2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

4,151 to 4,200 of 7,079 << first < prev | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | next > last >>
Dark Archive

KingOfAnything wrote:
Caineach wrote:
Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:


3rd parties are totally viable as dozens of foreign countries have already proven. Enough with the fear-mongering because all these parties trying to do is prop up this broken binary party system.

These two establishment parties are just trying to lock people into believing that if you don't cast a vote for the big two that your somehow wasting your vote or empowering the "other party".

Standard fear mongering rhetoric that ensures nothing changes and power stays exactly where its at (with the big 2 parties). It's a broken system that only exists to maintain the status quo of existing power.

The only way to beat the game is not to play it. And don't try and say these two candidates aren't the establishment status quo.

Other countries have different voting systems allowing 3rd parties to be viable. We have a strict runnoff, which means that it is always in your interest to have as few ideologically similar candidates as possible.
This chart should be a required high school class unto itself.

Actually economics and personal finance should be required. Its amazing that the states allow people to leave high school with such a poor understanding of money, taxes, credit cards, retirement savings, debt, interest rates, monetary policy, or just how to balance a check book.

They might actually become educated voters then and not be totally manipulated by both parties harping on the social emotional issues.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:

No, it is not baked into the system. That is completely untrue and just what the establishment wants you to believe so they maintain their power. And neither candidate will get 51% of the vote this year because 3rd parties are going to take about 8-10%.

You realize that if no candidate gets 51% then the House picks the president, right?

Er,... that's not quite right. Neither candidate may well get 51% of the popular vote, but I would be astonished if third-party candidates got any electoral votes at all.

The most likely outcome is 300 or more electoral votes for the winner.
The next most likely outcome is between 270 and 299 electoral votes for the winner.
The next most likely outcome is a 269-269 tie which will be determined by the House of Representatives.
The next most likely outcome is an enormous mutant space goat devouring the entire Earth.
... and somewhere below that comes the possibility of a third party getting electoral votes.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Fivethirtyeight gives Johnson a 1 in 50 chance of getting an elector. Space goats only have 1 in 200 chance.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:

No, it is not baked into the system. That is completely untrue and just what the establishment wants you to believe so they maintain their power. And neither candidate will get 51% of the vote this year because 3rd parties are going to take about 8-10%.

So you end up voting for a criminals and fools over and over and they keep laughing because they have convinced the public that there are no other options.

It's not so much baked into the system as an unintended consequence (at least from some founding fathers' perspectives) that's fairly apparent in hindsight.

The person with the most votes wins. That means that if you have three groups, two with 26% support and one with 48% support, as long as the 26's aren't diametrically opposed, they can get more of their agenda done by banding together.

Once such accumulation gets some level of validity and reaches a steady state (people align with those with whom they agree and there's some middle ground where people who don't align more strongly with one than the other) where about half vote on either side, attempting to form a coalition with any similarity to one of the prevailing parties means that you (1)don't build any meaningful coalition, (2)draw off a significant but not majority portion of that party, giving the victory to the party your coalition disagrees with, or (3)somehow draw off a majority and become one of the two parties.

From an individual's perspective, 3 is the best if I like what you're selling, but it's only beneficial if we're going to end up in 3 instead of 2. If the parties are close enough, maybe it's worth the risk since the downside isn't huge, but the idea of two parties is a consequence of the system we've got.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:


3rd parties are totally viable as dozens of foreign countries have already proven. Enough with the fear-mongering because all these parties trying to do is prop up this broken binary party system.

These two establishment parties are just trying to lock people into believing that if you don't cast a vote for the big two that your somehow wasting your vote or empowering the "other party".

Standard fear mongering rhetoric that ensures nothing changes and power stays exactly where its at (with the big 2 parties). It's a broken system that only exists to maintain the status quo of existing power.

The only way to beat the game is not to play it. And don't try and say these two candidates aren't the establishment status quo.

