All caps! I guess we could only imagine what the national debt would have looked like if Obama never had any opposition from Congress.
Who is going to win this election in November?
- Thread starter fonzob1
- Start date
- Status
All caps! I guess we could only imagine what the national debt would have looked like if Obama never had any opposition from Congress.
What does this have to do with Donald Trump being completely unfit for the office of the Presidency?
^Nothing, of course. If one can't form a cogent argument, one generally focuses on ridiculous minutiae to distract the audience.
Trump seems quite unstable
or redirects
It could be interesting to see a general election debate where Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton both agree rebuilding infrastructure, something pols always say we need to do every 4 years, that seemed like a big part of both of their policy goals in their convention speeches. If they don't want to admit they agree they will try to change the topic to tax cuts vs. increases and character.
It could be effective for Trump if he argues he's been against a lot of major international trade deals while Clinton supported many earlier and also supported them recently until the party base turned against, it will be difficult for her to explain why the early ones were a net gain and she ended up being against the TPP.
It could be effective for Trump if he argues he's been against a lot of major international trade deals while Clinton supported many earlier and also supported them recently until the party base turned against, it will be difficult for her to explain why the early ones were a net gain and she ended up being against the TPP.
About 25 years ago, we had a governor who did a lot of what Trump is doing now. He never cared about whether he was insulting his audience or whether what he wanted to do was actually legal. He just seemed to want his name in the headlines all the time. At one point, he called a group of African-American children "pickaninnies" and told a room full of Japanese businessmen that the number of golf courses in Phoenix would make their eyes turn round.
We wound up being impeached, recalled, and indicted at about the six month mark. Note that ALL THREE of those actions occurred simultaneously.
The idea of a man even remotely like him being president is totally abhorrent.
We wound up being impeached, recalled, and indicted at about the six month mark. Note that ALL THREE of those actions occurred simultaneously.
The idea of a man even remotely like him being president is totally abhorrent.
Yeah, pretty much. But he's going to spin that into an asset all the way, just like he's been doing. The "Trump tells it like it is," and "He shoots from the hip," and "He's not a politician, that's just what we need to fix Washington!" rhetoric is what he thrives on.
People seem to have completely forgotten that this guy claimed to have extraordinary evidence uncovered in Hawaii about President Obama's birth certificate...which was bullshit. The fact that he is encouraging foreign hackers to initiate cyber-attacks on his opponent is something unprecedented, and illegal....yet his supporters do not care. And he can make jokes about "knowing the system better than anyone else," which is why "only he can fix it..." and people laugh. But if Hillary Clinton did that, they'd say "Lock her up!"
He doesn't know our laws. His knowledge of international affairs is extremely suspect. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of basic human decency. He is unfit to be president.
I doubt it. Clinton will be ready for that.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evan_Mecham
This is the governor I mentioned earlier. Ridiculous as this wiki might sound, it is completely accurate
This is the governor I mentioned earlier. Ridiculous as this wiki might sound, it is completely accurate
You can back track in the conversation and realize that it began with a comparison of economic strategies of Democrats. Others have certainly done the same with Republicans.
Whoa! A personal attack! That is certainly surprising.
What I don't understand is why someone like yourself can be so miserable. You had 8 years of Obama. You should be so happy. If that doesn't make you happy, what will it take to make you happy?
Last edited:
Thankyou for the informative reply.
Without wanting to go to far on a tangent or encourage a rant, in what ways to rules so vastly favour the "big two"?
I'd either forgotten or missed that he'd died - I only picked him because he was no longer politically noticeable and I know what party he was in.
So could someone choose to vote for Bernnie Sanders even though he's lost the DNC nomination process?
dJE
So could someone choose to vote for Bernnie Sanders even though he's lost the DNC nomination process?
Sure, just write in the choice.
US elections are a winner take all system, basically, so unless Bernie got the votes to win the electoral race it won't matter.Also, keep in mind that the plurality of votes in a national election is on a state by state basis. That's how you can end up like the Bush/Gore election where Gore had more votes nationally than Bush. State by state each won the state's electoral votes through getting a plurality of votes in that state. (Yes, caveats here thanks to the US often functioning like 50 different countries not to mention the whole Florida fiasco) Bush won the most electoral votes and became president. If that sounds odd, lets take two states,
California with 55 electoral votes and Massachusetts with 11. (The number of electoral votes is based on the state's population)
Lets say 2 million folks vote in California
A: 1.5 Million
B: .5 Million
A gets 55 electoral votes.
Massachusetts 4 million folks vote
A: 1 million
B: 3 Million
B gets 11 electoral votes.
Between the two states A got 2.5 million votes while B got 3.5 million. But, since A got the most electoral votes, 55 to 11, A would win this election for president in spite of not having a national plurality of votes, the US doing this state by state as it does.
This from Sparknotes does a decent explanation for folks wanting the basics.
http://www.sparknotes.com/us-govern...n-government/political-parties/section2.rhtml
Last edited:
Actually, her post is a spot-on assessment of the poor quality of your responses in this and your previous thread thus far —ie. not a personal attack on you— which have relied on you consistently ignoring, sidestepping, and distracting from the tidal wave of evidence presented so far that the candidate you're supporting is unprecedented in his lack of qualifications for the job of President, much less his qualifications for inclusion in civilized society.Whoa! A personal attack! That is certainly surprising.
What I don't understand is why someone like yourself can be so miserable. You had 8 years of Obama. You should be so happy. If that doesn't make you happy, what will it take to make you happy?
Your post on the other hand is a personal attack since it has nothing to do with commenting on her replies in the thread and instead chooses to baselessly insinuate that she is "miserable." What about accurately pointing out your weak arguments makes one sound miserable? Are you even aware that you are proving her point for her by throwing out a distraction again instead of staying on topic? If you disagree with what she says, then prove her wrong with a substantive response defending the policies of Donald Trump, which I've yet to see from you. It's all tangents and attacks on Hillary, which are at least fair game since she's running, or against a bunch of people who are not running at all.
Just to indulge your ridiculous assertion about why some people could possibly be unhappy for a moment however, it could be because there are millions of people who are blindly following a complete dumpster fire of a human being simply because he has the right letter next to his name, because they enjoy watching the world burn and like that he'll "shake things up" because they think government works like a goddamn Etch-a-Sketch, because they ignorantly think he gives two shits about the American worker or the common people who he's been fucking over for decades, or because they really enjoy all the "wonderful" (that's sarcasm, btw) things he's had to say about "the blacks," Mexicans, Muslims, people he ignorantly thinks are Muslims but aren't, women, immigrants, the Chinese, the disabled, veterans and their families, crying infants, journalists, LGBT people, firefighters (including ones that rescued him from an elevator!), and protestors and political rivals who he's insulted and threatened and asked others to violently assault. Did I miss anyone? The only people he seemingly has anything good to say about are the many past and present dictators and tyrants he admires and emulates.
There are literally so many people and groups he's insulted or assaulted that you can't keep track, which seems to bizarrely be a working strategy for him with a lot of people, because I guess they equate being an ignorant, petty, temperamental, and racist fuckwit with "shootin' from the hip," because Yosemite Sam should be our role model for presidentin'. If Trump wants to be president of drunken uncles with multiple bankruptcies who say racist things about immigrants at holiday dinners despite only being second generation on his mother's side himself, all while inappropriately leering at and groping his own female relatives, by all means. That's clearly in his very limited wheelhouse. But he has no business being President of the United States.
Despite his "reality" TV credentials, he's not even worthy of being a fictional President of the United States, because most of them are far more qualified than Trump too, even all the shitty Presidents from 24 whose policies on Muslims, torture, and betraying his country to the Russians he clearly admires (Holy shit, Trump is a dumber President Logan!). Maybe if he was running against President Camacho from Idiocracy he might be on an even footing. Maybe. Trump brand Brawndo (it has electrolytes!) might hurt him in the agricultural states.
Tell me he's not like Idiocracy when you play one of his many moronic speeches side by side with a Brawndo commercial. It holds up, "bigly"!
Last edited:
I don't support Trump but I agree with him, at least in part, on a few issues.
We do spend too much on the military (including for NATO) and are far too ready to try to play international police and try to regime change.
Attempting to reduce illegal immigration is not hating immigrants or wanting to divide Americans based on hate and fear; I certainly prefer alternative, more effective measures (like the 2013 compromise legislation that passed the House) than building a wall but Hillary Clinton doesn't seem to think it's a problem at all (even though she does say that the system is broken) or have solutions, at least solutions different from those that have already been tried and failed.
The agreement with Iran does seem rather one-sided toward Iran and have insufficient verification although it could indeed be the best that could be done.
I think he's lying when he says he cares about illegal immigration. He's just pandering to the redneck "they took yer jerbs!" vote. He knows damn well that businesses large and small from San Diego to Bangor live and die on illegal employees. He knows that corporations would fight him tooth and nail on that wall silliness. He's very smart, I'll give him that. Promise the people the impossible. When it doesn't materialize, blame the opposition.
Thank you. I appreciate the substantive response. Not saying that you haven't done that before, but I just felt that it was something that deserved recognition. I'll respond more in-depth later on.
Another thing, Hillary Clinton seems to be at best pandering when she says we need to raise corporate taxes when we do have one of the highest corporate tax rates. It also probably makes sense to eliminate a lot of the tax deductions we currently have in order to make the system simpler and fairer and perceived to be fairer.
- Status
Similar threads
