Of course it's great that women come forward but nfotiu's point is that the anti-Trump media and Hillary campaign shouldn't beat it to death or 'rub Trumps nose in it' . Otherwise that becomes the narrative. Let the women coming forward be the news.
Ah ok, yeah I'd agree with that.
But really I don't see a lot of that going on, the media's played it pretty straight on just reporting what the claims are, and Clinton's been almost silent on it all other than the debates.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
What is the rationale behind the question of whether Trump will respect the results? Does he have a say, aside from requesting recounts? What else can he do? Storm the White House and take over as some kind of coup?
What is the rationale behind the question of whether Trump will respect the results? Does he have a say, aside from requesting recounts? What else can he do? Storm the White House and take over as some kind of coup?
No one knows really, it's never happened. Like one guy on CNN said, France has had 6 republics. They've had 1.
Not answering though means that he'll consider something other than the thing that's helped keep things together for however many hundreds of years.
Given his tweets about marching on Washington after the 2012 election when he wasn't even running and didn't have a core of the kind of people he has now hanging on his every word, I'd be at least a bit concerned about the consequences of his answers.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
What is the rationale behind the question of whether Trump will respect the results? Does he have a say, aside from requesting recounts? What else can he do? Storm the White House and take over as some kind of coup?
It's tradition, and bigger than that, it's something that legitimizes the outcome. While I doubt we see an armed uprising here, it is often the outcome in other "democracies."
I think there is a real concern he could foment unrest and violence (deliberately or not) among his more unhinged supporters. He's already obliquely encouraged violence against Hillary (but not so directly that he could be prosecuted for it). It's not hyperbole to worry that things could get real ugly in November.
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GirlySports For This Useful Post:
Posted just because there's a little bit of Palin at the end, it's like when you're walking along and you get a brief and unexpected scent of lilac, and by lilac I mean moose.
It's tradition, and bigger than that, it's something that legitimizes the outcome. While I doubt we see an armed uprising here, it is often the outcome in other "democracies."
I think there is a real concern he could foment unrest and violence (deliberately or not) among his more unhinged supporters. He's already obliquely encouraged violence against Hillary (but not so directly that he could be prosecuted for it). It's not hyperbole to worry that things could get real ugly in November.
The whole reason we don't see armed insurrection here is that everyone accepts the legitimacy of the vote, it's insanely dangerous rhetoric that could easily create the conditions for civil war a few decades down the road if it becomes a normal part of the US's political discourse.
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Trump lies more than Hillary so we should elect trump. - still unadressed
Corporate donations - you do have a point, Hillary does receive money from corporations. What part of her track record would you like me to look at? The place where her foundation director refuses to do political favours for Donets to her foundation or where she opposes citizens United or where she's in favour of the media having free speech? What specific has Hillary done with corporate donations in terms of legislation that you object to.
Taxes - no economist supports Trumps tax plan. This is one of those points that regardless of what you think of Hillary her tax plan is better. It might not work however we know that Trumps won't. Trump also leaves in tax provisions that directly benefit his businesses. I'm open to debate here if you can bring in economists who support trumps taxation policy. She also doesn't want to raise most people's taxes she is raising taxes on people earning more that's 250k (or else 500). And we are also in the lowest taxes era in the last 100 years so yhe argument that it's more money for the government to piss away is false. It's restoring budgets to places where they were able to offer programs.
Trumps alternative to Obamacare was essentially Obamacare. Have competition and force insurance companies to cover people with pre existing conditions. Once you work through the details and realize you need a pool of healthy people to subsidize those with chronic disease in order. Though I think a government option insurance to provide real competition would be the best approach in the US.
I agree with you on student loans. Solution here is to cut tuition in half and cap tution increases at publicly funded universities to the rate of inflation and to have more means tested bursuries.
The tape shows Hillary laughing that she'll never trust a lie detector again. I don't understand how in context you see that tape as a negative. It's nervous laughter about how wrong she was.
Emails -- A republican supporting head of the FBI cleared her of wrong doing. They gave immunity deals to everyone hey could to try to catch her. At some point you have to admit that Hillary is a super genius who is so good at suppressing evidence and manipulating people that she should be president. I mean if you believe all of the conspiracies that you appear to then her ability to escape prosecution and maintain her public image uniquely qualifies her to be president. If she really has this ability to manipulate people from finding the truth then that skill will be amazing when applied to the Russians. So if the US is electing super villain Clinton then the US is getting someone more qualified then regular Hillary and certainly more qualified than Donald Trump.
Well first of all, I decided I wasn't going to bother posting in this thread anymore, after hearing Wimbledon FC (whatever), supporting violence against a kid wearing a Trump hat. All because he had some picture of an internet meme frog with a sad face, that has all of a sudden become a symbol for racism. I realized this was circling the drain and I'm not actually dealing with people that want to have a discussion, or can actually defend one of their positions.