But what others have repeatedly pointed out is that it isn't "fear mongering rhetoric", it's just math. The two party system is in the bedrock of this country because of how the founding documents are written and because of the math that builds out of it. I can understand the passionate need to correct the system to be more just and more equal, but it is going to take more than feel-good-but-empty gestures at the ballotbox.

If you want to see an end to the two-party system in the U.S., you need to accept that short of either 1) rewriting the founding documents, or 2) full-scale burning-in-the-streets, thousands-of innocents-dying revolution, it ain't going to happen. 2) is obviously unacceptable. 1) would only be doomed to make things worse as long as people like Greg Abbot, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and Tea-Partiers are right now supporting a movement to call a Continental Congress to rewrite the Constitution... completely gutting every bit of progressive justice implemented since 1789. So, for the foreseeable future, you're stuck with two dominant parties.

So, the only other viable option is to take over one of the big two, the Dems or Repubs, and rebuilt the party from within. If you don't like current candidates' positions, force them to move closer to your position or primary them with a better candidate. Repeat as necessary until you've turned the party into one that agrees with your ideals and goals. Put your candidates on the ballot in every possible district and post, at federal, state, and local levels. Understand the rules and have a coherent, achievable short-term tactics and long-term strategy; that means getting on the ballots in all 50 states, and knowing how write-ins actually work. Once you have acceptable candidates getting elected, cultivate the best of them and get them elected to higher offices, and actively seek out new talent to fill open positions. Have tons of money, understand that it will take years of focused hard work, and accept that you will need to make compromises with candidates and in achieving goals. Tl;dr: Do what the Christian Coalition did back in the 90s, and what the Tea Party/Alt Reich is doing right now.

---

Now, if you're still reading, honestly ask yourself: "Which of the two current candidates will leave the country in the best place to achieve my long-term goals?" Honestly now. This isn't an RPG game, and no one is a pure paladin, because they don't exist. If you don't like those two choices, that's fine, but think long-term strategy and stay focused on your goals. Because only Trump or Clinton is going to be elected on Nov 8th. You don't have to like it, but that's just math. If you honestly think that your singular conscience is that much more important than the real world consequences the rest of us will have to deal with for the next 4 years... if that's the case, then I don't have the words to reach you.

But if you're still fired up, passionate, and driven on November 9th, then, respectfully, get off your butt and make that change you want to see. Find your candidates--Green, Libertarian, whomever--and help them. Volunteer for their staff, champion your ideas, help get them on the ballot, and fight like hell to get their good names and good goals heard. Because the fight for 2018 has already begun.


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Knight who says Meh wrote:
Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:

No, it is not baked into the system. That is completely untrue and just what the establishment wants you to believe so they maintain their power. And neither candidate will get 51% of the vote this year because 3rd parties are going to take about 8-10%.

You realize that if no candidate gets 51% then the House picks the president, right?

Er,... that's not quite right. Neither candidate may well get 51% of the popular vote, but I would be astonished if third-party candidates got any electoral votes at all.

The most likely outcome is 300 or more ore more electoral votes for the winner.
The next most likely outcome is between 270 and 299 electoral votes for the winner.
The next most likely outcome is a 269-269 tie which will be determined by the House of Representatives.
The next most likely outcome is an enormous mutant space goat devouring the entire Earth.
... and somewhere below that comes the possibility of a third party getting electoral votes.

Yeah, that's on me. I was going for glib more than accuracy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:


3rd parties are totally viable as dozens of foreign countries have already proven. Enough with the fear-mongering because all these parties trying to do is prop up this broken binary party system.

These two establishment parties are just trying to lock people into believing that if you don't cast a vote for the big two that your somehow wasting your vote or empowering the "other party".

Standard fear mongering rhetoric that ensures nothing changes and power stays exactly where its at (with the big 2 parties). It's a broken system that only exists to maintain the status quo of existing power.

The only way to beat the game is not to play it. And don't try and say these two candidates aren't the establishment status quo.

