decision because he wants to "keep his word" to vote for the Republican nominee and because he finds Hillary Clinton "wholly unacceptable."
Pretty lame that he has just now, so late in the day, come out to endorse Trump. This smells of a political move to me. In reality, he doesn't support Trump...he just wants to be reelected and knows if he doesn't back the Rep nominee he risks his own political career. Pretty spineless and weak, to be honest.
Naturally it was a political move, and I'm greatly disappointed by it.
If you're a straight white Christian male? Not much.
If you're anything but a straight white Christian male? Lots.
Illegal immigration is a problem for the u.s. If you cant admit that, we shouldn't even talk.
So, a wall would help.
Racial profiling? Nah, more like just flat out profiling. It's nice you add the "racial" part. You think it helps make your point. But, in actuality, it doesn't.
Profiling IS how things get done in this world. Racial profiling isn't a good thing, no doubt. Profiling can be a good thing. I'll have to explain more about that Sunday afternoon. Or, if I'm too bummed by the Browns game, Monday afternoon.
A giant ban on individuals based on religion? Not for it. I don't care what religion you are..........wait, to some extent, I do. One can't just claim "I'm this religion" and get a pass.
Trump has backed his rhetoric back. Instead of letting anyone and everyone in, we should be doing some serious background checks. Problem is, how do you background check people from over seas that have no background to check?
I don't think people realize how big of a deal with was too. It's kind of disturbing and screws farmers over royally. It gives China leverage in the future.
Check to see if either contributed donations. If they donated to either, most likely donated to both, then I doubt it.
It scares me how much the government and businesses could get away with right now. Everyone is so focused on the election that they ignore everything else.
Bernie conceded when he knew he was going to lose. Cruz disrespected Trump at the RNC.
Bernie sold out at the DNC. He is a chump who dicked over his cult following.
If Bernie had not done as he promised all along and conceded after losing then move to support the Dem nominee, there would have been riots and probably bloodshed when the DNC emails came out. If Hillary somehow manages to win, she owes it all to Bernie. ALL.
If presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton slips into a coughing fit or any other medical crisis during Monday's high-stakes debate, she will have to power through, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned!
"There are no commercial breaks," a commission source explains. "Period."
Debate moderator Lester Holt does not have the authority to cut away from the stage during the epic 90-minute showdown. And microphone audio for either of the candidates is not to be manipulated.
Clinton has experienced severe coughing episodes throughout the election year. During a Labor Day campaign stop she suffered a 4-minute choking marathon.
Monday's throwdown could top out at 100 million viewers, making it the biggest political event in history.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The presidential debate commission settled an early flashpoint when Clinton demanded a step-stool at the podium to add height to her 5'4" frame. Campaign Chairman John Podesta expressed concern that Hillary would be dwarfed by 6'2" Trump. The request was quickly rejected. The commission is allowing for a custom-made podium, which will accommodate the difference in stature.
intense or irrational dislike or fear of people from other countries.
Name which candidate wants to enact ridiculous walls, wants to racially profile American citizens, and a giant ban on individuals based of religion.
Edit: I'm not afraid of straight Christian white males. I am one.
I would like to see something on the southern border, as a means of slowing down people and drugs pouring across the border.
I don't think that a wall is the only step we should take, though.
Yes, we need a physical barrier, but we also need far more manpower on the border, and a better method for identifying people who are in this country illegally, especially when they are apprehended for other crimes.
Racial profiling sounds horrible, except for the fact that it works. One of the most idiotic things we have done in this country is to go politically correct when it comes to our security. For example, not all young men of Middle eastern descent are terrorists, but there are currently more terrorists who are young men of Middle Easter descent than of any other demographic. Pulling the 85 year old White or Black grandmother off of a plane to be searched is idiotic. If a certain demographic is committing most a certain, specific type of crime, then pay attention to that group. Same thing for all other crime. People were offended by stop and frisk in New York, but it cut crime dramatically. Do you stop the 50 year old White guy? No. Why not? Because the odds are against him being involved in street crime. Conversely, if a 50 year old White guy is driving around an area known for drug sales, over and over again ..... he's probably not just taking in the sights. If the police officer runs his plates, and finds that the guy lives in a very upscale area, then he is probably not looking to hang out with friends. I suppose it could happen, but the odds are against it.
We don't want to offend people. and that's admirable, until it becomes stupid. We know that in certain areas, certain groups of people are more likely than others to commit crimes. In other areas, it could be a different group. Back to your statement about religions ..... right now the person most likely to try to kill large numbers of people are from a certain part of the world. Let's not pretend that this isn't the case. Now I do not agree with just shutting the borders ..... but man, bringing in tons of Syrian refugees, which Hillary wants to do, without a system that allows us to vet them, is the height of stupidity. We absolutely need a way of vetting them, and then tracking them if it becomes necessary. Once we have a workable system in place, then fine, let some people in. However, let's not put our own citizens at risk just so it looks like we're doing something.
Question, if we go with racial profiling where does it end before we become like the countries we rebuke for their policies? If you want to become the white Christian version of the Middle East or like Russia then call it what it is. If you want a police state, then just admit it.
If presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton slips into a coughing fit or any other medical crisis during Monday's high-stakes debate, she will have to power through, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned!
"There are no commercial breaks," a commission source explains. "Period."
Debate moderator Lester Holt does not have the authority to cut away from the stage during the epic 90-minute showdown. And microphone audio for either of the candidates is not to be manipulated.
Clinton has experienced severe coughing episodes throughout the election year. During a Labor Day campaign stop she suffered a 4-minute choking marathon.
Monday's throwdown could top out at 100 million viewers, making it the biggest political event in history.
EDITOR'S NOTE: The presidential debate commission settled an early flashpoint when Clinton demanded a step-stool at the podium to add height to her 5'4" frame. Campaign Chairman John Podesta expressed concern that Hillary would be dwarfed by 6'2" Trump. The request was quickly rejected. The commission is allowing for a custom-made podium, which will accommodate the difference in stature.
This is good. Let them get out there and debate. The last thing we want to see is things to heat up, then they cut away for a break and allow the candidates to regain their composure, go over talking points, and give the viewers a reason to switch over to MNF. Screw that. This is going to be fun.
As much as I'm trying to understand YTown and Arch, you pretty much nailed it.
The only ones for profiling are the ones who won't be affected by it whatsoever.
It's easy to take a position on something that won't affect your daily life one bit.
YTown and Arxh have to be super honest with themselves. If all three of us are walking down the street together, and profiling is legal, guess who's getting stopped.
Insurance beer cars military viagra pizza cable / satellite phones
Anything I'm missing commercial wise?
Unless it's the superbowl I wouldn't know because I don't watch them. Heck if I had DVR back in the day I would have fast forwarded my own damn commercials
YTown, GMdawg, and Swish are all walking down the street together, and pass a group of beautiful young ladies. Which two are going to get profiled and turned down by the ladies?
Mox posted the stats from the Washington Post from 2009 that showed Blacks in NYC committed 75 percent of all shootings, 70 percent of all robberies, 66 percent of all violent crimes while only being 23 percent of the population!
So if you want to get a jump on cleaning up that situation, you suggest we go into White or Jewish neighborhoods and search old fat White women???
I think you want to go to the Black neighborhoods to search people, show a stronger Police presents in those neighborhoods, and get a handle on where the problem lies! You would be saving a whole lot of Black lives in the process because Blacks also make up most of the victims of these crimes!
Dr. Ben Carson was on tv last night and this is how I remember it. The interviewer asked him. "Dr. Carson, you were one of the very first candidates to jump to Donald Trump with your support and have supported him since. What did you see in him that made you support him?"
Carson replied, "I really didn't want to be President but had so many people asking me to run, so many petitions and hundreds of thousands of people wanting me to run that I did not want to refuse the American people, so I ran. I was hoping someone would come along who had the same love of America, the same passion for everyday people, someone I could support and trust to address the corruption in our government and make a difference to all the people of this country". Donald Trump was the one.
The interviewer asked, "But what made you come to that decision?"
Dr. Carson said, "Do you remember in the one debate when I could not hear my name being called so I just stood there, listening for it, while the others were called and walked right on by me? Donald stopped when his name was called and stood there with me." Then there was the time where the Moderators were not asking me any questions, ignoring me like I was not even to be considered." All the other candidates had no problem with this, they were perfectly fine with the situation but Donald spoke up about it." "This and many other things, that you never hear about Donald Trump brought me to the realization he is the one."
If you want to abolish the 4th amendment, then just say so.
They've had zero problem crapping on the 4th amendment for years as long as it's not Christian / Jewish whites who are being violated. Funny thing is that the NRA isn't even a fan of stop and frisk either.
If you want to abolish the 4th amendment, then just say so.
They've had zero problem crapping on the 4th amendment for years as long as it's not Christian / Jewish whites who are being violated. Funny thing is that the NRA isn't even a fan of stop and frisk either.
Yea, screw it. Not my problem. Give us a call when you have had enough crime and death.
Question, if we go with racial profiling where does it end before we become like the countries we rebuke for their policies? If you want to become the white Christian version of the Middle East or like Russia then call it what it is. If you want a police state, then just admit it.
That is the difficult question.
If 18 year old White guys wearing jeans and black t-shirts with the sleeves rolled up are committing most of the crimes, do you put police surveillance on Black women in equal numbers? Of course not. You check out those who are committing the most crimes. Now we have to arrive at a system that pursues those who are committing the most crimes, without going so far over the top that you go after all people of a certain race. I admit that I don't know exactly how to draw that line, but to ignore that the people committing certain crimes in certain areas who look a certain way ... either in appearance. opportunity, access, and so on, is to ignore reality.
My man is smooth like Barry and his voice got bass, A body like Arnold with a Denzel face, He's smart like a Doctor with a real good rep, and when he comes home he's relaxed with pep!
Do your homework. This isn't what "the Brits" think about Clinton...this is what Nigel Farage thinks about Clinton.
Now, do your homework on Farage and, in particular, the UKIP Party. I don't think it is a political party that Trump should be too excited to be associated with.
We all have one chance, just one, in our lifetimes, to vote for a President who is not a Politician.
What do we have to lose? Lets give him a try and forever know we did not miss this once in a lifetime chance.
I think this statement is very powerful and resonates with a lot of people. If someone wants change they don't vote for the same status quo candidate. Essentially I look at Clinton as a continuation of the Obama administration, a typical politician, and one with an especially checkered history and bad foreign policy reputation. To me she represents an expansion of government and a progressive democratic agenda (both socially and economically).
Now Trump is not a great candidate either but I want someone to shake up Washington, get in there and work for the people, make things happen. I am hoping when they actually sit down and work with him, a lot will be pleasantly surprised by Trump. At this point who knows though. I do want a president with a backbone.
Do your homework. This isn't what "the Brits" think about Clinton...this is what Nigel Farage thinks about Clinton.
Now, do your homework on Farage and, in particular, the UKIP Party. I don't think it is a political party that Trump should be too excited to be associated with.
about a 5 second google search and you can easily see what the British think of him. At best a laughable moron and at worst a dictator. And so many signed a petition (roughly 600,000) that Trump should never be allowed to visit Great Britain that the parliament had to debate whether Trump should be allowed in their country
Do your homework. This isn't what "the Brits" think about Clinton...this is what Nigel Farage thinks about Clinton.
Now, do your homework on Farage and, in particular, the UKIP Party. I don't think it is a political party that Trump should be too excited to be associated with.
I completely understand your view on Nigel for he has taken every opportunity to tell the elite of Europe that they are not better than the people themselves. He has stood for Democracy at every turn.
My man is smooth like Barry and his voice got bass, A body like Arnold with a Denzel face, He's smart like a Doctor with a real good rep, and when he comes home he's relaxed with pep!
Well... Snoop ain't losin' no sleep tonight- His spot on "Tha Rostah" still locked down tight.
Don't quit your day job.
(Young bludz like to smash ho's and make shortys- Clemdawg's hobby is steady "slammin' 40's.")
I completely understand your view on Nigel for he has taken every opportunity to tell the elite of Europe that they are not better than the people themselves. He has stood for Democracy at every turn.
The UKIP Party has a long, established far right, xenophobic and racist leanings with connections/members from The National Front. I would think, given the many accusations of xenophobia and racism directed at Trump that he and his supporters would want to distance themselves from any association with Farage, UKIP and the NF.
I also seriously hope that is not your idea of democracy. If so, then I think we should immediately elevate this discussion to the top of Swish's thread on the "state of the union" thread.
I kid you not. You should go to Comedy Central and chase down the entire clip. That dude you mentioned was on the clip several times. He''s hysterical.... and he's our neighbor, D.
Are you talking about the guy that wanted to know where Obama was during 9/11..?
That guy is a true odd ball. lol And is he really your neighbor?
The Cascade Mall killer. This will certainly be brought up Monday at the debates.
man fish, and this loser was a Turk.
i know it shouldn't matter who and where they're from, but i think you understand my perspective as to why this one sucks especially. freaking dirtbag.
definitely not. survive cancer, go to the mall to buy some clothes maybe? start feeling good about yourself finally....and then here comes POS like this guy.
what bothers me is that this dude is 20 years old. if this is indeed islamic terrorism, how does his parents not see the signs? i mean damn he's still a kid.
i have a hard time believing that any of these mass shootings, no matter from what race/culture/demographic, are just spur of the moment YOLO incidents. they has to have been a ramp up prior to the actual action.
I completely understand your view on Nigel for he has taken every opportunity to tell the elite of Europe that they are not better than the people themselves. He has stood for Democracy at every turn.
The UKIP Party has a long, established far right, xenophobic and racist leanings with connections/members from The National Front. I would think, given the many accusations of xenophobia and racism directed at Trump that he and his supporters would want to distance themselves from any association with Farage, UKIP and the NF.
I also seriously hope that is not your idea of democracy. If so, then I think we should immediately elevate this discussion to the top of Swish's thread on the "state of the union" thread.
Those accusations of being 'racist and xenophobic' are starting to lose their luster because they have been thrown around so carelessly for so long. That certainly applies to US politics and from what I've seen, UK politics are no different in that regard.
I admit that I do not follow UK politics as closely as American politics, but Nigel Farage has handled himself with nothing but class in the face of relentless criticism. He has a sort of dry sense of humor that I find hilarious. He's an honorary American as far as I'm concerned.
Like Nigel said, the reason the Liberal Left calls people all those names is because they are trying to scare the middle and undecided into not wanting to be part of that group and be called those names. The good news is Americans don't like being manipulated, treated like idiots, and they don't scare easily.
Farage is a coward and a quitter. He pushed for Brexit and when he got what he wanted and then abandoned the leadership of his party.
I will stress yet again to do some research on Farage, UKIP and the National Front. There are also numerous photos of Farage arm and arm with leaders of the National Front. That would be akin to Trump arm and arm with David Duke or other high profile leaders of a racist organization. Not to mention comments made about anybody who wasn't British born living and working in the UK. Remember this is a country that once owned over half of the world and relied on its colonies to help rebuild their nation after WW2.
So, if that is who you want to nominate as an "honorary American" and put on a pedestal then I seriously question the state of the Republican party. I will be so glad if Clinton wins big AND when Latino heavily populated traditional Red states like Texas start turning blue and help herald in the end of the Republican party as we know it.
Like I said, I don't follow UK politics as closely as US politics and I'm sure you follow that closer, having family that lives over there and all. I will try to do some research on what you're talking about when I have some time to dig into it. Right now, my feelings on that are akin to Hillary's pathetic attempts to link Donald Trump to various fringe groups on the far right. Classless and without merit.
There's much history between Duke and Trump. Like actual factual data, and not straw theories of "Obama is the right hand man of Soros and Ayers!". Try to get Trump to disavow David Duke. I doubt it ever happens.
Oh and that "deplorables" frog? It got co-opted by white supremacists groups, but that apparently means nothing.
Sooooo much criticism on the word xenophobia, but he truly pushes policies that are reactionary to ridiculous unfounded fear of minorities.
But hey, it must be tough living in a world where you think you're under attack as a straight white Christian.
Like Nigel said, the reason the Liberal Left calls people all those names is because they are trying to scare the middle and undecided into not wanting to be part of that group and be called those names. The good news is Americans don't like being manipulated, treated like idiots, and they don't scare easily.
Trump has built his entire campaign on fear politics.
There's much history between Duke and Trump. Like actual factual data, and not straw theories of "Obama is the right hand man of Soros and Ayers!". Try to get Trump to disavow David Duke. I doubt it ever happens.
Somewhat similar to Robert Byrd and the KKK, right?
Now, if you want to talk negative history, let's discuss hillary. And bill, for that matter. We'd need a separate thread though.
There's much history between Duke and Trump. Like actual factual data, and not straw theories of "Obama is the right hand man of Soros and Ayers!". Try to get Trump to disavow David Duke. I doubt it ever happens.
Oh and that "deplorables" frog? It got co-opted by white supremacists groups, but that apparently means nothing.
Sooooo much criticism on the word xenophobia, but he truly pushes policies that are reactionary to ridiculous unfounded fear of minorities.
But hey, it must be tough living in a world where you think you're under attack as a straight white Christian.
As far as the Frog thing, I vaguely know what you're talking about and I have to say the fact that Hillary's website posted an explanation about that is one of the stranger things of the election season. I'm not so much concerned about that as I am Hillary labeling tens of millions of Americans as deplorable (racist, sexist, etc.) I've said over and over, I may not respect Hillary, but that doesn't mean that I lose respect for people who support her. We all have different personas and life experiences and reasonable people can have different views on politics. Imagine that.
Friendly reminder to everyone that the first debate is tomorrow at 9:00pm EDT. Hopefully that will give us some more meaningful things to talk about, as opposed to all the negativity that has been getting lobbed back and forth for a while now.
Liberals like me call people names like bigot, racist, xenophobe and idiot because we call em like we see em. Sometimes the truth hurts but it still must be told.
Polished Turds are still turds. A turd wrapped in dirt or money is still a turd too.
I do understand that some people with limited world views and who are raised in certain tribal environments have no idea that they are these things they are being called. This is not their fault because on top of everything else they are ignorant as well.
lol