I don't know what has happened to the Liberals in the last 20 years, but this new brand of "progressives" that has emerged, is little more then a cult that deals in virtue signalling and prejudice witch hunts, of insert whatever "ism" seems to fit the bill. It's interesting that the side that always seems to promote itself as tolerant and on the moral high ground, displays neither when dealing with a dissenting view. It's just buzzwords and "PC" talking points, but you guys are totally down with discussing the issues, as long as everybody is just patting each other on the back for how progressive and awesome we all are. Give me a break..... I'm not buying your phony morality and tolerance. The demeaning tactics are also very telling of a side that doesn't actually have any arguments. In the PC world, apparently feelings Trump facts (like that, couldn't help squeezing it in).
I'd like to thank you GGG for actually engaging in an ACTUAL discussion and not resorting to demeaning tactics of a person or whatever other irrelevant associations not pertinent to the discussion.
Now to address your points:
I'm honestly not sure who lies more to be honest, both of them don't have a good track record with the truth. Hillary acts like she doesn't lie and boasts of having a "fact checker" on her website, she should likely use it herself. In the first debate she actually said that tax cuts were the reason for the financial crisis in 07/08??????? She can't actually believe that, while ignoring it was largely due to banks giving everybody mortgages and loans, a large amount of people that didn't deserve them. Then she supports congress bailing out her bankster friends. That's a pretty big lie and political sales pitch. Trumps lies are bad, but I don't know of any quite on that level.
Her track record, speaks for itself really. She has supported every war and interventionist policy from Bosnia to Syria. She even goes so far as to cite her "sanctions" on Iraq and Iran, as some sort of diplomatic victory. Yes a victory where thousands of people ended up starving to death, par for the course Hillary.
It's interesting that she get's donations of millions of dollars from Saudi leaders to her Clinton foundation. She talks likes she's some sort of huge supporter of human rights and equality, but accepts money from one of the most oppressive countries on the planet. All of that about refusing to do favours for donations seems like just more pandering and not the truth. She's supported of the media, because they seem very supportive of her for some reason. They don't really air her out like they do her opponents it would seem. She's got powerful powerful friends like George Soros and many many others.
Tax plans. Hillary wants to increase taxes and somehow rebuild the middle class, what's her actual plan? All I've heard from her is sloganeering without much of an actual plan. The middle class took a huge hit in that financial crisis that she is blaming on lowered taxes. Trumps talking about lowering taxes (yes I suppose that will benefit him and really everybody). Why are businesses leaving to foreign countries? Mostly because of high taxes which hurts their bottom line. Couple that with stricter environmental laws, public and media watchdog groups among other things, it's easy to see the appeal of moving operations abroad. Are these the same economists that say there is a gender wage gap that Hillary is pandering out there? If so I'm very skeptical of these claims. Those programs you are alluding to is how they will piss it away, or she'll find some way to give it to her bankster friends. You didn't really deal in specifics in your post, could you clarify a bit? What won't work about Trumps plan and why? It's interesting that you mention she wants to rebuild the middle class by essentially raising taxes on the middle class.
Obamacare:
Yes it was a good thing that people with pre-existing conditions were able to get coverage, that was one of the selling points. Obamacare essentially mandated that everybody has to pay for health care, why were these people who didn't have coverage, unable to get coverage before. Because they were either unemployed or underemployed. Now they've legislated that you have to pay for something, for people who already couldn't afford it and then fine them for failure to comply. All this while the prices keep going up because
there's a lack of competition between providers because of state lines and number of other things. It's a terribly impractical system. Privatizing it and encouraging as much competition as possible is the best way to keep prices down.
Student loans:
Solution, don't guarantee them.
The Tape:
The whole thing sickens and angers me. You can spin it however you like, but she's laughing about a child predator beating a test and getting a reduced sentence. That whole case is just sickening. Once again Hillary is front and center of it all.
Emails: You mean that crooked head of the FBI Comey that cleared her? His personal politics are secondary to him doing his job when called upon by the people that put him there. There are people in the FBI jwho worked on this casse that are incensed over this whole scandal of collusion. It Will be interesting to see how this all plays out. She has very powerful friends, like the current president, her much beloved for some reason husband and people like George Soros and many others. She's not an evil genius, she's as corrupt as it gets and that's why she keeps getting away with things all the way to the white house. Her public image is terrible, if Trump could have kept a lid on things he probably could have easily won. The machine supporting her is likely too strong. Putin will eat her alive, the guy wrestles Grizzly Bears for sport. No the US is "electing" corporate Shillary Clinton, the Demigod of Neo Cons that has somehow sold people that she is some kind of stable humanitarian.Scary scary times indeed
One interesting part of the show was when Hillary laid out a list of a few organizations who Donald has claimed have been "rigged" against him.
The FBI, the Republican party, and the justice system and specific judge were all conspiring against him and he was silent. Then the she mentions the Emmys and that's when he pipes up.
The whole reason we don't see armed insurrection here is that everyone accepts the legitimacy of the vote, it's insanely dangerous rhetoric that could easily create the conditions for civil war a few decades down the road if it becomes a normal part of the US's political discourse.
Really, really hate to wade in. To me Lake Sikome has nothing to do with US politics.
But Al Gore had a big issue with the election and election being stolen.
Really, really hate to wade in. To me Lake Sikome has nothing to do with US politics.
But Al Gore had a big issue with the election and election being stolen.
Well to be fair, Gore probably expected to win and initially conceded the loss. He then asked the legal system to make a decision on a complicated issue in a very tight race and conceded again.
He didn't rile up a bunch of stupid, unstable people who own guns before the election actually happened because he knew he was going to lose.
__________________
Last edited by RougeUnderoos; 10-20-2016 at 01:31 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to RougeUnderoos For This Useful Post:
So after having now watched the debate, I once again cannot believe how poor Trump's body language was in all three debates. It adds to his overall vibe of being clueless and immature, just flailing away up there, while his answers are flailing away at trying to find a zinger his cultists will eat up. He thinks it's about performance instead of substance, and while performance is key people want to see calm and in control, Hillary again was much better at that with her body language, and I can't remember who said it here but she cut down on the smiling when he went off on the crazy train which was wiser.
Content wise it was basically a repeat of the first debate, though Trump only sort of melted down instead of totally melted down. He had a good run for about 25 minutes, and then Hillary started feeding him the bait and like an undisciplined 6 year old he gladly took the chance to go off the rails. After saying he choked with Mexico and calling him Putin's puppet, his answers on content got worse and worse as he couldn't avoid trying to take cheap shots and making everything a conspiracy. She once again easily got in his head, and I really wonder if a man could have ever gotten to him as badly as a woman. He can't stand losing, but especially not losing to a girl.
So Hillary did what she needed to do, she kept her base happy and probably fired them up a bit, and she once again successfully derailed Trump and put him into child mode. Trump probably fired his base up a bit too, but also did nothing to convince the voters he needs that he's anything other than a calamitous choice as President. Just too immature for the job, never mind not knowing anything about how government works.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
Trump undoubtedly fired up his core base as did Clinton. Call that part a draw.
Problem is Trump did nothing to start gaining the female vote and with his nasty woman comment, everyone getting reminded he said women should be punished for abortion his new-found staunch pro-life perspective did nothing.
He also did nothing to sway any minority voters.
This is what 75 minutes in or so.
So far I'm thinking he hasn't done himself any favors but he hasn't made huge errors to lose people who are willing to hold their nose and vote for him. They already know the racist and misogynistic tones of his campaign and they overlook it.
And then the bombshell everyone will be talking about and has the GOP scrambling even more. He won't say he'll respect the outcome. It's rigged etc etc etc. sure it fires up his core which was already fired up but it should lose him some of the hold their nose and vote for him anyways folks. It was a colossal error or an intentional one as at this point he simply doesn't actually want to be president IMO. Or it SHOULD be a huge error...if people overlook that there is little hope for this country I live in.
My guess is last night Trump lost what RNC support he still had. Everything will be poured into down ballot votes now. They have chosen a party leader/nominee that doesn't respect the process. And if they have any hope of getting out of this with hope to win the whitehouse anytime soon they have to work fast to distance themselves from Trump. And do it in a clear manner. I wonder if Pence drops out but likely not. The only reason he accepted the position is because his political career was already dead and he found a way to Kevin Spacey himself into the whitehouse.
Catherine Q. @CatherineQ 9h9 hours ago
"Juliet. Such a nasty woman. She made Romeo kill himself. And believe me he could have done better. Look at her." #TrumpBookReport
Quote:
Historical Trump
@HistoryDTrump
It took Low Energy Harry Potter 7 books to defeat Voldermort. Sad! I would have beat him in the first book! #TrumpBookReport
Quote:
Victoria GraveyardVerified account @VictoriaAveyard 9h9 hours ago
The Lannisters. Great family. Strong leaders. Ramsay Bolton said nice things about me. Jon Snow is for open borders. Loser. #TrumpBookReport
Quote:
Ben @noblerzen 10h10 hours ago
It was the best of times. Absolutely phenomenal. It was the worst of times. Total disaster. #TrumpBookReport
That was pretty much a waste of time until the end. Trump was a bit more controlled for most of it. Hillary ended up having to play a hell of a lot of defense - I don't think Wallace was unfair, in fact I thought he was good, but he asked her some pretty pointed questions and put her on the spot far more frequently than she was in the previous two debates.
I don't get why people are focusing on the "nasty woman" thing. That's typical Trump, talking trash about his opponents. The fact that some people are suggesting that calling his opponent nasty is sexist or emblematic of his lack of respect for women because she happens to be a woman is really obnoxious.
Once again though, just as in the last debate, he says something totally disqualifying when he refuses to agree to accept the result of the election. That is a borderline treasonous statement. Conditional treason, you might say. "If I lose I might be in favour of rebellion, who knows, I'll keep you in suspense". #### off.
That's his "if I win I'll prosecute my opponent" moment of the evening and reminds anyone who might have forgotten why he absolutely must lose. Decisively.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 10-20-2016 at 07:40 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