Other countries have very different structures of the government. This has literally nothing to do with fearmongering. I am not advocating FOR anyone. I am not advocating for any party, policy or anything else. I am telling you, fundamentally, objectively, until we change the way we elect and run our government, 'not playing the game' can literally only hurt you.

One foreign country (one that rather closely lines up with the US in terms of divides and is closest but still parliamentary instead of having a president and a congress) is the UK. Their last election was literally the most unrepresentative (meaning the division of parliament did not represent the way the individual voters voted) election in the history of modern representative democracies specifically because people continued to vote for 3rd parties despite having a first past the post system. This literally, gave complete control of the parliament to the Conservative party (great if you are conservative, bad for basically everyone else) because they aligned themselves with the UKIP party and became a single entity.

I don't disagree with you that the system is broken, and needs to be changed. But to ignore the reality of it while its still there is flat out stupid.

I want change, I want the status quo to be altered. But that doesn't happen by literally giving complete control to people you most don't want to have it without accomplishing any actual change. This goes regardless of your beliefs.

By all means advocate for change. But our system of government is designed to require consensus. You need to get people together to make changes before you try to buck the system or else you just end up screwing yourself and not making any change.

The reason I tell you our system OBJECTIVELY pushes to 2 parties and FORCES people to pick among those 2 parties is not because I want you to be afraid and vote for 'my guy'. I don't have 'my guy'. What I want is for you and others to be INFORMED. And for that you have to understand how the system actually works and why what I am saying isn't my opinion or my belief but the literal, factual, objective truth. I'll gladly explain it to you though a guy on youtube called CGP grey does it way better (and funnier) then I ever could. Look up his videos on 'the problem with first past the post voting'. Then if you are free look up his video on the electoral college. He gives a rather solid explanation of the problem you are facing when you walk into that ballot box.

What actually needs to happens is there needs to be a bipartisan effort, among ALL Americans to push for a change to the voting system. And this has to happen OUTSIDE of an election year. For instance, you need in December of this year, after the election, gather a massive letter writing campaign, and get everyone to write to their congressman and say if you do not push for change to a system that actually works, we wont vote for you in the next election. Then hold them to it if they don't. I guarantee with popular support specific leaders in congress will push the legislation. And then every single representative who votes against it (because they will) has to be voted out in the next 2 elections.

That's what you need to do. Its a monumental task, but its literally your only option if you want change. And it will require a lot of people who have spent years spewing venom at each other from a far while sitting in their own echo chambers and soaking up spin media to work together. Its not a great chance, but its what we got.


Rednal wrote:

Speaking of trends, you know the trend suggesting the Trump Foundation is shady enough for Norgorber to hide in?

If it was, it'd be above suspicion.


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:


If you want to see an end to the two-party system in the U.S., you need to accept that short of either 1) rewriting the founding documents, or 2) full-scale burning-in-the-streets, thousands-of innocents-dying revolution, it ain't going to happen.

That's not quite true. Something could be done at the level of individual states, for example. Right now, all the Constitution says about state-level representations is how many each state gets. All the other rules are set by the state. Even the existence of districts is a state-level decision. New York could decide that all representatives are elected on a statewide basis, and that the top N vote getters (currently 27) get seated. This would make third-parties competitive in New York State, even if they weren't competitive in Alabama (and it wouldn't do anything at all for Wyoming, which would still be a winner-take-all state with only one representative).

Similarly, New York could decide that presidential electors are elected individually (which is how they were supposed to be elected back in 1789) and in a nonpartisan fashion (ditto). Right now, I'll be honest, I don't even know who I would actually be voting for if/when I vote for Clinton, because the electors themselves are meaningless, chosen to be party hacks, and required by (state) law to vote for the candidate whose slate they appear on. But, of course, since the Presidency is still a winner-take all election, I'd still be better off voting for a bloc pledged to a single candidate (rather than splitting my support), and I'd be better off voting for one of the top two candidates -- and again, this is just math, not propaganda.


Berinor wrote:
Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:

No, it is not baked into the system. That is completely untrue and just what the establishment wants you to believe so they maintain their power. And neither candidate will get 51% of the vote this year because 3rd parties are going to take about 8-10%.

So you end up voting for a criminals and fools over and over and they keep laughing because they have convinced the public that there are no other options.

It's not so much baked into the system as an unintended consequence (at least from some founding fathers' perspectives) that's fairly apparent in hindsight.

The person with the most votes wins. That means that if you have three groups, two with 26% support and one with 48% support, as long as the 26's aren't diametrically opposed, they can get more of their agenda done by banding together.

Yep. In 2010, Elizabeth Mitchell (D) and Eliot Cutler (I) split 54.7% of the popular vote in Maine... which is how Paul LePage (R) got elected. Google "Paul LePage" if you aren't familiar with him; how do you think he's working out for Maine?


Caineach wrote:
Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:


3rd parties are totally viable as dozens of foreign countries have already proven. Enough with the fear-mongering because all these parties trying to do is prop up this broken binary party system.

These two establishment parties are just trying to lock people into believing that if you don't cast a vote for the big two that your somehow wasting your vote or empowering the "other party".

Standard fear mongering rhetoric that ensures nothing changes and power stays exactly where its at (with the big 2 parties). It's a broken system that only exists to maintain the status quo of existing power.

The only way to beat the game is not to play it. And don't try and say these two candidates aren't the establishment status quo.

Other countries have different voting systems allowing 3rd parties to be viable. We have a strict runnoff, which means that it is always in your interest to have as few ideologically similar candidates as possible.

New York State has Fusion Voting. it essentially allows third parties to put mainstream candidates on the ballot, allowing their votes to count for them. It's also why Ed Koch was allowed to run for mayor of New York City as both Democrat and Republican, having been nominated by both parties. Was the best year ever for third parties in the city.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Society Subscriber

For a system that actually works, I would suggest approval voting. In that system, your ballot can literally be for everybody except Trump. Even if Democrats still won the Presidency, the results would show a much clearer picture of how much support third party ideas and candidates have.


KingOfAnything wrote:
For a system that actually works, I would suggest approval voting. In that system, your ballot can literally be for everybody except Trump. Even if Democrats still won the Presidency, the results would show a much clearer picture of how much support third party ideas and candidates have.

I prefer Ralph Nader's None of the Above option myself.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Orfamay Quest wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:


If you want to see an end to the two-party system in the U.S., you need to accept that short of either 1) rewriting the founding documents, or 2) full-scale burning-in-the-streets, thousands-of innocents-dying revolution, it ain't going to happen.

That's not quite true. Something could be done at the level of individual states, for example. Right now, all the Constitution says about state-level representations is how many each state gets. All the other rules are set by the state. Even the existence of districts is a state-level decision. New York could decide that all representatives are elected on a statewide basis, and that the top N vote getters (currently 27) get seated. This would make third-parties competitive in New York State, even if they weren't competitive in Alabama (and it wouldn't do anything at all for Wyoming, which would still be a winner-take-all state with only one representative).

Similarly, New York could decide that presidential electors are elected individually (which is how they were supposed to be elected back in 1789) and in a nonpartisan fashion (ditto). Right now, I'll be honest, I don't even know who I would actually be voting for if/when I vote for Clinton, because the electors themselves are meaningless, chosen to be party hacks, and required by (state) law to vote for the candidate whose slate they appear on. But, of course, since the Presidency is still a winner-take all election, I'd still be better off voting for a bloc pledged to a single candidate (rather than splitting my support), and I'd be better off voting for one of the top two candidates -- and again, this is just math, not propaganda.

I'm not saying you're wrong about state level representation, but the tea party has taken over the Republican party Presidential nomination process by running their candidates as Republican at a local level. That approach seems much more expedient than amending the state constitution, you know?


Orfamay Quest wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:


If you want to see an end to the two-party system in the U.S., you need to accept that short of either 1) rewriting the founding documents, or 2) full-scale burning-in-the-streets, thousands-of innocents-dying revolution, it ain't going to happen.

That's not quite true. Something could be done at the level of individual states, for example. Right now, all the Constitution says about state-level representations is how many each state gets. All the other rules are set by the state. Even the existence of districts is a state-level decision. New York could decide that all representatives are elected on a statewide basis, and that the top N vote getters (currently 27) get seated. This would make third-parties competitive in New York State, even if they weren't competitive in Alabama (and it wouldn't do anything at all for Wyoming, which would still be a winner-take-all state with only one representative).

The issue here of course, is that if this is done piece meal (rather then all states at once) you would just be helping a specific party win control of congress. And it would be the opposite of the one that currently controls that state. IE democratic leaning New York, (but by no means universally democratic) would be helping the republican party gain control of the house if they did this. If Texas did this they would be helping the democrats gain control. It would make congress more representative for their state, but also take power away from their voters effectively.

Quote:

Similarly, New York could decide that presidential electors are elected individually (which is how they were supposed to be elected back in 1789) and in a nonpartisan fashion (ditto). Right now, I'll be honest, I don't even know who I would actually be voting for if/when I vote for Clinton, because the electors themselves are meaningless, chosen to be party hacks, and required by (state) law to vote for the candidate whose slate they appear on. But, of course, since the Presidency is still a winner-take all election, I'd still be better off voting for a bloc pledged to a single candidate (rather than splitting my support), and I'd be better off voting for one of the top two candidates -- and again, this is just math, not propaganda.

The electoral congress is an entirely different kind of garbage fire. And ultimately the president isn't the way you build 3rd parties anyway. We give WAAAY to much attention to the president, and forget that again besides appointing a supreme court justice, and occasionally veto a bill, its congress that writes the laws and set the taxes that the president must then enforce and collect. President Obama didn't make 'Obamacare'. He championed it, but the senate and house actually passed passed it.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
KingOfAnything wrote:
For a system that actually works, I would suggest approval voting. In that system, your ballot can literally be for everybody except Trump. Even if Democrats still won the Presidency, the results would show a much clearer picture of how much support third party ideas and candidates have.

Mmmm... not in Florida.

Florida can't even handle the butterfly ballot. This would have half of them accidentally voting for Vladimir Putin. :]


6 people marked this as a favorite.
CBDunkerson wrote:
KingOfAnything wrote:
For a system that actually works, I would suggest approval voting. In that system, your ballot can literally be for everybody except Trump. Even if Democrats still won the Presidency, the results would show a much clearer picture of how much support third party ideas and candidates have.

Mmmm... not in Florida.

Florida can't even handle the butterfly ballot. This would have half of them accidentally voting for Vladimir Putin. :]

Hey! I am a Floridian...

um...

hmmm...

...damn it. I've got no comeback for that.


Whats up with the 2am twitter rant?


Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha.


3rd party candidates can't get electoral college votes? Mmmmm, not true albeit incredibly rare.

Here you can see that third party candidates have gotten electoral college votes.

Third party candidates used to get electoral college votes more often. Obviously none have since 1972, so far.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Turin the Mad wrote:

3rd party candidates can't get electoral college votes? Mmmmm, not true albeit incredibly rare.

Here you can see that third party candidates have gotten electoral college votes.

Third party candidates used to get electoral college votes more often. Obviously none have since 1972, so far.

Can? Certainly. Are likely to this election? No.

And given that was in response to a suggestion that the election would go to the House if no one won 50%+1 of the vote, it seemed a reasonable response.

Interestingly that 1972 single vote was from a faithless elector - Virginia went to Nixon, but one elector voted for the Libertarian in the electoral college.

'68 was the last time a third party candidate won states - George Wallace took the South. That was in the middle of the last great realignment. Wallace's supporters were Dixiecrats - the last of the Southern Yellow Dog Democrats who wouldn't vote Republican, but also wouldn't support Democrats because of integration. The Southern Strategy brought them into the Republican party over the next couple cycles.
There may be another major realignment coming, bringing with it a chance for a 3rd party to replace one of the two, but it's not this year.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Orville Redenbacher wrote:
Whats up with the 2am twitter rant?

Just to be 100% totally clear on this, Machado never made a sex tape. There is a commercially-sold pornographic video made by a known porn actress completely unrelated to Machado who maybe looks a little like her. That's not stopping Trump and his associates from continuing to try to falsely smear Machado with the lie, or somehow tie this back to Clinton's ethics.

But yeah, some people are just going to keep saying Clinton is just as bad as Trump.

Edit: And no, I'm not at all saying it's OK to shame porn actresses (or actors) either.


10 people marked this as a favorite.

“Imagine a woman who showed up [to a presidential debate] unprepared, sniffling like a coke addict and interrupting her opponent 70 times. Let’s further imagine that she had 5 kids by 3 men, was a repeated adulterer, had multiple bankruptcies, paid zero federal taxes and rooted for the housing crisis in which many thousands of families lost their homes. Wait… there’s more: she has never held any elected office in her life and evangelical Christians love her just as she is.” -- Michelle Vitali


The phrase, "Stop hitting yourself!" Springs to mind but then if he insists on inflicting gut shots to his own campaign I guess that's his choice.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Just to be 100% totally clear on this, Machado never made a sex tape.

On the other hand, it looks like Trump *did*

Trump In Soft-core Porn Film. Credits show him appearing "as himself"


CrystalSeas wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Just to be 100% totally clear on this, Machado never made a sex tape.

On the other hand, it looks like Trump *did*

Trump In Soft-core Porn Film. Credits show him appearing "as himself"

Yeah

Trump skeeviness:
Trump pressured Ivana into posing for Playboy.

He himself leaked Melania's nude model photos to the NY Post.

He has known Paris Hilton since she was 12, and he still admitting to watching her sex tape.

He'd complemented his own daughter, Ivanka, on her appearance and how if they weren't related he'd....

But yeah, some people are just going to keep saying Clinton is just as bad as Trump. >:(


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

Yeah, but all that's okay, cos boys will be boys.*
Also, not Hillary!

*:
It is SO not okay.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

In other news, Newsweek released a story about one of Trump's companies actually breaking the law and doing business in Cuba when it was illegal.

Rubio is apparently having a hard time keeping the old-time Cuban immigrants in line because of that.

The consulting firm and the Trump company later attempted to cover up the transaction by making it look like legal spending for a charity.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

RE: Trump on Twitter "I find it very effective"

I absolutely agree.

Also, Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

And Rolling Stone goes snicker-snack, giving both liberals and conservatives some shocking news about why Johnson probably isn't their guy


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Berinor wrote:
Oops_I_Crit_My_Pants wrote:

No, it is not baked into the system. That is completely untrue and just what the establishment wants you to believe so they maintain their power. And neither candidate will get 51% of the vote this year because 3rd parties are going to take about 8-10%.

So you end up voting for a criminals and fools over and over and they keep laughing because they have convinced the public that there are no other options.

It's not so much baked into the system as an unintended consequence (at least from some founding fathers' perspectives) that's fairly apparent in hindsight.

The person with the most votes wins. That means that if you have three groups, two with 26% support and one with 48% support, as long as the 26's aren't diametrically opposed, they can get more of their agenda done by banding together.

Yep. In 2010, Elizabeth Mitchell (D) and Eliot Cutler (I) split 54.7% of the popular vote in Maine... which is how Paul LePage (R) got elected. Google "Paul LePage" if you aren't familiar with him; how do you think he's working out for Maine?

LePage makes Rob Ford look like a responsible and reasonable executive.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:

LePage makes Rob Ford look like a responsible and reasonable executive.

Rob Ford might have been a drunk but he's never slandered drug dealers. In fact he knew a bunch personally. Also, unlike LePage, Rob Ford might have won reelection had health issues not forced him out of office.


Given the options between a candidate that messes themselves up but runs the office just fine and one that is just fine but messes upt he office..


Guy Humual wrote:
Scythia wrote:

LePage makes Rob Ford look like a responsible and reasonable executive.

Rob Ford might have been a drunk but he's never slandered drug dealers. In fact he knew a bunch personally. Also, unlike LePage, Rob Ford might have won reelection had health issues not forced him out of office.

That's the long version, yes.


For the record, Trump now claims that the media has no sources for him or his campaign - only lies.


Rednal wrote:
For the record, Trump now claims that the media has no sources for him or his campaign - only lies.

When this election is over if he doesn't win watching his campaign staff turn vulture for the money and fame/notoriety is going to be interesting.


I think you'll some of that, but there will also be a lot of people who stay quiet in the hopes of getting lucrative jobs working for him. It's why Bannon and Hannity have swallowed so much kool-aid, they see this as a way to either get powerful political appointments, or prominent positions in whatever new media venture Trump tries.


They shouldn't hold out too much hope for financial recompense.


Yeah. I don't see Trump having any sort of loyalty to them.

It's not like he has a history of treating "his" people well.


The only things he treats well as things that he feels are his.

Which don't include people.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

You can't make this stuff up.

Remember folks: Invest in guillotines. You heard it here first.


I've invested in my holy avenger, thanks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber

And the crowd goes wild, as someone leaks part of a single-year Trump tax return (1995)

He probably hasn't paid any taxes for 18 years. "In an interview, Mitnick told the Times he had sometimes found it odd that the tax code allowed Trump to live in such luxury without paying income taxes."

#LastTimeTrumpPaidTaxes is creating all kinds of fun tweets:
#LastTimeTrumpPaidTaxes cell phones looked like this

And of course, the question of who the mole is
It was Barron Barron was the mole all along He knows the cyber

Clearly the mole is a 400-pound hacker in the basement of Trump Tower. #LastTimeTrumpPaidTaxes

We know that Barron is good at “cyber.” Is he also good at “mail”?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

One of the comments from the NYT article:

Quote:
All Americans try and reduce their tax liability, that's not the issue. It's that tax laws allow certain group's of citizens the ability to pay zero taxes. This isn't done in a vacuum though, the country still has to run which means the rest of us, those that have much smaller incomes end up picking up the tab for those at the top. Is that smart tax filing, yes. Is it patriotic, morally correct or fair? No.


What's blatant bribery is that the tax laws didn't get like that on accident.


The WP confirms my opinion that if Hillary wins...we could see some very violent responses, especially if Trump blames the system or Hillary for the lost.


MMCJawa wrote:
The WP confirms my opinion that if Hillary wins...we could see some very violent responses, especially if Trump blames the system or Hillary for the lost.

I don't doubt that Trump will shift the blame to anything/everything but his own behavior, or doubt that his hardline supporters could be driven to violence, but that's just another reason not to vote for him.

Silver Crusade

Hitdice wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
The WP confirms my opinion that if Hillary wins...we could see some very violent responses, especially if Trump blames the system or Hillary for the lost.
I don't doubt that Trump will shift the blame to anything/everything but his own behavior, or doubt that his hardline supporters could be driven to violence, but that's just another reason not to vote for him.

*Nods*

You don't give in to bullies, and you don't give in to tantrums.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

<sarcsam>I'm sure all the 'you must always bow to police commands' sorts that seem to spring up in swarms whenever police abuse their authority to beat or kill african americans will be calling for any such Trump rioters to be shot on sight.</sarcasm>


Trump supporters are too lazy to riot.

4,151 to 4,200 of 7,079 << first < prev | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards