2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

5,651 to 5,700 of 7,079 << first < prev | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | next > last >>

jocundthejolly wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Trump wants to sue press for saying something that's not true, un-ironically.
Did they call him a viable candidate again?

Technically if he keeps the traditional Red States, and gets Florida, New Hampshire, Texas, and Ohio, he can squeak into victory with 278 Electoral Votes even if he loses the Popular vote the way Bush 1.0 got in.

Since the last election, Florida has doubled down on denying ex-felons, a largely Democratic population the vote, and New Hampshire is still New Hampshire, as well as Texas. Ohio may be too swingy to call yet.

If Texas is even in question, he's lost. It's certainly considered one of the traditional Red States, so I'm not sure what you're calling "Traditional red".

Romney got 206 electoral votes, including Texas. Adding Florida, NH & Ohio to that gets him 257, not enough to win. His chances of winning all three of them and whatever else you think is traditional are slim.

According to 538's wonderful little snake diagram, he'd have to take Iowa, Arizona, Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, Nevada and Pennsylvania, all of which are currently at least leaning towards Clinton. (Or some other, even less likely states. Those are his best chances.)

It's certainly possible. Even now, something could happen to shake up the race. The polling could be massively overstating Clinton's lead across the board.

But you've been predicting a Clinton disaster all along and it keeps not happening. Forgive me for thinking you're off now as well.

I don't know what she meant but I thought of the old Solid South, which had a strong blue tradition between Reconstruction and the 1960s-70s.

That Blue Tradition ended when the Democrats got the Civil Rights Bill passed. The Boll Weevil Democrats bolted the party in the infamous 1968 Convention, and joined the Republicans. In a situation much like what happened to the Republicans today, the Democrats wound up splitting between George Wallace and Hubert Humphrey and Richard Nixon was elected by a landslide. (this is also back when Conventions were more than just ceremonies to crown the presumptive nominee.)


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

New Hampshire hasn't gone Republican since Al Gore. I'll take bets that it goes to Clinton. To make the chances more even, know that I am working against myself and will be campaigning for Jill Stein.

If you want, we can even do the whole "if-I'm-wrong-I-will-vacate-Paizo-for-four-years" thing I did last time.

No running away where we can't poke you with sticks if you're wrong!

We'll need some form of solace darn it!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Haven't we had enough people vacate Paizo this year.

There has to be a better bet. :-)


All I know is I wish Wil Wheaton would show up at my FLGS along with Chris Pramas to film the next installment of Titansgrave.


CrusaderWolf wrote:

I see conservative tokenism is alive and well. What does it matter that millions of LGBTQ people despise your candidate and your movement? Hah! You'll show them with your *four* (all male, 3/4 white + wealthy) gays! Relevant

I was informed that I consider gays my enemy because I am voting for Trump. I said that was nonsense. I was then informed that gays are under threat from “gay conservative therapy”. Again, I said that was nonsense. I pointed out it was nonsense because if that were really true, all gays would be against it (or at least all gays who want to be gay).

To show it was nonsense, I pointed out three very intelligent gay men who would be completely against Trump if that were true, but they don’t see the illusion of “gay conservative therapy”. And I offered to admit I was wrong by allowing that if even one of those three people could see the problem, then it really is a problem, and not an illusion.

That has nothing to do with “tokenism”. It has nothing to do with conservative. It has everything to do with this particular illusion. Let millions of GLBTQ people despise Trump for something real.

By the way, Justin Raimondo is not rich as far as I know. Not sure about Milo.

Quote:

Same thing is done with black people. "Sure we poll at less than 5% nationally with black Americans, but hey--Bill Cosby and Ben Carson like us!"

The main reason Trump is going to get crushed is because millions > four. So go wild, vote for Trump, have yourselves a big 'ol primal scream and pick a fight with a RINO defending a House seat. Cuddle up to dudes hollering about globalism & Jewish conspiracies and tell yourself whatever you need to to stay the course. Makes my job that much easier in '18.

According to this article, 20% of gays back Trump. But it wouldn’t matter what the percentage is, I will take pride in voting for Trump even if I am the only person in my state to do so. In fact, if he loses, I will still post here at least one more time so everyone gets a proper chance to mock me for backing him. Perhaps I can even remind all of you in 2018 so you can mock me again.

MMCJawa wrote:
It doesn't surprise me that Thiel and co are not making a big deal about conversion therapy. They are wealthy, independent adults. The real problem with conversion therapy is all those folks who don't fit into that category, especially teens who might get shipped off against their will and have to endure the sort of psychological abuse associated with conversion therapy.

You make a more credible point. But I will point out, once again, Pence isn’t Trump. Pence is the VP candidate. Trump doesn’t take orders from his subordinates. This election is not about gay conversion therapy.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
Explain to me why the Koch brothers are so thrilled with Trump's tax cuts that they don't want their people supporting him and are refusing to spend any money on him.

Trumps a sinking ship.

When trump goes, he's dragging the senate with him.

President + democratic senate= Bernie sanders on the supreme court if she wants.

Then there goes citizens united and the koch's brothers ability to overtly buy elections and KEEP getting those tax breaks.

I see the problem here, there is a difference between a tax break and a tax cut.

Tax break – a tax break means the government is offering you a reduction in your taxes.
When the government offers you a tax break, it means you’re getting a reduction in your taxes. A tax break can come in a variety of forms, such as claiming deductions or excluding income from your tax return

Tax cuts are changes that reduce the amount paid under the law to government revenue. The taxes cut are on income, profits, sales, or assets.

Donald Trump did promise to implement tax cuts. And Hillary Clinton has promised a tax increase. But that has nothing to do with tax breaks. Hillary can get Congress to raise taxes but then Congress can also give out tax breaks to the 1% so that they end up paying even less than before. That is how billionaires play the game and win.

But thanks for reminding me to point that out so I can show how Donald Trump can offer a tax cut and the Koch brothers and other billionaires are still against him. They don’t care about a measly tax cut. They have more important things to worry about like protecting their much larger tax breaks.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Until you tell me how handing the one percenters a massive tax cut is siding against them, that discussion is moot.

Drahliana, I am disappointed you didn’t offer a number…

NPC Dave wrote:

The next person who complains to me about tax cuts better have a number ready to show me as to exactly how big a tax cut it will need to be to make George Bush the elder feel better about all this. You guys keep demanding more evidence from me, so let’s see some quid pro quo.

Since no one offered an answer, it is the first half of the Mastercard slogan…

KingOfAnything wrote:
NPC Dave appears to believe that two families make up the top 1% of wealth in America.

Ok, fine here are two more examples.

Jeff Bezos, most famous for founding Amazon, is today worth over $70 billion. All I have to do is put his name and Donald Trump into Google search and I get…

“Donald Trump’s behavior erodes democracy”

“This is not an appropriate way for a presidential candidate to behave”

“It erodes our free speech norms”

“Let’s send Donald Trump into space”

Jeff Bezos is not a fan of Donald Trump. Neither is the Washington Post which Bezos also owns.

And it isn’t hard to understand why he isn’t going to care about a tax cut. At $70 billion, how big a tax cut would Jeff Bezos have to receive to even notice?

Not his accountants mind you, but Bezos himself. As in, “I don’t remember having this much in the bank, where did it come from?” My guess... you can’t make a tax cut big enough to get Bezos to notice. You would have to refund him at least two full years of paid taxes for him to notice.

Next up is Carlos Slim, billionaire owner of the New York Times and sponsor of the Obamaphone.

The NYT is no fan of Trump of course, but remember what Trump promised in addition to those tax cuts. He was going to renegotiate all of those trade deals.

Carlos Slim makes all sorts of money from those sweetheart deals he makes with the US government. No need to worry about competitors undercutting you if your contract is locked in with the US government…unless a new President comes in promising to redo every deal.

Carlos Slim can bribe Obama and Hillary, but he can’t bribe Trump. He will have to make concessions, Trump drives a hard bargain. Carlos Slim may lose his sweetheart deals if a competitor underbids him. Is Carlos ready to lower his operating costs to meet President Trump’s demands and the lower bids of competitors?

Better to forget that tax cut and make sure Trump doesn’t get elected to protect the larger investments.

thejeff wrote:

As I understand it, the Koch Bro's (and others) are spending money this cycle, but they're spending it down ticket. Fighting for Senators and House seats.

And I don't think it's so much that they think it's a wash, but they think it's a lost cause and their efforts are better directed to controlling Congress and blocking Clinton that way.

Also, Trump is a threat to their control of the Republican party. That control is far more important than a tax cut.


Coriat wrote:

Hi Dave.

I don't think your Bush anecdotes prove your point, or even necessarily support it. The argument you advanced was that Trump is an enemy of the 1%. That's a broad claim, that he'd oppose the power of that class in general.

The Bush anecdote is narrow. Even if we expand it beyond the Bushes individually and assume that he does this to other people too (and I won't argue, he does), it shows that he's against personal rivals of his within the 1%.

It doesn't show that he opposes the class itself.

I think in order to demonstrate the latter you need different evidence on a scale larger than this or that single one percenter.

Now, I'm not saying that nobody within the silver spoon brigade has ever sided against their class as a whole, some have - I'm just saying that I don't see how doing so necessarily follows from the type of individual rivalries that you cited.

Might as well say that, as Augustus was a bitter enemy of Antony, Augustus was anti-elite. We know how THAT turned out, don't we?

(I'm aware that I am not responding to your whole post - but since the majority of your post is Bush, and it seems to make up the foundation of your argument on this point, I'll focus on it).

To answer your question, we have to look at the main issues that are being contested in this election. Not the sideshows and the smokescreens. The real fundamental issues which have been buried under “grab the p____” and just how sick Hillary may or may not be.

You may not agree that these are the main issues, or the premises as to where the billionaires stand on these issues. But raise objections as you see fit…

1) Nationalist vs Globalism
Billionaires are on the side of globalism, they want open borders and human migration.

2) Ordinary people’s savings vs Big banks
Billionaires are on the side of big corporation, especially big banks. When big banks suffer a major loss, they want to be reimbursed with ordinary people’s savings and tax payer dollars.

3) Political control
Billionaires want to control governments in order to maintain their financial advantage and preserve the status quo.

Not every member of the 1% wants this, but in general the 1% have these objectives. They fight among themselves as to who gets the best deals and who gets the most control, but they are in agreement on these objectives.

Donald Trump threatens them on each of these. He is a nationalist, and opposes open borders. He opposes bailing out the big banks. And by running for President, he threatens their political control. No one controls Donald Trump.


Knight who says Meh wrote:
Don't forget his support for unlimited dark money for campaigning, too.

Actually, Trump single-handedly accomplished campaign finance reform. And he did it without passing a single law. He did it just by running for office.

Every four years we saw an ever escalating amount of money invested into the presidential candidates. Obama and Romney set new records in 2012, which had been set in 2008, and so on. Of course, no amount of laws could ever hope to stop it, the monied interests would find some way to get around it.

But Trump has shown how to get around that. He has used social media to get his message out and bypass the gatekeepers. He accomplished this with a fraction of the money other candidates spend. He has provided a roadmap for candidates in the future, and as they follow it the billionaires will lose influence as their money can’t buy social media followers or counter the messages which spread virally from smaller internet communities.

Knight who says Meh wrote:

Honestly, in my opinion, you sound like you support him simply because he's an a$$#*#!.

So...I was right?

I will use a football analogy.

Every year, the Ordinary Joe Schmoes travel to play against the home team, the Billionaire Boys. And every year, as much as anyone can recall, the Ordinary Joe Schmoes lose.

This year looked to be no different. It is midway through the fourth quarter, and the Billionaire Boys are winning 56-0.

And then, suddenly, inexplicably, Donald Trump stripped the ball from his own quarterback, turned around, and started sprinting the wrong way, running toward his own end zone.

We can speculate on why he is doing it…

1) Maybe he got fed up with the quarterback not calling his favorite plays.
2) Maybe his personal feud with the head coach just came to a head.
3) Maybe he got turned around by accident and doesn’t realize he is running the wrong way.
4) Maybe he just got disgusted with his own team for running up the score.
5) Maybe he had intermediaries place a bet with the bookies and he is doing this for a big payday.
6) And yes, maybe he is doing it, just because he’s an a$$#*#!.

It is a dick move to do that to your own team. But Donald Trump being a dick isn’t the reason I am running down the field trying to keep his own teammates from tackling him. I am doing it because Donald Trump may be the only chance Ordinary Joe Schmoes have to get some points on the board this game. Which is why I am going to throw a block for him in November and hope that somehow, some way, he can get across that goal line.


This topic is kinda pointless. At this point, everyone has their fingers in their ears. No matter what information comes out, people have decided.

People know Hillary released confidential emails, deleted 15 emails before they could be analyzed, authorized drone strikes via text message on her phone, and lied in house hearings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myl7HJjD6P4 there is a ton of videos about her at the hearing, and then there is where her donations come from.

People know Trump has said stupid things. Yes, he said he would pay legal bills to the people at the rallies and then went back on it, said he wanted a ridiculous wall, scammed people with trump university, got a tax break for 20 years, made lewd comments about people, and had poor hiring practices.

The voters really, are done. There is no more swaying. Many people decided before even hearing anything, which is a terrible shame. Many voters don't want to be informed and don't want to spend the time to educated themselves about the activities of either candidate. Politifact exists, video archives on youtube exists of their activities, and so on. People simply want to think they know it all and show so much cognitive dissonance whenever their chosen candidate does something bad. Frankly, I am disgusted when people vote and all their information comes from campaign commercials and just the debates. Do some research. The uninformed voter should not exist.

Edit: Take emotion out of your decisions entirely and just think. Don't look at which candidate is better. Rather, think if either of them is any good as president at all. Based on how they act, what they say, and what has been proven true or false about their histories, in and out of the campaign. If you think both aren't really that good, then are you really comfortable voting for either?

I am honestly depressed when I see people that really think either of these two people are good, competent, qualified people to take the office of president. Again, you're not voting for who is better. I could say getting kicked in the teeth is better than breaking an arm. It doesn't mean either is a good thing. Your vote says you want this person and think they honestly are right for the job. If you are just choosing between two evils, maybe you shouldn't be voting for either of them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:

This topic is kinda pointless. At this point, everyone has their fingers in their ears. No matter what information comes out, people have decided.

People know Hillary released confidential emails, deleted 15 emails before they could be analyzed, authorized drone strikes via text message on her phone, and lied in house hearings https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myl7HJjD6P4 there is a ton of videos about her at the hearing, and then there is where her donations come from.

People know Trump has said stupid things. Yes, he said he would pay legal bills to the people at the rallies and then went back on it, said he wanted a ridiculous wall, scammed people with trump university, got a tax break for 20 years, made lewd comments about people, and had poor hiring practices.

The voters really, are done. There is no more swaying. Many people decided before even hearing anything, which is a terrible shame. Many voters don't want to be informed and don't want to spend the time to educated themselves about the activities of either candidate. Politifact exists, video archives on youtube exists of their activities, and so on. People simply want to think they know it all and show so much cognitive dissonance whenever their chosen candidate does something bad. Frankly, I am disgusted when people vote and all their information comes from campaign commercials and just the debates. Do some research. The uninformed voter should not exist.

Edit: Take emotion out of your decisions entirely and just think. Don't look at which candidate is better. Rather, think if either of them is any good as president at all. Based on how they act, what they say, and what has been proven true or false about their histories, in and out of the campaign. If you think both aren't really that good, then are you really comfortable voting for either?

hey even if you don't like either candidate for president. peeps need to still go out and vote for your locals.


Oh absolutely. Vote local. Federal is a disgrace.

Edit: By the way, me pointing out that video in that last post was not a pro-trump thing. I just want people to be aware and have the information. If you can't sit down and watched that entire hearing and be informed, can you really call yourself an informed voter?

Also with the video I linked, it turns to trash after 28 minutes. The channel kinda sucks. I was just looking for a video on the hearing for people to get started and then investigate for themselves.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
The rights of citizenship do not stop at the ballot box. Freedom of speech includes the right to devote resources to whatever cause or candidate one supports. We oppose any restrictions or conditions that would discourage citizens from participating in the public square or limit their ability to promote their ideas, such as requiring private organizations to publicly disclose their donors to the government. Limits on political speech serve only to protect the powerful and insulate incumbent officeholders. We support repeal of federal restrictions on political parties in McCain-Feingold, raising or repealing contribution limits, protecting the political speech of advocacy groups, corporations, and labor unions, and protecting political speech on the internet. We likewise call for an end to the so-called Fairness Doctrine, and support free-market approaches to free speech unregulated by government.

This is what you support voting for Trump.

This is not "sticking it to the Billionaire Boys."

Trump has you fooled.

Trump has you fooled as surely as if you were here arguing climate change is a hoax perpetrated by China.
Trump has you fooled as surely as if you were here arguing Hillary Clinton is dying of Parkinson's.
As surely as if you were here arguing that Obama was born in Kenya...
Or that Vince Foster and Antonin Scalia were murdered.
Or that Ted Cruz's father killed JFK
Or that vaccines are liked to autism
Or that thousands cheered 9/11 in New Jersey

Trump has you fooled.

And he's not even trying that hard...


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Donald Trump wrote:
I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything.

This is what he thinks he can get away with because he's a star.

And you want to make him President...


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

RE: Embattled Ron Johnson, getting his ass handed to him in the polls, says he doesn't put much stock into climate change, because "mankind has actually flourished in warmer temperatures." and my personal favorite "How many people are moving up toward the Antarctica, or the Arctic? Most people move down to Texas and Florida, where it's a little bit warmer"

I mean, look at the middle east, it's the happiest place on earth!

Hahahahahahaha hahahahahaha hahahahahahaha hahahahahaha!


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

New Hampshire hasn't gone Republican since Al Gore. I'll take bets that it goes to Clinton. To make the chances more even, know that I am working against myself and will be campaigning for Jill Stein.

If you want, we can even do the whole "if-I'm-wrong-I-will-vacate-Paizo-for-four-years" thing I did last time.

And what would life be without our token Red Radical?

There's two of us now [Fistbumps Comrade Fergie]

Anyway, we can bet something else. Like I have to parade around in my red speedos for a week or something.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

New Hampshire hasn't gone Republican since Al Gore. I'll take bets that it goes to Clinton. To make the chances more even, know that I am working against myself and will be campaigning for Jill Stein.

If you want, we can even do the whole "if-I'm-wrong-I-will-vacate-Paizo-for-four-years" thing I did last time.

And what would life be without our token Red Radical?

There's two of us now [Fistbumps Comrade Fergie]

Anyway, we can bet something else. Like I have to parade around in my red speedos for a week or something.

You don't do that already?

Sovereign Court

captain yesterday wrote:

RE: Embattled Ron Johnson, getting his ass handed to him in the polls, says he doesn't put much stock into climate change, because "mankind has actually flourished in warmer temperatures." and my personal favorite "How many people are moving up toward the Antarctica, or the Arctic? Most people move down to Texas and Florida, where it's a little bit warmer"

I mean, look at the middle east, it's the happiest place on earth!

Hahahahahahaha hahahahahaha hahahahahahaha hahahahahaha!

Maybe they're mistaking him for Gary Johnson? With a comment like that it would be hard to separate the two.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

No that was classic Ron Johnson, that's not the stupidest thing he said, but it's awfully close. :-)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
NPC Dave wrote:

Every four years we saw an ever escalating amount of money invested into the presidential candidates. Obama and Romney set new records in 2012, which had been set in 2008, and so on. Of course, no amount of laws could ever hope to stop it, the monied interests would find some way to get around it.

But Trump has shown how to get around that. He has used social media to get his message out and bypass the gatekeepers. He accomplished this with a fraction of the money other candidates spend. He has provided a roadmap for candidates in the future, and as they follow it the billionaires will lose influence as their money can’t buy social media followers or counter the messages which spread virally from smaller internet communities.

Trump accomplished NONE of that. It was GIVEN to him by the media, an estimated billion dollars worth of free publicity, because of the decades he's spent being a sideshow attraction. They do it because Trump means ratings.


captain yesterday wrote:
No that was classic Ron Johnson, that's not the stupidest thing he said, but it's awfully close. :-)

Hmmm Ron Johnson, Gary Johnson, Hank Johnson... WHAT'S WRONG WITH OUR JOHNSONS?!


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
I am honestly depressed when I see people that really think either of these two people are good, competent, qualified people to take the office of president.

Please - whatever you may think of Clinton as a person, she is both competent and qualified to be President. "Competent and qualified" has nothing to do with "agrees with me on positions" - it's about whether the person has the skills/experience/knowledge to do the job. In fact, she's the only candidate in the race about whom that can be said.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain Battletoad wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
No that was classic Ron Johnson, that's not the stupidest thing he said, but it's awfully close. :-)
Hmmm Ron Johnson, Gary Johnson, Hank Johnson... WHAT'S WRONG WITH OUR JOHNSONS?!

Don't know about the rest of you, but my johnson works just fine.

Dark Archive

Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Trump wants to sue press for saying something that's not true, un-ironically.
Did they call him a viable candidate again?

Technically if he keeps the traditional Red States, and gets Florida, New Hampshire, Texas, and Ohio, he can squeak into victory with 278 Electoral Votes even if he loses the Popular vote the way Bush 1.0 got in.

Since the last election, Florida has doubled down on denying ex-felons, a largely Democratic population the vote, and New Hampshire is still New Hampshire, as well as Texas. Ohio may be too swingy to call yet.

I can at the very least confirm that west-side Cincinnati will be swept by Trump voters. I see signs in every other yard on my way to work and school. I've been told by a friend up at Kent that Hillary supporters are more prevalent up there, or at least the Trump supporters are less open about it. Of course, I live in a suburban neighborhood with a predominantly white and Christian demographic while my friend lives on a college campus, so that might skew things both ways.


538 has Clinton ahead in Ohio, giving her a 60% chance of victory. That being said, she can lose every state closer than Pennsylvania, where they give her an 87% chance and polls show her up a minimum of 5 points, and she would still win electoral college victory. Pennsylvania is stronger for Clinton than Texas is for Trump.


Caineach wrote:
538 has Clinton ahead in Ohio, giving her a 60% chance of victory. That being said, she can lose every state closer than Pennsylvania, where they give her an 87% chance and polls show her up a minimum of 5 points, and she would still win electoral college victory. Pennsylvania is stronger for Clinton than Texas is for Trump.

I will believe that Pennsylvania has gone Blue when I see it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Caineach wrote:
538 has Clinton ahead in Ohio, giving her a 60% chance of victory. That being said, she can lose every state closer than Pennsylvania, where they give her an 87% chance and polls show her up a minimum of 5 points, and she would still win electoral college victory. Pennsylvania is stronger for Clinton than Texas is for Trump.
I will believe that Pennsylvania has gone Blue when I see it.

Pennsylvania has gone Blue for the last six cycles. Since Bill Clinton's first term. No reason to be surprised if it does so again.

It's been close. It's still considered a battleground, but it definitely leans Democratic. And the polling this cycle doesn't suggest anything to counter that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
NPC Dave wrote:
No one controls Donald Trump...

...not even Donald Trump!


Don Juan de Doodlebug wrote:
Don't know about the rest of you, but my johnson works just fine.

Lemme check... OK, mine's still there, anyway...


Matt Filla wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
I am honestly depressed when I see people that really think either of these two people are good, competent, qualified people to take the office of president.
Please - whatever you may think of Clinton as a person, she is both competent and qualified to be President. "Competent and qualified" has nothing to do with "agrees with me on positions" - it's about whether the person has the skills/experience/knowledge to do the job. In fact, she's the only candidate in the race about whom that can be said.

I would say that Clinton is every bit as "Competent and qualified" as Dick Cheney. Having the skills/experience/knowledge means very little if you have almost no morality to go with it. The Clinton's have spent decades doing the bidding of chicken hawks and the investor class, with disastrous results for most Americans, as well as many others around the world.

I have heard some say that we are heading for another recession or worse, and that having someone like Clinton in office will be the final death knell of neo-liberal ideology. That seems unlikely given the way voters forgive past horrible presidents like Reagan and Bush. I sincerely hope that if things get bad, it won't also drag down positive social strides that have been made recently in terms of marriage equality, etc.

Anyway, I'm am still a genuine undecided voter. I will not be voting for Trump or Clinton, but I don't know if it is worth it to vote for a third party candidate, a write-in, none-of-the-above, leave it blank, etc.

EDIT: I spent some time around Iowa and rural Indiana this past July. While I don't know about Des Moines, the rest of Iowa was VERY pro Trump.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:
I spent some time around Iowa and rural Indiana this past July. While I don't know about Des Moines, the rest of Iowa was VERY pro Trump.

Actually, most of the country looks like that. Democratic votes are concentrated in medium-sized to large cities; rural areas are strongly Republican. If you discount Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, the rest of Pennsylvania is as red as Mississippi; if you discount Portland and Eugene, Oregon is as red as Idaho, and so forth.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:

I would say that Clinton is every bit as "Competent and qualified" as Dick Cheney. Having the skills/experience/knowledge means very little if you have almost no morality to go with it. The Clinton's have spent decades doing the bidding of chicken hawks and the investor class, with disastrous results for most Americans, as well as many others around the world.

I have heard some say that we are heading for another recession or worse, and that having someone like Clinton in office will be the final death knell of neo-liberal ideology. That seems unlikely given the way voters forgive past horrible presidents like Reagan and Bush. I sincerely hope that if things get bad, it won't also drag down positive social strides that have been made recently in terms of marriage equality, etc.

Anyway, I'm am still a genuine undecided voter. I will not be voting for Trump or Clinton, but I don't know if it is worth it to vote for a third party candidate, a write-in, none-of-the-above, leave it blank, etc.

I'm not going to buy into the line that Clinton has no morality, nor regard for the weak. Her work as First Lady is clear proof that it's not true. Elizabeth Warren herself will attest to that. She even pressured her husband to do a complete turnaround on a bad bankruptcy bill. Her history as a Senator complicates things, but in all fairness she is as bog-standard a Democrat as you can get. The problem is that the Fox Media machine has spent decades in purveying a message that isn't true, but it's been so persistent in playing that to the public conciousness that it feels right all out of proportion to any factual basis.

Hillary Clinton is being held to standards no other Democrat has been because she is both a Clinton, and a woman. I'm not sure which crime is worse.


NPC Dave wrote:


I see the problem here, there is a difference between a tax break and a tax cut.

Tax cuts are for everyone. Tax breaks are for your rich friends.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
NPC Dave wrote:
I was then informed that gays are under threat from “gay conservative therapy”. Again, I said that was nonsense. I pointed out it was nonsense because if that were really true, all gays would be against it (or at least all gays who want to be gay).

Um...so your argument is "I can find a handful who agree with me, therefore the vast majority that doesn't is invalidated?" It might be better for you to use an argument that doesn't rely on pointing to an extreme minority of gay men for your support, because I bet that I can find a whole lot more than you who loathe gay conversion therapy. Again, the term for what you're doing is "tokenism". Also would be interested in your source for "20% of gays support Trump".


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Fergie wrote:
I spent some time around Iowa and rural Indiana this past July. While I don't know about Des Moines, the rest of Iowa was VERY pro Trump.
Actually, most of the country looks like that. Democratic votes are concentrated in medium-sized to large cities; rural areas are strongly Republican. If you discount Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, the rest of Pennsylvania is as red as Mississippi; if you discount Portland and Eugene, Oregon is as red as Idaho, and so forth.

By county, Mississippi looks like it was more pro-Obama. Of the states 82 counties, 31 voted for Obama. Compared to Pennsylvania's 13 out of 67.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
CrusaderWolf wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
I was then informed that gays are under threat from “gay conservative therapy”. Again, I said that was nonsense. I pointed out it was nonsense because if that were really true, all gays would be against it (or at least all gays who want to be gay).
Um...so your argument is "I can find a handful who agree with me, therefore the vast majority that doesn't is invalidated?" It might be better for you to use an argument that doesn't rely on pointing to an extreme minority of gay men for your support, because I bet that I can find a whole lot more than you who loathe gay conversion therapy. Again, the term for what you're doing is "tokenism". Also would be interested in your source for "20% of gays support Trump".

So, other than the cherry-picked trio, does the rest of the actual LGBTQ Republicans' say count? The Log Cabin Republicans took out an ad rightfully complaining that the 2016 RNC Platform was "the most anti-LGBT platform in the party’s 162-year history."

And if you're curious, the LCR later refused to endorse Trump/Pence 2016.


Trump Foundation funds James O'Keefe


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
CrusaderWolf wrote:
NPC Dave wrote:
I was then informed that gays are under threat from “gay conservative therapy”. Again, I said that was nonsense. I pointed out it was nonsense because if that were really true, all gays would be against it (or at least all gays who want to be gay).
Um...so your argument is "I can find a handful who agree with me, therefore the vast majority that doesn't is invalidated?" It might be better for you to use an argument that doesn't rely on pointing to an extreme minority of gay men for your support, because I bet that I can find a whole lot more than you who loathe gay conversion therapy. Again, the term for what you're doing is "tokenism". Also would be interested in your source for "20% of gays support Trump".

So, other than the cherry-picked trio, does the rest of the actual LGBTQ Republicans' say count? The Log Cabin Republicans took out an ad rightfully complaining that the 2016 RNC Platform was "the most anti-LGBT platform in the party’s 162-year history."

And if you're curious, the LCR later refused to endorse Trump/Pence 2016.

I never thought I'd find myself saying this, but the Log Cabin Republicans are doing right! ;)


CrusaderWolf wrote:


Um...so your argument is "I can find a handful who agree with me, therefore the vast majority that doesn't is invalidated?"

No, just that unless you're going to call 20% of homosexuals self hating it's entirely possible that he's voting for trump and doesn't hate the LGBT crowd.

He may just hate some other group that trump wants to make life terrible for.


Ah, crab mentality then.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just got (angrily) called a regressive leftist Marxist by a student while TAing at my university. Thought you might be pleased to hear that, Comrade.

Sovereign Court

Knight who says Meh wrote:
Trump Foundation funds James O'Keefe

Quid pro quo. O'Keefe is an aspiring muckraker but doesn't meet the journalistic standards or credibility to claim the term himself. He's more of an independent artist, using edited footage to construct a narrative that fits with the ideas of his supporters and donors. Course the moment he stops getting news with his art is the moment the money dries up. I haven't seen too much press with this latest fiction piece so that money might be drying up soon (along with any of his credibility).


Doubt it. For some the lack of media coverage would be proof that he's right.


Guy Humual wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Trump Foundation funds James O'Keefe
Quid pro quo. O'Keefe is an aspiring muckraker but doesn't meet the journalistic standards or credibility to claim the term himself. He's more of an independent artist, using edited footage to construct a narrative that fits with the ideas of his supporters and donors. Course the moment he stops getting news with his art is the moment the money dries up. I haven't seen too much press with this latest fiction piece so that money might be drying up soon (along with any of his credibility).

It's not media coverage, exactly. That's just a means to an end. He took out ACORN. That's what they're looking to replicate.

Still, too long a streak of failures and he'll be off the gravy train.
"What have you done for me lately?"

Sovereign Court

The right is fueled by outrage, if he can't generate outrage then he's not much use is he? I don't know, I just don't think he's got the staying power of a Rush or a Hanity. Heck even Beck might be done soon.


*agrees with Drah* While I'd like to think Pennsylvania would go blue, I know the area around York County and Lancaster County to be quite red.


In other news WTFery, Alex Jones says Billy Bush was a CIA deep mole to set up Trump.

Warning: If this is your first experience of Alex Jones, best not to look the Abyss head on, sorta observe in your peripheral vision until the SAN drain dulls your brain pain.


I would make some sort of parody alias for Alex Jones, but there aren't any avatars that do him justice.

Silver Crusade

Shame. You completely nailed it with Kobold Krump.


With Krump, I just filled a niche nobody else had wanted to tackle. And I felt like I should be the one to do it. ;P

I'd need a D&D monster race pun for Jones, unfortunately, and "pugwampi" doesn't fit in any good wordplay.

5,651 to 5,700 of 7,079 << first < prev | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards